Water Reuse System Management Manual-Gp Daily WEB KI7606016ENC 002

41FG11_cover
12-09-2006
07:56
Pagina 1
Water Reuse System - Management Manual - AQUAREC

41FG11_cover 12-09-2006 07:56 Pagina 2
Interested in European research?

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes,
events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities are
be obtained from: available from our sales agents throughout the world.
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research How do I set about obtaining a publication?
Information and Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels Once you have obtained the list of sales agents, contact the sales agent of your choice and place your
Fax (32-2) 29-58220 order.
E-mail: rtd-info@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html How do I obtain the list of sales agents?
• Go to the Publications Office website http://publications.europa.eu
• Or apply for a paper copy by fax (352) 2929 42758
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research
Directorate I — Environment
Unit I.2 — Environment Technologies and Pollution Prevention
Contact: Avelino González González
European Commission
Office CDMA 00/38
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (32-2) 29-93144
Fax (32-2) 29-52097
E-mail: Avelino.Gonzalez-Gonzalez@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Water Reuse System

Management Manual
AQUAREC
edited by Davide Bixio and Thomas Wintgens
Directorate-General for Research

2006 Global change and ecosystems
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
LEGAL NOTICE:
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for
the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006
ISBN 92-79-01934-1
© European Communities, 2006
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Pagina 4 13:27 31-08-2006 41FG11_pageslim
AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130 Water Reuse System Management Manual
FOREWORD
Water scarcity is a problem of growing importance and magnitude in Europe today and research has
shown how present fresh water resources are struggling to meet demand. This situation is having serious
environmental, economic and social consequences. Confronted with this challenge Community research
is investigating and developing alternative sources of water, such as water reclamation, reuse and
desalination, which will contribute to a sustainable management of water resources.
The regions in Europe worse affected by this problem have increasingly begun to recognise the benefits
of, and the huge potential for reuse of treated sewage water. However a major barrier to developing this
potential is the lack of rational integration of reuse strategies in water management schemes. Local
authorities, investors, water companies and end-users have for quite some time been calling for a legal
framework for water reuse. Despite this there have been only a few attempts to establish national or
international legislation or guidelines on water quality parameters for reuse. In a global economy and in
the face of common environmental challenges a concerted approach at European level is required to foster
and promote water reuse and to provide an adequate driver (legislative or otherwise) for institutional
reform and better governance in the water reuse sector. Moving in this direction, the EU funded
AQUAREC project has helped to demonstrate the scientific and practical feasibility of implementing
municipal water reclamation and reuse.
The FP5 AQUAREC project on “Integrated concepts for reuse of upgraded wastewater” was launched in
2003 with the strategic aim of consolidating dispersed knowledge in the area of water reclamation and
reuse. More specifically the project addressed policy guidelines, quality requirements for water reuse,
suitable technologies for treatment and monitoring, best management practises including socio-economic
aspects and public participatory approaches. As the project now draws to a close, the AQUAREC
consortium has successfully delivered a series of publicly available reports together with a commitment
for their widespread publication and dissemination.
The results of the AQUAREC project provide a comprehensive overview of water reuse concepts
together with valuable knowledge and guidance to a whole range of stakeholders on their practical
implementation. The present manual describes the best management practises in the water reuse sector
and comprehensively addresses organisational, economic and financial considerations together with social
and environmental aspects. The extensive presentation of technological issues, such as treatment
processes, disinfection, monitoring and distribution, covers many of the end-use requirements and
specifications.
I have no doubt that this manual will be recognised by stakeholders as a sound reference for water
reclamation and reuse practices in Europe and as a solid basis for future progress in this area.
José Manuel Silva Rodríguez

Director-General,
European Commission, DG Research
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130

WATER REUSE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT MANUAL

May 2006
Coordinator - Manual
AQUAFIN NV - DAVIDE BIXIO AND CHRIS THOEYE
Coordinator - AQUAREC Project

RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY - THOMAS WINTGENS AND THOMAS MELIN
Authors
DAVIDE BIXIO, MARJOLEINE WEEMAES AND CHRIS THOEYE
Aquafin NV
ALDO RAVAZZINI, VIVIANE MISKA AND JAAP DE KONING

Delft University of Technology
HAIM CIKUREL AND AVI AHARONI

Mekorot Ltd
MICHAEL MUSTON, STUART KHAN(a), PETER DILLON(b) AND ANDREA SCHÄFER

University of Wollongong
DARKO JOKSIMOVIC AND DRAGAN SAVIC

University of Exeter
THOMAS WINTGENS, ANGELA TINGS,

CHRISTIAN KAZNER, SVEN LYKO AND THOMAS MELIN
RWTH Aachen University
With the participation of DIEDERIK ROUSSEAU (UNESCO IHE Delft) and ELS LESAGE (RUG
Ghent) for the redaction of Chapter 16 Constructed wetlands
(a) (b)
Currently working at University of South Wales CSIRO Australia
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financially supported by the European Commission within the AQUAREC project on
"Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater" (EVK1-CT-2002-00130) under the Fifth
Framework Programme contributing to the implementation of the Key Action "Sustainable Management
and Quality of Water" within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development thematic
programme. In Australia the work is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education Science and
Training for the project OzAQUAREC: Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater in
Australia (CG030025).
The authors would like to express their gratitude to AVELINO GONZALEZ GONZALEZ (EUROPEAN
COMMISSION) for his availability, guidance and technical advice throughout the all period of the study.
The authors are gratefully acknowledging the collegial support and the technical advice of:
GARY AMY (UNESCO UNIVERSITY, THE VALENTINA LAZAROVA (SUEZ LYONNAISE DES
NETHERLANDS) EAUX, FRANCE)
TAKASHI ASANO (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT ANDREZJ LISTOWSKI (SOPA, NEW SOUTH WALES)
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA) CLAUDIO LUBELLO (UNIVERSITA DI FIRENZE,
MICHAEL BOAKE (VEOLIA WATER, AUSTRALIA) ITALY)
FRANÇOIS BRISSAUD (UNIVERSITE DE JOOST MAAS (SAMENSTROMEN BV, THE
MONTPELLIER, FRANCE) NETHERLANDS)
STEFFEN BUETEHORN (RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY) VENKATRAM MAHENDRAKER (PAPRICAN, CANADA)
DAVID BUTLER (IMPERIAL COLLEGE, UK) JUNE MARKS (FLINDERS UNIVERSITY, SOUTH
EPISCA CHIRU (APA NOVA WATER, ROMANIA) AUSTRALIA)
GIORGIO CIRELLI (UNIVERSITA DI CATANIA, ITALY) JENNIFER MCKAY (UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH
WOUTER DE WILDE (AQUAFIN NV, BELGIUM) AUSTRALIA, AUSTRALIA)
SHIVAJI DESHMUKH (ORANGE COUNTRY WATER RAMI MESSALEM (BEN GURION UNIVERSITY,
DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA) ISRAEL)
LUDWIG DINKLOH (WEDECO, GERMANY) COSTANTINO NURIZZO (POLITECNICO DI MILANO,
BRUCE DURHAM (VEOLIA WATER AND EUREAU, UK, ITALY)
FRANCE AND BELGIUM) ACHIM RIED (WEDECO, GERMANY)
JOAN GARCIA (TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF PIETRO RUBINO (UNIVERSITA DI BARI, ITALY)
CATALUNIA, SPAIN) STEPHEN RUSSEL (WRC, UK)
STEFAN GEIVLOED (DELFT UNIVERSITY OF LLUIS SALA (CONSORCI COSTA BRAVA, SPAIN)
TECHNOLOGY, THE NETHERLANDS) MIQUEL SALGOT (UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA,
LIS GERRARD (BLUEBIRD COMMUNICATIONS, SPAIN)
AUSTRALIA) NISSIM TAL (AMIAD FILTRATION SYSTEMS, ISRAEL)
GREG HAMPTON (UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG, KATHARINA TARNACKI (RWTH AACHEN
NEW SOUTH WALES) UNIVERSITY, GERMANY)
PAUL JEFFREY (CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY, UK) URS VON GUNTEN (EAWAG, SWITZERLAND)
ADRIANO JOSS (EAWAG, SWITZERLAND) MANU VAN HOUTTE (IWVA, BELGIUM)
MARCELO JUANICO (SPAIN) ARJEN VAN NIEUWENHUIJZEN (WITTEVEENBOS,
BEN F. KALISVAART (BERSON UV-TECHNIEK, THE THE NETHERLANDS)
NETHERLANDS) JAN VYMAZAL (ENKI OPS, CZECH REPUBLIC)
YURI LAWRYSHYN (TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES INC, JAN VREEBURG (KIWA WATER RESEARCH, THE
GERMANY) NETHERLANDS)
ANTONIO LOPEZ (CNR –IRSA, ITALY) NICHOLAS ASHBOLT (UNSW, AUSTRALIA)
PREFACE
This work has been developed as part of the project “Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded
Wastewater” (www.aquarec.org), a research project supported by the European Commission under the
Fifth Framework Programme and contributing to the implementation of the Key Action "Sustainable
Management and Quality of Water" within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development under
Contract number: EVK1-CT-2002-00130 and coordinated by RWTH Aachen University. The general
objective of the Aquarec project is to provide knowledge for a rational wastewater reuse strategy as a
major component of sustainable water management practices.
The establishment of a rational wastewater reuse strategy in the context of sustainable water management
depends on variables that have to be handled at national level (e.g. through implementation of legislative
reform and regulation), sectoral level (e.g. tariff and price adjustments to ensure appropriate incentives)
and project level (e.g. agreement of long-term supply contracts, appropriate technology and level of
service, etc.).
In the Aquarec project, those three levels have been addressed by different task forces (work packages).
This work is situated in the context of the management dimension, which looks more specifically at the
possibilities offered at the project level with the underlying governmental and sectoral considerations as
boundary conditions.
Figure 1 Structure, application contexts, evaluation criteria and

work packages of the AQUAREC Project
The management dimension of water reuse schemes is investigated in three work packages:
1. WP4 focuses on the development of a sustainable planning methodology,
2. WP5 focuses on the methodologies for public acceptance and consultation,
3. WP6 focus on the management of water reuse schemes.

With this trilogy the Aquarec project hopes to deliver substantial information to plan, implement and
operate water reuse schemes.
With this manual we aim at providing a single source of information on commonly used or applicable
management practices in implementing and operating water recycling and reuse schemes. The aim is not
to contribute to additional research but to disseminate the knowledge that has accumulated over many
years, the results of which are often still not readily accessible (in a single document).
Our will is to warn the reader about the key impediments for sustainable water reuse practice while at the
same time also informing him or her about positive experiences that might be used as models to overcome
them.
We hope that this information will open up new possibilities for business and public administrations to
include water reuse options in the integrated water resources management scenarios and make
precautionary judgements, taking into account imperfect but, still, available information.
We hope that this manual can be useful in encouraging best practice and generating discussion, directing
research and deepening understanding in the development of safe and sustainable direct non-potable
water reuse schemes.
We hope that this manual will be considered a living document, subject to change as practices evolve. We
do not pretend that this document will give you the ultimate answers to how to manage water reuse
schemes, but we see it rather as a milestone to reach international consensus on best practice. We hope
that a continuous reviewing process will be put in place, reflecting up-to-date developments in the use and
management of reclaimed water in the European Union and overseas.
Davide Bixio and Thomas Wintgens

On behalf of the Aquarec team on management practices and the project consortium
CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MANUAL 2
1.3 TARGETED READER 2
1.4 WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE – WHAT DO WE MEAN? 2
1.5 HOW THIS MANUAL IS ORGANIZED 3
1.6 WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER WATER REUSE? 6
1.7 WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE
IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE WORLD? 9
1.8 WHAT ARE THE REFERENCE WATER RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGIES? 14
1.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 17
2 INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND, ORGANISATIONAL

ARRANGEMENTS & LEGAL ASPECTS 19
2.1 CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL OR REGIONAL WATER POLICY 19
2.2 FROM POLICY TO LAW: CONSISTENCY WITH WATER QUALITY
GUIDELINES, STANDARDS AND REGULATION 25
2.3 OTHER LEGAL ASPECTS 32
2.4 THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 38
2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 42
2.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 42
3 COST MANAGEMENT AND OPTIMISATION 45

3.1 INTRODUCTION 45
3.2 PLANNING 46
3.3 IMPROVING CURRENT PERFORMANCE - BENCHMARKING 49
3.4 IMPROVING FUTURE PERFORMANCE – WHOLE LIFE COSTING 55
3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 60
3.6 CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS 62
3.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63
4 FINANCING 65
4.1 FINANCING MECHANISMS 66
4.2 ELEMENTS OF GOOD FINANCIAL PRACTICE 78
4.3 WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINANCIAL RISKS AND
HOW CAN WE MITIGATE THEM? 82
4.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 87
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS 91

5.1 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS 92
5.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 93
5.3 MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS 95
5.4 SUSTAINABLE PROCESS INDEX 96
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE 97
5.6 SUMMARY 98
5.7 CASE STUDY 99
5.8 CONCLUSION 100
5.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 101
6 STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION:
BEST PRACTICES FOR WATER REUSE OPERATIONS 103
6.1 INTRODUCTION 103
6.2 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS OF WATER REUSE AND WATER REUSE
ORGANISATIONS 103
6.3 HOW WATER REUSE ORGANISATIONS COMMUNICATE WITH
STAKEHOLDERS 107
6.4 KEY MESSAGES TO STAKEHOLDERS 109
6.5 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 112
6.6 PREPARING THE MESSAGE 114
6.7 DELIVERING THE MESSAGE 121
6.8 RECEIVING FEEDBACK 127
6.9 PUBLIC CRISIS COMMUNICATION 131
6.10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 133
7 DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES 135

7.1 DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES - HOW TO COMPARE THEM? 136
7.2 RECLAIMED WATER DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES 140
7.3 EMERGING DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES 146
8 DISINFECTION WITH CHLORINE COMPOUNDS 151

8.1. FACT-SHEET 153
8.2. BASIC ASPECTS 156
8.3. PROCESS EQUIPMENT 162
8.4. PROCESS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 164
8.5. MONITORING AND CONTROL 168
8.6. FULL SCALE REFERENCES 169
8.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 174
9 ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION 177

9.1 DESCRIPTION 177
9.2 BASIC ASPECTS 181
9.3 PROCESS EQUIPMENT 188
9.4 PROCESS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 192
9.5 KNOWLEDGE GAPS 195
9.6 FULL SCALE REFERENCES 196
10 DISINFECTION WITH OZONE 205

10.1 DESCRIPTION 205
10.5 MONITORING AND CONTROL 222
11 “TITLE 22” BENCHMARK TECHNOLOGY 231

11.5 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING : SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 245
11.7 FULL-SCALE REFERENCES 247
12 HIGH-QUALITY BENCHMARK: DOUBLE MEMBRANE SYSTEM 263

12.3 PROCESS EQUIPMENTS 272
12.5 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING: SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 277
12.7 FULL-SCALE REFERENCE 280
13 CENTRALISED MBR 303

13.2 EFFLUENT QUALITY 304
13.3 OPERABILITY 306
13.4 COSTS 308
13.5 BASIC OPERATIONAL ASPECTS 315
13.8 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING 323
13.11 CASE STUDY: MBR SCHILDE, BELGIUM 330
13.12 CASE STUDY 2 MBR VARSSEVELD 333
14 SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT AS POLISHING 341

14.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 341
14.5 MONITORING 351
15 MATURATION PONDS AND EFFLUENT RESERVOIRS 363

15.3 EQUIPMENT 377
15.4 APPLICATION 379
15.6 MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL 382
15.7 EMERGING TECHNIQUES 384
15.9 FULL-SCALE REFERENCES 386
16 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR POLISHING SECONDARY

WASTEWATER 397
16.5 MONITORING 412
16.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND CONSTRAINTS 413
16.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 419
17 RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 423

17.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RWDS 423
17.3 PLANNING ASPECTS RELATED TO RWDS 428
18 MONITORING TECHNIQUES 453

18.1 REFERENCE PROCEDURES AND ASSOCIATED ANALYTICAL
SENSITIVITY, RESPONSE TIME
AND COSTS 453
18.2 STATUS OF MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL PRACTICES 469
18.3 TRENDS 475
19 FAILURE AND FAILURE MANAGEMENT 481

19.2 FAILURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES 481
19.3 TREATMENT PROCESS FAILURE 486
19.4 BARRIER FAILURE 488
19.5 INFLUENT PROBLEMS 492
19.6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAILURE 492
19.7 HUMAN AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 496
20 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS: AGRICULTURE 501

20.1 BACKGROUND 501
20.2 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF
THE RECLAIMED WATER 502
20.3 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES 512
20.4 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH AGRICULTURAL
IRRIGATION USING RECLAIMED WATER 518
21 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS : URBAN APPLICATIONS 555

21.1 TYPES OF URBAN USES FOR RECLAIMED WATER 556
21.2 DIFFERENTIATION BY TYPE OF USE 558
21.3 WATER REUSE AS PART OF INTEGRATED URBAN
WATER MANAGEMENT 565
21.4 CHALLENGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
OF URBAN REUSE SCHEMES 567
21.5 MONITORING AND CONTROL STRATEGIES 570
21.6 EXAMPLES OF URBAN WATER REUSE SCHEMES AND THEIR
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 572
22 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS: INDUSTRIAL USES 585

22.1 BACKGROUND 585
22.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS CHAPTER 586
22.3 TYPICAL WATER QUALITY CONCERNS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES 586
22.4 COOLING WATER MAKE-UP 588
22.5 BOILER FEED WATER 598
22.6 PROCESS WATER 601
23 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 617

23.2 MANAGEMENT OF AQUIFER RECHARGE 617
23.3 RISK MANAGEMENT AND CODE OF PRACTICE 621
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In the framework of the international project “Integrated Concepts for Water Reuse” (Aquarec) - partially
funded by the European Commission and the Australian Government, and coordinated by RWTH Aachen
- an interdisciplinary team composed of water and wastewater utility professionals, consultants and
researchers got together to produce a manual of management practices for water reuse schemes. This
introductory chapter will give some background on water re-use and its status in different parts of the
world, on different aspects of management practices and on the scope of the work covered in this manual.
The water sector in Europe, as well as in many other parts of the world, is in a transitional phase with
unique opportunities for water reuse to be implemented on a larger scale as a sustainable practice within a
framework of integrated water management. Hochstrat et al. (2006) estimated that in the time span
between 2000 and 2025, in Europe alone, the direct utilisation of treated municipal wastewater could
more than double, growing from 750 million m³ per year to 1,540-4,000 million m³ per year.
To fully benefit from this unprecedented favourable momentum, the European water industry urgently
needs to establish a best practice framework for water reuse projects:
• In the last decade, regulatory and industry practice evolved from the traditional command and
control approach towards a more integrated and flexible paradigm, not prescribing the means to
achieve the desired outcome (e.g. requiring the adoption of water reuse “whenever appropriate”),
but prescribing the adoption of a best practices framework (on top of the local permit
requirements). Examples are the Directive on Environmental Liability and the Integrated
Pollution and Prevention Control Directive (cfr. Chapter 2).
• Despite the numerous successful schemes (Bixio et al., 2006), and the common practice of
indirect reuse through rivers and aquifers, water reuse is not accepted yet as a standard European
water industry practice, and water reuse options are often inadequately considered in traditional
business-as-usual water resources management plans. One reason for this neglect of reuse is a
lack of common knowledge of reuse-specific management practices including the water resource
benefits, financing, community consultation, environmental management and aspects such as
operation, maintenance and quality control.
• Clear references are needed to support decision-makers. A lot of information is available

regarding water reclamation and reuse, yet this information is dispersed and, sometimes,
contradictory. Even information for a straightforward mapping of such basic indicators as facility
location, treatment train and performance is difficult to collect, not to mention the basic
management practices attached to the scheme.
1
1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MANUAL
This manual has been prepared to help decision makers answer their questions about initiating,
implementing or improving water reclamation and reuse schemes.
The documentation addresses structural, non structural and managerial conditions to implement and
operate water reuse scheme in a way that is safe, publicly acceptable and economically, financially and
environmentally feasible.
For each of these conditions:
• reference principles are outlined,
• European Union and overseas experience, preferences and trends, apparent and latent problems,
and factors promoting or hindering best practice are documented and
• successful case projects are illustrated to inform the reader about positive experiences in the field.
The manual focuses on the European, Israeli and Australian full-scale experience.
In particular, it explores the managerial possibilities offered at the project level, in cases of planned direct
non-potable reuse of reclaimed water from centralized municipal wastewater treatment plants.
1.3 TARGETED READER
The main target readers are operators entering the field - practitioners concerned with actual
implementation questions or professionals in headquarters, where the focus is on planning, monitoring
and concept development.
This manual is also intended for public health officials and other decision makers - such as technical
departments of public institutions, sponsors and financing institutions. Additionally, it can be a useful
reference for qualified supporters such as academics, consultants and civic groups.
It is expected that the reader has a good understanding of the water sector and of water and wastewater
treatment. This document will emphasise the factors that are unique to water reclamation and reuse.
1.4 WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE – WHAT DO WE MEAN?
In this manual, water reclamation refers to the treatment or processing of water to make it reusable, while
water reuse does refer to the use of treated wastewater for beneficial purposes (Lens et al., 2002). There is
no consensus on these definitions worldwide. The reader should note, for instance, that in Australia, water
reclamation and reuse is termed water recycling, a term that in Europe is used in many instances for
internal recycling, e.g. in industrial facilities.
2
1.5 HOW THIS MANUAL IS ORGANIZED
The manual is divided into three parts:
PART 1 Management of organisational aspects, including economics and financing
Chapter 2 Institutional background, organisation arrangements and legal aspects: clarifies which
aspects of water reuse are given priority in the European Union water policy and which
regulations, standards and guidelines exist within the European Union. The legal basis for
liability, contractual agreements and water rights is also discussed.
Chapter 3 Cost management and optimisation: addresses three aspects of cost optimisation: planning,
managing current performance and improving future performance.
Chapter 4 Financial sustainability: summarises principles applicable in economically developed

markets, and depicts the current funding mechanisms (process and source of funding), as
well as successes and difficulties.
PART 2 Management of social and environmental aspects
Chapter 5 Environmental management systems: describes available tools such as Ecological Footprint
Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, Material Flow Analysis, Sustainable Process Index and
other methodologies that are applied in the context of water recycling.
Chapter 6 Stakeholder Communication: best practices for water reuse operations examines stakeholder
views of water reuse and water reuse organisations, gives evidence of how water reuse
organisations communicate with stakeholders, provides guidelines on how to pass key
messages to stakeholders and on how to prepare and deliver the message, including aspects
of public crisis communication.
PART 3 Management of technical aspects
Chapter 7 to 17 depicts reference technologies used to reclaim secondary effluent of municipal

wastewater treatment plants for a broad spectrum of water uses:
Chapter 7 to 10 advanced disinfection techniques: describes and compares the three primary agents (and
their possible combination) for advanced disinfection used in water reclamation and reuse,
namely: Chapter 8 Chlorination, Chapter 9 Ultraviolet irradiation (UV) and Chapter 10
Ozonation.
Chapter 11 “Title 22-compliance” benchmark: the Title 22 technology as it was introduced in the
homonymous Californian regulation, includes a coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration and a disinfection step. Title 22 allows filtration without flocculation, if the effluent
turbidity before filtration is less than 5 NTU. It is considered the yardstick for unrestricted
irrigation against which all the other systems are evaluated because of its long history of
3
successful case practices (more than 400 in the United States, alone, and one third of the
water reclamation schemes in the European Union).
Chapter 12 “High-quality” benchmark (secondary + MF/UF + RO + disinfection)a: membrane processes

can be used to reclaim water to very high quality. It is considered the yardstick for many
high-grade applications including groundwater recharge, direct/indirect potable reuse,
process water for microelectronics and boiler feed water.
Chapter 13 Membrane bioreactors (centralised systems): membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is

increasingly applied for decentralised water reuse such as “in building” schemes. There are
also significant expectations for a larger use of MBR for centralised systems, from which the
effluent might be reclaimed directly, for unrestricted irrigation, or as a pre-treatment for
reverse osmosis to produce drinking water quality.
Chapter 14 Secondary effluent + soil aquifer treatment (SAT): SAT is particularly suitable for
unrestricted agricultural irrigation as it provides storage as well as treatment to a level
comparable to drinking water quality (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003).
Chapter 15 Maturation ponds and effluent reservoirs:

maturation ponds can be used to achieve the water quality requirements of the WHO
guidelines (< 1000 FC/100 mL; < 1 helm. egg/L) and of the new EU guidelines for
unrestricted irrigation (<10 FC/100 mL; < 1 helm. egg/L), if long retention times (up to 30
days) are applied. Maturation ponds are also used for storage, mainly in agriculture.
Chapter 16 “Natural-step” benchmark (secondary effluent + constructed wetlands): surface-flow

constructed wetlands, especially in combination with maturation ponds, have found wide
application in polishing conventionally treated wastewater to meet quality requirements for
recreational and environmental uses, including habitat creation, restoration and/or
enhancement.
Chapter 17 Distribution systems: proper management of distribution systems, storage reservoirs and
distribution networks, is a central aspect of most of reuse schemes.
Each reference technology is depicted in terms of life-cycle costs, process performance, ease of
maintenance and operational needs, including specific quality control and failure management procedures;
the resulting picture is confronted with a number of case practices. The structure of the technology
chapters is set out in Table 1.1.
a
disinfection is a back-up disinfection
4
Table 1.1 Structure of the Chapters on Best Available Technologies

SECTION CONTENT
Brief description of the system including a fact-sheet on process efficiency and reliability,
1. Fact-sheet
operability characteristics, economics, maintenance needs and by-products management
Overview of basic things to know to properly operate the system, e.g. process reactions,
2. Practical aspects the effects of operating conditions on the process performance, by-product generation,
etc.
3. Equipment Synopsis of possible types of equipment that are available on the market
4. Application Summary of what the technology is applied for

5. Process
operation and Documentation of management concerns and of trouble shooting practices
maintenance
Account of specific monitoring and record keeping needs for the proper operation of the
6. Monitoring and
system. Monitoring and record keeping requirements that are common to all reuse
quality control
applications are discussed in a separate chapter.
Enumeration of knowledge gaps in operational criteria that need further attention in order
7. Knowledge gaps to optimise the removal performance of the system and to use energy and chemical
products with restraint and efficiency.
8. Full-scale Provision of full-scale references, including a description of one or more relevant full-
references scale case study(ies)
Increased levels of compliance and safety requirements need to look at all aspects of operational
reliability and not only at best available technology. Therefore Chapter 18 and 19 consider specifications
about monitoring and control of water reuse schemes and failure and failure management procedures:
Chapter 18 Monitoring and control of water reuse systems, including testing and laboratory
procedures: gives an account of reference analytical procedure and monitoring devices
available and their cost. Recent advances and trends in instrumentation, monitoring and
automation are discussed, to assure that the quality of reclaimed water is guaranteed and if
possible improved in an economically efficient way.
Chapter 19 Failure and failure management: intends to provide operators with a framework for best
practice in managing, analysing and preferably avoiding failures in reclamation and reuse
schemes.
Chapter 20 to 23 End-use specifications: describes agreements for the technical performance of water
reclamation schemes reached with water reuse suppliers and end-users. Four major uses
are considered: agricultural irrigation (Chapter 20), urban applications (Chapter 21),
industrial uses (Chapter 22) and artificial groundwater storage and recharge (Chapter 23).
5
1.6 WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER WATER REUSE?
There are numerous reasons for considering water reuse. Table 1.2 lists a number of benefits commonly
reported by local communities. The benefits are broken down into 6 categories: 1) Economic/financial, 2)
Legal, 3) Environmental, 4) Social, 5) Strategic and 6) Image. Some items are reported in one category
while contributing also to others.
Table 1.2 Shortlist of benefits reportedly enjoyed by communities that

implemented water reuse projects
CATEGORY BENEFIT
Overall benefit for the local community
• Additional water supply that would otherwise be lost and preventing the high cost
of importing freshwater and conveying it over a long distance
1. (DIRECT) ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
• Contribute to a better preserved natural capital to the tourism sector
• Often least-cost option when the overall urban water cycle is considered.b
Utility benefits
• Reduced compliance costs with government regulation on wastewater discharge
• In areas where the water demand is not met: Additional revenue from the sale of
reclaimed water and savings in the form of avoided or delayed costs of developing
new fresh water sources and less treatment of surface water abstraction
Customer benefits
• Benefits from reduced water and /or energy charges through potable substitution for
uses not needing potable quality water.
• In irrigation: additional source of nutrients, lessening the need to apply synthetic

fertilizers (cfr. Chapter 20)
• Solve permit problems related to discharge to sensitive ecosystems and associated

2. LEGAL
liabilities
• Useful means to achieve demand management targets for water conservation

programs (in terms of water saved)
b
In temperate regions, pilot studies have shown that an integrated approach to urban water cycle management including water
reuse can lead to overall savings up to 50% of capital costs, with savings in the range of 15-20% that might be considered the
most expected range (Anderson, 2003).
6
CATEGORY BENEFIT
• Decreased abstraction of freshwater from sensitive ecosystems and decreased

discharge into sensitive water bodies.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL
• Lower greenhouse emission impact when compared to desalination
• Best scenario for nutrient recycling in agriculture, substituting some forms of

nitrogen compounds and phosphorus of synthetic fertilizers.c
• Decentralised reuse systems could reduce the impact of combined sewer overflows
emissions (Vaes and Berlamont, 1999) and recharge local rivers to maintain the
ecology and enable aquifer recharge.
• Increased level of service

4. SOCIAL
• Promote sustainability (Guy et al. 2001)
• Creation of employment
• Increasing the reliability of the urban water cycle (more drought-proof water
supply)
5. STRATEGIC
• Improvement in public health, by protecting downstream water supplies from

contaminations (and so, indirectly decreasing the costs of treatment for those
downstream communities).
• Locally-controlled water supply, a particularly important aspect in those areas

where water demand is met by importing water from neighbouring
jurisdictions/countries
• Enhanced reputation and recognition as good environmental steward. In Australia,

6. IMAGE
for example, today water companies have to push water reuse in order to comply
with pressure from the public and their customers. Many citizens consider the right
to sufficient quantities of water an urgent necessity, which can only be satisfied
without bad conscience, if reclaimed water is usedd.
The primary incentives for implementing water reuse are augmentation of the water supply and
pollution abatement. According to the sample of schemes surveyed by the AQUAREC questionnaire to
managers of existing water reuse schemes, the investment for ecosystem management and pollution
control is very often the primary motivating factor which lead to the implementation of the water reuse
schemes, especially in temperate areas, whereas in several cases investment for productivity scored low
(AQUAREC, 2004).
c
This is particularly important in the context of the phosphorus cycle: at the level of exploitation of today, phosphorus ores will
be depleted in less than 100 years.
d
Cfr: www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/
7
The Aquarec outcome compares well with the results of the EUREAU reuse working group’s
international water reuse benefits & issues survey (Table 1.3). The outcome of the EUREAU survey
reflects the view of the academic world (44%), private companies (19%), government research agencies
and public authorities (30%).
Table 1.3 Top 20 priorities and issues for water reuse (EUREAU, 2004)
Priority
Saving high quality water for potable supply 1
Reducing polluted discharge into receiving bodies 2
Demonstrating the value of water and the real water cycles. Reuse can be used as a catalyst to help
3
everyone understand the real water cycles
Reducing over abstraction of groundwater 4
Developing financial incentives to promote best practice including reuse 5
Recognising that water is one of the most important resources 6
Recognising the lack of financial incentives for wastewater reuse 7
Enhancing water resource and nature conservation 8
Recognising that long term planning is required for droughts etc 9
Agreeing on a strategy and actively promoting that strategy 10
Lack of regulations for wastewater reuse quality 11
Increasing the availability of potable water 12
Reducing discharge load and nutrients to surface water locally 13

Realising that wastewater is dirty water that needs appropriate treatment. It is valuable and not a
14
worthless waste product for disposal
Reuse encourages careful treatment of wastewater 15
Reducing water and wastewater costs each year through reuse 16
Creating alternative water resources locally where it is needed 17
Realising that economic growth needs sustainable alternative water sources 18

Helping our children understand the water cycle and the value of water. Enabling the children to
19
educate their parents etc
Increasing groundwater resource through aquifer recharge 20
8
1.7 WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WATER RECLAMATION AND

REUSE IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE WORLD?
Planned water reclamation and reuse for non-potable uses is a strategy gaining wider acceptance and is
rapidly expanding throughout the world. The last fifteen-year overall achievements have been impressive
in absolute terms and in relation to previous efforts.
In 2003 a review carried out in the context of the Aquarec project identified over 3,300 water reclamation
facilities, mostly in Japan (over 1,800) and the USA (over 800). But also in Australia and the EU, with
now an abundance of over 450 and 230 projects, respectively, in the Mediterranean and Middle East area
(about 100 sites), in Latin America (50) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (20). Those numbers are destined to
become outdated quickly. Many projects were identified in an advanced planning phase.
Figure 1.1 shows the number of municipal water reuse schemes identified throughout the world - sorted
per field of reuse application. The fields of application are split in five categories: 1) agricultural
irrigation; 2) urban, recreational and environmental uses, including aquifer recharge; 3) process water for
industry; 4) (indirect) potable water production; 5) combinations of the above (multipurpose).
Figure 1.1 Identifiable water reuse schemes in 6 regions of the world per type
of reuse application
It is worth mentioning that other large water-stressed regions such as for instance China are also in the
process of developing regional water reclamation programs (Pinjing et al., 2001), but they were not
included in the survey.
9
1.7.1 Europe
In Europe most reuse schemes are located along the coastlines and islands of the semi-arid Southern
regions, and in the highly urbanised areas of Northern and Central Europe. Figure 1.2 shows the
geographic distribution of water reuse projects identified and collated by the AQUAREC project in 2004,
including their size and details of the water’s intended end use. The scale of the projects is broken down
into four classes: very small (<0.1 Mm³/a), small (0.1-0.5 Mm³/a), medium (0.5-5 Mm³/a) and large (>5
Mm³/a).
Figure 1.2 Geophysical map of Europe (EEA, 2003) and identifiable water reuse
projects in Europe, incl. their size and intended use
Figure 1.2 shows that the use of reclaimed water is quite different in those two regions: in the
Mediterranean, reclaimed wastewater is reused predominantly for agricultural irrigation (44% of the
projects) and for urban or environmental applications (37% of the projects), whereas in Atlantic and
continental Europe, reuse occurs mainly in urban or environmental (51% of the projects) or industrial
applications (33% of the projects).
This difference is best illustrated in Figure 1.3 and 1.4, where Spain and the Benelux region are set out as
examples for the two regions.
10
Figure 1.3 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Spain in 2004
Figure 1.4 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Belgium and the

Netherlands in 2004
11
1.7.2 Australia
In Australia, most of the water reuse schemes are located in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.
Figure 1.5 shows the geographic distribution of water reuse projects identified and collated by the
AQUAREC project in 2004, including their size. The scale of the projects is broken down into four
classes: very small (<2,000 PE or 110,000 m³/yr), small (2,000-10,000 PE), medium (10,000-100,000 PE)
and large (>100,000 PE).
Figure 1.5 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Australia in 2004
Figure 1.5 shows that most of the identified facilities are mainly small to medium-size installations (362
out of the 452 schemes have a capacity of less than 0.5 million m³/y).
Most of the installations are relatively recent: only 7 facilities were in operation before 1990. The most
common polishing step is (conventional) filtration and disinfection.
Further details of the state of water reclamation and reuse in Australia can be found in Radcliffe (2004).
1.7.3 United States of America

Over 1,000 reuse sites were screened in the United States. Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7 provide a distribution
of the facilities per state and per size and end use for the States that possess the bulk of the facilities
(800+).
12
41
Figure 1.6 Size distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes in the

Southern United States in 2004
Size Distribution of Facilities
Overall
325
12
63
430
Figure 1.7 End-use distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes in

the Southern United States in 2004
End-Use Distribution
of Reclaimed Water
Overall
13
1.8 WHAT ARE THE REFERENCE WATER RECLAMATION

TECHNOLOGIES?
Depending on local conditions, intended use of the water, plant size and water quality standards, very
many technologies can be applied and have been applied worldwide. Figure 1.8 shows the level of
treatment – secondary, tertiary or quaternary – of the identified water reclamation schemes in six regions
of the world. Secondary treatment – also including nutrient removal – is characteristic of restricted
agricultural irrigation (i.e. for food crops not consumed uncooked) and for some industrial applications
such as industrial cooling (except for the food industry). Additional filtration/disinfection steps are
applied for unrestricted agricultural or landscape irrigation as well as for process water in some industrial
applications (tertiary treatment). Quaternary treatment - indicative of production for a quality comparable
to drinking water - involves a “double membrane” step to be suitable for unrestricted residential uses and
industrial applications requiring ultrapure water, where even a triple membrane process may be used
(NEWater, Singapore).
Figure 1.8 Application of water reclamation technology throughout the world
Secondary treatment prevails in Latin America (over 80% of the facilities) and in the Mediterranean and
Middle East region (over 50%), with restricted agricultural irrigation as the main final use. In the latter,
this high percentage stems mainly from the Maghreb’s facilities. The other countries have a higher degree
of (tertiary) treatment. Secondary treatment in Latin America is mainly achieved with stabilization ponds,
a technology common also to the Mediterranean region and to the Southern US states. Stabilization ponds
are generally applied for small to medium scale projects; even though some large-scale facilities have also
been identified (Angelakis et al., 1999). Secondary stabilization ponds are considered as being able to
produce an effluent quality suitable for restricted irrigation. Stabilization ponds may also be suitable for
unrestricted irrigation (Mara and Pearson, 1998), in which case the land area required must be greatly
increased (maturation ponds must be added, in some cases followed by disinfection).
14
1.8.1 Natural systems

Maturation ponds are used to achieve the water quality requirements of the WHO guidelines (< 1000
FC/100 ml; < 1 helm. egg/L) (WHO, 1989). Commonly applied limits for unrestricted irrigation in the
European Union (<10 FC/100 mL; < 1 helm. egg/L) can also be met, if long retention times - up to 30
days- are applied (see Chapter 15). Maturation ponds are also used for storage, mainly in agriculture.
Surface-flow constructed wetlands, especially in combination with maturation ponds, have found wide
application in polishing conventionally treated wastewater to meet quality requirements for recreational
and environmental uses, including habitat creation, restoration and/or enhancement. Full-scale constructed
wetlands were shown to achieve a quality characteristic of medium to low contact applications
(Ghermandi et al., accepted) and might be suitable for certain Mediterranean areas that have adopted
WHO reuse standards. In combination with maturation ponds, they proved to meet various standards for
unrestricted irrigation (Schreijer et al., 2003). Claasen and Kampf (2004) indicated that in moderate
climates those hybrid systems would need a retention time no longer than 5 days to deliver an effluent
quality suitable for unrestricted irrigation.
Small-scale tertiary treatment constructed wetlands sites are quite common in Europe (especially in
France and Spain), compared to other temperate regions. Larger applications are also found, especially in
the Netherlands.
1.8.2 Advanced disinfection techniques

Despite the potentially toxic by-products formed, the disinfection technique that is mostly applied today is
chlorination (applied in almost 85% of more than 400 disinfection systems surveyed). Chlorination is
however progressively being replaced by UV disinfection or a combination of disinfection techniques (the
most common being ozone plus chlorination or UV plus chlorination).
Other advanced disinfection technologies such as peracetic acid (PAA) have been investigated in many
sites, but mostly in smaller scale. The AQUAREC project identified only one full-scale application of
PAA (in Milan, Italy), for indirect agricultural reuse.
1.8.3 “Title 22” benchmark technology

The Title 22 benchmark technology, as it was introduced in the homonymous Californian regulation, is
composed of a coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection step. It is considered the
yardstick for unrestricted irrigation, against which all other systems are evaluated because of its long
history of successful practice (more than 400 in the United States, alone).
In Europe, more than half of the tertiary treatment technology is derived from this concept, even if the full
Californian Title 22 treatment is applied in a more limited number of installations, only. In the
Mediterranean EU-countries, aiming at the 10 FC/100 mL limit (Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus and
also Israel) the most common process is coagulation – flocculation and direct (or contact) filtration
followed by disinfection. It is worth noting that the effluent of a well designed and operated activated
sludge plant may already reach turbidity levels lower than 3 NTU and therefore several unrestricted reuse
15
applications require only filtration (no flocculation) and a disinfection step. (Title 22 allows filtration
without flocculation if the effluent turbidity before filtration is less than 5 NTU).
1.8.4 Double membrane systems

There is a growing trend to use double membrane processes such as micro-filtration and reverse osmosis
in addition to secondary treatment and nutrient removal for new larger scale plants, if drinking water
standards are required (Wintgens et al., 2004). This technology is considered as BAT for artificial
groundwater recharge or for the production of high-grade industrial process water. Relevant examples in
Europe are:
• the Wulpen aquifer recharge facility in Belgium, which prevents salt intrusion and contributes to
(indirect) drinking water production (Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2004),
• the Tilburg scheme for direct industrial process water supply and artificial aquifer recharge
(Maas, 2004) and
• a new development of the Depurbaix scheme in Barcelona (Compte, 2004).
In the US, a similar scheme has been operating for some years in Orange County California (Deshmukh,
2004).
In Australia, examples are the Sydney Olympic Park and Rouse Hill near Sydney for reticulation through
a “third pipe” for non-potable urban applications. The new plant about to be commissioned at Port
Kembla will supply process water for an integrated steel mill and the plant at Luggage Point near
Brisbane will supply an oil refinery. These applications are all replacing water from sources for potable
use although in all cases the reuse water is used for non-potable applications.
Examples of direct drinking water production are found in Windhoek, Namibia (Haarhoof and Van der
Merve, 1996) and in Singapore (Leslie, 2003). So far very few agricultural applications could be
identified on full-scale. An example is the Gerringong scheme in NSW Australia for effluent applied to
dairy pasture.
1.8.5 Membrane Bioreactors

MBR technology is increasingly applied for small-scale reuse facilities such as “in-building” schemes and
for community facilities (Hills and Malfeito, 2004). There are also significant expectations for the use of
membrane bioreactors (MBR) for larger scale projects, from which the effluent might be reclaimed
directly, for unrestricted irrigation, or as a pre-treatment of reverse osmosis to produce drinking water
quality. Despite the fact that very many of these centralized systems are now operational, and that the
treated wastewater would comply with most of the water reuse guidelines for unrestricted irrigation, for
the moment very few are actually (directly) reusing the treated wastewater (Melin et al., 2006).
16
1.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson J., Adin A., Crook J., Davis C., Hultquist R., Jimenze-Cisneros, Kennedy W., Sheikh B. and B. van der Merwe (2001)
Climbing the Ladder: a Step by Step Approach to International Guidelines for Water Recycling. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 1-8.
Anderson J. (2003) The environmental benefits of water recycling and reuse. Water Supply 3 (4): 1–10.
Angelakis A.N., Marecos do Monte MHF, Bontoux L and T. Asano (1999) The status of wastewater reuse practice in the
Mediterranean Basin: Need for Guidelines. Wat. Res. 33 (10): 2201-2217.
Lens P., Hulshoff Pol L., Wilderer P. and T. Asano (2002) Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry (Analysis,
Technologies and Implementation). IWA Publishing, London, UK.
AQUAREC (2004) Survey results report. In: Aquarec Management review report Deliverable D10, interim report, 2004.
AQUAREC (2003) Report on Milestone M3.I, Draft of wastewater reuse potential estimation.
Bixio D., De heyder B., Cikurel H., Muston M., Miska V., Joksimovic D., Schäfer A.I., Ravazzini A., Aharoni A., Savic D. and
C. Thoeye (2005) Municipal wastewater reclamation: where do we stand? An overview of treatment technology and management
practice. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Wat. Supply 5 (1): 77-85.
Bixio D., De Koning J., Savic D., Wintgens T., Melin T. and C. Thoeye (2006) Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination 187:
89-101.
Claasen T. and R. Kampf (2004) Environmental impact of polishing with wetland systems: the water harmonica experience. Proc.
Aquarec Workshop [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004. www.aquarec.org
Compte J. (2004) Barcelona's wastewater reuse plant. Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal
Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004. www.aquarec.org
Deshmukh S. (2004) Operational experience with membrane filtration systems for groundwater recharge. Proc. Intl Workshop on
Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
www.aquarec.org
EEA (2003) Europe’s environment: The third assessment. Environmental assessment report No. 10. European Environment
Agency; Copenhagen, Denmark.
EUREAU (2004) Water recycling and reuse working group. International water reuse benefits and issues survey EU1/2-04WR-
22. www.eureau.org
Ghermandi A., Bixio D. and C. Thoeye (accepted) The role of constructed wetlands in water reclamation and reuse. The Science
of the Total Environment.
Hills S and Malfeito J. (2004) RWE Water Divisional Experience of Reuse: from Pre-coat filters in Spain to MBRs in the USA.
Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece;
11-12 March 2004.
Hochstrat R., Wintgens T., Melin T. and P.J. Jeffrey (2006) Assessing the European Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Potential
- a Scenario Analysis. Desalination 188: 1-8.
Leslie G., Lozier J. and I. Law (2003). Treatment technologies to produce Class A water and beyond. Proc. 2nd National
Water Recycling Conference; Brisbane, Australia; September 2003.
Listowski A. (2004) Experiences with Urban reuse Applications in Australia. In Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation and
Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Maas J. (2004) Flow together: An example of sound ownership and financial practice. In Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation
and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
17
Mara D. and H. Pearson (1998) Design Manual for Waste Stabilisation Ponds in Mediterranean Countries. European Invest-
ment Bank, Luxembourg.
Melin T., Jefferson B., Bixio D., Thoeye C., De Wilde W., De Koning J., van der Graaf J. and T. Wintgens (2006) Membrane
bioreactor technology for water recycling and its impact on emerging pollutants. Desalination 187: 271-282.
Pinjing H., Phan L., Guowei G. and G. Hervouet (2001) Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater as a Potential Water Resource in
China. Wat.Sci.Tech. 43 (10): 51-58.
Radcliffe J.C. (2004) Water recycling in Australia. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering; Parkville,
Victoria. ISNB 1875618 80 5.
Scheumann, W., and M. Schiffler, eds. (1998) Water in the Middle East. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Shuval H., Lampert Y. and B. Fattal (1997) Development of a Risk Assessment Approach for Evaluating Wastewater Reuse
Standards for Agriculture. Wat. Sci. Tech. 35 (11-12): 15-20.
Smith S. (2004) The Future of Water Supply. Briefing Paper No. 4/2004. Available from:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au
US EPA (1998) Water recycling and reuse: the environmental benefits. EPA 909-F-98-001.
Vaes G. and J. Berlamont (1999) The impact of rainwater reuse on CSO emissions. Wat. Sci. Tech. 39 (5): 57-64.
van Houtte E. and J. Verbauwhede (2004) Closing the water cycle: twenty months of operational experiences in Torreele
(Flanders). Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM];
Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Wintgens T., Melin T., Schäfer A., Khan S., Muston M., Bixio D. and C. Thoeye (2004) The role of membrane processes in
municipal wastewater reclamation and reuse. Proc. Intl Conf. on Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production,
L'Aquila, Italy; November 15-17, 2004.
WHO (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture. Technical Report Series 778, World
Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
18
2 INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND,
ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS &
LEGAL ASPECTS
The presence of an appropriate legal and institutional framework for the safe and efficient planning and
implementation of water reuse schemes is a critical component of project success. The legal and
institutional framework influences many organizational aspects, which, in turn, impacts on financing
needs, project timing and scheme options. Poor legal and institutional arrangements have been a major
barrier to the implementation of water reuse schemes, resulting in a range of undesirable outcomes,
including delays, overruns and litigation. Therefore the project promoters/developers need to carefully
examine the following questions:
Section 2.1 What aspects of water reuse are given priority within the applicable water policy? What
type of initiative will find greatest support from government? In the first instance, Water
reuse practice must be consistent with all applicable water policies setting out the legal
and policy framework for service provision. Section 2.1 lists international agreements that
are relevant in the context of water reuse as well as relevant aspects within the European
Union.
Section 2.2 What regulations, standards and guidelines exist and are they harmonized?
Section 2.3 To what extent do legal issues such as liability and water rights influence the project’s
potential sustainability?
Section 2.4 To what extent do the institutional arrangements influence the project’s potential
sustainability? Institutional responsibilities in the context of water reclamation and reuse
will be discussed with particular emphasis on ownership issues.
2.1 CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL OR REGIONAL WATER POLICY

Water reuse practices must be consistent with existing water policies, legal arrangements, and regulatory
systems which define the framework for service provision. Water reuse policies around the world are very
diverse, ranging from indirect reuse (often unplanned), to beneficial use with or without limited treatment,
to a regulated use of this resource. This manual intends to look only at policies directed towards a
regulated use of reclaimed water with standards linked to specific uses. If such policies are not in place,
actors in the local water sector may consider assisting government in the development or updating of
policy for water development. In doing this, it is best to avoid reuse options that do not address priority
needs or where government support is weak.
19
2.1.1 What are the key policy drivers for water reuse at
the global level?
United Nations (UN) Agenda 21 (1992)

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be adopted globally, nationally and locally by
organizations of the United Nations System, Government and major groups in every area in which human
activity impacts the environment. Agenda 21 was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the UN
Conference on Environment and Development held in 1992. The full implementation of Agenda 21 was
strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in 2002. Protection of the quality
and supply of freshwater resources is addressed in Article 18, in which water reuse is recognised as:
• An alternative water supply that may be used to improve integrated water resources management
(Art. 18.12).
• A useful demand management mechanism (Art. 18.17).
• A useful measure to pollution minimization and prevention (Art. 18.40). In particular, Art. 18.40
emphasises the importance of safe reuse in agriculture and aquaculture.
• A useful measure for health protection (Art. 18.50).
Article 18.59 calls for the promotion of recycling and reuse as a useful measure for the protection of water
resources from depletion, pollution and degradation. The promotion and enhancement of water reuse in
agriculture is even considered a priority in water scarce regions (Art. 18.76).
United Nations Protocol on Water and Health (1999)

This Protocol promotes the protection of human health and well-being within a framework of sustainable
development, through improving water management, including the protection of water ecosystems, and
through preventing, controlling and reducing water-related disease. The Protocol;
• calls for increased protection of water resources which are used as sources of drinking water (Art.
4).
• defines minimum standards for water reuse in agriculture and aquaculture (Art. 6.1.i).
• urges water managers to evaluate whether unplanned indirect water reuse causes harma (Art. 8.2).
• encourages action to enhance awareness of moral obligation to contribute to the protection of the
water environment and the conservation of water resources (Art. 9).
a
Unplanned indirect water reuse occurs whenever water is abstracted from rivers and lakes that receive upstream contribution of
treated and/or untreated wastewater discharge; i.e. all major European rivers are concerned. The associated health risk may be
practically the same of the treated effluent, especially during the dry season when the natural flow is little more than the flow of
the (treated) wastewater (and the water is most likely to be used). So far very few reports investigated this issue.
20
2.1.2 What are the key policy drivers for water reuse
within the European Union?
Generally speaking, the priorities of the European Union are (Day, 2005):
1. the implementation of the Directives,
2. regional integration and
3. to sustain innovation.
These three aspects are analysed in the specific context of water reuse in the following sections.
1. Aspects of water reuse that are given priority within the EU Directives:
So far, no EU directive specifically targets water reuse, but many do affect water reuse practices and some
of the concerns relevant to water reuse applications have already been addressed by separate directives.
Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the EU directives and environmental policies relevant to water reuse.
Figure 2.1 Survey of EU water legislation and environmental policy relevant for
water reuse (source: Wintgens et al., 2005)
1975
Surface Directives to be repealed latest by 2013
Water Bathing Dangerous
Water Substances Directives revised or under revision
75/440/EEC
1980 Fresh Water 76/160/EEC 76/646/EEC Possible future Directives
Fish Shellfish
78/659/EEC Water Drinking Ground
79/923/EEC Water Water
80/778/EEC 80/68/EEC
1985
Sewage
Sludge
1990 86/278/EEC
UWWTD Nitrates Pesticides
1995 91/271/EEC 91/676/EEC 91/414/EEC
Drinking
2000 Water
Water Framework Directive 98/83/EC
2000/60/EC Bathing Priority Substances Soil
Water Decision Protection
2005 Ground
COM(2002) 2455/2001/EC Envisaged COM(2002)
Water
581 COM(2003) revision of 179
550 86/278/EEC
in 2004
2010
Wastewater
Reuse
2015
Good Water Status
At the time of writing, water reuse has been given priority as a useful conservation measure in water-
scarce areas.
Article 12 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD): states that Member States should
reuse treated waste water “whenever appropriate”. This Article is particularly important in that it was the
first EU-wide legal statement where water reuse was acknowledged as a valuable resource.
21
The term ‘appropriate’ still lacks legal definition and the benefits of upgrading wastewater treatment
schemes for water reuse can be overshadowed by budgetary shortfalls that preference the implementation
of alternatives that are strictly mandatory (wastewater collection and treatment).
Water reuse as a useful measure to implement the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
A consideration of water reuse emphasises the need to integrate health, environmental standards, service
provision and financial regulation for the water cycle, in order to achieve overall efficiency and protection
of the water cycle (Okun, 2002). The WFD encourages the integration of water reuse options in an
integrated water supply and disposal system, as it mandates:
• Municipal water conservation plans, emphasizing reuse.
• The development of financial incentives for local governments, developers, and property owners to
adopt water conservation and reuse measures and implement public education programs. Incentives
can include tax incentives, tax credits, grants and low interest loans. If there is an absence of subsidies,
incentives to improve environmental performance by forcing users to innovate or reduce water use
might be considered.
• That by 2010 water pricing policies have to be introduced that provide incentives to efficient water
uses, helping to achieve a good ecological status of the water bodies.
• More accurate identification of the least expensive water supply alternatives that provide the highest
level of water sustainability at river catchment level.
• That in pricing conventional and alternative water supplies, it should be ensured that the user bears
the costs of providing and using water, reflecting its true costs. This implies a stricter application of
two major principles: the polluter-pays principle and the full cost-recovery principle, which is more
than simple cost recovery. Article 9.1 states: “the recovery of the costs of water services including
environmental and resource costs associated with damage or negative impact on the environment
should be taken into account” when applying the polluter pays principle. This implies that tariffs
related to conventional and alternative water sources will have to be reviewed and adjusted. Since the
Dublin conference in 1992 (ICWE, 1992), the full cost recovery principle is becoming more
widespread in the provision of water supply. Industries and households have already begun to adapt to
tariffs close to simple cost recovery principles. However, even when the cost recovery principle is
applied, externalities such as, for instance, the scarcity of water and the marginal cost of new
sustainable sources of water, e.g., where existing sources are at - or beyond - their sustainable limit,
are rarely accounted for. Similarly the financial, social and environmental burdens of effluent disposal
to the environment are rarely considered in the economic analysis. Changes in agriculture should be
more fundamental and more difficult to execute.
• Increased wastewater disposal standards: this means that disposal of wastewater will become more
expensive and the water quality gap to reuse it, more limited.
As the WFD is a ‘soft’ legal document, i.e. it does not specify the means for achievement, the challenge
for water reuse specialists here is to inform and re-orient their own institutions to more conscious and
sustainable practices by bridging the tight but artificial compartments of water supply and sanitation. Too
often in stakeholder consultations (mandatory by the WFD) water reuse is excluded from integrated water
management scenarios; often regardless of whether water reuse is, or is not, a realistic alternative.
22
Box 2.1: Transposition of the WFD principles into national legislation: the Italian case
example in support of water reuse
Article 22 of the Italian Legislative Decree DL 152/99 with amendments of the RD 1775/33 forbids the
use of high-quality freshwater resources for those purposes that can tolerate a lower grade. The use of
high-quality resources for lower water quality needs may be allowed in cases where no alternative water
resources would be available, but are then subject to an increase of the conventional water price by a
factor three.
Article 26 concerns the promotion of the use of reclaimed water: foresees the setting of technical norms
that regulate the reuse of treated wastewater (transposed by the Ministerial Decree DM 185/2003) and that
the tariffs of reclaimed water to be discounted for the industrial users.
Article 28 allows the modification of municipal wastewater treatment limits in agreement with the end
users. For instance, when nutrients such as some forms of nitrogen and phosphorus are beneficial to the
end-use application, the wastewater utility may be relieved of the duty to remove them even if located in
sensitive areas. Also, such agreements may involve administrative and economic incentives, as well as
modification of the wastewater discharge limits.
Relation of water legislation in force and wastewater reuse applications (Wintgens et al., 2005)
Table 2.1 gives an overview of legislation which may serve as a reference in setting reuse quality criteria
for particular purposes. Health implications are the most prominent concerns in most water reuse
applications. Health risks related to pathogens are explicitly addressed in the Bathing Water Directive and
the Drinking Water Directives. Whereas the former copes with hazards related to accidental infection
during swimming, the latter aims to more strictly limit the infection risk associated with purposeful
ingestion of drinking water.
Table 2.1 Outline of correlation of reuse applications and effected

compartments regulated under European law (Wintgens et al., 2005)
Reuse application Major concern Related directive
A B C* D E F* G* H*
Contamination of soil and groundwater, Health
Agricultural irrigation X X X X
risk for workers and consumer
Groundwater recharge Health concerns if potable reuse is intended X X X
Urban applications Health concerns regarding exposed persons
Indirect potable reuse Health concerns X X X
Recreational water use Infections risks for exposed persons X
Environmental
Detrimental effects on the biocoenosis X X
enhancement
Aquaculture water contamination, health risk for consumer X X
Where:
A Sewage Sludge Directive; 86/278/EEC E Bathing Water Directive; 76/160/EEC
B Nitrate Directive; 91/676/EEC F Surface Water Directive; 75/440/EEC
C Groundwater Directive; 80/68/EEC G Freshwater Fish Directive; 78/659/EEC
D Drinking Water Directive; 98/83/EC H Shellfish Water Directive; 79/923/EEC
* to be repealed by regulations under the Water Framework Directive latest by 2013
23
Upcoming EU Directives relevant for water reuse:
• Proposal from the Commission on Priority Substances Directive
• Groundwater Daughter Directive (final adoption 2006): mandates the monitoring and assessment of
groundwater quality using common criteria and the identification and reversal of groundwater
pollution trends.
• Flood Risk Management (European Commission, 2006). Investment in dams, weirs and enforced
embankments, which often result in increased flooding downstream (and are at the same time a
result of flood management measures), will likely be reduced and water conservation measures at a
local level will have to contribute to any possible deficiencies in water budgeting.
• The revised Bathing Water Directive. The directive is scheduled to be implemented within two
years after it has entered into force, namely at the start of 2008.
2. Aspects of water reuse that are given priority within the context of regional
integration
In regions that are lagging behind, the predominant programme objective is the financing of infrastructure
to reach the Acquis Communautaire. There are no funds that specifically target water reuse, but several
water reclamation schemes have benefited from EU support and the EU contribution has been an excellent
catalyser of funds (cfr. Chapter 4).
3. Aspects of water reuse that are given priority within the context of innovation
A particularly relevant document is the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) for the
European Union (2004). The ETAP looks at targeting Europe’s potential for innovation in areas which
result in the reduction of environmental degradation. Concerning water reuse, the ETAP highlights the
importance of establishing European standards for wastewater reuse. In the plan; the lack of European
standards is considered one of the main barriers to the market uptake of innovative technologies such as,
for instance, membrane bioreactors, and therefore a lost opportunity for European industry, which cannot
compete on an equal basis with global market players outside the Union that have stronger internal
markets.
4. Other relevant initiatives

EU Water Initiative and Action plan for meeting the Millennium Goals in water and sanitation under the
banner of the EU Water Initiative.
The EU Water initiative was launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg. The objectives and targets of the Water Initiative follow mainly from the UN Millennium
Declaration (2000) and the agreements reached at the Johannesburg Summit (2002). Key aims are to
halve the proportion of people lacking access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015; to balance
human needs with those of the environment by 2015; and to support the development and implementation
of water resource management strategies and plans. Sustainable water resource management will be based
on the principle of integrated river basin management.
24
2.2 FROM POLICY TO LAW: CONSISTENCY WITH WATER QUALITY

GUIDELINES, STANDARDS AND REGULATION
Reclaimed water has to comply with two indispensable water quality criteria, namely: (i) protecting the
population and the workers from direct or indirect health risks associated with reuse, and protecting the
environment from possible contamination, and (ii) making sure that delivered water is suitable for a
specific beneficial use. This section will deal with the first aspect while the second one is looked at in
detail in Chapters 20 to 23.
Many regulations, standards and guidelines for the safe use of reclaimed water exist. Categories of
contaminants that span the type of use and the national boundaries are:
1. microbial pathogens,
2. the presence of toxicants such as heavy metals,
3. the total mineral content (e.g. total dissolved solids), and
4. the concentration of stable organic substances.
Good practice suggests that risk-reduction measures are set up on the basis of the intended use, the degree
of potential human or animal contact and the original source of the water. The major determinant in most
cases is the level of human exposure. Applications with high human exposure (e.g. reuse for garden
irrigation) require extensive post treatment while applications with limited human contact (e.g. reuse for
industrial cooling makeup in closed systems) need limited post-treatment.
Approaches to risk-reduction include:
1. Numerical limits. Water quality parameters and limits are generally determined by categories of
end-use.
2. Technology-based standards. An example in point is the Californian Title 22 legislation, which

requires a flocculation-coagulation filtration and disinfection step for unrestricted uses (or an
equivalent level of treatment).
3. Exposure-control measures. An example in point is the new WHO Guidelines for water reuse in
agriculture (Kamizoulis, 2006): see Box 2.4.
All other things being equal, risk-reduction measures may vary greatly from country to country and even
within a country. Figure 2.2 compares microbiological limits (E. Coli /Total coliforms) for unrestricted
irrigation adopted in some national markets or recommended by relevant organizations, from which one
can deduce the great discrepancies that exist. Similar incongruence is found for the other classes of use
(see Chapter 20 to 23).
25
Box 2.2: Californian Title 22 regulation (State of California, 2000)

• Attempts to achieve near zero-risk, with relatively expensive compliance requirements
• It is flexible: 43 uses, four treatment levels and alternative treatment is possible
• Developed in response to projects primarily to eliminate public health risks
• Criticized for not being a risk-based regulation and for being overly conservative
• This approach may be applicable to countries with a strong domestic financial market like Israel,
the European Union and Australia, but when a critical level of financing is not available this model
cannot be considered of practical use
Box 2.3: World Health Organisation guidelines (WHO, 1989)

• Designed to facilitate reuse, recognising that regulations should be realistic and realisable in the
context in which they are to be applied.
• Standards criticised for being too low
• This approach is very valuable to countries with limited financial means and wastewater treatment
infrastructure. In economies in transition, too strict standards would virtually ban the reuse practice
but this does not necessarily stop the reuse that is often of even less treated - see untreated –
wastewater
It is no wonder that those two approaches have quite distinct technological needs: the California criteria
for example stipulate biological treatment followed by tertiary treatment including filtration and chlorine
disinfection to produce effluent that is virtually pathogen-free. In contrast the WHO guidelines of 1989
emphasize that lagooning is necessary to meet microbiological water quality requirements.
There are a number of recent management innovations for managing water quality risks based on health
risk-based approach that can contribute to a broader and safer application of reuse water. The trends are
reflected in the new health-risk approach of the World Health Organisation (BOX 2.4).
27
Box 2.4: a new approach of the World Health Organisation: a health risk-based approach
(based on Kamizoulis, 2006)
The new WHO guidelines on water reuse in agriculture, although still in draft form, provide all the basic
information on health risk and how to arrive at the health based targets, by quantifying the risk and
developing pathogen reduction targets. An analysis of the health protection measures is included, making
reference to the wastewater treatment, crop restriction, wastewater application method and human
exposure control.
The health based targets is based upon a reference level of risk of 10-6 Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs). In such a way that the overall levels of health protection for the use of reclaimed water can be
compared to those for other water exposures (e.g. through drinking water or recreational water contact).
A variety of measures are possible for health protection: (a) waste treatment, (b) crop restriction, (c)
irrigation technique and application time and (d) human exposure control. So doing, sometimes partial
treatment to a less demanding standard may be sufficient if combined with other measures (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3 Example for design purposes: health based targets along with
advices of health protection measures (Kamizoulis, 2006)
Log Treatment
removal verification
UNRESTRICTED RESTRICTED
pathogens Thermotol.
Coliform
A B C D E F G* H*
0- 107 - 108
100 mL
1- T T T
T T
2- 106 - 107
T T
HW BC
104 - 105
3-
103 - 104
103 BC
4- DI DI
P (Low) (High) T
T
5- E
P P
T (DO) CR CR CR
6- E
1 P DO
(DO)
7- WP DO
Tolerable risk of 1 x 10-6 DALY
* where children under 15 years are exposed

T = Treatment, PTEP = post-treatment, WP = washing and peeling, DO = die-off, DI = drip irrigation (L= low growing crops, H
= high growing crops), CR = crop restriction e.g. industrial crops, crops eaten cooked, HW = hand washing with hygiene
promotion, BC = behaviour change (tools when farming)
28
2.2.1 What are the water reuse standards in the European

Union?
No legally binding guidelines or regulations exist yet at the level of the European Union. Several
countries and federal regions have adopted their own standards and regulations (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Existing reclaimed water quality regulation within the EU

Country / Water quality
Regulation Comment
Region CLASSES
Proposal of the
Flanders
wastewater utility to the 4 classes Based on EPA Victoria (2003)
(Belgium)
Regional Authority
Quality criteria for irrigation stricter than WHO
- Agricultural
Provisional standards standards but less than Californian Title 22 (TC <
Cyprus irrigation
(1997) 50/100 mL in 80% of the cases on a monthly
- industrial uses
basis and < 100/100 mL always)
Both refer to water reuse for agricultural
Art. 24 décret 94/469 3
purposes; follow the WHO standards, with the
juin 1994 - Agricultural
France addition of restrictions for irrigation techniques
Circulaire irrigation
and set back distances between irrigation sites and
DGS/SD1.D./91/n°51
residential areas and roadways
- Agriculture,
Italy Possibility for the Regional Authorities to add
Decree of Environmental - non-potable
some parameters or implement stricter regional
Ministry 185/2003 urban uses
Regional norms
- industrial uses
authorities:
The proposed microbiological standards are
Sicily, Emilia
similar to those of the Title 22 regulation for
Romagna and Guidelines
Puglia and Emilia Romagna and to the WHO
Puglia
guidelines for Sicily
Spain Water reuse may be practiced, yet no specific
regulation followed.
A draft legislation has been issued in 1999, with a
Law 29/1985, BOE Draft proposal
set of standard for 14 possible applications of
n.189, 08/08/85 with 14 end-use
Regional treated water. The proposed microbiological
Royal Decree 2473/1985 classes
Health standards range is similar to those of the Title 22
authorities: regulations in terms of defined use categories but
Andalucia, not as to the standards set for each category.
Balearic Is. Guidelines from the Up to 14 reuse Regional guidelines in particular in the field of
and Catalonia Regional Authorities classes the irrigation, based on the WHO approach
2.2.2 Towards the establishment of uniform EU

guidelines: proposal by the Aquarec project
The Aquarec project proposes seven quality categories for different types of reuses (Table 2.3) and
compiled microbial and chemical limits for each category (Table 2.4) (Salgot et al., 2006). The limits are
based on recently published guidelines and risk estimations for the information obtained.
29
Table 2.3 Water quality categories for different final uses of reclaimed
wastewater defined by the Aquarec project (Salgot et al., 2006)
Microbial Chemical
Specific final use
category category
1 Residential uses (gardening, toilet flushing, home air conditioning systems, car washing)
I
-§ Aquifer recharge by direct injection
II 1 Bathing water
Urban uses and facilities: irrigation of open access landscape areas (parks, golf courses,
sport fields…); street cleaning, fire-fighting, ornamental impoundments and decorative
III 1
fountains; greenhouse crops irrigation -Irrigation of raw-consumed food crops. Fruit trees
sprinkler irrigated; unrestricted irrigation.
Irrigation of pasture for milking or meat animals; Irrigation of industrial crops for canning
1 industry and crops not raw-consumed. Irrigation of fruit trees except by sprinkling;
IV irrigation of industrial crops, nurseries, fodder, cereals and oleaginous seeds
Impoundments, water bodies and streams for recreational use in which the public’s contact
2
with the water is permitted (except bathing)
1 Irrigation of forested areas, landscape areas and restricted access areas; forestry
Impoundments, water bodies and streams for recreational use in which the public’s contact
V 2
with the water is permitted (except bathing)
3 Aquifer recharge by localised percolation through the soil
Surface water quality, impoundments, water bodies and streams for recreational use, in
VI 2
which the public’s contact with the water is not permitted
VII 4 Industrial cooling except for the food industry
§
Direct aquifer recharge should be drinking water quality, potable water should not be produced from reclaimed wastewater
without advanced tertiary treatment like reversed osmosis or percolation through the soil (i.e. indirect aquifer recharge).
Table 2.4a Criteria established by the Aquarec project: microbial limits (Salgot
et al., 2006)
Clostridium
Use Total bacteria Faecal coliforms Legionella Enterococci Salmonella
perfringens
I <1,000-<10,000 abs abs - 0 <100 abs abs-1,000
II <1,000 <20-<1,000 abs - 10 - <1,000 abs – 1,000
III <10,000 abs - <1,000 <1 <100 <20 Abs – 1,000
IV <10,000-<100,000 abs – 10,000 <10 abs <1,000 <1
V <100,000 abs - <10,000 <100 - <10,000 <0.1
VI <10,000 <200 - <10,000 <1 - <20 abs – 1,000
VII <10,000 abs – 10,000 <10 abs - <100 <1,000 <1
All values expressed in (cfu/mL)
Cryptosporidium
Enteroviruses Coliphages Nematode T. saginata T. solium
Use and Giardia
(pfu/L) (pfu/L) eggs (eggs/L) (egg/L) (egg/L)
(cyst/50mL)
I Abs - 10 <1 <1 <1 – 10 - -
II Abs – 10 <1 <1 <1 - -
III <1 - <100 <1,000 <10 <1 - -
IV - - - <1 - -
V - - - <1 <1 <1
VI <100 <1,000 <10 <1 - -
VII <1 – 0.04 - - <1 - -
30
Table 2.4b Criteria established by the Aquarec project: chemical limits (Salgot
et al., 2006)
3
1 2 4
Parameter/chemical Indirect
Unit Private, urban Environmental Industrial
category aquifer
irrigation and aquaculture cooling
recharge
pH 6.0 – 9.5 6.0 – 9.5 7-9 7.0 – 8.5
BOD mg/L 10 - 20 10 - 20
COD (or TOC) mg/L 100 70 – 100 (1) 70 - 100 70 (1)
Dissolved oxygen mg/L >0.5 >3 >8 >3
AOX μg/L 25
UV 254 absorbance l/m 20 20 10
Electr. conductivity μS/cm 3,000 3,000 700
TSS mg/L 10 10 10
Active chlorine (only if
mg/L 0.2 – 1.0 0.05 0.05
chlorination)
Total Kjeldahl N mg/L 15 – 20 10 – 20 10
Ammonium-N mg/L 2 – 20 1.5 0.2 1.5
Parameters of medium analytical frequency (monthly – once per year)
Sodium absorption
mmol/L0.5 5 5
ratio (SAR)
Na mg/L 150 150 – 200 200
As mg/L 0.1 – 0.02 0.1 – 0.02 0.005
B (total) mg/L 0.4 -1.0 0.4 – 1.0 0.2
Cd mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.003
Cr (total) mg/L 0.1 – 0.01 0.1 – 0.01 0.025
Cr III mg/L 0.1 0.1
Cr VI mg/L 0.005 0.005
Hg mg/L 0.001 -,0.002 0.001 – 0.002 0.0005
Pb mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.005
Nitrate mg/L 25
F(total) mg/L 1.5 – 2.0 1.5 – 2.0
Chloride mg/L 250 250 – 400 100 400
Suphate mg/L 500 500 100
Total P mg/L 2–5 0.2 0.2
Surfactant (total) mg/L 0.5 0.5
Mineral oil mg/L 0.05 0.05
Parameters of low analytical frequency (once per year – once per 5 years)
Al mg/L 1–5 1–5
Ba mg/L 10 10
Be mg/L 0.1 0.1
Co mg/L 0.05 0.05
Cu mg/L 0.2 – 1.0 0.2 – 1.0
Fe mg/L 2 2
Li mg/L 2.5 2.5
Mn mg/L 0.2 0.2
Mo mg/L 0.01 0.01
Ni mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.01
31
3
1 2 4
Parameter/chemical Indirect
Unit Private, urban Environmental Industrial
category aquifer
irrigation and aquaculture cooling
recharge
Parameters of low analytical frequency (once per year – once per 5 years)
Se mg/L 0.01 – 0.02 0.01 – 0.02
Sn mg/L 3 3
Th mg/L 0.001 0.001
V mg/L 0.1 0.1
Zn mg/L 0.5 – 2.0 0.5 – 2.0
CN (total) mg/L 0.1 – 0.05 0.1 – 0.05
Pesticides (total) mg/L 0.05 0.05
Pesticides per subst.* mg/L 0.0001
Pentachloro phenol mg/L 0.003 0.003
Synthetic complex-
forming subst., per mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
subst. (e.g. EDTA)
Chloride solvent** mg/L 0.04 0.04
Tetrachloro ethylene,
mg/L 0.01 0.01
Trichloro ethylene
Disinfection
(by)products (only if mg/L 0.0001
chlorination)
NDMA mg/L 0.03 0.03 0.0001
Trihalomethane mg/L 0.5 0.5
Aldehyde (total) mg/L 0.01 0.01
Aromatic organic
mg/L 0.001 0.001
solvent (total)
Benzene mg/L
PAH (total) mg/L 0.00001
Benzene(a)pyrene mg/L 0.1 0.00001
Phenol (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.1
Endocrine active
mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
substances (E-screen)
Pharmaceuticals*** mg/L 0.0001 0.0001
*and their metabolites (country specific) **(total, if AOX > limits) *** (per subst, e.g. Carbamazepine, X-ray contrast) proposed
value
2.3 OTHER LEGAL ASPECTS
2.3.1 Environmental liabilities

Historically, environmental liability was to a large extent covered by the existing general liability policies
(i.e. general liability towards third persons), but today many national insurers exclude pollution risks from
their standard general liability policies. In a growing number of national markets separate coverage of
environmental impairment liability insurance (EILI) has been issued, subject to specific insurance
conditions and subject to separate premium tariffs. Such is the situation in Australia, where the
environmental legislation specifically excludes recycled water from public liability insurance as it is
classified as a pollutant (PWC, 2000). Insurance brokers have covered this gap by issuing an EILI to
32
provide public liability cover to water reuse schemes. The premium tariffs are dependent on the end use.
For instance, for landscape irrigation the tariff amounts to about 0.03 EUR/m³.
In the European Union, many national approaches are established, ranging from separate EILI policies
issued by a pool of insurance companies – e.g. Italy’s “Pool inquinamento”, France’s ASSURPOL, or the
Dutch MAS-pool - to legislator action – e.g. Germany’s Environmental Liability Act of 1990 that
introduces a system of strict liability insurance coverage (German Bundestag, 1990) -.
Recently the European Commission (EC) took matters in hand to provide a common European Union
approach, and regulated Environmental Liability through the Directive 2004/35/CE. This Directive
warrants further attention as it illustrates the new trends on managing environmental liabilities (see Box
2.6).
Box 2.6: EU Directive on Environmental Liability (2004/35/CE)

The European Directive on Environmental Liability (ELD) with regard to the Prevention and Remedying
of Environmental Damage entered into force on 30 April 2004 and Member States have until 30 April
2007 to transpose it into law at national level.
The ELD is based on the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, and establishes a framework to prevent and remedy
environmental damage. Environmental damage covers damage to water, soil but also - in contrast to other
liability regimes – biodiversity:
- Water damage is any damage that significantly adversely affects the ecological, chemical and/or
quantitative status and or ecological potential, as defined in the Water Framework Directive (Art. 2.1.b).
- Land damage is any land contamination that creates a significant risk of human health (Art. 2.1.c)
- Biodiversity damage is any damage that has a significant adverse effect on reaching and maintaining the
favourable conservation status of habitats or species under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives (or
under equivalent national legislation).
The liability applies to permit holders of water reuse schemes, and to the reclaimed water user – e.g. if the
reclaimed water is used for purposes not allowed in a permit -, depending on the national regulations (Art.
9).
Points of attention for water reuse schemes are:
• Article 8.4 introduces the “compliance with permit” and “state of the art” considerations as a reason
for enabling Member States to release operators from all clean-up costs. According to the relevant
provisions operators who have complied with certain permits or who operated according to the state
of scientific and technical knowledge at the time, can be exempted from paying for the remedial
measures. In other words, the ELD exempts from liability non-negligent operators who operated in
compliance with permit or according to the “state of the art”. N.B.: Member States can decide not to
introduce the clause at all, making the operators strictly liable for all environmental damage they
cause. The term “strict” means operators are liable irrespective of whether or not they are at fault.
• It is incumbent on the operator to demonstrate that he was not negligent/at fault. Depending on the
standard of proof that Member States will require, disproving this assumption for water reuse
schemes could be potentially difficult.
33
Box 2.6: EU Directive on Environmental Liability (2004/35/CE)

• Strict liability is likely to apply to groundwater recharge and environmental enhancement
applications, as well as drinking water production or food processing activities (Article 3.1).
• Article 14.1 calls on Member States to encourage the development of financial security instruments
and markets, leaving open to the Member States whether this is achieved through insurance,
dedicated funds or other mechanisms. This should create a strong incentive to operate in an
environmentally friendly way, thus preventing environmental damage.
• The ELD gives directly affected individuals and NGOs promoting environmental protection the right
to request the competent authority to take action (Art. 12) and bring judicial review proceedings (Art.
13). This implies that consultation with environmental organizations at an early stage of project
development is needed more than ever.
• Preventive action (Art. 5) and Remedial action (Article 6) may be requested by the competent
authority at any time, in the form of providing information on any (imminent threat of)
environmental damage, take the necessary (preventive) measures to remediate it.
• The competent authority shall be entitled to initiate cost recovery proceedings within five years from
the date on which those measures have been completed or the liable party has been identified (Art.
10). The ELD will not apply if more than 30 years have passed since the emission, event or incident,
resulting in the damage (Art. 17).
• Looking to the future, everything will depend on how the Member States implement the ELD into
national laws. The ELD establishes a framework to prevent and remedy environmental damage, but
not the means, leaving options open for Member States in several key aspects of the Directive.
The illustrated example of legal provisions for managing environmental liabilities hints that best practice
in water reuse management is to develop:
• More affirmative pre-existing knowledge-generation
• Better responses to early warnings
• Quicker/proactive protective responses to evidence of human or animal health and environmental

damage
The same holds true for civil liabilities and financial liabilities:
2.3.2 Civil liabilities

Accidents in water reuse schemes may cause serious human illnesses/epidemics. It is therefore extremely
important to understand the legal framework that defines civil liability.
Civil liability can cover:
• Liability for employees and subcontractors
• Liability for accidents arising out of the use of machinery and equipment
• Damage to property including underground wires, trees, plants, watering systems etc
34
• Goods in care, custody and control
Relevant conventions of interest for the civil liabilities in the context of water reuse are:
• Protocol on Water and Health (to the Trans-boundary Watercourse Convention): see Chapter 2.2.
• ISO 14000 Liability and Enforcement Index
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
• The Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
• The recent Protocol on Civil Liability and compensation for damage caused by the transboundary
effect
• Directive 90/679/EC and 2000/54 EU : protection of the employs against biological agents
2.3.3 Financial liability

When the assets remain the property of the State (most common practice in the European Union), the
financial liabilities associated with these assets (long and medium terms debt service) are not transferred
to the service provider, and will remain the responsibility of the State.
2.3.4 The role of the precautionary principle in water

reclamation and reuse
The precautionary principle requires that remedial measures be taken in situations of scientific uncertainty
where evidence of harm cannot be proven but potential damage to human or environmental health is
significant.
The precautionary principle, as a piece of environmental policy which dates back to the 1970s, when it
was incorporated into German and Swedish environmental laws. During the 1980s it was integrated into a
number of international treaties. It achieved widespread recognition after it was incorporated into the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development made at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. The Declaration states:
“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation”
Today the precautionary principle is well established in Europe (European Commission, 2000) and is
evolving into a principle of international law. In recent times it has been included in almost all treaties and
international policy documents (Andorno, 2004; Harding and Fisher, 1999).
The principle is regarded as a duty rather than an intention and needs to be applied whenever there are
“reasonable grounds for concern” (Harding and Fisher, 1999). As Andorno (2004) summarises in great
detail, the precautionary principle has been inspiring court judgements on a number of occasions in
international law (a mad cow disease case being an example) and has been adopted into environmental
law in many countries. On a global level international courts are still reluctant to accept the principle as a
legal or a general principle, but it is accepted as an approach.
35
Due to the relatively open definition of the precautionary principle, Andorno (2004) has specified a
number of conditions under which the precautionary principle should be applied. Those conditions are
summarized in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Conditions for the application of the precautionary principle

(Andorno, 2004)
CONDITION SUMMARY PRECAUTION EXAMPLE
Water that contains persistent
Extent of risk cannot be Response to situations of organic pollutants or prions is
Uncertainty of risk
proven potential risk applied to pastures and effect
on food chain is not clear
Determination of
Good reason to believe Definition and evaluation of concentration and effect of
Scientific assessment
that there might be uncertainties by scientific such pollutants on food chain
of likely harm
harmful effects experts through monitoring and
calculations
Likelihood of serious or
irreversible effects on life Accumulation of persistent
Serious or irreversible and health of individuals, Determination of a pollutants has long term
damage (short or long vital natural resources, threshold of non-negligible fertility effects on a number of
term) species preservation, damage species (which are both serious
climate, ecosystem and irreversible)
balance
Identification of socio-
economic sacrifices
Measures taken to avoid
required to adapt the
Proportionality of likely harm should take Consideration of effect of
precaution, careful
measures the impact on society into extended drought on farmers
evaluation of precautionary
account
measures available and
active review
Hazard creators assume Water reuse authority is
Those who may cause
Shifting burden of costs of risk assessment; required to show that the
serious damage show that
proof proof of zero risk is not possible risk has been
it is unlikely
realistic thoroughly investigated
In the context of water reuse, the precautionary principle should guide decision makers in making prudent
or wise decisions that consider actions in the context of the total water cycle. How impacts are weighed
up and quantified is dependent on location as well as circumstances, and hence requires significant value
judgements. In terms of legal implications for water reuse this raises many questions, but one would
expect that courts would request evidence of due diligence with regards to dealing with uncertainties and
possible risks.
Decisions as to whether to discharge marginally treated sewage effluent to surface water bodies, to treat
sewage to a quality intended for potable reuse, or any variation of treatment and application in between,
are non-trivial. The health and environmental impact of water reuse, compared with the more traditional
approach of water extraction and sewage discharge, is difficult to establish as Jeffrey et al. (1999) have
demonstrated in an attempt to model water reuse options.
36
While many of the risks of water reuse are well characterised, such as the likelihood of pathogenic
contamination of treated effluents, some are unknown, such as the long term exposure of wildlife, cattle or
humans to persistent organic pollutants with more subtle and less immediate effects, from cancer to
endocrine disruption. With an increasing amount of scientific data and literature becoming available, the
evidence of likely but uncertain harm is becoming more difficult to ignore.
Many categories of potentially harmful pollutants from natural or human activity are not included in
current water reuse legislation, such as persistent organic pollutants, trace contaminants, emerging
pollutants, and endocrine disrupting chemicals. While the issue has recently reached a high level of
controversy and research activity, the concept is not new as Colborn emphasises in her comprehensive
review (Colborn, et al., 1997).
The treatment of such contaminants with traditional risk assessment methodology is unrealistic because of
scientific uncertainties. As Daughton (Daughton, 2004) points out, the dose response curves of low
concentration contaminants varies significantly from expectations, in particular when mixtures of
compounds (as one can realistically expect with pollutants) are considered. Daughton criticises the current
“reactive” approach to pollutants directly and welcomes the use of a “futuring” approach in this area. Here
the anticipation of problems prior to the need for remediation is emphasised, futuring meaning the
“formulation of challenging questions regarding adverse scenarios”.
The topic of persistent organic pollutants is much debated and presents a very important opportunity to
adopt a precautionary approach. Heberer et al. (2002) indicate that the presence of such compounds in
water resources even at low concentrations is not desirable with regards to the precautionary principle.
Palme et al. (2004) have developed an iterative method to establish sustainable development indicators
(EDI) for wastewater systems (with a focus on sludge handling) that incorporates the precautionary
principle as well as numerous environmental tools (such as life cycle assessment), economic analysis and
risk and uncertainty assessment. The definition of boundaries is important in such attempts, which, for
water reuse, may be a limiting factor, particularly when a total water cycle approach is required.
With the levels of uncertainty regarding the potential health and environmental impacts related to
choosing options in water reuse -including the choice not to reuse-, decisions have to be based on a
diverse knowledge base ranging from “well-established knowledge to judgements, educated guesses and
tentative assumptions” (van der Sluijs, 2004). In other words, decisions need to be made before
uncertainties are resolved.
In the context of water reuse many uncertainties have been shown to exist. For the water reuse practitioner
or decision maker the precautionary principle should be used as an integrative part of planning, so that
possible problems can be anticipated and dealt with wisely despite the uncertainties surrounding them.
Lack of relevant legislation in water reuse and the current efforts to establish such legislation worldwide
open an important opportunity for the precautionary principle to be considered and applied.
Adopting a precautionary approach requires a high level of transparency in political decisions where
public or environmental risk is involved. Such transparency, combined with public participation will no
doubt lead to a higher level of trust and is more likely to lead to the adoption of sustainable water
management practices.
37
2.4 THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

In many countries direct water reuse is a relatively new practice and it is multidisciplinary by its very
nature. The roles and responsibilities of the responsible authorities can be complex and not always clear.
The main reason is that, historically, institutional arrangements for water resources management have
developed in a fragmented way, separating water supply and wastewater treatment. The company
responsible for the provision of the services sometimes lacks the necessary organisational structure, legal
status, clarity of mission, and managerial, financial and operational autonomy.
As many parties may be involved in the management of the urban water cycle and the level of integration
might be poor, it is extremely important to have a good understanding of the local sectoral and
intersectoral institutional framework. Moreover, the immediate consequence of the involvement of more
than one level of horizontal and vertical administration in decisions is that the decision-making process
becomes more difficult and time-consuming.
In cases of limited sectoral or national/regional/local integration, it is advisable to start by carrying out

demonstration projects that can promote consensus, be modified and become a precedent or contribute to
a code of good practice. Such was the situation in the project of El Cairo (Lawrence, 2002).
If conflicts are likely to occur and are irreconcilable, it is recommended to abandon any intervention.
Who are the key institutional stakeholders?

• National governments (ministries with some jurisdiction over water-related matters, such as the
ministries of health, environment, urban and economic development and agriculture)
• Provincial/local governments that will/may act as grantors of permits, partners or (co-) financers
• Regional or local planning departments which coordinate land use and infrastructure planning
• Other established regulatory entities (such as integrated river basin commissions, environmental
agencies, and competition and fair trade commissions)
• Politicians
• Utility management
• Consumer and environmental organizations (formal and informal, including nongovernmental

organizations concerned with service quality and prices)
Once identified, the key stakeholders and assessed their stance toward water reuse, it is needed to evaluate
where protections for specific interest groups will be needed to win support or diffuse opposition, the
most common ones being the general health and environmental protection (regulation of service
standards, penalties for default) and protection for customers (tariff adjustment rules, subsidy policies,
complaint mechanisms). The reader is referred to Chapter 6 of this manual and to Jeffrey and Russell
(2006).
38
2.4.1 The ownership issue

In many national and local markets it is still not clear whether the utility treating the municipal waste
water owns the water and can it sell it to interested beneficiaries or whether the reclaimed water is a
common good. This uncertainty can discourage possible suppliers from investing in feasibility studies as
they might not be the beneficiaries of any subsequent commercial reuse scheme..
The issue is even trickier in those circumstances where conventional water supply and water reuse are
opposing alternatives, rather than co-components. Water demand conflicts may occur - and have occurred
- when two businesses are owned by different entities. When this issue is not institutionally spelled out,
damages to the water utilities caused by decreased sales can lead to legal processes.
The need to consider a water resources master plan - instead of distinct master plans for water supply,
wastewater treatment and water reuse – is obviousc, but is still to be integrated with urban or land use
planning processes.
There is no universal recipe for mitigating all potential sector-based conflicts. In some cases developing a
participatory structure where all the possible suppliers collaborate in the success of the project, might be a
viable and advisable option. Collaboration brings efficiency and flexibility to any institutional context as
it delivers:
• Mitigation of the financial risks related to tariffs of conventional water supply (when applicable)
• Effective planning of business targets and responding quickly to situations as they change
• A single point of contact. This can improve project execution in terms of accountability and
scheduling
• Communication channels which remain open throughout the whole life of the project
• Benefits from the technical capacities of the different players
On the other hand collaboration also often involves protracted multi-party negotiations that result in
complex agreements; as Sheikh et al. (2004) state it is: “a lawyer’s Paradise”. Sheikh (2004) indicates that
the larger the volume of recycled water, the less the number of intermediaries, the higher are the chances
of success for reuse projects. In a participatory structure, it is not always evident how to split the
responsibilities (who should ask for the permits, who’s responsible for the design, the operation, and how
risks should be allocated).
So in the first instance it is important (i) to have a good understanding of who are the key stakeholders
and what are their interests, perception of the matter, needs and concerns; (ii) that the water reuse project
accounts for its own performance; and (iii) to make sure that any proposed intervention gathers
unanimous support. These three points are illustrated in the next case study (Box 2.7), where the water
and wastewater sectors collaborated through the creation of an ad-hoc structure.
c
After Anderson (2003) it also brings in overall savings on planning costs
39
Box 2.7: reclaimed water services as third water-related utility in Tilburg, the Netherlands
A special acknowledgement is given to Joost Maas (2004), whose information (e-questionnaire, face-to-face interview and
contribution to the Aquarec management workshop) forms the basis for the description of this case study.
This case study can serve as a model for many other places where the water and the wastewater sector are
run by different enterprises to address both possible legal and other restrictions on the public sector and
that benefit of the best financing conditions combined with less stringent legal responsibility.
Institutional background - In the Netherlands, drinking water is supplied by (supra-) municipal

waterworks companies, the sewerage network is the responsibility of the city council and sewage
treatment is managed by the water boards, who are also responsible for surface water management. Water
reuse is a relatively new business, the first water reuse project being operational since 1995 (STOWA,
2001), and no proper jurisdictional organisation is yet in place. It is illustrative that the discussion about
who should to sell reclaimed water and how took 18 months while two months only were required to get
the permitd.
Project history, background and objectives - The project was initiated to counteract the declining
ground water table that supplies the potable water network, on the grounds that high-quality freshwater
resources should not be used for those purposes that can tolerate a lower grade. The drinking water
company produces drinking water out of good-quality ground water, ca. 15% of which was used in
industrial processes. The drinking water company and the water board sat together, and decided to carry
out, together, field testing to define the technical viability (and the corresponding costs) of cleaning up the
effluent to an acceptable water quality for the industrial applications. In parallel with the tests, the city
government of Tilburg organised a series of meetings with all parties involved in the management of the
city water resources, the result of which was a letter of intent in which all parties declared they would
“look for increasing cooperation between parties involved in the Tilburg interconnected water resources
management”. This fitted very well with the investigated water reuse initiative. After the successful
results of the tests and of the market analysis, the two parties compiled a business plan and introduced it
to the city council, and to their Boards, the three agreeing on the need to look at more specific financial
plans.
Ownership and legal structure - Three entities - the water board (wastewater treatment), the waterworks
company (water services) and the City of Tilburg – decided to establish a separate legal entity. The
rationale for this decision was:
• The initiative is not part of the core business of any of the three parties
• The Dutch government is very strict on the development of side-activities by public institutions.
Risks of commercial activities must not be covered by the (not-for-profit) core activities. Therefore
there was the need to separate the book keeping in a transparent way.
• The legal structure should have fitted into the character of the three (public) parties and therefore
d
The release of the permit is competence of the Province. Since they were involved in the discussion from the beginning the
permitting phase run quite smoothly
40
the organisation should operate on a not-for-profit base.
• The City Council was interested in the participation for the project offered a more sustainable
management of the groundwater resources.
The parties chose to form a B.V. structure (with nominated shareholders and therefore certain limitations)
instead of the NV structure (nameless shareholders structure with limited liabilities), which is most
common in the water supply sector in the Netherlands. The reason was twofold:
• the B.V. structure permitted more explicit agreements on the buying and selling of shares; i.e. to set
pre-emption rights of the participants and that the partners may only sell their share to a comparable
(e.g. the drinking water company may sell the shares only to another drinking water company)
• The B.V. form makes it more explicit that this is businesslike operation.
Box 2.8: Reclaimed water services with the involvement of the end users in Prato, Italy
A special acknowledgement is given to the operating company I.D.R.A., who filled in and promptly returned the e-questionnaire
and to the work of Bitozzi and Coppini (2004), whose contributions forms the basis for the description of this case study.
In this example the industrial end-user consortium co-promoted and co-financed an ad hoc ownership and
management structure for the provision of reclaimed water for industrial use in the Prato municipality,
Italy. So, this case study can serve as a model for bridging the funding gap between policy and
implementation (consumer involvement and support in paying increased water charges, as defined by the
WFD). The project is running now for 15 years on a full cost recovery basis where the initial investment
was mainly carried out by the end-user consortium and the water price was for many years more
expensive than that of conventional water sources.
Institutional background - The Italian regulatory framework offers many possibilities for institutional
arrangements (National Law 36/94, Decree 152/99, Decree 185/2003), including the opportunity to end-
user consortia to develop and manage water reuse services (Art. 27 of N.L. 36/94, Art. 3 of DL 152/99,
DL 185/2003). However these arrangements were not in place when the project was developed.
Project objectives - To counteract the over-extraction of ground water that should be used for human
consumption, while limiting the impact on the industrial activities (Law 36/64 art.1 and 2).
Entities involved - Collaboration took the form of an end user-based co-operative involving:
• Prato Municipality (owner of the municipal wastewater treatment plant).
• Consorzio Progetto Acqua S.p.a. (representing about 30 industrial water consumers).
• Unione Industriale Pratese (association of the Prato region industries)
• IDRA S.c.a.r.l. (private company owned by CONSER, responsible for the polishing step of the
WWTP. The water reclamation plant is owned by CONSER (end-user based consortium)
• GIDA S.p.a.: public-private partnership responsible for the management of the municipal
wastewater treatment plant. GIDA also manages the polishing and distribution of the surface water
resources and the centralised water supply to the industrial customers.
41
Water reuse projects can also be prone to inter-sectoral and inter-agency conflicts
(Health/Agricultural/Environmental departments, etc.). Each agency has its own priorities and planning
process, frequently leading to overlapping and/or inconsistent plans and programmes with other agencies.
As Hartling stated it, here “we must rely by necessity on the voluntary commitment from all the parties
involved”. In non-mature markets, the possible technical inertia, the “disposal mindset”, has been reported
as one of the major barrierse.
2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Numerous policies encourage the use of reclaimed water, including the United Nations Protocol on Water
and Health (1999) and, in the European Union, the Water Framework Directive.
Water quality guidelines, standards and regulations are on the other hand very inconsistent throughout the
world. Even inside the European Union there is no consensus. In order to provide a common European
approach, the Aquarec project proposes quality categories for the types of reuses and compiles microbial
and chemical limits for each category.
Reclaimed water utilities are confronted to numerous liability concerns. The European Union has recently
adopted a Directive on Environmental liability that will result in the generation of a more affirmative pre-
existing knowledge along with better responses to early warnings and quicker/proactive protective
responses to evidence of human or animal health and environmental damage. The precautionary principle
could play an ever more important role in decision making.
The roles and responsibilities of the authorities can be complex and not always clear. This can result in a
range of undesirable outcomes, including delays, overruns and litigation. Therefore the project developer
should carefully consider this aspect from an early stage of project development.
2.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson J., Adin A., Crook J., Davis C., Hultquist R., Jimenze-Cisneros, Kennedy W., Sheikh B. and B. van der Merwe (2001)
Climbing the Ladder: a Step by Step Approach to International Guidelines for Water Recycling. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 1-8.
Andorno R. (2004) The precautionary principle: a new legal standard for a technological age, J International Biotechnology Law
1: 11 – 19.
Bitozzi A. and E. Coppini (2004) Problematiche del riciclo e riutilizzo delle acque nell’industria. In: Proc. 26a Giornata di studio
di ingegneria sanitaria-ambientale. Verona, Italy; 16 April 2004 (in Italian).
Colborn T., Dumanoski D. and J.P. Myers (1997) Our stolen future. Abacus, London, UK.
Daughton C.G. (2004) Non-regulated water contaminants: emerging research, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 711-
732.
European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, 1, Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission (2002) Press Release from The European Commission DG XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil
Protection. Making the polluter pay: Commission adopts liability scheme to prevent and repair environmental damage. Brussels,
Belgium; 23 January 2002.
e
The mental barrier to reuse will change likely slower. So be ready to be patient or abandon.
42
European Commission (2006) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and
management of floods. Brussels, 18.01.2006 COM(2006) 15 final 2006/0005(COD).
EPA Victoria (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Management - use of reclaimed water. State of Victoria, Australia. Publ. 464.2
European Union (1991) Council Directive concerning urban wastewater treatment. 91/271/EC of May 21, 1991, OJ L135/40 of
May 30, 1991.
European Union (2000) Council Directive establishing a Framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
2000/60/EC of October 23; 2000, OJ L 327 of December 22, 2000.
European Union (2004) Council Directive on Environmental Liability. 2004/35/CE
German Bundestag (1990) Environmental Liability Act of 10 December 1990 BGBl I 1990, 2634.
Harding R. and E. Fisher, eds. (1999) Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle. The Federation Press, Sydney, New South
Wales.
Heberer T., Feldmann D., Reddersen K., Altmann H. and T. Zimmermann (2002) Production of drinking water from highly
contaminanted surface waters: removal of organic, inorganic, and microbial contaminants applying mobile membrane filtration
units, Acta Hydrochimica Hydrobiologica 30 (1): 24-33.
Jeffrey P., Seaton R., Parsons S., Stephenson T. and B. Jefferson (1999) Exploring water reuse options for urban environments: a
multi-criteria modelling approach. Urban Water 1: 187-200
Jeffrey P.J. and S. Russell (2006) Participative planning for water reuse projects. Aquarec Deliverable WP5.
Kamizoulis G. (2006) The new draft WHO guidelines for water reuse in agriculture. In: Proc. Aquarec workshop. Barcelona,
Spain; 1-3 February 2006. [CD-ROM].
Lawrence P., Samer A. and L. Barrott (2002) Ensuring water re-use projects succeed – institutional and technical issues for
treated wastewater re-use. Desalination 152: 291-298.
Okun D.A. (2002) Water reuse introduces the need to integrate both water supply and wastewater management at local and
regulatory level. Wat. Sci. Tech. 46 (6-7): 273–280.
Palme U., Lundin M., Tillman A.-M. and S. Molander (2004) Sustainable development indicators for wastewater systems –
researchers and indicator users in a co-operative case study. Resources, Conservation and Reuse (in press)
PWC (2000) Economic aspects of water recycling in Queensland. The State of Queensland, Dept. Of Natural Resources. ISSN
1441-8479.
ICWE (Intl Conf. on Water and the Environment: Development issues for the 21st century) (1992) Dublin, Ireland, 26-31 January
1992.
Sheikh B. (2004) Impact of Institutional Requirements on Implementation of Water Recycling / Reclamation Projects. Proc. 2004
Water Sources Conf.; Austin, Texas, 11-14 January 2004.
Sheikh B., York D., Rosenblum E. and E. Hartling (2004) Institutional Requirements in California and Florida for
Implementation of Water Recycling/Reclamation Projects. In: WateReuse Symposium XIX, Phoenix, Arizona; 21 September
2004.
State of Californian (2000) Water recycling criteria, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3. California
department of Health Services, Sacramento, California.
Salgot M., Huertas E., Weber S., Dott W. and J. Hollender (2006) Wastewater Reuse and Risk: Definition of Key Objectives.
Desalination 187: 29-40.
STOWA (2001) Compendium RWZI-effluent als bron voor ander water. Utrecht, the Netherlands. (in Dutch)
Toze S. (2006) Water Reuse and Health Risks – Real vs Perceived. Desalination 187: 41-51.
43
Van der Sluijs J. (2004) Quicksandy knowledge bases: coping with mixtures of knowledge and ignorance in environmental
assessment. UPEM: 1-8.
Wintgens T., Hochstrat R., Melin T., Jeffrey P. and M. Salgot (2005) Political and legislative framework for wastewater
reclamation and reuse in Europe. Proc. AWWA Conf on Water Reuse; Denver, Colorado; September 2005.
WHO (World Health Organisation) (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture. Technical
Report Series 778, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
44
3 COST MANAGEMENT AND OPTIMISATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
There are numerous factors on which wastewater reclamation schemes are evaluated, ranging from public
acceptance to detailed technical issues. Considered at the planning level, the cost of water reclamation is
often cited as a determining factor in determining their eventual realization. For existing wastewater
reclamation scheme, the cost effectiveness of treatment and distribution of reclaimed water differentiates
water reuse schemes that struggle to satisfy customer requirements from those that can provide the quality
service and be economically viable at the same time. It is therefore of utmost importance that the cost of
water reuse schemes be optimised.
The basic guiding principle for water reuse projects should be that all operating, maintenance, and capital
renewal costs should be recovered through water rates. This is contemplated in the Water Framework
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council that states in Article 9 that “member
states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including
environmental and resource costs…”. Examples of efforts to recover costs of providing treated wastewater
effluents can be found in various countries, two of which are cited here. USAID funded a wastewater
treatment and reuse pilot project in the community of Drarga, a small urban area of approximately 10,000
people, near Agadir in southern Morocco (USAID, 2005). The treatment process includes sand filters, de-
nitrification, reed beds for final polishing, and storage before being pumped to adjacent privately owned
irrigated lands. Cost recovery was integrated into the overall project, including sales of reclaimed water to
the farmers, reeds harvested from the polishing ponds, and sludge and methane gas from the anaerobic
basins to, respectively, produce compost and drive pumps at the plant. In addition, Drarga Commune
revenues were increased by raising the water and sewage tariff by 1 Dirham ($0.10) per cubic meter and
an increase of 1,500 Dirhams ($150) to the one time sewage connection charge for new connections. The
Drarga wastewater treatment plant has been operational since October 2000, providing treated wastewater
that meets WHO guidelines for reuse in agriculture without restriction. Malta introduced a tax of 99 €/ha
to obtain treated wastewater and 0.10 €/m³ to obtain groundwater in an effort to generate income to cover
the costs of wastewater treatment and reclamation (Brufao, 2005).
The purpose of this chapter is to present a brief overview of some tools and methodologies that can be
used to assist the planners, designers and managers of water reuse projects in providing reclaimed water at
optimal costs. The focus here is not on optimisation of individual treatment and/or distribution
components of water reclamation schemes, although these issues are touched upon throughout the chapter.
Instead, structured approaches are presented that address holistically complex issues affecting the overall
cost performance of water reuse projects.
The chapter consists of four main sections, in addition to the introduction and concluding
recommendations. The first section describes a tool that can be used to optimise the cost of water reuse
schemes at the planning level in the context of a feasibility study, developed as part of the AQUAREC
project on "Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater" (EVK1-CT-2002-00130), funded by
the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Programme. The second section provides an
45
overview of benchmarking as a tool for measuring and improving the performance of water reuse utility
by comparing and learning from industry leaders or standards. The third section deals with the cost
optimisation addressed through the whole life costing process, as it might be applied to water reuse
systems. The fourth section provides a discussion of energy efficiency in water reuse. The topics discussed
in this chapter are not by any means exhaustive when it comes to optimisation of wastewater reclamation
and distribution. However, it is hoped that they will provide valuable guidance to the readers who may
wish to pursue a formalized optimisation approach to providing reclaimed water in more cost effective
ways.
3.2 PLANNING
Reclaimed water projects typically include construction of new or upgrades of existing treatment systems
to treat wastewater to the required quality level, and construction of distribution systems for reclaimed
water. A water reuse system is likely to have many possible design options: type and degree of treatment,
number and location of treatment plants, number and location of pumps/pumping stations, number, size
and location of storage tanks, layout and size of distribution pipe network. These elements are all linked,
to give multiple interactions and a very large number of design combinations even for apparently small
systems. The complexity associated with planning of water reuse schemes is therefore very high due to a
very large number of design combinations possible, requiring a formalised approach to determining the
lowest-cost alternatives. A decision support system (DSS) for Water Treatment for Reuse with Network
Distribution (WTRNet) has been developed within the AQUAREC project, which addresses the
integrative aspects of planning of water reuse schemes. Key features of the four components of the
WTRNet tool shown in Figure 3.1 are described here, and more details can be found in Joksimovic et al.
(2006).
Figure 3.1 WTRNet Components
Model
Knowledge Base
Control Module
Graphical User Interface
Treatment Distribution System

Optimisation
Performance Sizing
Module
Module Module
46
The control module of WTRNet contains the graphical user interface which includes provisions to
graphically represent the locations of treatment facilities and potential end-users of reclaimed water, and
acts as a link between the knowledge base and the computational modules. The knowledge base includes
costing and other design information for 43 unit processes, ranging from preliminary treatment to tertiary
treatment and disinfection, and costing and design information for distribution system components
covering storage, pumping and conveyance of reclaimed water.
The first of the computational modules, the treatment module, calculates the performance of user-defined
treatment trains, in terms of effluent quality, resource requirements, evaluation criteria scores and costs.
The selection and design of appropriate treatment alternative for water reclamation involves a selection of
alternatives, pilot plant studies and selection of preferred alternative for detailed design. The WTRNet tool
has been developed to address the first stage, which involves evaluation of performance and cost of a
number of treatment alternatives to select the most appropriate ones for more detailed evaluation. The
tasks involved in this stage include the selection of unit processes, synthesis of treatment trains, evaluation
and screening of synthesized treatment trains, and selection of optimum (or near optimal) treatment train
(Dinesh and Dandy, 2003).
The distribution system module determines the least-cost distribution system required to satisfy user
demands. In the context of optimal distribution system design, simulation models are typically used in
conjunction with mathematical optimisation. The design problem is often viewed as a least-cost
optimisation problem with pipe diameters acting as the primary decision variables, assuming a pre-
determined pipe layout (Savic and Walters, 1997). The basic layout of the distribution system is
determined by the software user, however, the overall system (storage and conveyance) is optimised using
routines contained in WTRNet.
The cost optimisation of integrated water reuse schemes incorporated in WTRNet can be used to optimally
select users from a set of potential users that minimizes the overall lifecycle cost of treatment and
distribution of reclaimed water. Several methodologies incorporated in the software range from a scenario
of upgrading secondary effluent to a level that satisfies a small number of users requiring same quality, to
the significantly more complex scenario where the raw wastewater is to be treated and provided to a large
number of users with varying water quality requirements. The optimisation of a less complex water reuse
scheme, used to determine the least-cost design alternatives for different sets of end-users of reclaimed
water, is shown schematically in Figure 3.2.
47
Figure 3.2 Procedure for Determining Least-Cost Design Alternatives
Calclulate all possible combinations of

potential end-users
Update list
of nodes to
be
removed
Calculate required
Remove the potential
Prune the distribution quality for potential end-
end-user nodes not Calculate new demands
network users under
under consideration
consideration
Calculate performance
Determine the least-cost
of all possible
distribution system
treatment trains
Yes
Least-cost Least-cost
treatment distribution
train system
Store the design alternative details (treatment

train, distribution system details, costs, etc.)
Other end-user
combinations left?
No
Plot the least-cost design

alternatives
A sample end result of the optimisation involving six potential end users is illustrated in Figure 3.3. It is
pointed out that each total cost in the figure corresponds to a least-cost design of the integrated system for
a different group of end-users. Of note is the difference between the minimum and maximum demand that
could be satisfied with a certain level of funds available. For example, a treatment/distribution scheme
with a lifecycle cost of €3,000,000 could satisfy between 34% and 45% of demand. It is also noted that in
this example the cost of treatment is roughly in proportion to the demand satisfied (with some economies
of scale evident), since all potential end-users require the same quality of reclaimed water, while the
distribution costs are more scattered. In the case of a larger number of potential end-users requiring water
of different quality, both lines would be scattered resulting in even larger difference of potential demands
that could be satisfied with a fixed investment.
48
Figure 3.3 Sample Result of Integrated Water Reuse Scheme Optimisation
Treatment Distribution Total
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
Lifecycle Cost (€)
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Demand Satisfied
3.3 IMPROVING CURRENT PERFORMANCE - BENCHMARKING
3.3.1 Introduction
Benchmarking has been defined by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) as “a systematic
process of searching for best practices, innovative ideas, and highly effective operating procedures that
lead to superior performance, and then adapting those practices, ideas and procedures to improve the
performance of one’s own organisation”. As such, it is an important tool that can be used to understand the
processes that improve performance of wastewater reclamation schemes and implement them in an
organisation, aiming towards optimising its cost effectiveness.
Benchmarking activities in wastewater treatment have increased in recent years, and some of these are
summarised below. In Austria, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water
Management (BMLFUW) initiated and financially supported a benchmarking study along with 71
Austrian municipalities and associations to develop a new methodology enabling the operators to
determine even benchmarks for the cost-effectiveness of wastewater operators’ performances (Aquamedia,
2005). Among the numerous findings of this study, it was calculated that the theoretical savings potential
regarding the operating cost of the examined plants (25 % of the Austrian treatment plant capacity) totals
€5.5 million/a. It was also concluded that the individual savings potential of each plant can only be
determined by means of a detailed analysis of the identified performances and the definite allocation of the
costs.
In the United States, the Multi-Agency Benchmarking Project was undertaken as a collaborative effort of
seven west coast wastewater utilities, in an effort to compare their processes, performance, and costs
(King County Wastewater Treatment Division, 2005). By collecting and studying process and
49
performance information, the participants intended to improve their own business practices, thereby
reducing costs and gaining efficiencies. Five different functions for selected for intensive study
(operations and maintenance, engineering, administration, source control and laboratory) and a tool or
template was developed for each of them that would allow each agency to account for its costs and
business activities within a common framework, thus enabling the comparisons to be made. Detailed
results achieved in this study as well as details of the methodology used are available publicly on the web
site.
There are two different approaches to benchmarking: metric and process, which can be used to identify
areas of underperformance and develop ways of achieving the improvements, respectively. In regards to
the metric benchmarking, s methodology for undertaking process benchmarking in water and sanitation
utilities has been outlined by the Water and Sanitation International Benchmarking Network (IBNET,
2005) the “the world's largest database of cost and performance information for water and sanitation
utilities around the world”. While this resource goes far beyond the cost optimisation in the context of
benchmarking, it does provide valuable information. The methodology for undertaking process
benchmarking in water and sanitation utilities is defined as a five step process, consisting of the following
tasks:
• Identifying key focus areas for comparison
• Gathering internal data for those key focus areas
• Identifying potential benchmarking partners
• Preparing for and undertaking benchmarking visits
• Implementing best practice
It is important to add that the benchmarking process focuses on performance targets that may be
established by the industry through research organisations, peer reviews and surveys. Thus, the targets can
be established for most appropriate operating levels for an individual organisation, recognising that “best
in class” targets may not be achievable with limited resources available, but including historical
referencing to continue improving the performance.
Currently, benchmarking in the water reuse industry is not sufficiently established, meaning that there is a
lack of both the definitions of performance indicators and data that can be used in the actual process.
Nevertheless, best management practices have been created for water utilities that can be used as a base to
progress the benchmarking process for water reclamation. This section is largely based on the IWA
manual of best practice for Process Benchmarking in the Water Industry (Larsson et al., 2002), and
tailored in places according to specific issue presented when dealing with water reclamation. The manual
presents an overview of current position of benchmarking in the water industry in Europe and worldwide,
and provides a process benchmarking approach based on the model adopted in the Netherlands as the
starting point.
50
3.3.2 Cost Categories

In dealing with costs associated with wastewater reclamation and delivery, five cost categories are
distinguished: taxes, cost of capital, depreciation and amortisation, operational costs and taxes on gross
income. The taxes category, includes all taxes and administrative charges directly related to the supply of
reclaimed water, and may include items such as pipeline and concession charges, environmental and
pollution levies (e.g. associated with sludge and concentrate disposal) , property taxes and non-deductible
value-added tax (VAT). In the context of drinking water the taxes category may also include sewage
charges, but if reclaimed water is being provided this may be advantageous for water reuse projects. Cost
of capital includes the cost of loan capital (interest), shareholders equity and retained profits, closing the
financial model independently of the way the company activities are financed. The depreciation and
amortisation category includes all tangible and intangible company assets, while the operational costs
cover costs directly related to operations such as manpower, external services, energy and consumables.
Taxes on gross income include all taxes and levies related to water reclamation and supply activities.
3.3.3 Processes and Activities

The key component of the benchmarking is the classification of all activities in an organised manner, and
in the context of water utility providing potable (or reclaimed) water, the following processes are
distinguished:
• Production process
• Distribution process
• Sales process
• Support process
Within each process, separate sub-processes shown in Table 3.1 are then established, to which the
activities related to reclamation and delivery of upgraded wastewater can be assigned. Most of the sub-
processes listed above, as well as the activities under each of the sub-processes, are common to potable
water provision addressed in the IWA manual and reclaimed water schemes. While the differences and
additional activities associated with water reclamation schemes are highlighted here, the reader is referred
to the manual for detailed lists of process activities.
51
Table 3.1 Processes and Sub-Processes in Water Reclamation

Process Sub-Processes
Operating production facilities
Maintaining production facilities
Production
Managing source water (wastewater) quality and quantity
Monitoring reclaimed water quality
Maintaining water mains
Distribution
Installing and maintaining service pipes
Meter reading and processing of meter data
Sales Invoicing, debtor management and debt collection
Maintaining customer contact
Planning process
Developing strategic policy
Marketing and PR activities
Recruiting and managing personnel
Support
Managing financial/economic affairs
Information technology and automation
Purchasing and warehouse management
Facility services
Operating production facilities sub-process refers to the production cycle from raw wastewater (rather
than raw water catchment in the case of potable supply) to the pressurised reclaimed water input into the
high-pressure pumping stations. The activities include all of the activities involved in the potable water
scenario, however the policy making and problem solving concerning the wastewater reclamation
facilities operation covers additional items such as sludge and concentrates disposal issues, wet weather
flow management and other activities associated with conventional wastewater treatment. Similarly,
maintaining production facilities (wastewater reclamation plants) includes additional activities related to
wastewater treatment.
In the potable water case, managing source water quantity and quality involves catchment management
and water protection areas, whilst in the water reuse scenario the source is the wastewater which shifts the
focus on sewersheds rather than watersheds. Therefore, a different set of activities can be distinguished for
water reuse schemes that relate to quantity and quality of incoming flows, by dealing with wastewater
collection management. Activities that can be included in this sub-category include: planning of future
sewered areas, collection system management activities such as sustainable drainage systems (SUDS),
sewer discharge bylaws, infiltration/inflow (I/I) management, and other activities aimed at maintaining or
improving the quality of wastewater received at the plant.
Monitoring water quality encompasses activities related to measuring and monitoring the quality of both
the wastewater used as a source and reclaimed water distributed to customers. The sub-process activities
are again similar to those listed for potable water supply that include: policy-making and problem solving,
sampling and laboratory analyses (both at the plant and in the field), assessing the measured quality
against standards and regulatory requirements, preparing reports, establishing production process
measures to ensure compliance and management of water quality information systems. Additional
52
activities specific to reclaimed water may include additional monitoring and emergency preparedness
procedures.
Maintaining water mains is a sub-process where activities required for potable water system are also
required for reclaimed water systems, although the volume of activities may be higher due to lower water
quality. The sub-process activities include: preparing maintenance activities, preparing, issuing and
recording works, preventive and corrective maintenance, inspections and data processing.
Installing and maintaining service pipes covers the following activities: preparing extension, replacement
and maintenance plans for service pipes and water meters, preparing, issuing and recording works,
carrying out inspections on service pipes and water meters that in the case of reclaimed water may also
include cross-connection programs, maintaining water meters and data processing.
Meter reading and processing of meter data involves periodic meter reading required for billing and meter
reading in connection with other events such as customer moves and late payments. Activities include:
direct, outsourced and customer meter readings, estimating consumption for non-metered customers, data
processing and maintenance of customer information systems.
Invoicing, debtor management and debt collection covers activities related to billing private and business
customers as well as issues that arise from non-payments. These include: calculating consumption and
billing amounts (including bills for specific services such as new connections, repairs, etc.), preparing and
sending bills (interim, annual, final), credit/debit notes, and reminders, debts collection and write offs,
accounts receivable, determining payment arrangements, issuing disconnection work orders, and
managing the consumer database and maintenance of customer information systems.
Maintaining customer contact sub-process includes activities related to dealing with private and business
customers of reclaimed water. There are a number of activities included in this sub-process and they
include: handling notifications of customer changes and requests (e.g. connection/disconnection, meter
changes, complaints, faults, advices, education, inspection, bill and payment queries), maintaining
correspondence and work orders in response to customer contacts, and management and maintenance of
the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database.
Planning process deals with the development, monitoring and administration of medium and long term
plans for production and distribution of reclaimed water based on forecasted demands in the area served.
The following activities are included in this sub-process: identifying external aspects that impact on the
planning (e.g. demographic, economic, sociological, technological, ecological and political), developing
standards and plans for production and distribution facilities, estimating medium and long term sales
forecasts and plans, determining gaps in supply/demand, identifying areas for locating potential new
production and distribution facilities, assessing the possibilities and efforts associated with obtaining
licences and permits, and development of extension and replacement plans.
Developing strategic policy sub-process entails all activities required to set out goals for improvements
focused at increasing the company’s value. The activities include: determination of strategic policy,
identifying and analysing the strengths, weaknesses, external threats and opportunities, estimating future
water sales, developing production, distribution and sales plans in the medium to long term, determining
gaps in current process and distribution facilities capacity, configuration and water quality, formulating
objectives and standards for different business areas, maintaining contacts with customer associations,
53
government agencies and other utility companies, institutions and organisations, and developing water
charging policies.
Marketing and PR activities cover the development and implementation of the marketing policy aimed at
current and potential customers as well as the general promotion of the company. The activities included
are: developing and monitoring the impact of promotional activities, maintaining close links with the
communities, stakeholder groups and media, and producing internal publications such as newsletters.
Recruiting and managing personnel sub-process involves both the optimisation of the size and cost of
workforce based on corporate objectives, and the care of employees. Activities covered under this sub-
process are: developing and managing recruitment and selection, education and training, personnel
administration, working conditions, developing policies with regard to job evaluation and staffing,
providing assistance on organisational issues, preparing annual audit plans and coordinating internal
audits.
Managing financial/economic affairs focuses on managing the factors influencing the equity value – costs,
revenues and working capital. Activities cover administration of accounting systems, budgeting and
internal reporting, current assets and liabilities cycles, administration of fixed assets, tax planning and
settlement, preparing financial statements and management reports, controlling and internal accountancy,
treasury management and statistical analyses.
Information technology and automation sub-process includes tasks that contribute to providing the correct
information where and when it is needed, including managing and maintaining automated software and
hardware systems, as well as communication networks, all aspects of designing new information
technology solutions, and the implementation if new services and procedures.
Purchasing and warehouse management deals with procurement of consumables and materials used in
processing the wastewater and distributing it to customers. Activities included are: selecting suppliers and
managing contracts, actual purchasing and information exchange with suppliers, stock management and
issue and shipment.
Facility services sub-process covers all services not directly associated with the wastewater treatment and
distribution. The activities included are: legal services, housekeeping, general secretarial activities,
management and maintenance of land and buildings, and management of the vehicle fleet.
3.3.4 Allocating Costs to Processes

The general procedure that a company should follow in order to establish benchmarking as a tool for
optimising cost of providing reclaimed water is to: 1) look at each operating process outlined above that
crosses the company’s organisational functions, 2) gather the component activities under each process,
and 3) extract the costs associated with each activity in order to derive the comparable process costs.
Recognising that the process of allocating costs and revenues to individual activities may be difficult
specific suggestions were provided in the IWA manual, some of which are outlined below.
In regards to energy costs, they can be registered per building or connection, and the allocation process
would assign the buildings or connections to the processes discussed above. If that is not possible, other
methods can be used, such as estimating the necessary kWh and allocating costs accordingly, analysing
invoices above a substantial part of the cists, or simply making the best possible estimate. Similar
54
hierarchy can be followed in allocating leasing and rental charges. If the costs are not registered by
process in the case of external activities, purchase of consumables exceptional earnings and losses and
other operating expenditures, analysis of substantial invoices and allocating by using the FTEs as ration of
apportionment are the suggested options.
3.4 IMPROVING FUTURE PERFORMANCE – WHOLE LIFE COSTING
3.4.1 Introduction
Whole Life Costing (WLC) methodology is an accounting process, which can be used as a framework for
asset management and basis of project selection by linking the performance to cost. The methodology
considers all the costs (private & social) that accrue to its initiation, provision, operation, maintenance,
servicing and decommissioning, over its useful life of an asset or a service, and takes into account the cost
of unplanned failures, repairs, refurbishment and replacement. WLC methodology has been proposed for
drinking water distribution networks and implemented in a software tool called WiLCO by (Skipworth et
al., 2002). This discussion is based largely on that work, with appropriate comments made specific to
using reclaimed wastewater rather than fresh water supplies.
3.4.2 Basic Concepts

Prior to describing the general methodology, there are three concepts which need to be defined and
clarified in the context of the WLC methodology: risk, boundaries and costs. Risk by definition considers
the effect of uncertainty associated with any decision making process, and in the WLC methodology
includes economic, social and environmental impacts on all stakeholders, including the customer. In
dealing with water, the decisions are made customarily based on statutory requirements. The WLC is
analogous to decision making based on technology based standards, meaning that the key consideration is
the cost and efficacy of a control measure, rather than risk reduction, so it effectively a scenario manager
within a risk based strategy. In terms of the boundaries considered, the first refers to geographical level at
which the WLC methodology is applied. In the case of water reuse schemes, boundaries can be set at the
influent to the treatment facility and at the customer’s tap (rather than extending the methodology further
into wastewater collection systems). The temporal boundary refers to the “useful life” of the infrastructure,
and in the WLC approach can be considered as a 50 year period (to allow for the effects of expenditures
on performance to take place). The costs considered in the WLC methodology are the purchase costs of
inputs required by the operator, assuming that other costs (e.g. environmental) are accounted for.
Additional costs associated with water reuse schemes are associated with sludge and concentrates
disposal, and an appropriate unit costs should be used again account for other factors. In the case of
drinking water networks the costs are disaggregated to water supply zones, which may also be appropriate
for larger water reuse schemes, while costs of wastewater upgrade (treatment) should be considered as a
separate item.
3.4.3 Modelling Framework

In order to apply the WLC methodology, all costs have to be incorporated. Figure 3.4 shows how the costs
are handled in the methodology, by first identifying the cost elements and assigning unit costs (along with
55
what constitutes a unit). Since all costs cannot be described as having direct linear relationship with the
number of occurrences, the interrelationship between the unit cost and the attribute is introduced,
identified in Figure 3.3 as effect. The Figure also illustrates the basic two-way concept that the money
spent on the system may have an effect on the attribute, performance or unit cost of the system. For
example, a replacement of a pipe in the distribution network has an effect on the attributes and
performance on the network, but also affects the costs associated with the pipe’s performance or attribute.
Figure 3.4 The Simplest Element of Whole Life Costing (Skipworth et al., 2002)
ATTRIBUTE/
PERFORMANCE
EFFECT COST
UNIT COST
Using the methodology as an investigative tool require two steps: establishing the whole life costs by
identifying various contributing costs and quantities (i.e. moving left to right in Figure 3.4), and
determining how this information can be used in determining the best management practices for the
system (i.e. moving right to left in Figure 3.4). The first step consists of two elements: “Whole Life Cost
Accounting” and “System Definition”, the former being an accounting process used to identify and report
all costs and the later used to characterise the system in terms of its attributes and performance (drivers)
identified in the WLC accounting process. The third process, identified in Figure 3.5 as the “Decision
Tool”, is used for the generation of the WLC network management strategy. All of these elements are
interrelated, since implementing any rehabilitation strategy will have a consequence on operation (O&M)
and vice versa. For example, any decisions made that reduce the risk of providing reclaimed water of
inadequate quality will be restricted by how water quality is measured and costed. Therefore, the system
definition of water quality has to be such that the true least cost solution can be found if either
rehabilitation or O&M measures are implemented.
56
Figure 3.5 The Investigative Tool Basic Framework (Skipworth et al., 2002)
Whole Life
System
Cost
Definition
Accounting
Decision Tool
3.4.4 Whole Life Cost Accounting

The WLC methodology seeks to attribute the cost of externalities to unique performance drivers that give
rise to them, making them direct costs that can be explicitly considered in scenario analyses. This concept
is fundamental to the WLC methodology, which emerged in the field of buildings and structures to
recognise that the initial cost of a structure is minor compared with its overall lifetime cost.
Within the overall WLC accounting framework, two approaches are included: Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) and Activity Based Costing (ABC). Without going into background and details on these concepts,
it is again highlighted that the activities identified as potential cost drivers must provide an adequate
explanation of cost outputs whilst at the same time being measurable and change sensitive. In the potable
water case, a distinction is made between Resources and Treatment, and Distribution, to account for the
effects of changes in the distribution system on resource use and treatment to be tracked. In the water
reuse scenario, these two components are even more interrelated, since the changes in the treatment
process can have more significant impact on the distribution system performance.
In terms of specific costs, in the distribution network they are designated as being either the “normal” cost
of water supply (including water quality), costs associated with leakage, or the costs associated with bursts
(structural failure). The first of these includes activities required to provide a normal service to customers,
and can be predicted with reasonable degree of certainty and accuracy. The leakage is seen as a driver for
management decisions regarding replacement/rehabilitation/upgrade, while the costs associated with
bursts include the provision for their repair. In each of these cases, equations have been developed that
relate the total cost of activities to the change in performance and associated unit cost, with provisions for
including penalties associated with non-compliant performance. Similar concept could be adopted for
water reclamation facilities that would differentiate between the cost of normal daily operation, costs
associated with reduction in performance (quality and quantity), and costs related to failures in the
treatment process. This would also require that the penalties be specified for not meeting quantity and/or
quality targets, in order to explore the financial consequences associated with a risk of non-compliance.
57
3.4.5 System Definition and Performance

The WLC approach necessitates that all aspects of system performance that have impact on cost be
considered, meaning that the following issues need to be addressed:
• Identification of performance evaluation,
• Quantification of current performance and how it changes with time,
• Consideration of different aspects of performance interactively, and
• Quantification of the effects of interventions.
Depicted in Figure 3.6 are the elements that depict a drinking water network performance, in addition to
the hydraulic model, process model(s) (added for water reuse) and GIS elements that integrate the WLC
methodology. The Demand Patterns and Projections module deals with the changes in demand, and the
facility to change hydraulic roughness in certain pipe types is built into the Hydraulic Capacity module.
The Leakage element is used to quantify the effect of control and pipe replacement strategies on overall
performance and cost, and is linked to the Structural Performance due to water lost through bursts. The
Structural Performance, which includes projections on the rate of failures, results in interruptions of
service, and is linked with the Customer Interruptions element. The Water Quality element considers
failures in water quality as a result of inadequate treatment and the ageing of the distribution network, both
of which can be addressed by pro-active management of the overall scheme.
Figure 3.6 System Definition (after Skipworth et al., 2002)
Demand
Structiral
Patterns and Leakage
Performance
Projections
Hydraulic System Customer

Capacity Definition Interruptions
Process Hydraulic
Water Quality
Model(s) Model
GIS
58
3.4.6 Decision Making and Optimisation

The accounting and performance modelling described in previous sections should be encapsulated in a
single platform to enable the decision making process to be conducted based on the calculated WLC of
alternative strategies. This platform, or a software tool, enables the decision-maker to calculate the whole
life cost for any scenario, maximise the information available to the decision-maker throughout the
process, observe various scenarios (whether operational, risk or costing) quickly, and allow the
investigation of the sensitivity of the various input parameters on the WLC.
Figure 3.7 presents a review of how all elements interact to calculate the whole cost. In the top left hand
corner are the interventions, defined in two respects: the effect they have on the system which is accounted
for when updating the values of the cost drivers, and their cost which is updated in the WLC accounts. The
effects of the interventions on the cost drivers are accounted for in the cost structures, through updating
the variable costs and where appropriate the penalty costs. Once updated these costs are passed through to
the WLC accounts. This process is undertaken throughout the period of analysis.
Figure 3.7 Interactions between WLC Data Structures (Skipworth et al., 2002)
Integration of a formal optimisation process takes the decision making one step further. The optimisation
technique can be utilised in two ways: searching through alternatives (for a given set of intervention
options) to determine the one that minimises the costs within performance constraints, or searching for the
set of alternatives that maximise the performance for a constrained cost. In the case of the drinking water
distribution networks, genetic algorithm (GA) has been successfully applied in conjunction with the WLC
methodology.
59
3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

In the context of cost optimisation, no other single item is perhaps more important than the energy
efficiency. Energy represents a large portion of the overall operation costs involved in treating wastewater.
While it has been reported that this portion may be 30 percent or higher for conventional wastewater
treatment (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003), in the case of water reuse this portion is even larger, due to the need
for advanced treatment. Therefore, optimising the use of electricity in wastewater treatment plant
operation plays an important part in the improving the overall cost efficiency. Delivering reclaimed water
to customers can also consume vast amounts of energy, particularly if they are numerous and scattered in
the service area. This section provides a brief outline of energy saving opportunities that may exist in
water reuse schemes.
3.5.1 Treatment
The amount of electricity used for wastewater reclamation generally depends on the plant size and the type
of treatment system employed. For conventional wastewater treatment processes, a typical distribution of
energy usage is shown in Figure 3.8. This also illustrates an important first step in identification of
potential energy savings – an energy audit which identifies exactly how much energy is used by various
processes used in the treatment of wastewater.
Figure 3.8 Typical distribution of energy usage in a wastewater treatment

plant (EPRI, 1994)
60
Percent of total plant energy
50
40
30
20
10
0
Effluent filters
Influent pump station
Activated sludge aeration

Primary clarifier and sludge
Thickener and sludge pump

Secondary clarifie and RAS
Process water
Heating
Postaeration / chlorine mixing

Solids dewatering
Lighting
Headworks
pump
Recognising the difficulty and effort involved in conducting an energy audit, particularly for large and
complex facilities, this endeavour should focus first on the most energy-intensive equipment and processes
at a preliminary level before evolving into a more detailed procedure. As illustrated in Figure 3.8, aeration
60
at a conventional activated sludge plants comprises the largest portion of the overall energy consumption,
and as such could be first addressed in developing alternative energy management measures. At water
reclamation plants that utilise advanced treatment processes, such as filtration and UV disinfection, this
ratio would be different but the principle of surveying and addressing the most energy intensive processes
as a priority remains.
Energy management measures generally fall into one of two options: management changes and
technology changes. Management changes refer to altered operating practice with the overall aim of
improving the energy efficiency while achieving the desired output. Since high charges can be incurred for
even short periods of high electricity usage, managing the demand during peak charge periods can produce
substantial savings. Some examples of demand management include (Elliot, 2003): turning one pump off
before starting another, operating treatment facilities during off peak hours, matching the pump flow to
avoid use of additional pumps, and using a diesel driven pump during peak periods of electric rates.
Technological changes encompass the other half of energy management measures, and some examples of
measures commonly recommended for conventional wastewater treatment plants include (Burton, 1996):
• Install adjustable speed-drives on pumps and blowers for variable flow operations
• Install DO monitoring and control in aeration tanks
• Conduct periodic pump tests and repair or replace inefficient pumps
• Operate emergency generators during peak periods to reduce power demand
• Install electric load monitoring devices
• Install capacitors to improve power factors
• Change or reduce pumping operations
• Replace oversized motors
• Change selected operations to off-peak periods
While the management changes, implemented as the energy management measures, typically do not
require a major increase in cost, retrofitting processes and equipment can require large expenditures.
Therefore, a careful consideration of the energy savings that can be realised through implementation of
new equipment is required for justification of such expenses.
3.5.2 Reclaimed Water Distribution

Optimisation of energy cost first needs to be considered at the design stage of reclaimed water schemes,
since a trade-off exists between energy and capital costs of distribution system elements. Therefore, it is
important to include pump station sizing as well as the distribution system layout and pipe sizes in the
analysis of tradeoffs between capital and energy costs. An example of a GIS tool that can aid in the
optimizing the distribution system design by accounting for these decision variables is presented in
Labadie and Herzog (1999).
There are also numerous ways in which energy and cost savings can be achieved in operating water
distribution systems, ranging from field testing and proper maintenance of equipment to optimal computer
61
control (Boulos et al., 2001). A particular attention with reclaimed water distribution systems must be paid
to the regular maintenance, due to increased occurrence of biofilm formation and associated decrease in
hydraulic performance and decreased water quality. For example, (Sack et al., 2002) have reported that
the biofilm creation has caused a reduction of flow if about 30 to 35% over a 10 year period in a 1400 mm
pipe carrying reclaimed water treated by Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT). Authors also concluded, through
experiments carried out in a pilot plant, that injecting 15 mg/L of liquid chlorine (10 mg/L residual) seven
times a week, for one hour in the morning and in the evening, resulted in a clean pipe over the hottest
season in Israel.
Energy usage for water distribution can be reduced by implementing the following measures (Boulos et
al., 2001):
• Decreasing the volume of water pumps (e.g., adjusting pressure zone boundaries),
• Lowering the head against which it is pumped (e.g., optimizing tank water level range),
• Reducing the price of energy (e.g. avoiding peak hour pumping and making effective use of
storage tanks such as filling them during off-peak periods and draining them during peak
periods), and
• Increasing the efficiency of pumps (e.g., ensuring that pumps are operating near their best
efficiency point).
The same author presented an overview of an optimal operations model, called H2ONET Scheduler,
which can be used to automatically determine the optimal pump operation policy for each pump station in
a water distribution system, while meeting the hydraulic performance requirements. The optimal operating
policy is expressed as a set of temporal rules that indicate when a particular pump (or a set of pumps)
should operate over a specified time horizon. The constraints included in the optimisation include lower
and upper limits on nodal pressures, maximum pipe velocities, maximum and minimum storage tank
levels, and final tank volumes at the end of a specified time period (normally 24 hours) to ensure hydraulic
periodicity.
There are other examples where software tools have been used to optimise the energy efficiency of water
distribution systems. Bounds et al. (2005) presented a case study for energy management of a very large-
scale network using the computer aided water network engineering software called Finesse, which
demonstrated that 14% saving in electrical energy could be achieved while satisfying operating
constraints. An adaptive optimisation software system for real-time, operational control of water
distribution networks called ENCOMS, described by (Rao et al., 2005). The software takes account of the
electricity tariff structure and other system operational constraints aimed at ensuring safe, reliable
operations, and calculates optimal operating strategy that has indicated in two case studies undertaken to
result in savings in power and energy in the order of 20%.
3.6 CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS

The number of water reuse schemes throughout the world is ever-increasing as the freshwater becomes
scarcer, but also under the pressure of limited funding available to build and operate these schemes.
Therefore, cost optimisation has to be incorporated in all aspects of planning, design and present and
62
future operation of water reuse schemes. Significant experience in optimising the cost of wastewater and
drinking water treatment, and water distribution exists, on which the cost optimisation can be built.
In this chapter, a planning tool developed specifically for water reuse schemes has been presented, along
with two suggested methodologies for improving the cost efficiency of providing reclaimed water based
on drinking water industry experience. The description of these approaches to cost optimisation is largely
informative and does not get into the number of issues in much detail, and it is meant to demonstrate that
formalised approach do exist, and can be used with some modification in water reuse.
3.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquamedia (2005) Web site. Accessed at http://www.aquamedia.at
Boulos P. F., Zheng W., Chun H. O., Moore M., Hsiung P. and D. Thomas (2001) Optimal Pump Operation of Water Distribution
Systems Using Genetic Algorithms. Proc. AWWA Distribution System Symposium, San Diego, California, 23-26 September
2001.
Bounds P., Kahler J. and B. Ulanicki (2005) Efficient energy management of large-scale water supply system. Proc. Eight
International Conference on Computing and Control in the Water Industry, Exeter, United Kingdom, 5-7 September 2005.
Brufao P. (2005) Good Water Management - Experiences and Alternatives to the SNHP. Accessed at
http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/goodwatermanagement.pdf
Burton F. L. (1996) Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy Management Opportunities. Report EPRI (CR-
106941), The Electric Power Research Institute Community Environmental Center, Palo Alto, California.
Dinesh N. and G.C. Dandy (2003) A Decision Support System for Municipal Wastewater Reclamation & Reuse. Water Science
and Technology: Water Supply 3(3): 1-8.
King County Wastewater Treatment Division (2005) Multi-agency Benchmarking Project. Accessed at
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/benchmark
Elliot T. (2003) Energy-Saving Opportunities for Wastewater Facilities. Energy Center of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
EPRI (1994) Energy Audit Manual for Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Electric Power Research Institute, St. Louis,
Missouri.
IBNET (2005) IBNET Water Benchmarking. The World Bank. Available at http://www.ib-
net.org/wb/bench/download/english/IBNET%20Water%20Benchmarking.doc
Joksimovic D., Kubik J., Hlavinek P., Savic D. and G. Walters (2006) Development of an Integrated Simulation Model for
Treatment and Distribution of Reclaimed Water. Desalination: 188: 9-20.
Labadie J.W. and M.T. Herzog (1999) Optimal Design of Water Distribution Networks with GIS. Proc. 19th Annual ESRI
International User Conference, San Diego, California, 26-30 July 1999.
Larsson M., Parena R., Smeets E. and I. Troquet (2002) Process Benchmarking in the Water Industry: Towards a worldwide
approach. IWA Publishing, London, UK ISBN: 1 84339 010 8.
Metcalf and Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, 4/e. McGraw-Hill, New York ISBN: 0070418780.
Rao Z., Wicks J. and S. West (2005) ENCOMS - An Energy Cost Minimisation System for Real-Time, Operational Control of
Water Distribution Networks. Proc. Eight International Conference on Computing and Control in the Water Industry, Exeter,
United Kingdom, 5-7 September 2005.
Sack J., Cikurel H., Tal N., Danon M., Harmant P., Teltsch B., Limoni B., Zuckerman U., Halpern M., Broza M. and Y. Cohen
(2002) Monitoring and Treatment of Biofouling in Effluent Carrying Pipe-Lines in the Dan Region WWTP. Proc. International
Specialised Conference on Biofilm Monitoring, Porto, Portugal, 17-20 March 2002.
63
Savic D. A. and G.A. Walters (1997) Genetic Algorithms for the Least-cost Design of Water Distribution Networks. J. Water Res.
Plan. Man. 123(2): 67-77.
Skipworth P., Engelhardt M., Cashman A., Savic D. A., A.J., S. and G.A. Walters (2002) Whole life costing for Water
Distribution Network Management. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London, UK ISBN: 0727731661.
USAID (2005) Water Reuse as a Tool for Integrated Water Resources Management: USAID’s Recent Experience. Accessed at
http://www.usaidjordan.org/upload/keydocs/Water%20Reuse.pdf
64
4 FINANCING
Effective financial management is a critical success factor for the great majority of water reuse projects.
They require costly infrastructure and have more limited revenue stream potential than potable water
supply, especially during the initial years of project development.
This chapter reviews critical attention points for the reclaimed water purveyor. It reviews the financial
arguments for and against water reuse, the financial instruments available with particular reference to the
European Union, the complementarities with other forms of funding mechanisms and how effective
various alternative approaches have been in practice:
Section 4.1 reviews the financial instruments available, including examples of alternative funding
sources.
Section 4.2 discusses elements of good financial practice in the context of water reuse projects.
Section 4.3 examines difficulties that impede the setting of good financial practice, including the types
of risks that are a-typical to the water sector but common in water reuse projects. Workable
ways to offset them are also documented.
The scope is focussed on the features that make funding of water reuse schemes unique. While in many
ways the financial management of water reuse projects does not differ from that of conventional projects
in the water sector, some peculiarities also exist. Some key issues are summarised in BOX 4.1. Note that
only water reclamation and reuse projects that are viable in the legal (Chapter 2) and socio-economic
(Chapter 3) contexts are given further consideration in this chapter.
BOX 4.1: what is special about financing water reuse projects?

1. Monetarising benefits – Water reuse schemes are often considered relatively expensive in
terms of the direct financial cost of installing and operating the required treatment processes and
related infrastructure, which often cannot be justified based only on the utility assessment of its
internal financial outcomes (investment in reclaimed water for productivity). In order to make a
sound business case for water reuse it is imperative that the long-term economic, social and
environmental benefits are internalised in the financing process. Benefits of water reuse projects
go beyond the simple water supply aspect and the local catchment boundaries.
2. Securing end users – water reuse projects generally rely on a limited number of off-takers.
Moreover, as reclaimed water is an alternative water source, its competitiveness to conventional
water resources must be clearly demonstrated, and the demand risk managed to acceptable levels.
3. The potential impact on the financial performance of the social issues - the
satisfaction level expressed by the beneficiaries, and not only on financial grounds, e.g. the level
of acceptance of certain reuse practices, has proven to be a critical factor. In several market places
reclaimed water still suffers from negative branding and so some end users still prefer
conventional water supplies despite the more attractive reclaimed water prices.
65
4.1 FINANCING MECHANISMS

For the sake of description, financing mechanisms can be broken down into four separated but
intertwined categories:
• Debt financing
• Subsidies
• Non-debt financing
• Mobilisation of private sector funds.
The key benefits and conditions of each category are summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Types and benefits of options to financing water reuse schemes
CATEGORY EXPECTED BENEFITS KEY CONDITIONS
Stable cash flows and solid
4.1.1) For projects with major capital expenditures, spreading the and bankable contractual
Debt financing cost of the project over a number of years basis. Fewer requirements in
case of State guarantees
Best value for money in
Providing the balance for non-monetary
4.1.2) Subsidies supporting national or federal
benefits/correction of existing market distortions
policy
Generally for smaller projects. Financing streamlined and
4.1.3) Internally Willingness to pay
easier to administer. Strong incentive for reliable service
generated funding Ability to pay
and system maintenance. Large range of options but
alternatives Limited risk profile
relatively high cost to users
When the public agency does not have the capacity to
4.1.4) Private
provide the financial viability. Participants must be allowed a
sector participation
When borrowing and repayment structure of loans is more profit
(equity)
expensive for publicly owned companies.
The next section reports on the appropriateness of each of these vehicles with respect to water reuse.
4.1.1 Debt financing

The different possibilities offered by debt financing are determined by the bankability of the project.
Bankability is the term used to describe the risk analysis and management criteria used by the lenders in
assessing the viability of a project. A key indicator to gauge the ability of the project to meet the loan
requirements is the ‘cash to loan ratio’.
Each institution has its own methods to measure the cash to loan ratio. The most commonly applied
indicators are the Annual Debt Service Cover Ratio (ADCR), the Net Present Value Debt Cover Ratio
(NPV DCR), the Loan Life Cover Ratio (LLCR), the Project Life Cover Ratio (PLCR), the Earnings
Before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortisation)/Debt coverage ratio (EBITD/DCR) and the capital
coverage ratio (CSR).
66
The definitions and the indicative threshold values expected from lenders and equity investors of these
bankability indicators are summarized in Table 4.2. In Table 4.2, CF stands for cash flow, D for debt
service, t for time, (N)PV for (Net) Present Value, and PL/LL for Project/Loan life.
Table 4.2 Definition of typical bankability indicators and their minimum

expected threshold values in the European Union in the period 2000-
2006
Minimum
Acronym Definition
thresholds
CF (t ) − D(t )
t = LL
ADSCR ¦
t =0 D(t )
1.2-1.3
t = LL
NPV (CF (t )− D(t ))
NPV DSCR ¦
t =0 D(t )
1.7
t = LL
LLCR ¦ PV (CF (t ) − D(t ))

t =0
1.2-1.5
loan
t = PL
PLCR ¦ PV (CF (t ) − D(t ))

t =0
>LLCR
loan
t = PL
operational.results + depreciation + amortisation
EBITDA/DCR ¦t =0 DCR
1 <R < 2
equity
CSR 15-35%
total _ investment
Note that in Table 4.2 the actual threshold values are strongly dependent on the credit institution policy
and the risks profile of the project. When a solid security package is in place, lower thresholds can be
applied and therefore finance can be more easily accessed.
A detailed examination of the risk profile should include factors such as the repayment period (the
maturity of the loan), stability of anticipated cash-flows, creditworthiness of the borrowers, adequate
guarantee arrangements, available co-financing, capacity for project implementation and the size of the
project.
Commercial loans offer relatively short repayment periods. When the project financing is analysed sensu
strictu - i.e. when the reclaimed water users have to bear the full cost of the infrastructural requirements
for the production of the resource - in the first year of the project operation, where cash-flows are at the
lowest, the reclaimed water charges to cover the debt service might raise beyond the limits of
affordability and political acceptability, so preventing a more efficient use of the water resources in the
river basin.
67
For this reason, on the public side, special arrangements for longer-term / soft loan repaymentsi and
contracts have been put in place to encourage investment. To our knowledge, no Community/ nation-
wide targeted programmes on funding of water reuse schemes exist, neither in the European Union, nor
Australia or United States. In many national markets, water reuse projects can benefit from funding
programmes available for other types of environmental projects, and in particular, of wastewater
treatment funds.
The role of multilateral or International Financing Institutions (IFI’s)

Another important co-paymentii debt financing option is the involvement of IFI’s. IFI’s can notably
access capital markets (bond finance) at rates that are often better than those accessible by sovereign
states. Moreover, the involvement of IFI’s is a catalyst for other sources of funding and a source of
comfort to private sector participants (Allison, 2003). Co-financing by IFIs can be required / desirable,
especially for economies in transition, where local commercial loans are often insufficient to cover the
full capital cost.
The long maturities and grace periods that are generally accorded to these types of loans help to keep
tariff increases in the first year of the project operation within the limits of affordability and political
acceptability. IFI’s apply the same bankability analysis as commercial lenders. Some IFIs work with
grant programmes (e.g. the ISPA fund of the European Commission) but most of them lend on
commercial terms hence finance only bankable projects.
Economically developed countries and communities worldwide have bilateral programmes in place for
grants and/or soft loans which can support water reuse projects. Most bilateral programmes have similar
objectives to the multilateral aid agencies (e.g. to meet the Millennium Development Goals, cfr. Chapter
2), however these programmes include tied aid clauses; e.g. where financing is awarded on condition that
the project involves a contractor from the donor country.
The main programme objective and conditionalities of a shortlist of IFI’s, that may represent a near-term
opportunities to develop water reuse projects within the European Union and the Mediterranean basin are
provided in BOX 4.2.
i
The minimum discount rate would then be the real return on - for instance - Government bonds.
ii
‘co-payment’ in that generally IFI’s will only pay up to a certain percentage of the project
68
BOX 4.2: shortlist of IFI’s that may provide loans and equity financing for water reuse
in the European Union and the Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPC), their
programme objectives, and financial criteria
Institution and specific Initiative and its scope Benefits Main eligibility
website criteria
European Investment Enabling EU Member States to comply Up to 50% of the total project IRR (if
Bank (www.eib.org) with the EU environmental Directives project cost (act as sufficiently high -
e.g. water conservation catalyst) e.g. >5-10 %-, then
MEDA: wastewater treatment, water need for a bank guarantee technical skills and
supply, water conservation with specific until the construction creditworthiness,
reference to projects where sewage phase is complete (no otherwise also need
treatment is inadequate for re-use in MPC unbounded financing to clearly justify the
FEMIP: to assist the modernisation of the during construction phase) social and
MPC Long maturities (4-20 environmental
METAP: help identify and prepare years but possibly more benefits)
environmental projects in MPC depending on the Total Project Size <
selected environmental projects: 3%- economic life of the asset) 25 million EUR
interest-rate (subsidy from the EU
budget)
European Union PHARE: promoting convergence with the Zero-interest loan Projects in EU Newly
http://www.eu.int/ Acquis Communautaire in the newly Take risk that supports Accessed and
comm/enlargement accessed and Candidate Countries private and foreign Candidate Countries
/pas/phare/ investors
European Bank for MEI: promoting efficient, high-quality loans to public or private For central Europe:
Development and services and cost-effective environmental utilities with or without projects benefiting
Reconstruction improvements (EBRD, 2004) in 27 municipal guarantees from EU-ISPA grant
(www.ebrd.com) Economies in transition from Central investment and portage (cfr. BOX 4.4)
Europe to Central Asia equity in public, private or Project promoting
Several Country-specific initiatives (e.g. PP companies decentralisation,
MELF in Romania) Guarantees, including commercialisation
partial risk and partial and environmental
credit guarantees; and improvement
GEF: projects involving global issues revenue
such as e.g. international waters Bonds
Institution and website specific Initiative and its scope Benefits Main eligibility
criteria
Nordic Environment risk capital institution financing green equity concept Nordic Partner/s or
Finance Corporation environmental projects in Central and rather than commercial potential Nordic
www.nefco.org Eastern Europe. Its purpose is to facilitate investment fund equipment suppliers
the implementation of environmentally projects that lead to
beneficial projects in the neighbouring reduction of pollution
region, with transboundary effects which in the Baltic Sea and
also benefit the Nordic region the Barents Sea
projects of mainly
local environmental
interest but offering a
desirable
demonstration effect.
reasonable
profitability criteria
technical solution
based on best
available technology
International Bank for water resources, pollution management low-interest loans, middle income
Reconstruction and and biodiversity, interest-free credit and countries
Development (World helping achieve the UN Millennium grants
Bank) Development Goals Long maturities (15-20
www.worldbank.org years) and grace periods
69
BOX 4.3: Examples of subsidies in the European Union, Australia and USA
In Europe, beside direct grants, national or regional governments provided other financial incentives
like; tax exempt financing, taxable financing, up-front contribution of end users and long-term soft
loans.
In the Costa Brava/Spain, for instance, a regulation introduced in 1999 to simplify the taxes for water
consumption allowed exemption of the user tax for reclaimed water.
In Italy, Art. 26 1° of the Decree D. Lgs. 152/1999 orders that tariffs for industrial users have to be
discounted to promote water reuse for productive activities as a function of the volume of the reused
water and of the quantity of fresh water used.
In the UK, there exist tax incentives for environmentally beneficial projects such as the Enhanced
Capital Allowance scheme (www.eca-water.gov.uk), which provides for a reduction in corporation
tax for approved water reuse schemes including municipal reclaimed water for industry.
Indirect incentives such as for instance effluent charges or groundwater abstraction taxes can also
encourage water reuse:
• Abstraction taxes are becoming very common, but rarely are the fees high enough to significantly
influence behaviour and encourage the user to move from a freshwater resource that is often of
very high quality, to reclaimed water.
• Effluent charges are also increasingly applied throughout the Union. In Germany, for instance, the
charge per pollutant has been raised in several steps, increasing by approximately 600% from 1981
- when it was introduced - to 1997, and it is now at about 5% of the total cost. In addition, certain
investments for the improvement of wastewater handling can be offset against the charge.
At the European Union level, no targeted budget to co-fund water reuse schemes exists. Nevertheless,
financial assistance can be provided on a project basis as water reuse can support a range of EU
policies (cfr. Chapter 2). The predominant programme objective is the financing of infrastructure in
regions that are lagging behind and the creation of a framework that supports innovation and
competition (see BOX 4.4).
In Australia, a range of federal and state funding arrangements exist, focusing on subsidising up-front
costs including planning and capital works. Initially subsidies could be claimed for up to 20% of up-
front approved costs, but in the late nineties the subsidy was increased to 50%. Since then, the
applications for reuse projects increased considerably. PWC (2000) argues that this is probably
because the subsidy has encouraged some local government bodies to look more closely at water reuse
options.
Indirect incentives have also been used to encourage water reuse and water conservation. These
include trade waste programmes (Queensland), effluent fees (South Australia), load-based licensing
(New South Wales), tradable permits (New South Wales), bubble licences (Hawkesbury-Nepean
River, Sidney) and performance bonds (New South Wales and South Australia).
In the United States, there is no nation-wide or state-wide policy on funding of water reuse schemes
but on a case-by-case basis several schemes have benefited from subsidies for up-front capital
expenditure. Funding mechanisms and a record of case studies on financial incentives are reported by
US EPA (2004), by US Bureau of Reclamation (2004) and James (1997).
The acquisition of secondary funding through the extension of the initial project objectives to include a
regional/national/international programme objective proved to be particularly important to attract local
financing and support. For instance, in Tilburg/Netherlands through the environmental subsidies from
the Provincial Government the City Council felt more comfortable to take part in the project as the
subsidy justified a non-commercial aspect of it (see BOX 4.10).
71
In acquiring secondary funding, good argumentation can make the difference: environmental and socio-
economic benefits are often hard to estimate in full and in many market places no guidelines yet exist to
quantify the non-monetary benefits of projects. Important aspects in providing argumentation are 1)
pointing out similarities with past legislative funded projects, 2) already providing answers to all
possible questions that could be asked and 3) making the project unique (Roeker, 2000).
BOX 4.4: Shortlist of opportunities of non-reimbursable grants from the EU

The different possibilities offered by the various programs depend on the program objectives, e.g.
counteracting unsustainable water use patterns, economic development, innovation, and so on.
Programme name Primary purpose of the scope of Example water reuse projects
funding programme assistance that have received funds (% EU
contribution)
LIFE(+) Development and Innovative and Tilburg, Netherland (25%)
implementation of Community demonstration-
environment policy and type projects
legislation
ISPA funds Candidate Countries (Croatia, Implementation
Bulgaria, Turkey) of the UWWTD
and of the WFD
Cohesion fund Convergence of least Spain: Empuriabrava, Castell-
developed regions throughout Platja D’aro, Cadaqués, Colera,
all of Europe (Greece, Ireland, Port de la Selva, Portbou &
Portugal and Spain + 10 new Roses, Pinedo II Valencia
member states) (80%)
European Regional Reducing regional disparities Environmental Potenza, Italy (Region
Development Fund and supporting structural protection and Objective 1)
development, strengthening productive
competitiveness and investment
innovation, promoting
environmentally sound growth
EU PHARE & TACIS Environmental activities in the
Black Sea Region
European Agricultural Sustainable rural development Improving the
Fund for Rural environment
Development and the
competitiveness
of agriculture
Each of those grant-programmes has its own rules regarding eligibility criteria and application processes, which differ
according to the department that manages the programme. Two types of application processes can be discerned: 1) Batch or
Request for proposals process (competitive application): e.g. the LIFE funds and 2) Continuous application process (‘first-
ready first-served’ application): e.g. the ISPA funds. Important financial criteria are the total project size (e.g. ISPA > 5
million EUR), who can benefit from it (access (or not) to private participation).
The European Commission has developed a website containing fact sheets about each type of grant
and the department managing them:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/index_en.htm
72
4.1.3 Internally generated funding alternatives

Examples of possible conventional vehicles for financing upfront costs include cash reserves, pre-paid
connection fees, system development charges, increasing rates in advance of construction, imposing a
property tax, up-front developer financial contributions and development fees. Alternative vehicles are
also being developing. To mention one, in Tucson Arizona the water utility and two of the local school
districts have agreements under which the water utility loans the district money to make on-site retrofits
from conventional to reclaimed water. The district repays then the loans over a 5-year period using the
savings they accrued from the conversion to reclaimed water (Dotson, 2005).
End-user contribution to capital costs is however unusual and often kept minimal to encourage potable
water users to convert to reclaimed water supply (cfr. Section 4.2.2). Of the projects participating in the
Aquarec survey, only some industrial users effectively contributed to capital costs. An example is
described in BOX 4.5. In other words, the financing of up-front costs and of the operating expenditures
are often intertwined in that the upfront costs are partly covered by debt servicing.
BOX 4.5: industrial end-user consortium co-financing upfront costs at Prato, Italy (based
on IDRA, 2004; Bitozzi and Coppini, 2004)
In this example the industrial end-user consortium co-promoted and co-financed an ad hoc ownership
and management structure for the provision of treated waste water for industrial use in the
municipality of Prato, Italy.
In the late 1980’s, when the initiative was developed, the project was considered unprofitable in strict
financial terms, as the cost for polishing and distributing the reclaimed water was higher than that of
the local drinking water supply.
Because the project was not bankable, the capital investment came principally from the end users
(80%), with limited contributions from commercial banks (10%) and from other funds (10%). No
subsidies were provided to finance the project.
The pricing strategy to pay for the running costs was based on a flat charge per unit volume (0.135
EUR/m³). Recently; due to the application of Decree D. Lgs. 152/1999, end users benefit from an
average reduction of 0.07494 EUR/m³ (cfr. Chapter 2).
Security package: commercial banks secured part of the capital investment thanks to the strong
commitment made by the end users. A factor mitigating the risk was the participation of multiple
users, and as a result, the production of a water quality able to satisfy multiple users and reuse options.
Benefits for the customers that contributed to the initial investment included no limits on consumption.
Customers that did not contribute to the initial investment were offered a contract with min/max
consumption levels.
See B0X 2.9 for the project background and institutional framework.
Reclaimed water tariffs constitute the bulk of the operating revenue for the great majority of water reuse
schemes.
73
Tariff policy
The tariff policy for a reclaimed water scheme is most commonly decided at the local level (by the local
authorities and/or utilities that are responsible for providing services to the end users, as well as the
owners of the infrastructure)iii.
The results of the Aquarec survey indicate that reclaimed water pricing arrangements are extremely
inconsistent even within specific national or local contexts. The effective price of reclaimed water has
mainly been governed by willingness (and ability) to pay. Several types of rationale have been applied,
based on identified expenditures with a partial/total cost-recovery component, and /or providing
reclaimed water customers with an incentive for water reuse throughout cross subsidisation, and taking
into account the risk of wastage if prices are set too low.
Experience demonstrates that reclaimed water tariffs may range from rates as high as - or higher than
(see BOX 4.6a) - those of the alternative water source to rates as low as providing the water for free /
producing a captive demand, in case of effluent disposal schemes and absence of benefits for the
consumer. Tariffs strongly depended on the price, quality, and accessibility of alternative water sources
available to the end user.
BOX 4.6a: tariff system in Limassol, Cyprus (Theophilou, 2004)

This is an interesting model to resolve conflicting water uses in water-scarce areas where water demand
is not met. Limassol is predominantly a tourist destination with at the same time a high agricultural
demand and suffers from structural and / or temporal water shortages (NTUA, 2005).
The Government applies a quota system in combination with penalty charges for over-withdrawals.
When the demand for freshwater resources is not met, priority is given to domestic supply followed by
greenhouse cultivation and permanent crops, seasonal crops and eventually, industry. Progressive block
tariffs, seasonal prices and over-consumption penalties are also in place. The Water Board applies fixed
charges combined with volumetric charges. The average cost and prices of conventional and reclaimed
water supply are summarised in Table 4.3. Note that the price that industry pays for reclaimed water is
50 % higher than that for conventional water, but without such a reliable water resource the cement
factory would risk closing down.
Table 4.3 Water prices of conventional and reclaimed water sources
Conventional water Reclaimed water

Sector
tariffs (L/m³)* cost (L/m³) tariffs (L/m³)* tariffs (L/m³)*
Domestic 0.335 0.335 0.45* -
irrigation 0.0631 0.287 0.1164** 0

Industry 0.20 ? ? 0.30
*
since 1/1/2004 **in 2007, *Tariffs expressed in Cypriot pounds per m³
iii
However higher-level restrictions such as for instance the setting of a price cap or a revenue cap are not unusual.
74
The great majority of water reuse projects apply however a discount, somehow based on poorer water
quality and a rebate for on-site conversion costs.
Very many types of rate formulas have been applied (free rates / price cap / escalation formulas / fixed
annual amount / … ). The rationale is to be found in pricing policy objectives. Historically, water reuse
was treated as a disposal issue, and so it was not unusual for reclaimed water users to get a free rate or at
least a flat highly subsidised rate. With time the value of reclaimed water as a valuable water resource is
being recognised. In order to conserve and use this resource wisely, several case study municipalities
have recognised the need to move towards volumetric-based charges.
BOX 4.6b: use of rebates to facilitate customer retrofit connections in the South Bay
Water Recycling project, California (Rosenblum, 1999)
This project involved customer retrofits to separate the non-potable system from potable supply.
Customers requiring system retrofits for connection included city and county parks, public schools,
college and business campuses, cemeteries and golf courses, certain industries and some urban
farmland. Beside the rebate on the reclaimed water price (which was on average 20% to 30% cheaper
than potable water), the program also foresaw specific retrofit incentives:
• For larger customers, there is a grant programme offering up to 150 US$/m³/day for part or all of
the cost. Criteria to obtain the grant included the proximity to the system and quantity of use.
• Other customers preferred to have the City Council supervise and retrofit works on their site
• Still others, especially farmers cultivating undeveloped property by lease agreement, elected to
perform the retrofit work themselves in exchange for free water usage in an amount equivalent to
the value of the retrofit cost
• Soft loans
4.1.4 Equity
The municipal or provincial authority may enter into an agreement with a private entity, permitting that
entity to construct and operate a reclaimed water plant in exchange for use of the reclaimed water. The
entity could then be permitted to use the reclaimed water directly or resell it to other potential users.
The different possibilities offered by mobilising private funds are summarised in Figure 4.1. Note
however that the possible vehicles depend among other things on the legal restrictions applicable in a
given national market.
General guidelines for private sector participation in the water sector applicable on a Community level
are the EC Directorate-General Regional Policy guidelines for successful public-private partnership (EC,
2003).
75
Figure 4.1 Public-Private-Partnership contracts within public and private

management and ownership (redrawn from Earle, 2001)
Private
Public Water Co. Joint Venture Divestiture
Management of Service Provider
Concession
BOT, BOOT etc.

Corporatisation
Lease Contracts
Mixed
Management Contracts
Cooperatives
Delegation to
Service
Private Sector
Contracts
Public
Municipal or
Provincial
Authority
Public Mixed Private
Ownership of Assets
Successful private-participation water reuse projects mitigate or distribute the additional risks associated
with water reuse to the party best qualified to manage it (while sharing rewards). Table 4.4 shows how
generally the commercial risk is shared and the typical duration of the contracts.
Table 4.4 Types of operating contracts involving private participation

Option Asset ownership O&M Capital Commercial risk Duration
investment
Service contract public Private public public 1-3 yrs
Mngmnt c. public Private public public 3-5 yrs
Lease public Private public pu or risk sharing 10-15 yrs
Concession public Private private private 20-30 yrs
BO(O)T private / public private private private 20-30 yrs
Divestiture Priv. or shared private private private Indefinite
Generalisations are difficult to make, as the local or regional variations in the preferred PPP options not
only depend but vary also in time, with the water reclamation market evolves. Real life examples show
that private participation is generally limited to large-scale water reclamation projects and have high
fixed and operational costs. Let’s have a look at some examples:
• Cooperative: an example of is illustrated in BOX 4.5.
• Design build operate (conventional option): an example is the Gerringong-Gerroa scheme in

Australia (cfr. BOX 4.7).
• Concession (more and more in use for large projects with a given risk profile): an example is the
Singapore’s largest water reclamation scheme which will begin operation in December 2006. The
76
Public Utility Board (PUB) signed a 20-year concession with KIE to design build, own and operate
the Singapore’s, in return for the PUB’s guarantee to purchase a total of 148,000 m³/d for an agreed-
upon price (Hai and De Ryck, 2006). The project is technically sound in that the water reclamation
treatment process will be the same than the previous three water reclamation projects (cfr. NEWater
case study Chapter 12)iv, well-structured (experience from the first three projects allowed PUB and
KIE to set up transparent and comprehensive contract specifications), and make financial sense (will
lead to a more cost effective water supply). Similarly, the Sulaibiya water reuse project in Kuwait
has been awarded a 30-year concession to recover municipal wastewater from Kuwait City and the
surrounding area. Again, key features in this project are the large size (design flow of 375,000 m³/d),
the sound technical solution (double membrane reclamation technology) and the competence of the
established consortium (Gagne, 2004).
4.1.5 Trends
General trends in the financing of water reclamation schemes seem to focus on:
• Regional approaches to water reuse. Examples are the programme A.G.U.A. in Spain (www.mma.es),
or the Decree 185/2003 in Italy, which imposes reuse plans for priority schemes that have to be
identified in a “comprehensive general report of the cognitive framework”. They play a key role in
prioritising funds with respect to other water resource management alternatives.
• Broadening of funding sources. Multiple financing – e.g. grants from environmental agencies,
agricultural departments, co-financing from IFI’s, etc.
• Increasing flexibility of funding sources.
• Greater diversity and sophistication of financing instruments.
• Blurring of project finance/corporate finance distinctions. An example is the case study of Tilburg,
Netherlands (BOX 2.7 and 4.10).
• Targeted, time-bound subsidies remain important and necessary, particularly considering the market
distortion of the water supply services that, whilst decreasing, is still exists.
• Tax incentives for environmentally attractive water reuse projects
iv
These projects were implanted through the conventional ‘build to design’ -two projects- and ‘design and build’ -one project-
delivery concepts.
77
4.2 ELEMENTS OF GOOD FINANCIAL PRACTICE
4.2.1 Rational cost allocations based upon usage and

benefit
Based on the polluter-pays principle, reclaimed water users should be charged for the benefits obtained
by investing in reclaimed water for productivity. This should be done at the net of externalities, typical
externalities being the protection of potable water potable supplies, removal of effluent disposal outfalls
and so forth. The end user in some cases could therefore be charged below the production cost.
BOX 4.7 provides two unambiguous examples of economically justified cross-subsidies, the first as a
result of pollution control policy, and the second of water conservation and supply policy. In these
examples, the cost allocations based upon usage and benefit could only be achieved because of the
presence of a good level of horizontal (and vertical) integration.
BOX 4.7: examples of circumstances where there is a sound economic justification for cross-
subsidisation
Example 1: water reuse as a means of effluent disposal at Gerringong Gerroa, New

South Wales (NSW) Australia (based on Lesjean et al., 2001)
Gerringong and Gerroa are two communities located 120 km from Sydney on the southeast coast of
Australia. A moratorium on new –close and deep- ocean outfalls was adopted by NSW Government in
1999, impeding any economic discharge of treated wastewater treatment plant effluent to the ocean.
Due to the sensitive environmental area - a holiday destination which exhibits well-preserved but
fragile marine, fauna and flora ecosystems, – the effluent disposal scheme which gathered unanimous
support from government, local community groups and project developers was to maximising local
reuse of treated effluent. On the other hand the low benefits accruing to, and commitment secured
from, local farmers (it is a high rainfall area), induced Sydney Water to purchase a dairy farm to
secure the reuse of reclaimed water for pasture irrigation and to provide that water free of charge. As
this was considered the cheapest acceptable alternative of disposing of the effluent, the cost of
treatment and distribution of the reclaimed water was to be financed by the pollution control budget.
Example 2: water reuse as a means of water conservation and supply at Tucson,

Arizona (Dotson, 2005)
Tucson is located in an arid area and its population is growing rapidly, at a rate of 2.5 to 3 % annually.
Rather than being considered as a means to dispose of treated wastewater, reclaimed water is
considered as an important and growing means of water supply. Since Tucson Water began delivering
reclaimed water in 1984, the Council’s pricing policy was to
1. base the reclaimed water charges based on cost-of-service and
2. keep the rate below the potable water rates as an incentive for potable water users to convert to
reclaimed water.
Once every two years the rate for both potable and reclaimed water is revised. The rate setting process
includes a series of steps including a cost of service analysis for potable and reclaimed water. This
analysis estimates the actual cost to provide water services to each customer class. The water financial
78
policy of the Council is to allocate revenue requirements to classes based on cost of service. In
establishing revenue targets for each customer class, cost of service results are often adjusted to meet
other water objectives, such as encouraging potable customers to convert to reclaimed water. Initially
approximately 80% of the cost of service for reclaimed water was recovered through the reclaimed
water rates. The remaining 20% of the reclaimed water cost was included in the potable water rates.
The rate payers accept this allocation of reclaimed water costs because if were there not a reclaimed
water system, there would have to be additional expenditures on the potable side to acquire, treat, and
deliver water for non-potable purposes. The reclaimed water users are also satisfied, as important
savings are realised. In the past water rate revisions, reclaimed water rates have been recovered
between 73 and 85% of the cost of service.
In other words, the appropriate cost recovery mechanism and the degree of cross subsidising from the
water sector strongly relies on policy objectives. Especially relevant is the extent to which water reuse is
useful for pollution control and/or conservation of the water resources. A rational cost allocation based
upon usage and benefit can however only be achieved in the presence of a good level of horizontal and
vertical integration.
Chapter 2 has shown that in the European Union there is enough scope in the existing policies for the
externalities of water reuse projects to be fully explored and duly assigned. On the other hand, depending
on the local institutional arrangement of the urban water cycle, this may require special financial
structures.
Rationale for reclaimed water user charges

The existence of an appropriate pricing policy for the water sector in general, and for reclaimed water in
particular, is an essential factor in the implementation of a project.
Key points that need to be considered in setting reclaimed water user charges include:
• Regulatory parameters. One should examine in the first place the national policy on water pricing
and cost recovery. The existence of an appropriate pricing policy of the water sector in general, and
of the reclaimed water sector in particular, proved to be an essential factor for the solid
implementation of water reuse projects.
• Reflecting the true value of reclaimed water, net of externalities. The externalities should be
internalised in the integrated water resources services, based on the full cost recovery and polluter-
pays principles. The pricing policy should be oriented to attract customers to use the water resources
at river basin level more efficiently, i.e. conserve and reuse it, while not wasting the resource (if for
instance the price is set too low).
• Affordability-to-pay and willingness-to-pay (for each class of reclaimed water users). Customer
segmentation might be needed (irrigation, industry, residential, …)
• Among other things, this implies identifying the willingness-to-pay of each class of customers (cfr.
Section 4.2.2).
79
• Include price/non-price instruments for demand management (legal and regulatory obstacles for
appropriate demand management will have to be identified).
Other pricing principles that need to be considered include:
• Fairness
• Simplicity: tariffs should be set in a way that parallels as closely as possible those used for
conventional supply. This way, the chances of approval of any changes can be improved and
customers can better understand their bills.
• Risk allocation, including considerations about the number of customers, maximum demand,
capacity, water quality, … (cfr. Section 4.3)
• Moreover, the charges should be high enough to limit the risk of wastage.
In c r e a s in g r is k
strategy
Pricing
M ix e d f la t a n d V a r ia b le /
f la t
v a r ia b le V o lu m e tr ic
I n c e n tiv e t o e ff ic ie n t r e c la im e d w a te r u s e s
In the European Union, the WFD gave weight to the concept of ‘full cost recovery’ as the basis for water
charging.
4.2.2 Securing a firm commitment of the reclaimed water

customers
It is imperative to secure a firm commitment from the customers in the early phases of project
development. Unlike potable water supply, securing customers for reclaimed water supply is far from
easy. Moreover, the potential for new customers may be limited.
The prerequisite for any firm commitment is that the customers have a positive return in the near term
and a well-identified risk which is close to zero. This may require a serious effort to assess the potential
reclaimed water market. Specific aspects to include in the assessment include:
1. The competitiveness of other water supplies, as it alters in many ways the willingness to pay.
Water quality considerations play an important role here. Agricultural or landscape irrigation will
benefit from a higher content of nutrient on the one hand, yet might involve deleterious effects on
crops because of higher salinity content on the other hand. A case practice is reported in BOX 4.8.
2. The business return per volume of water used, to determine the affordability-to-pay. Economic
implications such as the effects of possible restrictions on use (e.g. crop restrictions) and user
retrofit costs for conventional water customers to convert to reclaimed water should be carefully
examined (cfr. BOX 4.5b). The developer should also evaluate the costs for the additional treatment
needed to remove these restrictions and the liabilities the customers will incur.
80
BOX 4.8: case description of a tariff structure that takes into account the competitiveness
of other water supplies (based on Parabicoli, 2001)
In Maui (Hawaii), the County divided the consumer groups in to three classes as a function of the
conventional water source they had available (surface water, groundwater, potable supply) and applied
the following in the contract:
• Reclaimed water rates 20% lower than the alternative water source to provide an incentive for using
reclaimed water (this fee basically covered the O&M associated with the reclaimed water
production and distribution).
• Waiving reclaimed water connection fees for the first two years of the programme and pricing them
comparable to potable water connections if they were higher.
• Including an ‘Avoided cost’ clause: if the commercial property can prove that it was paying less for
its non-potable water sources, then the County will match this rate.
As a result, mandatory use of reclaimed water is in place at commercial properties yet the County has
not had to enforce it and met its requirements in a more politically acceptable way.
3. The satisfaction level of using reclaimed water, and not only finance-wise. Several circumstances
are recorded where reclaimed water has not been accepted by users despite an attractive price. In
Tunisia, for instance, the water reuse tariff was set well below the tariff for conventional surface
water used in other irrigation systems (at 0.015 US$/m³ versus 0.022-0.077 US$/m³ for
conventional water) but when given the choice farmers still preferred conventional water (Bahri,
2004). Good practice on communication and involvement in the project development and
operational phase are reported respectively in Jeffrey and Russell. (2006), and in Chapter 6.
4. The conditions of participation: contractual guarantees and obligations including frequency and
means of payment, - to easy off the user. For instance, in the case of golf course irrigation in tourist
resorts, an annual charge after the tourist season is the easiest to collect.
5. The financial structures that have a minimal near-term rate impact on customers.
As the opportunity cost and affordability is clearly different from customer group to customer group, the
developer is leaned to examine these points for each customer group.
BOX 4.9: shortlist of incentives that reduced the near-term rate impact on customers
• Tax breaks: e.g. in Texas exemption from sales tax for purchased equipment and from all or part of
the property tax for any person or entity for the total property value of the pollution control
equipment (Hoffman, 2000; Martinez, 2000)
• Soft interest loans for the on-site conversion from freshwater to reclaimed water use – e.g. in Texas
eligible costs are proportional to the requested yearly water demand (Martinez, 2000).
• Reduction of the reclaimed water tariffs in the first years of the project operation to cushion the
costs of conversion: e.g. in Tunisia, reclaimed water is often distributed free of charge at the
beginning of the supply to encourage farmers to use it, then a fixed price per hectare before
evolving towards a price per unit volume of water used (Bahri, 2004).
81
Ability to identify, manage and share risks proves to be a particularly important feature for the success of
water reuse projects.
4.3.1 Institutional/regulatory risk

In mature water reuse markets like Israel, Japan or Australia, legitimate standards allowed a streamlining
of project development procedures. In contrast, several European and Mediterranean markets still lack
clear criteria to support decisions on when reuse is appropriate and on specific quality standards.
Moreover, both the legal framework that defines environmental liability and the institutional
arrangements are ambiguous. No doubt this increases the difficulty of implementation and does nothing
to alleviate financial risk:
Lack of credible and legitimate standards

• Despite various policies to encourage water conservation and reuse (see Chapter 2) it is not always
easy to obtain a permit for the reuse of reclaimed water.
• The fact that standards are not uniform and are often determined on a project-basis creates confusion
and keeping track of compliance/ comparing systems/etc. is more difficult, especially for those local
administrations that lack technical skills. Overall, public administrators may be pursued for
negligence but not for adopting a precautionary approach. This has led to various types of
misunderstandings and misjudgements (cfr. Bixio et al., 2006).
• There is no guarantee that a system installed today will meet guidelines and standards that may be set
at national or EU level tomorrow.
The legal framework that defines environmental liability needs to be clarified

The legal framework that defines environmental liability is not always unambiguous (see Chapter 2).
Whereas accidental pollution does not give rise to problems as far as insurability is concerned, in several
national markets other types, such as pollution by residues or side-effect pollution do create problems.
While in some national markets insurers have been obliged to abandon this requirement of “sudden and
accidental” for another concept which is that of “fortuitous occurrence”, in some others such as for
instance, on the Belgian and US markets, this is not yet the case (Cousy, 1995)vii. The results of the
Aquarec questionnaire on management practices indicate, on the other hand, that the utilities (plant
managers) do not seem to be aware / concerned with emerging issues such as for instance those posed by
endocrine disruptors (Aquarec, 2004).
Institutional arrangements and responsibilities need to be clarified

The division of responsibilities between various agencies and government departments is unclear and the
company responsible for the provision of the services lacks the necessary organisational structure, legal
status and clarity of mission. Managerial, financial and operational autonomy, have been an impediment
to widespread application of water reuse schemes (see Chapter 2).
vii
In other cases the Courts have refused to follow a restrictive interpretation of “sudden and accidental”, and given extensive
interpretation such as “unwanted and unforeseen” (Cousy, 1995).
83
Possible mitigation measures

Obviously the above-mentioned risks are very difficult to cushion, as they may only become apparent
well into the debt repayment period. Potential mitigation measures are:
• Clear and unambiguous statements of government support, especially when linked to some form of
guarantee. Any such statement will, ideally, contain within it indications of the underlying benefits
that the government wishes to accrue from supporting water reuse. This will help potential investors
determine the degree to which individual schemes are compatible with national policies or
aspirations.
• Planning and designing the plant so that it is capable of exceeding current national standards
(although exceeding these standards by too much may be perceived as costly and unnecessary over-
engineering: e.g. Shuval, 1997).
• Defining property rights along the full length of the hydrological cycle to reduce uncertainty for
private investors.
• Entering into well understood (fixed) contracts binding all parties, whether risk is assigned or shared.
BOX 4.10: mitigating the costs and spreading associated financial risk by jointly funding
the scheme at Tilburg, Netherlands (based on Maas, 2004)
The Tilburg water reuse project needed a high fixed cost of the loan. To close the gap between what the
customers were ready to pay and the project needs, the following financing strategy was adopted:
• Subsidies from the EU LIFE financing programme (maximum allowed i.e. 25% of the capital cost
for the reclamation plant): demonstration project
• Subsidies from the Ministry of the Environment (maximum allowed): for non-use values (i.e.
counteracting the overexploitation of the aquifer)
• Province: budget to subsidise the technical part
• Tax incentives because B.V. companies are handled as public entities from a taxation point of view
(see BOX 2.7)
• Equity financing
• Loans from project participants (see Box 2.7) to B.V.
(b.v. pays a higher interest for the loan than participants pay to their banks)
See BOX 2.7 for the project background and institutional framework.
4.3.2 Political risk

Major political risks can be incurred through:
• Government inaction or “institutional inertia” to issue permits (e.g. because of a disposal mindset).
• Government direct action which introduces regulations affecting the price or the mechanisms for the
sale of reclaimed water and exposing the utility to the risk of getting approval for a tariff increase.
84
• Non-continuity of policy and staffing. The change of government is the most basic risk that can
influence water reuse (cfr. e.g. the national water master plan of Spain by the Aznar Government that
has totally changed after the election of its opponents, the Zapatero Government).
To cushion these risks consider:
• Putting in place clearly stated pricing adjustment mechanisms which guarantee consideration of the
main influences on delivered water costs.
• An important source of support is obtaining provision of a guarantee underwritten by the local

government to support debt servicing obligations until the project has achieved certified operational
completion or to support the entire debt servicing period (depending on the outcome of a risk
assessment).
• Arrangements involving risk spreading by involving other experienced financial institutions.
4.3.3 Commercial risks

Volumes and quality of the service
Unlike potable water supply, it is far from evident how a reliable base of customers can be secured,
thereby guaranteeing a stable demandviii. Moreover, the potential for new customers may be limited.
Those projects that have one or two large consumers (e.g. on an industrial site) are exposed to a higher
level of risk. The unique design of water reclamation technology to meet specific needs makes it difficult
to extend the market to other users whilst extending the water quality criteria of a scheme to meet
potential future demand may not be financially viable for the present project requirements.
In order to analyse the uncertainty, it is advisable to split user groups into (Mills and Asano, 1996):
6. existing (at the start of the reclamation schemes) and potential users (e.g. within 5 years) and
7. "high-pressure" customers (city-owned properties like parks etc) and "low-pressure" customers
(farmers, etc.)
When limited contribution from low-pressure customers or longer time frames have to be considered, a
phased implementation plan is preferable. Adaptability of the system may then become an important
issue (which would prompt modular solutions such as membrane systems).
A standby letter of credit with the customers to support the off-take contract whilst ensuring their
commitment (cfr. Section 4.2.2) may serve as a mitigant.
Because of the site specificity of water reuse projects, assurance about the previous quality of service, of
both the service provider and similar projects, might be missing.
Price levels must be satisfactory

In several national markets the tariffs for reclaimed water and/or of alternative water supplies are not
under the control of the utility.
viii
Costs are significantly affected by the fraction of utilization of a facility over the course of a year
85
To cushion the risks generated by uncertainties over the volumes of water supplied there is a need for
long-term supply contracts at specified quality and prices that also reduce uncertainty over operating
costs.
An important aspect is establishing clearly stated pricing adjustment mechanisms which guarantee
coverage of the main variables. In some cases, competitor suppliers should be involved in the project.
An entry barrier is the possible need to adapt the existing distribution system versus the need to compete
with another water source having the infrastructure already in place (Hartling, 2002). In extreme cases
captive demand has been put in place, for example in Gerringong/Gerroa, Australia (see BOX 4.6).
About the competition from the conventional water supplier, it is worth mentioning that the prospect is
that water prices will increase and that reclaimed water prices will likely remain stable.
4.3.4 Technological risk and contingencies

Strategic level decisions on the introduction of water recycling technology need to be informed by
knowledge of stakeholder attitudes and behaviour towards the technologies and processes involved.
Lenders do not like lending to schemes which involve new technologies (even new applications of
standard technology) and prefer tried and proven technologies that have been financed in the past.
Therefore one should consider providing information on technology that has been proved to operate in
broadly similar contexts and that has a long performance track record. Typically lenders feel comfortable
with 3-6 previous plants of the same technology with at least 5 years of reliable operation. For new
technologies the lender is likely to ask for additional support and guarantees.
Service obligations/guarantees
Technical / Minimum capacity / Performance standards: sponsors will not generally be prepared to
assume the full risk themselves, and will require guarantees and warranties from the manufacturers (and
in turn from component suppliers). Unless the manufacturers are large, creditworthy companies, they
will be forced to provide private insurance or bank bonds to cover this risk. Where private insurance is
used, the bank will want to be named in the policy.
Because of the perception of technology-risk, commercial scale demonstration schemes are very
important. It is one of the reasons why grants from multilateral aid agencies or government help may be
applied at this stage in order to reduce risk by cushioning the financial exposure of the project to
sponsors, lenders and investors.
Lenders look to minimise, and/or appropriately assign, technology risk by assuring sponsor commitment
(e.g. via equity stake, or minimum ownership period). This process can be facilitated by grants from
multilateral aid agencies or the government targeted to cushion the financial exposure of the project to
sponsors, the lenders and the investors. In addition the following can be utilised:
• Strong experienced sponsors with significant track records (and ideally an equity stake).
• Arrangement tying the key parties to the project at least until the debt has been repaid.
• Provision of longer term performance guarantees and warranties.
• Adequate insurance cover.
86
A SWOT analysis of the most common water reclamation technologies is given in the technical part of
this volume, while aspects related to design inadequacies are covered in other work packages (WP7).
With regard to contingencies, there is generally more certainty because the focus is on the upgrading of
existing sites where the effluent results are known.

The existence of an appropriate pricing policy for the water sector in general, and for reclaimed water in
particular, is an essential factor in the implementation of water reuse project.
Moreover, it is imperative to secure a firm commitment from the customers in the early phases of project
development. Unlike potable water supply, securing customers for reclaimed water supply is far from
easy and the potential for new customers may be limited.
The bankability of the project under consideration will limit to a large extent the access to different
financial structures and will direct the search for financing in a well defined direction. If the project
cannot support the loan repayment periods other mechanisms have to be considered. Financing will
probably be more grant-oriented.
The selection of the mix of financial mechanisms that allows achieving an effective service level versus
cost ratio depends strongly on local conditions and should be tailored to meet specific project needs. Key
variables that impact this selection include: the project owner and institutional possibilities, the
objectives of the water reuse programme, existing or authorised tariffs, investment needs and the size of
the project, and the socio-economic situation.
Subsidies have often provided financing closure for projects that were perceived beneficial from a socio-
economic point of view but that exhibit low bankability.
The acquisition of secondary funding through the extension of the initial project objectives to include a
regional/national/international programme objective proved to be particularly important to attract local
financing and support.
4.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bahri A. (2004) The experience and challenges of reuse of wastewater and sludge in Tunisia.
Bitozzi A. and E. Coppini (2004) Problematiche del riciclo e riutilizzo delle acque nell’industria. In: Proc. 26a Giornata di
studio di ingegneria sanitaria-ambientale. Verona, Italy; 16 April 2004 (in Italian).
Bixio D., De Koning J., Savic D., Wintgens T., Melin T. and C. Thoeye (2006) Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination 187:
89-101.
Cousy H. (1995) Recent developments in environmental insurance. In: Recent Economic and Legal Developments in European
Environmental Policy. Leuven Law Series 5: 227-241.
Cuthbert R.W., Hajnosz A.M. and R.W. Beck (1997) Reclaimed water rates: alternative strategies for developing reclaimed
water charges. AWWA Water Reuse Conf., Seattle, Washington; August 1997.
Dotson K. (2005) Reclaimed water rates help achieve water supply and conservation goals. Proc. 20th Annual WaterReuse
Symposium; Denver, Colorado; 18-21 September 2005.
Earle A. (2001) Public Private Partnerships in Water and Sanitation. Available from: http://www.thewaterpage.com/
on 1 September 2005.
87
EBRD (2004) Investing and working responsibly for a sustainable future EBRD Sustainability Report 2004.
EC (2003) Guidelines for successful public-private partnership. European Commission, DG Regional Policy.
EIB (2005) The European Investment Bank and the Water Sector. Available from: http://www.eib.org/publications/
Gagne D. (2004) Sulaibiya water reuse project begins full operations. Water & Wastewater Int. 19 (9): 19-21.
Hai O.H. and L. De Ryck (2006) Best sourcing approach keeps water production costs down. Water & Wastewater Int. 21 (1):
13.
Hoffman (2000) Proc. WEF Water reuse conference. San Antonio, Texas; February 2000.
IDCR (2000) Analysis and review of the prospects of implementing a differential irrigation water pricing/tariff system in the
Jordan Rift Valley.
IDRA (2004) Response Aquarec reuse-oriented operational management practice questionnaire.
Aquarec WP6 (2004) Deliverable D10: review report on water reuse management practices.
ICWE (Intl Conf. on Water and the Environment: Development issues for the 21st century) (1992) Dublin, Ireland, 26-31
January 1992.
James D. (1997) Economic instruments and wastewater management. Proc. Environmental Economics Round
Table, 10 July 1997.
Lesjean B., Murtagh J., Goodwin L., Boake M. and G. Ovens (2001) Implementing a reuse scheme in Australia under difficult
conditions. Proc. 2nd IWA World Congress; Berlin, Germany; 14-18 October 2001.
Maas J. (2004) Response Aquarec reuse-oriented operational management practice questionnaire.
Mantovani P., Asano T., Chang A. and D.A. Okun (2001) Management practices for nonpotable water reuse: final report.
WERF Project 97-IRM-6.
Martinez (2000) Proc. WEF Water reuse conference. San Antonio, Texas.
Mills R.A. and T. Asano (1998) Planning and analysis of water reuse projects. In: Wastewater reclamation and reuse.
Technomic Water quality Library Vol. 10: 57-110.
Neal K., Maloney P.J., Marson J.A. and T.E. Francis (1996) Restructuring the America's water industry: comparing investor-
owned and government water systems. Reason Foundation report, LA (US). Available from:
http://www.rppi.org/ps200.html
NEFCO (2005) NEFCO environmental guidelines for project applications:
http://www.nefco.fi/documents/Environmental_guidelines05.pdf
NTUA (2005) Guidelines for integrated water management – regional experiences and management methods applicable to
water stressed regions.
Parabicoli S. (2001) How to sell reclaimed water – setting the right price in Maui. Water 21 August 2001: 26-33.
Rendell (2000) What is recycled water worth? Water Recycling Australia 2000, Adelaide, South Australia; 19-20 October 2000.
Roeker D.F. (2000) Funding Against the Odds: Proven Capital Funding Techniques. Proc. WEFTEC 2000, Anaheim,
California; 14-19 October 2000.
Rosenblum E. (1999) Selection and implementation of nonpotable water recycling in “Silicon Valley” (San Jose areas)
California. Wat. Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 51-57.
Sala L. and M. Serra (2004) Operational experience with constructed wetlands in Costa Brava. Proc. Intl Workshop on
Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Sheikh B., Rosenblum E., Kasower S. and E. Hartling (1998) Accounting for the benefits of water reuse. Proc. AWWA/WEF
Water Reuse Conference, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, 1–4 February 1998: 211–221.
88
Shuval H., Lampert Y. and B. Fattal (1997) Development of a Risk Assessment Approach for Evaluating Wastewater Reuse
Standards for Agriculture. Wat. Sci. Tech. 35 (11-12): 15-20.
Theophilou C. (2004) Response Aquarec reuse-oriented operational management practice questionnaire.
US Bureau of Reclamation (2004) Financial Support Opportunities Technical Memorandum. Available from:
http://www.usbr.gov/: 213 pp.
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for water reuse 2004. EPA/625-R-04-108.
Winpenny J. (2003) Financing Water For All -Report of the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure. Third World Water
Forum; Kyoto, Japan; March 16-23, 2003. Accessed at:http://www.riob.org/wwf/FinancingWaterForAll_complete.pdf
89
90
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Recent decades have witnessed rapidly increasing acknowledgement of the need to implement
‘sustainability’ in the way water management systems are designed and operated. The term ‘sustainable’
is now used frequently in environmental contexts, especially in reference to development. Sustainable
development has been defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as
‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Accordingly, for a water reuse scheme to be judged
sustainable, it must comply with environmental, social-cultural and economic needs (Figure 5.1)
(Balkema et al., 2002).
Figure 5.1 Sustainable water reclamation technology considering physical,

social-cultural and economic environment (adapted from Balkema et
al., 2002).
Economic
Environment
Social
Environment
Technology
Physical
Environment
Environmental impacts are defined as any change in the environment and can be either positive or
negative. In relation to water reuse, environmental impacts can be caused by the construction of water
reclamation infrastructure or changes in water flows or mass flow of contaminants or nutrients. Social
impacts are changes that may have effects on individuals, communities or wider society. Examples of
social impacts include changes in public acceptance of using recycled water in homes, and variations in
leisure activities or other lifestyle modifications. Economic impacts include changes in factors such as
employment, income and productive output.
There is now global need adequate assessment of water reuse systems and technology for their overall
sustainability. An example of this need is illustrated in the current problem in water reuse industries of
competing efforts to improve the quality and quantity of water produced, while simultaneously trying to
reduce the consumption of energy and materials. As the process of reclaiming water is often energy
intensive, environmental assessment tools can be used to compare the sustainability of outcomes such as
reusing water and not reusing. In addition, these tools can be used to compare different reclamation and
reuse alternatives. Environmental assessment tools also allow the possibility of assessment of different
stages of wastewater reclamation or to focus specifically on the impacts caused by the facility, such as the
constructing and demolishing water reclamation infrastructure.
91
The application of some popular environmental assessment tools is discussed in this chapter, along with
some limitations associated with employing these tools in water reuse applications.
Environmental assessment tools incorporate strategic approaches that may be employed for the
determination of feasibility for potential water management concepts. They are useful to assist in the
identification and evaluation of overall environmental impacts, and in some cases, social and economic
impacts. Used with care, these tools can often play a valuable adjunct role in the wider environmental
impact assessment for a water reuse scheme.
Figure 5.2 Environmental tools that will be discussed in this chapter
Life Cycle
Assessment
Ecological Material Flow

Footprint Analysis
Analysis
Adjunct tools for

sustainability
assessment
Sustainable
Environmental Process
Space Index
The five environmental assessment tools that are discussed are not the only such tools available. Other
environmental assessment tools include ecological rucksacks, material intensity per service unit and
natural step, just to name a few.
5.1 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

Ecological footprint analysis has been described as an accounting tool enabling the estimation of resource
consumption and waste assimilation requirements for a defined human population (Wackernagel and
Rees, 1996). The approach was largely developed by William Rees in 1992, and further expanded by
Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in 1994 (Ayres, 2000). Their purpose was to provide a simple
environmental indicator to monitor sustainability. As such, ecological footprint analysis is a useful
environmental tool for determining per capita energy and material consumption rates for a given
population (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000). Calculating the ‘water-based’ footprint for a certain region
may add significant value to the assessment of water reuse opportunities and environmental consequences
within that region.
The main outcome of ecological footprint analysis is the estimation of an area in square metres indicating
how much land is needed per person to maintain consumption levels (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000). If
the calculated footprint for the total population is larger than the total land area available to that
population then the population is considered unsustainable (Wood and Lenzen, 2003). When considering
the ecological footprint of water use, the quantities of water are not converted to a land area, but instead
are considered in volumetric terms such as cubic metres of water consumed or used for a certain activity.
92
Ecological footprints can be calculated by input-output analysis (Lenzen and Murray, 2001). Normally,
the necessary calculation input parameters would include the total resources consumed such as energy and
materials, the total amount of wastes produced and the total area of the site being studied, be it a country,
city or house (Barrett and Simmons, 2003). The ecological footprint would then be determined by
considering the total land that is needed to provide the resources and absorb the wastes. The output would
then normally an area of land that is required, per person, to support the population. To apply an
analogous approach to water consumption, a water use footprint would be calculated as a volume of water
taken from a system minus the volume returned to the system. The applicability of such a concept for
recycled water would depend on whether it is returned to nature in a pristine state, for example free of
chemicals or other contaminants.
Like any environmental tool there are several advantages and disadvantages associated with ecological
footprint analysis. One important advantage is its value as an educational tool. This is due to its ability to
demonstrate degrees of sustainability or unsustainability (Lenzen et al., 2003a). Ecological footprint
analysis is an easily understood concept for a broad cross-section of people. This is partially because it
aggregates a number of environmental factors, such as land types and consumption levels, into a single
environmental indicator (Lenzen et al., 2003b). Despite these advantages, there are some important
limitations associated with this type of analysis. For example, the methodology of ecological footprint
analysis has been criticised as a significant oversimplification for the calculation of consumption
sustainability, which generally has a complex nature. An ecological footprint analysis provides little
information about the nature of the environmental pressures contributing to the footprint size (Yencken
and Wilkinson, 2000). Such associated environmental pressures can be anything from a loss of
biodiversity to reduced quality of water (Lenzen and Murray, 2001). Ecological footprint analysis is
generally not considered to be a suitable tool for environmental planning, at least on a local or regional
scale. The reason for this relates to the world-average productivity used to calculate the footprint,
meaning that on a regional scale much of the detail is lost (Lenzen and Murray, 2001).
5.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Life cycle assessment is a methodology which allows for the estimation and calculation of environmental
impacts that occur during the life cycle of a product (Rebitzer et al., 2004). The use of life cycle
assessment as an environmental tool dates back to the early 1990’s, but it was originally developed in the
1960’s to calculate energy requirements (Curran, 1996). Current applications of life cycle assessment are
more varied and include waste management, policy making and strategic planning. However the main
application is related to manufacture and solid wastes (Fatta and Moll, 2003).
A unique feature of the life cycle assessment process is the investigation of a product or process impacts
from ‘the cradle to the grave’ (Harding, 2002). For the example of materials, cradle-to-grave means from
the production of a certain part or material through to its disposal. A life cycle assessment process
considers specifically the inputs, such as the raw materials and outputs, such as waste products (AS/NZS
ISO 14040, 1998). In wastewater systems life cycle assessment can be used to evaluate different
environmental loads with different technical solutions (Lundin et al., 2000). For example, this could
include the determination of any raw materials used including construction, operation and disposal of a
water treatment plant. The structure of the life cycle assessment is based on international standards
93
including ISO 14040 and ISO 14041 (Rebitzer et al., 2004). ISO is the international organisation for
standardisation (Robèrt et al., 2002).
The first stage of a life cycle assessment involves inventory analysis whereby the inputs and output are
listed and then quantified (Rubin, 2001). An inventory analysis is depicted in Figure 5.3. At each of the
five sections the inputs include materials (including natural resources) and energy, and the outputs are
waste products. Through each of these five sections the inventory analysis involves the calculation of the
amount of energy and materials going in, as well as analysing the outputs, including intended products,
by-products and energy released (Rubin, 2001).
Figure 5.3 The structure of the inventory analysis section of life cycle
assessment (adapted from Nazaroff and Alvarez-Cohen, 2001).
Natural Resources
Energy, Raw Material Acquisition Wastes

Materials
(e.g. crude oil extraction)
Materials recycle
Energy, Material Production

Materials Wastes
(e.g. plastics from petroleum)
Product Recovery
Energy,
Product Manufacture Wastes
Materials
(e.g. cars from steel)
Product Reuse
Energy,
Product Use Wastes
Materials
(e.g. driving cars)
Energy,
Materials Product Disposal Wastes
(e.g. landfill or incinerations)
Of all the discussed environmental assessment tools, life cycle assessment is the most complex and
involves is a large amount of data (Hügel, 2001). Commonly, the calculations are performed by software
modelling packages, such as SimaProTM and UmbertoTM (Curran, 2004).
Some of the important information required for life cycle assessment of water reclamation and reuse
schemes includes the flows of the treated water or wastewater, the quantities of the waste produced, the
energy consumption and the amount and type of chemicals used (Tangsubkul et al., 2001).
An important advantage of the life cycle assessment approach is the formal nature, meaning that it is
possible to come to rational decisions when trying to determine which alternatives are environmentally
94
favourable (Fatta and Moll, 2003). Life cycle assessment also has the ability to predict potential
environmental impacts before they occur, which can assist decision makers.
Most of the limitations of life cycle assessment are due to the subjective nature of the process (Fatta and
Moll, 2003). Much of this process relies on assumptions and personal judgements, so any intrinsic
personal biases may significantly influence results (Harding, 2002).
Further difficulties with carrying out a formal life cycle assessment include the cost and the often complex
nature of the assessment (Curran, 1996). The complications are mainly related to the large volumes of
data required and the time and costs associate with gathering it. Much of the required information is often
not readily available. Due to these problems, a full life cycle assessment is often considered to be an
unfeasible option for smaller designers and manufactures (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000).
If time and money are significant constraints which prevent the use of a full life cycle assessment, it is
often possible to streamline life cycle assessments to save resources (Curran, 1996). This can be achieved
by judiciously minimising the data collected, or by careful omission of certain stages of the life cycle
assessment process.
5.3 MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS

Material flow analyses have previously been defined as systematic assessments of the flows and stocks of
material within a system defined in space and time (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004). The concept has
been used in a range of fields including medicine, chemistry and economics, and it was first used as an
environmental assessment tool in the 1970’s.
Material flow analysis relies on following the flow of material for only a set period of time, rather than
from ‘cradle to grave’ as would be considered for a life cycle analysis (Barrett and Simmons, 2003).
Using the example of a sewage treatment plant, the main input to a material flow analysis may be seen as
the incoming wastewater, while the main outputs may include treated water and any byproducts such as
sewage sludge (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004).
Material flow analysis can be used as a decision support tool, since it takes into account all the material
flows within a system. An important benefit that material flow analysis has above other environmental
tools is its transparency, as it details the input and output of the materials. A major advantage of
transparency in an environmental tool is that it allows peers to better understand how the tool functions
and provides them the opportunity to correct any mistakes (Robèrt et al., 2002).
The information required to calculate the material flow analysis for a water reclamation system is the
material inputs and outputs. Typical inputs, such as energy and materials and outputs, such as emissions,
are illustrated in Figure 5.4. In water reclamation and reuse facilities the typical material input is raw
wastewater and the typical output product is recycled water, as well as a by-product of sludge (Brunner
and Rechberger, 2004).
95
Figure 5.4 Typical input and output flows within material flow analysis
(Adapted from Eriksson et al., 2002)
Waste
Materials Products
Material
Emissions
Energy Flow
Energy
Analysis
Cost Revenues
A useful approach to performing material flow analysis calculations for a water reclamation system is
with the aid of the ORWARETM model. ORWARE or Organic Waste Research model is specifically
designed to evaluate material flows in wastewater systems (Ramírez et al., 2000) In particular it accounts
for waste management and reuse from a systems viewpoint (Eriksson et al., 2002). However ORWARE
has been primarily used for research, rather than used by water authorities and industry (Eriksson et al.,
2002).
5.4 SUSTAINABLE PROCESS INDEX

The sustainable process index is a cumulative index used to measure environmental impacts resulting
from human activities. It was developed in the 1990’s as an environmental tool to determine ecological
impacts associated with strategic planning in the process industry (Narodoslawsky and Krotscheck, 1995).
The physical definition of the sustainable process index is based on the quantity of land available per
capita to ensure a populations sustainable subsistence (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000). It uses a similar
approach to ecological footprint analysis in that it involves the calculation of an area of land required for
sustainability (Hertwich et al., 1997). However sustainable process index has the ability to overcome
some of the limitations associated with ecological footprint analysis by considering a wider range of
environmental impacts than simply those that affect land.
There are several input parameters required including raw materials, energy and infrastructure and the
output is the emission from the product or the process required to manufacture the product and the area
needed to assimilate the products. The output is calculated using a valuation process determined by the
time and energy expended. For example, one kilogram of ethanol has been determined to require an area
of 15.5 m2 per year depending on the means of production (Hertwich et al., 1997).
An important advantage of the sustainable process index is that it has a strong scientific basis due to its
objective nature. A further advantage is related to the relatively simple calculations required, allowing
logical discussion of the different technical options (Narodoslawsky and Krotscheck, 1995).
The information needed can be simply converted to a water reuse framework with the raw materials being
the input wastewater, and the wastes produced being waste solid, liquid and atmospheric emissions. The
96
sustainable process index has good applicability for water reuse, as it considers sustainability at the
process level, instead of the national level as some other tools do (Hertwich
et al., 1997).
However, there remain several limitations associated with using the sustainable index process as an
environmental tool. Flaws have been described associated with the logic of the method of determining the
sustainable process index. One problem is related to the valuation system used to determine the
sustainable process index. The valuation depends on time and energy, but the error relates to non
renewable resources, such as minerals. As minerals do not reform in their ores after they are exploited it
might be logically expected that they would be assigned an infinite value. However the sustainable index
process awards a value of zero for such parameters (Hertwich et al., 1997).
A further weakness of the sustainable process index is that the results can often lack consistency. This is
due to the fact that the standards used to determine the index are not based on environmental risk alone,
but also economic and technical factors (Hertwich et al., 1997).
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE

Environmental space is a tool for describing the degree to which people can exploit both renewable and
non renewable resources without causing permanent damage to future generations. It was first used by
Hans Opschoor in the late 1980’s (Hille, 1997). Its aim was to calculate a reduction in resource use
required to ensure a sustainable future.
A useful way to describe environmental space is as an opportunity space as illustrated by Figure 5.5
(Spangenberg, 2002). There is an environmental upper value, or a ceiling which is based on the earth’s
carrying capacity, and there is also a lower limit, or a floor which socially defines the minimum resource
allowance. The floor could be better described as a socio-economic factor as it takes into account poverty.
In between the ceiling and the floor is the environmental space.
Figure 5.5 The notion of environmental space (Spangenberg, 2002).
Input parameters include environmental factors such as the consumption of energy and raw materials, as
well as socio-economic factors such as health care rates and education and training (Spangenberg and
Lorek, 2002). These input parameters are then used to calculate the available environmental space per
person.
97
Environmental space can be effectively applied at both the macro and micro levels (Spangenberg, 2002).
This means that the concept can be adapted to the global and national level, while still being applicable to
the local community, or even household level. In a water reuse context the materials entering the system
are typically wastewater, while the land use could be considered as the construction of the water
reclamation plant, as well as other infrastructure such as roads and pipes.
A limitation associated with the environmental space tool is the static use of resource consumption to
define environmental space (Hille, 1997). This means that it does not take into account the imports and
exports of resources into a country which affect the environmental space. These have been excluded has
to make the tool simpler to use.
Furthermore, the socio-economic floor can be difficult to estimate and often remains unknown. This is
related to an unwillingness to define a floor due to the diversity of living standards (Spangenberg, 2004).
Without a defined floor environmental space can not be accurately calculated. However, this problem is
usually associated with macro level systems such as a national or global scale and may be surmountable
for localised water management schemes.
5.6 SUMMARY
It is clear that some tools described above are better suited to certain situations than others. For instance,
ecological footprint analysis is often not appropriate for use on small scales, while environmental space
can be used on either small or large scales. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the pros and cons, as well as
the input and output parameters, of each of the five environmental tools have been presented. This is to
help assist in determining which environmental tool is best suited for various situations.
Table 5.1 Overview of the above environmental tools

Tool Advantages Disadvantages Input Parameters Output Parameters
- Over simplified - Total resources - Area of land in
Ecological - Educational tool - Not suitable for consumed square metres
Footprint - Easily environmental - Total waste required per person
Analysis understandable planning on the produced to sustain the
regional scale - Geographic area population
- Costly – both time
- Supply foundations - Natural resources - Intended products
Life Cycle and money
for strategic decisions - Energy - By products
Assessment - Lack of scientific
- Prediction ability - Materials - Wastes
weighting
- Flows leaving the
- Decision support - Not able to measure - Flows entering the
Material Flow system, such as
tool engineering or system such as
Analysis treated wastewater
- Transparency management processes wastewater
and sewage sludge
- Strong scientific - Results lack - Raw materials - Emissions
Sustainable
basis consistency - Energy - Area needed to
Process Index
- Simple calculation - Flaws in method -Infrastructure assimilate products
- Applied at both
- Environmental
macro and micro - Only uses resource - The available
Environmental factors
level consumption to define environmental space
Space - Socio-economic
- Calculate limits to environmental space per capita
factors
sustainable resource
98
Not all of the environmental tools discussed can be easily applied to water reuse. The majority of the
research on this topic indicates that the most common environmental tool used for wastewater reclamation
and reuse is life cycle assessment (Dixon et al., 2003; Hügel, 2001; Houillon and Jolliet, 2005; Lundin et
al., 2000; Lundin and Morrison, 2002; Lundie et al., 2004; Palme et al., 2005; Tangsubkul et al., 2001).
One of the reasons that life cycle assessment is such a popular tool is that it enables a relatively
comprehensive comparison between different systems or technologies (Tangsubkul et al., 2001). An
example of an effective implementation of a life cycle assessment for the evaluation of wastewater
treatment options was published in a study by Dixon et al. (2003). This study compared the potential uses
of a reedbed and an aerated biological filter. It determined that both options use similar quantities of
energy; but determined the biological filter to be more sustainable based in the quantity of solid emissions
produced by the reedbed. In addition to comparisons, other applications of life cycle assessments include
focusing on certain stages of wastewater treatment and reuse. A good example was published in a study
conducted by Suh and Rousseaux (2002), who examined the management of a wastewater treatment by-
product; sewage sludge. The purpose of this life cycle assessment was to determine the environmental
impacts associated with different options for the treatment of sludge. This study indicated that a
combination of anaerobic digestion and land application was the most sustainable approach in the
particular situation, due to low emissions and low energy consumption.
Despite the many advantages, there remain some limitations associated with the use environmental tools
to compare water reclamation and reuse options. Firstly, none of the tools described in this chapter were
specifically designed for water reuse. Therefore, it can be assumed that no tool will be ideally suited, and
that some adjustments will be required before useful results could be gained. Another general limitation
associated with the use of environmental tools and water reuse systems is commonly the lack of key input
and output parameters (Dixon et al., 2003). This can lead to assessments that produce rather generalised
results, making it difficult to determine the true sustainability of a system.
5.7 CASE STUDY

A case study was selected to provide a practical example of how environmental tools may be effectively
applied to water management. This case study describes how an industrial laundry company has used the
life cycle assessment process to facilitate decisions regarding water reuse. The details were adapted from
a published research paper titled ‘Use of life cycle assessment as decision-support tool for water reuse and
handling of residues at a Danish industrial laundry’ by Jørgenson et al. (2004). This study was based
around the Danish company Berendsen Textile Service where the operators needed to reduce
consumption of both water and energy. Two potential water reuse alternatives have been identified, as
well as consideration the current practice of disposing the wastewater without reuse. As a first possibility
a biofilter was selected to recycle wastewater. As well as treated water, a further unavoidable outcome of
either of the water reclamation options is the production of residues, and in the case of an industrial
laundry these residues were considered likely to contain pollutants such as heavy metals. Three alternative
residue treatment processes considered. These were biogas and incineration at a wastewater treatment
plant, the production of vitrification sand (for production of building materials) and mineralization in a
sludge bed.
The overall management of wastewater and treatment residues provides six different water recycling
options that were to be compared by the life cycle assessment (Figure 5.6).
99
Figure 5.6 Six different options for laundry wastewater treatment, recycling
and waste management (Jørgenson et al., 2004)
Scenario 1
Water for reuse Sewer Wastewater
Reject water Treatment Plant
Scenario 2 Ashes
Biogas Incineration
Biofilter Scenario 3
Dewatering Sludge
Landfill
Workwear
washing Soil &
process ashes
Scenario 4 Vitrification
Plant
Building
Ultrafiltration Scenario 5 Composting Incineration materials
Dewatering Glass
Concentrate granulate
Water for reuse
Sludge bed
Scenario 6
Soil &
Biomass Biomass ashes
Harvesting Incineration
Eight different impact categories were identified including resource consumption, waste production,
ozone reduction, photochemical ozone production and toxicity. However, in this assessment only three of
these environmental impact categories were selected for consideration due to their relevance to the
industrial laundry industry. Firstly the toxicity of hazardous substances was considered including both
ecotoxicity and human toxicity. Resource use and water consumption were also considered. The first
important result was that water recycling by a biofilter and ultrafilration was determined to be more
environmentally sustainable than disposing wastewater to the sewer with no reuse. The next important
result was regarding which alternate method for water recycling was considered optimal in terms of the
environment, resources and human health. The life cycle assessment results indicated that ultrafiltration
was more environmentally sustainable than the biofilter option, as it was more efficient in terms of energy
and water savings. In terms of the residue disposal alternatives, the life cycle assessment determined that
the most sustainable approach was the production of vitrification sand. This was because this method
combines the residue, containing pollutants such as heavy metals, in a glass matrix, meaning that there is
a delayed release of pollutants into the environment. Therefore, the life cycle assessment concluded that
the optimal method to recycle industrial laundry wastewater was, in this case, through ultrafiltration and
vitrification, or identified scenario number five.
5.8 CONCLUSION
The most commonly used of these environmental assessment tools for water reuse is life cycle
assessment. This is due to its holistic approach and its strong ability to compare fundamentally different
alternatives. However, material flow analysis, ecological footprint analysis, and sustainable process index
remain useful environmental tools that may be applied successfully to water reuse in some circumstances.
Some environmental tools are better suited to water reuse than others. However, it is important to
remember that each environmental tool has different objectives and methods to measure sustainability.
Accordingly, the appropriate tools must be chosen judiciously and their outcomes interpreted according to
their limitations.
100
5.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AS/NZS ISO 14040 (1998) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework, Standards Australia,
Homebush, New South Wales, Australia.
Ayres R. (2000) Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 32: 347-349.
Balkema A. J., Preisig H. A., Otterpohl R. and F.J.D. Lambert (2002) Indicators from sustainable assessment of wastewater
treatment systems. Urban Water 4: 153 – 161
Barrett J. and C. Simmons (2003) An Ecological Footprint of the UK: Providing a Tool to Measure Sustainability of Local
Authorities. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
Brunner P. H. and H. Rechberger (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Lewis Publishing.
Curran M. A. (1996) Environmental life-cycle assessment, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Curran M. A. (2004) The status of life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool. Environmental Progress 23: 277 -
283
Dixon A., Simon M. and T. Burkitt (2003) Assessing the environmental impact of two options for small-scale wastewater
treatment: comparing a reedbed and an aerated biological filter using the life cycle approach. Ecological Engineering 20: 297 -
308
Eriksson O., Frostell B., Björklund A., Assefa G., Sundqvist J.-0., Granath J., Carlsson M., Baky A. and L. Thyselius (2002)
ORWARE – a simulation tool for waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 36: 287 - 307
Fatta D. and S. Moll (2003) Assessment of information related to waste and material flows, Technical Report 96, European
Environment Agency; Copenhagen, Denmark.
Harding R. (2002) Environmental decision-making, The Federation Press, Leichhardt.
Hille J. (1997) The concept of environmental space: Implications for policies, environmental reporting and assessments, Expert’s
Corner 1997/2, European Environment Agency.
Houillon G. and O. Jolliet (2005) Life cycle assessment of processes for the treatment of wastewater urban sludge: energy and
global warming analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 287 - 299
Hügel K. (2001) Ökobilanzen in der siedlungswasserwirtschaft, Diss., Technische Wissenschaften ETH Zürich, Nr. 13913.
Lenzen M., Lundie S., Bransgrove G., Charet L. and F. Sack (2003a) Assessing the ecological footprint of a large metropolitan
water supplier: lessons for water management and planning towards sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning 46 (1):
113 – 141.
Lenzen M., Lundie S., Bransgrove G., Charet L. and F. Sack (2003b) A novel ecological footprint and an example application,
ISA Research Paper 02-02. The University of Sydney.
Lenzen M., and S. A. Murray (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological
Economics 37: 229 – 255.
Lundin M., Bengtsson M. and S Molander (2000) Life cycle assessment of wastewater systems: Influence of system boundaries
and scale on calculated environmental loads. Env. Sci. and Techn. 34 (1): 180-186.
Lundin M. and G. M. Morrison (2002) A life cycle assessment based procedure for development of environmental sustainability
indicators for urban water systems. Urban Water 4: 145-152.
Lundie S., Peters G. and P. C. Beavis (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning.
Environmental Science and Technology 38 (13) 3465 -3473.
Narodoslawsky M. and C. Krotscheck (1995) The sustainable process index (SPI): evaluating processes according to
environmental compatibility, Journal of Hazardous Materials 41: 383 – 397.
Palme U., Lundin M., Tillman A-M. and S. Molander (2005) Sustainable development indicators for wastewater systems –
researchers and indicator users in a co-operative case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3: 293-311.
101
Ramírez J. I., Frostell B., and R. Galindo (2000) A systems approach evaluation of sludge management strategies case study:
sludge management in Valparaíso and Aconcagua, Chile. Conference on Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems.
Rebitzer G., Ekvall T., Frischknecht R., Hunkeler D., Norris G. Rydberg T., Schmidt W. P., Suh S., Weidema B. P. and D. W.
Pennington (2004) Life cycle assessment – Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications.
Environment International 30: 701 – 720.
Robèrt K.H., Schmidt-Bleek B., Aloisi de Larderel J., Basile G., Jansen J.L., Kuehr R., Price Thomas P., Suzuki M., Hawken P.,
and M. Wackernagel (2002) Strategic sustainable development – selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of
Cleaner Production 10: 197-214.
Rubin E.S. (2001) Introduction to engineering and the environment, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Spangenberg J.H. (2002) Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable
development. Ecological Indicators, 2 (3): 295-309.
Spangenberg J.H. (2004) How the environmental space for Europe was calculated, Sustainable Europe Research Institute:
http://www.foeeurope.org/sustainability/europe/study/quantify.htm
Spangenberg J.H. and S. Lorek (2002) Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from aggregate environmental
pressures to priority fields of action. Ecological Economics 43: 127 -140.
Suh Y. J. and P. Rousseaux (2002) An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment scenarios. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 3: 191 – 200.
Tangsubkul N., Waite T. D., Schäfer A. I. and S. Lundie (2001) Applications of life cycle assessment in evaluating the
sustainability of wastewater recycling systems, Recent Advances in Water Recycling Technologies, Workshop, 26 November,
Brisbane: 125-142.
Wackernagel M. and W.E. Rees (1996) Our ecological footprint, New Society Publ., Gabriola Island.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future, New York, Oxford University Press.
Wood R. and M. Lenzen (2003) An application of a modified ecological footprint method and structural path analysis in a
comparative institutional study. Local Environment 8 (4): 365-386.
Yencken D. and D. Wilkinson (2000) Resetting the compass: Australia’s journey towards sustainability, CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood, Australia.
102
6 STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION: BEST

PRACTICES FOR WATER REUSE
OPERATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Communication is a complex process that takes place between two or more parties, whereby information
is delivered, received, interpreted and responded to. For water reuse project to be successful, water reuse
organisations must communicate effectively with stakeholders. Stakeholders are organisations and
individuals with an interest in a particular project. They include public agencies at all levels, community
leaders, landowners, industry and commerce, special interest groups, customers and potential customers,
and the community in general.
A growing number of water reuse projects around the world have failed and been abandoned as a direct
result of a lack of community confidence in the projects. They include water reuse schemes in Europe,
Australia and the USA. In each case, community misgivings could be attributed, in part, to inadequate
communication between water reuse organisations and their stakeholders. In some cases, communities
suspected that planning was being undertaken in secret and that their concerns were being ignored. In
others, water reuse organisations failed to adequately promote the benefits of their operations. Even more
detrimental was the failure of reuse organisations to allay stakeholder fears about possible health and
environmental risks associated with water reuse.
For controversial endeavours, as some water reuse projects may be, debate among stakeholders is a
natural and healthy component of the decision-making process. It should be welcomed and encouraged as
a means of achieving improved or more mutually satisfactory outcomes. However, for debate to be
constructive, effective communication is paramount.
The nature and extent of a successful communications program will depend mainly on the complexity of
information to be imparted and an assessment of any factors that may have the potential to damage the
relationship between a water reuse organisation and its stakeholders. Effective communication is an
ongoing process. It begins with the decision to consider a water reuse scheme and continues throughout
the life of the scheme.
6.2 STAKEHOLDER VIEWS OF WATER REUSE AND WATER REUSE

ORGANISATIONS
In developing a communications program, it is essential that the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of
stakeholders, as they relate to the full strata of physical and emotional issues relating to water reuse, be
understood, acknowledged and addressed.
103
Lay people generally respond to a broader range of issues and may base their judgements on quite
different values to those of practitioners and experts. While the views of lay people may change as their
knowledge and understanding of a project increase, it should not be assumed that they will eventually
share all the views of the practitioners or experts. Nor should it be assumed that any discrepancy in
outcome is the result of misunderstanding or unsound reasoning.
Understanding stakeholder views towards individual schemes may require considerable local research. A
useful starting point will be to consider the findings of previous studies and their potential to be applied to
current and future operations.
6.2.1 Community views of water reuse

Different communities and different stakeholders within communities will have varying views of any
contentious initiative, including water reuse. For many communities planning for the future, the role of
water reuse, whether it be for potable or non-potable supply, is untested. Hence, issues that may influence
community response to water reuse are likely to include those associated with:
• public health
• environmental health
• economy and finance
• available technology
• emotional factors
Community views of water reuse have been a topic of interest to social scientists since the early 1970s.
Much of the research conducted during the 1970s and 1980s in the USA has been summarised by Bruvold
(Bruvold, 1988). These studies indicated acceptance of more than 90 per cent for the reuse of wastewater
to irrigate recreational parks, golf courses, public lawns and gardens, and hay pastures. Substantial
acceptance (80 to 90 per cent) was often reported for the irrigation of dairy pastures and edible crops
including orchard, vineyard and vegetable crops. Uses involving closer human contact with reclaimed
water but minimal likelihood of ingestion, such as for household toilet flushing and clothes washing, had
more variable acceptances of from 70 per cent to more than 90 per cent. Uses involving close human
contact and reasonable possibility of unintentional ingestion, such as for swimming and bathing at home,
had reported acceptances of 60 to 75 %. The lowest levels of acceptance (30 to 60 %) were consistently
reported for uses where direct human ingestion was likely or inevitable such as for drinking and cooking.
It is clear from these trends that the likely degree of close human contact is important in determining
community acceptance of water reuse schemes. However, most of the studies involved theoretical
proposals and ‘in principal’ support. Where actual or potentially imminent water reuse projects are
involved, factors such as environmental and conservation matters as well as water treatment costs and
water distribution costs may be more important (Bruvold, 1988).
Water treatment technology has undergone considerable development and improvement since the 1980s.
However, studies from the USA (Hall, Rubin, 2002) and Australia (Marks, 2004) since then, indicate that
104
community support for many forms of water reuse has either remained largely unchanged or decreased
over the years. As such, there appears to be no strong correlation between the quality of reclaimed water
and community acceptance of its use for specific applications.
To fully understand community attitudes to water reuse, it is necessary to consider instinctive and
emotional responses that people have to human excrement and sewage issues. It has been illustrated that
many people trust their own impressions of water quality (often based on cloudiness of the water) more
than they trust medical and scientific evidence (Hartley, 2003). Cognitive factors such as the Law of
Contagion and the Law of Similarity may explain many of the less rational perceptions that people may
have about water reuse (Haddad, 2004). The Law of Contagion suggests that once water has been in
contact with contaminants, it can be psychologically very difficult for people to accept that it has been
purified. The Law of Similarity suggests that the ‘appearance’ of a substance’s condition or status is
psychologically linked to perceptions of reality. Combined, these factors can create mental barriers to the
acceptance of reclaimed water as a source of pure water. However, the true significance of these cognitive
factors is yet to be properly established. It should also be assumed that responses to reuse are also
dependent on social and cultural contexts and debate which is current in a particular social network.
A review of studies undertaken up to early 2000 identified ten factors as contributing to the degree of
community acceptance of water reuse options (Hartley, 2003). The review suggests that community
acceptance of water reuse is higher when:
• degree of human contact is minimal
• protection of public health is clear
• protection of the environment is a clear benefit of the reuse
• promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reuse
• cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable
• perception of wastewater as the source of reclaimed water is minimal
• awareness of water supply problems in the community is high
• role of water reuse in the overall water supply scheme is clear
• perception of the quality of reclaimed water is high
• confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high
Not surprisingly, the water reuse applications that have consistently least enjoyed community support
have been those that involve recycling treated effluent to drinking water supplies. In the USA, acceptance
of potable reuse applications was measured at 48 per cent in 1971, but this appears to have fallen
significantly to 26 per cent (California) by 1979 and 29 per cent (Denver) in 1985 (Bruvold, 1988). By
2002 support in the USA for direct potable reuse was reported at only 18 per cent while support for
indirect potable reuse was at 40 per cent. The difference in support for the two approaches highlights
important differences in perceptions of them (Hall, Rubin, 2002). Furthermore, the degree of support
reported for potable reuse schemes has depended very much on the survey questions. For example,
105
questions about potable water reuse policy consistently score a more positive response than those about
intentions to drink the reclaimed water (Marks, 2004).
Despite the challenges, a review of recent studies has revealed highly encouraging data about community
perceptions and attitudes towards water reuse, at least in the USA (Hartley, 2003). It is anticipated that
many of the findings will also apply to other countries. The findings highlight opportunities for effective
communication between water reuse organisations and their stakeholders. They include the following.
• The community is interested in being meaningfully involved in water reuse decisions.
• The community is interested in finding ways to ensure independent and secure water supplies for
their communities.
• While the community is not well versed in the water cycle, they are generally aware that there are
water supply problems in many parts of the country (the USA).
• The community believes that some form of potable reuse is inevitable, given growth and water
supply constraints.
• Information sharing, educational activities and opportunities for reflection upon the concepts of
water reuse can increase support.
6.2.2 Trust and credibility

Success of water reuse projects will largely depend on the credibility of the supplier of information. The
credibility of the water reuse organisation and its senior managers is as important to the success of the
project as the quality of the project itself. In one study, it was reported that the degree of trust that an
individual had for a water authority was proportionate to the individual’s level of confidence that a
planned reticulated water reuse supply would not pose unacceptable risks to their health or garden
(Hurlimann, McKay, 2004). Supportive structural and institutional frameworks that inform and involve
the community have been shown to be requisite factors in the generation of trust (Marks, Zadoroznyj,
2005).
The credibility of a water reuse organisation will be judged on a number of factors, which may include
perceptions of the organisation’s:
• commitment to the welfare of the stakeholders
• performance record based on previous initiatives
• knowledge of the issues, as demonstrated by spokespersons
• impartiality regarding the subject matter
Recent observations suggest that wastewater utilities may be suffering from a general decline in
community trust and confidence in civic agencies and officials (Hartley, 2003). Surveys indicate that
water and sewerage authorities typically command the least degree of community trust. The medical
profession commands the greatest degree of community trust, followed by public health authorities,
reputable research institutions, environmental protection agencies and non-government environmental
groups (Marks, 2004).
106
In instances where the community associates a high level of risk with a water reuse project, trust has
shown to be maximised when the following conditions are met (Hartley, 2003 and Renn et al., 1995):
• Dialog is sustained
• The community has independent sources of information, not linked to the sponsoring agency
• The community can ask questions
• The community is involved early
• Information is available to everyone
• Behaviour is non coercive. It is considered a reasoned and fair way to make a decision
• Everyone’s opinion matters, and there is a willingness to listen to all views and expand the
discussion if necessary
• Citizens have some level of control in the process (such as by contributing to the agenda or ground
rules)
6.3 HOW WATER REUSE ORGANISATIONS COMMUNICATE WITH

STAKEHOLDERS
Communication can take many forms with many different ratios of input to the process by the separate
parties. The degree and nature of communication will be influenced by a number of factors. The greater
the degree of real or perceived risk associated with a project, the greater the levels of communication,
stakeholder input and negotiation that will be required to achieve a successful outcome.
6.3.1 Defining and identifying successful communication

The degree to which a communication effort has been successful must be judged according to its aims.
Specific aims may vary depending on particular circumstances. A very basic aim may be to inform
stakeholders about water reuse. The aim of a more complex communication strategy may be to provide
stakeholders with sufficient knowledge to enable constructive engagement in a public discussion or to
effectively manage conflict. Some aims of communication strategies may be more outcomes-focused such
as to encourage stakeholders to become more supportive of a reuse proposal or even to accept a proposal
whether they support it or not. Some organisations may communicate with stakeholders with the simple
aim of meeting legal requirements and avoiding litigation.
In most circumstances, a successful communications program will contain strategies that allow
stakeholders to study the evidence and draw their own conclusions about water reuse. They will be able to
see both the decision-making process and the decisions themselves as being transparent and fair. A
successful communications program will also engage stakeholders to share responsibility for solving the
water supply or wastewater disposal problem.
107
6.3.2 Stakeholder participation in decision making

The degree and nature of stakeholder participation in decision making processes can be categorised by the
eight rungs Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Arnstein, 1969). The lower rungs on the ladder
describe levels of ‘non-participation’ that have been contrived as a manipulative façade aimed at
educating stakeholders rather than allowing true participation. The middle rungs progress through levels
of ‘tokenism’ that allow stakeholders to have a voice but without the power to ensure that their views will
be heeded. The higher rungs describe increasing degrees of real stakeholder power: partnership, delegated
power, and ‘stakeholder’ control.
Progression up Arnstein’s Ladder implies not only the expansion of communication, but more so, the
means by which the communicated information is used or implemented. Decision making processes
involving a significant degree of stakeholder participation have been demonstrated to be capable of
delivering considerably more acceptable and implementable water management plans compared to
traditional ‘command-and-control’ approaches (Burroughs, 1999).
A detailed manual for effective stakeholder participation for water reuse projects will be published
separately to this manual (Jeffrey and Russell., 2006).
6.3.3 Early and continuous communication

The timing of communication activities can be of equal importance to their substance (Hartley, 2003).
Community confidence and trust can only be built over time. Therefore, rollout of a successful
communications program will ideally begin as a component of the broader resource planning effort when
the potential to develop a reuse project is being considered. Taking this approach will help develop
community confidence and trust within what is likely to be a neutral environment, outside the context of
an imminent, controversial plan.
The supply of information to stakeholders will need to coincide with major decisions made by water reuse
organisations and other relevant bodies. It will also need to coincide with the outcomes of other
communication processes. It is important that stakeholders first hear of major developments, be they
positive or negative, from the project managers. Delays in passing on information may give rise to
rumours, increase levels of concern and cause stakeholders to question the organisation’s motives and
intentions. Such reactions will greatly undermine stakeholder trust and be detrimental to the project.
Most importantly, managers should never become complacent. Over time communities alter. People move
into an area or leave it. The community’s size, demographics, and attitudes towards water reuse may all
be subject to change. Accordingly, the communication process should be embraced as an on-going
activity that benefits stakeholders as well as water reuse organisations.
6.3.4 Listening and seeking clarification

With the vast majority of water reuse projects, the ‘we tell you what you should think and know’
approach will at best be ineffectual and at worst highly counter-productive. It is therefore important for
ongoing communication to be established as a two-way flow between the reuse organisation and all
108
stakeholders as soon as the decision to seriously consider a project has been made. With that decision
comes the beginning of a learning process that will continue throughout the life of the project for
everyone involved.
Two crucial characteristics of effective communication are listening and seeking clarification. By
providing readily accessible listening and feedback opportunities, water reuse organisations can monitor
the concerns and opinions of their stakeholders. Surveys, internet and telephone hotlines provide effective
avenues for such communication strategies. Other approaches such as holding informal open-house
events, public forums and focus group meetings increase the dimension of opportunities to listen to
stakeholders.
6.3.5 Risk communication

An essential component of any communications program is risk communication. Historically, the major
goals of risk communication have been to align the community’s perception of risk with that of the risk
experts and to reduce the fear and community resistance of risk-related technology (Gurabardhi, 2004).
However, for projects that are politically controversial, the current notion is that risk communication
should focus on more basic matters. These include a society’s values concerning procedural fairness, the
way in which society makes judgments and reaches decisions, and the fairness with which risks and
benefits are distributed across different sectors of the community (Gurabardhi, 2004). Fundamental to
successful risk communication is the willingness of all stakeholder groups to respect the views of others
and for all concerns to be included in the decision making process (Renn, 2004).
The United States Environment Protection Agency promotes seven steps to successful risk
communication (USEPA, 2002):
• Accept and involve the community as a legitimate partner
• Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
• Listen to the community’s specific concerns.
• Be honest, frank, and open.
• Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
• Meet the needs of the media.
• Speak clearly and with compassion.
6.4 KEY MESSAGES TO STAKEHOLDERS
By engaging stakeholders in any decision-making process, a water reuse organisation is asking them to
make informed judgments. Hence it is essential that an education program will need to form part of the
overall communications program to enable such judgements to be made. Communication managers will
have to determine the extent to which stakeholders need to assimilate new information and become
familiar with the various abstract and technical concepts before being able to make those informed
judgments.
109
Water reuse is a relatively new concept for many communities. Therefore its value must be presented in
simple, but compelling terms. Positive key messages about water reuse will reinforce community
acknowledgement of its benefits for people and the environment. Many of the key messages are universal.
However, individual communities are also likely to base their acceptance of water reuse and rate its
advantages largely according to local considerations such as climate, geography and culture.
For communities that are subject to severe drought and unreliable water supplies, the emphasis will be on
promoting water reuse as a source of alternative supply. The first step of the communications program
will be to assist stakeholders in identifying and understanding the nature of the water shortage problems in
need of being addressed. Stakeholders must be assured that the problem will be addressed, reasonably and
sympathetically, by the appropriate organisation. There needs to be a guarantee that the problem will be
solved in collaboration with stakeholders who will benefit from the solution.
In other instances, the search for viable alternatives to wastewater discharge will be the main driver of a
water reuse program. A vulnerable marine environment or riverine system that has been significantly
impacted by wastewater disposal provides a powerful argument for water reuse. Prominent stakeholders
such as a local surfing community and some sectors of the tourism industry are likely to find in favour of
reuse as an alternative to disposal and prove to be powerful activists for the proposal.
Water reuse has many forms; some involve recycling treated sewage to the municipal drinking water
supply and some do not. It is important for the communications program to remain focused and pertinent.
For example, if the scheme being proposed is for industrial reuse only, communication strategies that
address such issues as perceived health risks associated with drinking reclaimed water are irrelevant and
likely to be counterproductive.
A highly proactive communications program helps a water reuse organisation establish and maintain
credibility by setting the agenda and an open discussion process. It places the organisation in a strong
position to acknowledge and address emerging issues up front rather than having to defend its position
when the issues are used as ammunition against it.
In addition to information that may be supplied by the water reuse organisation, stakeholders should be
encouraged to access independent sources of information. Furthermore, it should be made clear that such
independently sourced information may be brought, by stakeholders, to the table for discussion.
In all communication strategies and educational campaigns it is good practice to identify and develop a
list of key messages to ensure that important messages are prominently and consistently communicated to
stakeholders. Ten key messages of high relevance to many water reuse operations have been previously
identified (Khan, Gerrard, 2006) and are summarised below. They may not all apply in all situations, but
where they do apply, the messages have been selected with the aim of enhancing stakeholder satisfaction
and acceptance of proposed or operating water reuse schemes. Of course, these key messages should only
be considered for engagement where they truly apply, and never as a means for disingenuous persuasion.
110
6.4.1 Water reuse organisations earn their good

reputation
A water reuse organisation will rely on its reputation as a source of stakeholder trust. Accordingly, it is
important to promote any good reputation and remind stakeholders how that reputation was acquired and
of its justification. Evidence of transparency, accountability and decision-making based on robust
scientific, socio-economic and financial knowledge must be communicated to stakeholders.
6.4.2 The reuse project has a critical need and clear

purpose
Stakeholders are generally more supportive of proposals if they are able to identify and understand the
problems that a proposal is intended to address and the urgency of the need to do so. As such, the reuse
organisation has a major role in demonstrating that a viable future is dependent on conserving water and
protecting waterways.
6.4.3 Reclaimed water is safe for its intended uses

For stakeholders to have confidence in a project they will need to be aware that it will operate in
accordance with strict public health and safety regulations. They will also need to be informed of the high
level of treatment and testing that reclaimed water is subjected to. This information should be provided in
language and detail that are appropriate for the target audience.
6.4.4 Water reuse helps conserve drinking water supplies

Reclaimed water used in agricultural or industrial schemes can, in many cases, directly substitute for
potable water supplies. Accordingly, each cube used in these schemes represents another cube saved from
potable supplies. In some cases this link may not be obvious to all stakeholders and should be clearly
identified.
6.4.5 Water reuse is beneficial to the environment

The scope of environmental benefits of water reuse can be considerable. Most obviously, water
reclamation is an alternative to environmental discharge of sewage effluents which can be damaging to
sensitive aquatic environments. Additional environmental benefits may include enhanced supplies of
water for thirsty environmental systems as well as reuse of dissolved nutrients in agricultural schemes,
thereby reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers.
6.4.6 Water reuse may have substantial positive

economic impacts
Reuse can provide a secure source of water to applications for which the availability may be otherwise be
reduced in times of shortages. Accordingly, water reuse may expand the possibilities for local water-
consuming industries as well as help to protect public investments in parks and gardens. In most cases
111
reclaimed water is sold to consumers at a lower price than potable water supplies, thereby representing
possible financial savings to users.
6.4.7 Water reuse is preferable to alternative strategies

In recent years, governments, the media, scientists and environmentalists have focused on several
competing options aimed at managing water resources more effectively. Where water reuse is the
preferred option, the reasons for this decision must be clearly communicated. Matters to be addressed will
include the financial, environmental and social implications. In promoting reuse as the most suitable
option it may be appropriate to demonstrate that water reuse is the only option that can address supply
issues simultaneously with environmental issues associated with discharge into waterways.
6.4.8 There are specific intended, approved or

appropriate applications for reclaimed water
Community acceptance of water reuse will be largely dependent on the proposed applications. The more
personal the contact with reclaimed water, the greater the likelihood of resistance to it. There will be a
need for clear messages to the community that define the specific intended, approved or appropriate
applications. Furthermore a clear understanding, by stakeholders, of approved uses for reclaimed water
will be important to help prevent its misuse.
6.4.9 Water reuse is successfully practised in many other

places
The fact that water reuse is successfully practised in many other parts of the world provides a powerful
and positive endorsement for stakeholders of potential new schemes. Long-term successful practices in
places such as California with comparable social, economic and environmental climate to relevant other
parts of the world can be highlighted. Such examples will help to dispel any stakeholder feeling of
entering risky uncharted territory.
6.4.10 All water is reclaimed

An education strategy that illustrates water reuse through ‘big picture’ concepts may help stakeholders
gain a better perspective of engineered reclamation and reuse schemes. Education may include
demonstrating that the quantity of water on earth has remained fairly constant over the past million years
as it has cycled through various phases of the hydrologic cycle. Water reuse technologies often mimic
natural processes but in a highly controlled and accelerated way.
6.5 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
A list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) or potentially asked questions is an indispensable

communications tool. By pre-empting questions that may be asked by stakeholders, a water reuse
organisation is able to prepare appropriate, detailed and accurate answers in advance. Providing FAQ lists
and their model answers to all staff will help ensure the consistency and accuracy of information that is
112
dispensed. Providing either printed or electronic copies of FAQ lists to journalists will ensure their access
to accurate information. Finally, FAQ lists are an efficient means of providing information to customers
and the general public in a highly user-friendly format.
FAQ and answers will need to be tailored to meet the needs of individual water reuse operations. The
following FAQ examples may be useful in the preparation of such information.
6.5.1 Reclaimed water quality and applications

• Is reclaimed water safe for use on crops?
• Is reclaimed water safe for my garden?
• Is reclaimed water safe to drink?
• What is the effect on the environment?
• Can I fill my swimming pool with reclaimed water?
• What kind of testing is done on the treated water?
• How often is the water tested?
• What is in the water?
6.5.2 The water reclamation process

• How is treated effluent converted into safe water?
• Where does the water come from?
• What population provides the treated effluent?
• How are the byproducts of the effluent reclaimed?
• What chemicals do you use to treat the water?
• How much water do you discharge?
• How much water do you treat?
• How much do your customers pay for the reclaimed water?
• What is the total volume of water your customers use?
• What is the cost to residences and businesses?
• Has the water treatment system ever failed?
• When was the last time you couldn’t deliver the water needed?
• Where else in the country/world is water reused?
6.5.3 Why it is necessary

• What are the benefits of water reuse?
113
• How does water reuse slow seawater intrusion?
• How does water reuse save fresh water supplies?
• How does water reuse help the environment?
6.5.4 The facility

• When was the overall water reuse scheme initiated?
• How many employees work for your organisation?
• What training do employees receive?
• How much did it cost to build the water reuse scheme?
• Where did the water reuse scheme construction funds come from?
• How much does the water reuse scheme cost to operate?
• How many customers do you bill?
• Are you a public or private agency?
• What organisations support the project?
• How do I learn more about your company and water reuse?
• Can I attend a tour of the facility?
6.6 PREPARING THE MESSAGE
Depending on how it is to be delivered, the message can be prepared in a written, visual or audio format.
The mainstream media is an excellent communication channel that can maximise an audience in a timely,
cost effective manner. Most Western communities have access to regional and national newspapers and to
television and radio broadcasts. Many communities also have local media outlets.
Increasingly, people are referring to the Internet to source information. The effectiveness of an
organisation’s web site as a communication tool will largely depend on what information is supplied, how
frequently the information is updated, how ‘user-friendly’ the site is and its capacity for stakeholder
interaction.
This section provides guidelines for effective communication via media releases, letters to editors,
multimedia channels, projected presentations, displays and signage.
6.6.1 Media releases

A media release is a tool for supplying information to media outlets for subsequent further dissemination.
As such, an important aim of most media releases is to spark the interest of news editors. An editor must
be convinced that the proposed article will be of interest to their audience. If this aim cannot be achieved,
114
the media release will have failed. A second aim of a media release will be to have the information
presented in a manner or angle that suits the author. Tips when writing media releases:
• Give your media release a heading.
• Write short sentences (7-22 words).
• Develop short paragraphs (1-2 sentences).
• Limit a media release to one page, if possible.
• Write as naturally as you would speak.
• Choose simple, accurate words.
• Use active voice where possible.
• Avoid using jargon.
• Avoid ambiguity.
• Avoid using acronyms.
• Be positive and stress the advantages.
• Be specific.
• Keep to the point.
• Create mental pictures.
• Keep your target audience in mind and write from its viewpoint.
• Don’t overwhelm your audience with too many facts and figures.
• For most audiences focus your information on the human element rather than the technical element.
• Vigorously promote the positive aspects of the story.
• Deal with any negative aspects honestly and sensitively.
• Include one or two quotes.
• Support written information with visuals such as photographs, diagrams and maps.
• Find out deadlines for each media organisation and abide by them.
6.6.2 The internet and CD-ROMs

The internet is central to the effectiveness of a water reuse organisation in distributing and gathering
quality information on water reclamation and reuse projects. Contact with stakeholders via the internet is
invaluable in dealing with issues that relate to the community as a whole, and with issues that relate to
specific sectors of the community, no matter how small or remote.
A well designed website will not only be used to inform stakeholders of the basic aims, issues and
progress of a developing reuse project. By linking to other relevant, reputable websites, it will also be a
compelling tool for stakeholder education on reclamation and reuse matters.
115
The interactive capabilities of a website will determine its usefulness as a consultative tool. An effective
website will enhance the success of the reuse organisation in encouraging stakeholders to embrace reuse
as the solution to the community’s water supply or disposal problems.
The distribution and use of CD-ROMs engage many of the advantages of the internet. Stakeholders who
have access to CD-ROM dealing with water reclamation and reuse projects may consider it a more
effective education tool than a website. CD-ROM can provide animation, sound and video without the
technical problems that stakeholders with low-speed internet connections may experience. However,
limitations of CD-ROM include its lack of interactive capability and the inability of users to source
material as spontaneously as internet users can by linking to other sites.
Tips when developing websites and CD-ROM:
• Prepare images to the correct size at 72 dpi as this will be faster to download and view.
• For a wider audience, don’t use advanced graphics applications which users may not have installed
on their computer and will have to download to view your site.
• Don’t use Zip files, as users who don’t have the necessary software installed will be unable to view
them.
• Update websites regularly for greatest value.
• Maximise the value of the website by making it a forum for stakeholder ideas and comments
through web-logs, chat pages and guest books.
• Restrict the colour scheme to three or four web-colours and avoid complicated background images.
• Make navigating the website simple and straightforward and ensure that it is easy for people to
contact you.
6.6.3 Projected presentations

There may many opportunities to promote or discuss water reuse plans with a live audience. In such
circumstances, projected presentations will be an invaluable means for the preparation, organisation,
storage and presentation of information.
Effective visuals are an important component of a presentation, and require thought, planning, and
rehearsal. Projected presentations may include overhead transparencies or commercial software packages
such as PowerPoint.
Tips when preparing projected presentations
• For electronic presentations, use the ’Slide Master’ to establish fonts, size and colour scheme and
for any information that is to appear on every slide.
• Use Sans-Serif fonts, such as Arial and Verdana. Arial is best used for main titles, short text inside
tables, section header and menu titles. Verdana is best used for captions, legend text, callouts and
very small text labels.
116
• Use Arial and Verdana to guarantee the highest degree of compatibility with other operating
systems and computer platforms.
• Use a light coloured font on a dark background in a room with little lighting and a dark coloured
font on a light background in a room that has bright lighting.
• Give each visual a title and label key components
• Use graphic slides to add variety and interest
• Include no more than seven lines to a slide
• Include no more than seven words to a line
• Ensure consistency in fonts, type sizes, and formatting.
• Ensure consistency in lists of bullets, for example, a list of action steps should all begin with verbs.
• Develop only one major point for each slide
• Don’t make your slides too complex
• Make graphs and diagrams simple and accurate
• Use animation sparingly. People are both attracted and distracted by movement
• When using electronic presentations, have backup transparencies
• Replace sentences with key words and phrases.
• Don't overdo builds and transitions. They can slow down the pace of the presentation and distract
your audience.
• Don't rely on an electronic spell check. Pay particular attention to homonyms such as "their" and
"there" and the correct spelling of names.
• Have a blank slide or two at the end to avoid accidentally clicking out of the slide show and
showing the audience the ’backstage’ view of your presentation.
• Keep backups of your work and regularly save working versions of your presentation
• Use the appropriate quality and resolution for images.
• Try changing the number of colours in pictures to 256 colours (indexed colour). This can save time,
disk space and your presentations may run more smoothly.
6.6.4 Displays
Used effectively, visual displays can be a powerful communication and education tool, often imparting
large amounts of complex information in a short time to people from a wide variety of backgrounds. The
ability to digest visual information is often independent of factors such as education and literacy.
Models of a water reuse scheme and its place in the hydrologic cycle, can help improve a stakeholder’s
perspective of water reuse operations. Both functioning and non-functioning models make interesting and
useful display material. They can also be used in conjunction with presentations. Functioning models, in
117
particular, allow for a physical demonstration of the project and may provide added dimensions of sound
and movement.
But a model can also be heavy and cumbersome to transport and unless it is to be displayed at a single
location, this could cause some difficulties. Also, a model may need an expert or other person to operate
it. If used in conjunction with a presentation it could be very distracting, and the venue must be able to
accommodate it. As with all electrical or mechanical equipment, there is a chance of the model
malfunctioning.
Figure 6.1 Multilingual interactive display of reclaimed water ASR with flashing
lights indicating water movement in winter and summer cycles with
corresponding commentaries in English, Vietnamese and Khmer
(Courtesy of Peter Dillon, CSIRO).
The purpose of a cutaway model is to show the inner details or workings of operational equipment. These
types of models are particularly useful for water treatment hardware such as membrane modules.
Examples are shown for an ultraviolet disinfection unit, a reverse osmosis membrane and a microfiltration
module. Cutaway models can be prepared from real operational materials or in some cases, scaled-down
representative models may be more appropriate.
The cutaway models shown here are from NeWater in Singapore. In this case, the placement of these
models in the vicinity of the real operational modules that they represent enhances their effectiveness.
However, such cutaway models can also be very usefully transported to other venues for exhibitions and
community forums.
118
Figure 6.2 Some cutaway models on display at NeWater, Singapore.
UV Cutaway Reverse osmosis cutaway Microfiltration cutaway
Display boards can be an inexpensive and highly effective means of disseminating information available
over extended periods of time. Since many display boards can be transportable, they can be quickly set up
for use at community forums and exhibitions. Alternatively more permanent display boards may be used
at water reuse facilities and offices. A limitless variety of information can be effectively presented in this
manner. Some tips for preparing display boards:
• Use a large font, readable from a reasonable distance by people with weaker eyesight.
• Break up any large amounts of text with interesting graphics.
• Colour photographs of water reuse schemes can be effective and attractive to an audience.
• Use charts and graphs to visually present numerical data.
• Keep display boards updated.
• Monitor display boards to remove other unauthorised information.
6.6.5 Print material

Education and information strategies that involve supplying stakeholders with non-media print material
remain amongst the most effective communication tools available to reuse organisations. Prepared
messages may be developed in various forms for distribution. Popular forms include fact sheets,
newsletters, manuals, brochures, display boards and reports. Messages may be long or short, general or
specific depending on form, target audience and method of distribution. Feedback relating to stakeholder
views on water reuse generally, or to a particular reuse project, may be sourced through the preparation of
meaningful survey forms that are relevant to the target audience.
Some tips for preparing print material:
• Include company logos in consistent colours and layout.
119
• Use a large and readable font such as Times New Roman, size 12.
• Carefully consider the target audience and use suitable language.
• Avoid jargon and technical terms where possible.
• Provide contact details for further information.
• Encourage stakeholder feedback.
6.6.6 Annual reports

Required by legislation, a public organisations’ annual report can be an excellent tool for communicating
with stakeholders. The report must include audited statements of the organisations financial position and
financial performance for the preceding year. Statements relating to any reuse project must be included
and account for all expenditure and revenue associated with the project. The certified information helps
government and other stakeholders assess the financial viability of the project. The annual report also
enables stakeholders to monitor the achievements and challenges of a reuse project against the targets and
strategies identified in the organisation’s business plan. The document’s credibility as a communication
tool will be maximised if along with the good news it also identifies any problems experienced with the
project over the year. Problems may include cost overruns, disputes or time blowout.
Tips when writing annual reports:
• Check the deadline for the completion date. It is usually not negotiable.
• Negotiate deadlines with designers and printers well in advance of deadlines.
• Provide at least two drafts for project managers and executive members to review
• Use the plain language writing techniques as outlined elsewhere in this document
• Don’t exaggerate the accomplishments of the year’s work on the project
• Make sure that your facts and figures are accurate.
6.6.7 Signage
Effective signage can establish a powerful link between the water reuse organisation and stakeholders and
enhance the image of the organisation. A comprehensive signage program will be determined by the
needs of the organisation with regard to its operations and stakeholders. The development of consistent
messages is likely to address such issues as safety and security, directions and other general or site-
specific information. Signage may also include positive statements about water reuse. An important focus
of the program will be to enable the organisation to fulfil its regulatory function by providing warnings
and informing people of their obligations in regard to access and use of the water utility’s lands and
operations. Typically, all signs would include the organisation’s logo.
To ensure that signage remains consistent and appropriate throughout its operations, the reuse
organisation may find it useful to develop a corporate manual that sets out its requirements regarding the
purpose, design, fabrication, installation and location of signs. It is likely that signage specifications
120
would be developed with close reference to applicable local standards. It may be appropriate for a signage
project officer to be appointed to oversee the signage program to help maximise the benefits of the
program.
6.7 DELIVERING THE MESSAGE
Once a clear message has been determined and prepared, the next step is effective delivery. This section
will describe best practices for interacting with a stakeholder audience. This may include means such as
via the media or more directly at community forums, exhibitions or on-site visits.
6.7.1 Public forums

Public forums may include such things as school visits, community information sessions, speaking
engagements, seminars and conferences. Engaging in face to face speaking engagements can often be the
most effective communication strategy.
To maximise the impact of a presentation, it will be necessary to anticipate the audience’s needs in
advance. This can be facilitated by consideration of the audience’s background, level of education and age
range, as well as their level of knowledge and attitudes towards reclaimed water and your agency. It is
important that the representative of the water reuse organisation knows from the outset what they wish to
achieve from the presentation and how they will achieve it. They will need to identify the water reuse
issues of greatest interest to the audience to help them to determine their key message. They should
choose information carefully and customise both the material and their approach for the audience.
An excellent strategy is to promote the benefits of a water reuse proposal in the context of the risks. It is
pointless to deny such risks and attempts to so would undermine the credibility of the communicator.
Used effectively, visual aids can enhance a public presentation. Audience retention can increase
dramatically when visuals such as slides, video or electronic presentations are used. However, a visual aid
is no more than a communication tool. Its purpose is to enhance a speaking engagement not to besiege it.
Inappropriate or overuse of electronic presentations, in particular, can overwhelm the human interaction
between speaker and audience and seriously detract from the speaking engagement.
As with any contentious topic, it will be necessary to consider the likely emotional environment of the
speaking engagement. Audience hostility towards an organisation, project or presentation need not be
raucous; it may simply be an unwillingness to accept the presented views. Where the emotional
environment surrounding a project is likely to be hostile, it may be best to avoid large public meetings in
favour of smaller targeted meetings with community groups within their local areas.
With all public meetings, it is important for those present to nominate and agree to the rules of conduct to
avoid trouble with hecklers and bad behaviour in general.
For any presentation, question time provides an opportunity to interact with the audience and exchange
views and ideas. When dealing with a hostile audience, extra attention needs to be paid to the way in
121
which question time is handled. A meeting that disintegrates into a shouting match between heckler and
presenter is likely to damage the credibility of the reuse organisation and presenter.
In all circumstances, it is essential that an audience’s views are acknowledged and the merits of their case
conceded. The reuse organisation must build its case in a way that enables the audience to judge the
merits of the proposal, based on demonstration and illustration.
Some tips for public forums:
• Where possible, set up presentations before an audience arrives or on a break between speakers.
• When using electronic equipment, have a backup plan. Be prepared to resort to overheads or hard
copies of handouts.
• Begin where your audience is at and pitch your presentation to their level.
• Be positive and enthusiastic in your approach and promote the benefits of water reuse for the
audience.
• Keep the structure and language of your presentation simple, but have plenty of evidence to support
your words.
• Be sincere, keep to the point and adhere to the allocated time.
• Make your presentation enjoyable by injecting it with anecdotes and humour. This can help you
personalize the presentation, build rapport with audience, set a mood or illustrate a point.
• Avoid anything even vaguely offensive. What one audience finds amusing, another may find
distasteful.
• Using gestures can help you to speak naturally by emphasising key words or injecting pauses in
your delivery.
• Be positive in inviting members of the audience to have their say.
• Be encouraging and sympathetic to audience views.
• Don’t be defensive.
• Acknowledge the audience’s response to such influential slogans as ‘toilet to tap’.
• Use terms that are relevant to your audience and paint pictures with words.
• Avoid allocating blame and focus on a brighter future made possible by new evidence and new
technology.
• Take your audience along a journey, from planning to successful outcome, of a parallel water reuse
project. Give the full picture, citing the triumphs, challenges, judgement calls and lessons learned
along the way.
• Allow and accommodate your audience to identify potential solutions independently.
• Illustrate your case in a way that allows your audience to realise that the solution your organisation
is proposing is very plausible.
122
• Illustrate a future that does not include your organisation’s solution for the water supply or disposal
problem.
• Never speak over a heckler as it sends out the message that you are losing control.
6.7.2 The Mass Media

News editors are always looking for original material that is of interest to their audiences. The ongoing
supply of information to the print and electronic media can be the water reuse organisations’ most
effective strategy in the promotion of its operations. To gain the attention of news editors it will be
important for the focus to be on new and emerging aspects of the reuse project and for a spokesperson to
be readily available to journalists for additional information or interview.
The most popular and efficient tools for providing information to large and diverse sectors of stakeholders
include media releases, media conferences and media interviews. Newspapers and magazines that invite
‘letters to the editor’ can provide effective forums for stakeholder feedback on water reuse matters.
Talkback radio programs can also provide water reuse organisations with valuable feedback concerning
the knowledge and views held by stakeholders and promote healthy discussion on reuse matters.
Although people tend to be less receptive to paid advertising than to editorial material there is,
nonetheless, often a role for communication and education material to be disseminated through the media
in the form of ‘infotisements’. One purpose is to increase access, by special interest groups, to water reuse
information that is of particular significance to them, rather than to the community as a whole. Special
interest group newspapers and magazines and selected radio stations may be appropriate vehicles for such
a strategy.
Tips when preparing for a media interview or conference:
• Insist on preparation time before giving an interview.
• Ask what aspect of the matter the journalist wishes to discuss.
• Try to build rapport by speaking informally with the journalist before the interview.
• Inform the journalist of what you will and will not discuss. Abide by it.
• Decide on 2-3 points that you must deliver for the interview to be a success.
• Be sure you have the latest facts at the time of the interview.
• If responding to a story, know the source and its credibility.
• If you don’t want a comment reported - don’t say it.
• Never respond to unconfirmed reports.
• If the reporter makes a wrongful allegation, correct it immediately.
• If asked a prickly question, answer it truthfully, but don’t dwell on the negative. Move quickly to
something positive, such as what has or is being done to fix the problem.
• Keep your voice calm and deliberate to help keep you believable.
123
• Use the high, medium and low ranges of your voice to help keep your voice interesting and
energetic.
• Vary the pace of your speech, but avoid speaking too quickly, as this can make you sound agitated
and your argument difficult to follow.
• Maintain eye contact with your interviewer so as not to give the impression of evasiveness. This is
particularly important when listening to questions and making key points.
6.7.3 Public information centres

Many formats of prepared messages including displays and print material can be effectively disseminated
at a range of public information centres. Good examples of such centres include town libraries,
government buildings (local councils), community neighbourhood centres and tourist information offices.
This mode of information dissemination can be particularly effective for new residents moving into an
area with an interest in local issues including water management.
Tips when selecting public information centres:
• Consider venues at which the community would naturally expect to find helpful information.
• Speak with the appropriate authorities to ensure that full permission has been obtained to distribute
the information.
• Monitor displays regularly to ensure that they are properly maintained.
• Monitor supplies of print material to ensure that they remain adequately supplied.
6.7.4 Direct mail and letterbox drops

Direct mail and letterbox drops can be an efficient means of distributing print material among relatively
small groups of stakeholders that may be affected by a particular event or circumstance associated with a
water reuse project. Such events may include short-term operations that are likely to generate abnormally
high levels of noise or dust, the temporary closure of a street, or an interruption to water or electricity
services.
Efficient delivery methods for such notices may include using bulk mail delivery services offered by the
postal institution, attaching the material to correspondence being sent to households by the local council,
and engaging a business to hand-deliver the material.
Tips when considering direct mail and letterbox drops:
• Consider whether or not direct mail of a letterbox drop is the most effective way of providing the
information
• Design the material to reflect its purpose and avoid having it resemble junk mail
• Respect householder wishes with regard to receiving unsolicited mail
• Address the material to the ‘householder’ or to individual customers
124
6.7.5 School curricula

The most successful water reuse education programs for schools are those that directly link the water
agency's key messages about water reuse to school curricula. Rather than develop a suite of strategies and
publications vaguely aimed at educating students, the water agency's education team needs to develop
partnerships with relevant education authorities, such as boards of studies, universities and schools.
In developing an education program, the scope and sequence of each facet of the program, including the
age span of each target audience, need to be catered for. Workshops that generate a united approach to the
syllabus by teachers and the water agency are invaluable. Education programs will benefit from a
heightened understanding of how students learn and of how teachers will use the information supplied. To
have an effective role in the education process, the water agency's education program will need to keep
pace with continually evolving education concepts and strategies.
Tips when developing material for schools:
• Liaise with education authorities and schools to determine what is required by the curriculum
• Consult with teachers to determine how the information will be used
• Tailor the material to target specific age groups and levels of ability
6.7.6 Tours of water reuse applications and reclamation

plants
The most important consideration when planning or conducting tours of reclamation and reuse facilities is
safety. For most countries, companies and utilities have strict guidelines to ensure the safety of visitors.
The practices recommended in this section must only be considered with regard to relevant local safety
rules and regulations. Under no circumstance should a practice described here be undertaken in breach of
any relevant safety guidelines.
The opportunity for members of the community to see where and how water is reclaimed and reused can
be a powerful generator of trust and community support. There is evidence that community support for
water reuse increases following an effective tour of the treatment facilities.
The opportunity for community members to visit sites where reclaimed water is being used effectively can
also help to build appreciation for water reuse. Examples might include irrigated fields, industrial
applications or dual reticulation systems that deliver water back to households for limited uses.
Tips when arranging tours of reuse applications and reclamation plants:
• Start planning well ahead of the event.
• Review all relevant safety procedures prior to arranging the visit and ensure that planned visits are
compliant with the procedures.
• Ensure all workers at the facility are aware of when the visit is to take place.
• Ensure that the facility is clean and tidy.
125
• Verify that an adequate number of any required safety items (eg hard hats) are available and a
suitable range of sizes.
• Arrange for visitors to be accompanied by a guide at all times.
• Limit the number of visitors per guide to 10–15 to maximise safety and educational benefit.
• Invite visitors to view an introductory video as an overview of the aims, history and operation of
the facility.
• Be prepared to cater for a range of ages and backgrounds.
• Cater for school groups who may be bored by highly technical videos and data. Hands-on
educational facilities may be more effective.
• Help visitors understand the processes employed by the facility through effective strategies such as
providing cutaway models and hands-on samples such as membrane modules.
• Encourage visitors to ask questions and be prepared to provide detailed and honest answers.
• Help visitors to retain the information they have gleaned by providing take-away material such as a
brochure describing the main features of the facility.
6.7.7 Expositions/shows, conferences, field days

Expositions provide a valuable opportunity for many water reuse organisations to get their key messages
out to stakeholders. Major conferences will commonly feature an exhibition as a closely associated event
since this can be an effective way of helping to fund the conference and provide a large and targeted
audience for the exhibition. Other opportunities for exhibitions may include agricultural shows,
community fairs and organised field days.
Tips for organising a successful exhibition are:
• Book exhibition floor-space early to ensure an optimum position for your stall.
• If a stall is to include large exhibits, plan to be among the first exhibits installed and the last to be
dismantled.
• Ensure that the name of the company and its logo are well identified and easily visible at the stall.
• Functioning and interactive exhibits will draw attention to your stall.
• Free promotional items with company logos such as pens, rulers, mouse-pads will encourage
visitors to take your logo home with them.
• Displays should feature large and interesting graphical information rather than lengthy sections of
text.
• Cutaway models will add interest to a stall and are an excellent means of explaining many technical
processes such as membrane filtration or UV disinfection.
• Ensure the stall is manned by well-informed senior staff rather than relying on less experienced
staff that may be unable to answer all questions from stakeholders.
126
• Offer visitors information in a take away format such as books, brochures and compact disks.
• Encourage visitors to leave contact details to receive further information. Running a competition
that involves drawing a random business card from a container can be an effective means of
achieving this.
• Offering drinks or food are foolproof techniques for ensuring a high number of visits to your stall.
6.8 RECEIVING FEEDBACK
Effective communication is, by necessity, a two-way process. The ability to receive feedback from
stakeholders will determine the ability of a water reuse organisation to understand and respond to
stakeholder needs and concerns. Providing opportunities for feedback need to be well considered, focused
and genuine. This section describes some of the most commonly employed mechanisms for successful
solicitation and receival of stakeholder feedback.
6.8.1 Surveys
Surveys can be used at various intervals throughout a project, to gather information and monitor swings in
the levels of stakeholder support for a water reuse organisation or reclaimed water. They may be
developed and conducted either in-house or by a social science consultant or specialist marketing group.
They are normally conducted by mail or telephone. In some circumstances surveys can be undertaken via
an interactive web site, however the sampling obtained from such methods should not be considered to be
representative of general stakeholder groups. They can also be conducted by personal contact such as at
shopping malls, information days or at public meetings.
Surveys need to be short enough to retain the interest of those completing them yet substantial enough to
provide meaningful feedback. To allow accurate interpretation, they must be representative of all target
groups being considered. A target group may be as broad as the general community or catchment
population, or as selective as a particular demographic group, interest group or industry. Survey questions
and statements need to be both realistic and relevant to the target group.
Information being sought through a series of closed and open-ended questions and statements will
generally relate to the respondent’s knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards reclaimed water.
Broader questions might focus on the respondent’s reasons for living in an area that has or is likely to
have a water reuse scheme. Other questions may focus on the importance they place on environmental
health, from both personal and community perspectives.
6.8.2 Interaction at forums

Stakeholder forums can be excellent opportunities for stakeholders to convey opinions and attitudes to a
water reuse organisation. However, if poorly executed, such forums have the potential to become chaotic.
A chaotic forum can leave stakeholders feeling frustrated and even angry that their efforts to provide
feedback were impeded. Accordingly, careful planning and organisation are essential for successful
stakeholder forums.
127
There are many techniques that can be employed to solicit and encourage constructive feedback at
forums. The simplest is to call for individual questions and comments from an audience. A call for a show
of hands will give an indication of the distribution of attitudes and opinions among the audience.
However, more structured techniques such as coordinating activities for people to work through their
ideas with other stakeholders may be more reliable. Group-brainstorming can also be highly effective.
It is generally good practice for forums to provide stakeholders with the means of adding to the feedback
aired at the forum. The simplest technique is offer attendees a feedback form and invite them to complete
the form and return it at the close of the forum or, if preferred, at a later date.
6.8.3 Focus groups

Focus groups provide a flexible means of assessing public opinion and preferences. Typically, a
moderator at a focus group forum will work from a discussion guide to facilitate debate. The moderator
may explore the topic by allowing group members to react to each other’s views while keeping discussion
focused on the guide. The benefit of this process is that it is able to yield views on the topic that the
moderator may not have envisaged. A well-managed process will minimise the impact of the moderator’s
personal views, which may otherwise be implicit in the discussion guide or in the way discussion is
steered.
The success of a focus group will often depend on the moderator’s skill in steering discussion along the
general lines of the discussion guide while allowing participants to express their views freely. This
requires careful judgment as sometimes what appears to be irrelevant talk can lead to interesting and
useful dialogue.
A useful strategy in guiding a focus group may be to present an information package as the basis for
discussion. For example, if the purpose of the focus group is to assess awareness and opinions relating to
water reuse, an audio visual presentation on water treatment within a particular locality and how treated
water is or could be used by the local community will inform the debate. The presentation can be
delivered in stages thus providing the impetus for dialogue on the topics outlined in the discussion guide.
When focus group proceedings are being analysed, it is common to either summarise the discussion under
the various themes or develop a set of categories of issues raised, which includes the number of times they
were raised. This type of approach is usually suitable for collating the content and outcomes of different
meetings. When a more rigorous and reliable approach is required, more formal analysis of focus group
proceedings should be considered.
6.8.4 Private discussions

Although time-consuming, private discussions with individual stakeholders or representatives of
stakeholder groups may enable issues and attitudes to be explored more thoroughly than might otherwise
be achieved. Individuals who are uncomfortable about expressing their views at public forums may be
more forthcoming at a private meeting. Also, private discussions with influential representatives of
particular stakeholder groups may be a means of fostering good relations between the water reuse
organisation and the stakeholder groups.
128
Private discussions are typically conducted as one-on-one sessions of up to an hour’s duration. Normally,
an agenda would be agreed to prior to the meeting. Such discussions must present a credible and
legitimate perspective to the stakeholder. Accordingly, they should never be conducted or assessed by
untrained personnel. The outcomes of a small number of individual discussions will not necessarily
represent the views of the community as whole or those of specific sub-groups of stakeholders.
6.8.5 Stakeholder juries

A stakeholder jury (or ‘citizens jury’) process replicates a court-room procedure. Stakeholder juries
typically comprise 10-15 representative stakeholders who consider a particular issue and decide for or
against a proposal. The jury hears or reads evidence from expert witnesses and jury members are able to
question the witnesses directly. The process may last several days or weeks until the jury reaches an
informed decision. Often a jury will prepare a short report summarising the debate leading to the decision
reached.
One benefit of stakeholder juries is that they allow participants to select and pursue their own lines of
enquiry. They support detailed consideration of key issues or sticking points and may help identify
relative levels of concern about specific issues. Major limitations are that jurors may be required to
commit significant amounts of time and the proceedings can be expensive to organise and conduct.
Hence, stakeholder juries are not always viable forums for the consideration of projects and issues.
Furthermore, the confrontational courtroom-like style is not always conducive to building trust and
promoting consensus.
6.8.6 Telephone hotlines

Providing a telephone hotline number for stakeholders enables them to readily access targeted information
and supply the water reuse organisation with valuable feedback. With a telephone hotline, communication
is immediate and a telephone is the only technology required by the stakeholder.
An important consideration of a telephone hotline service is the procedure for responding to calls. In
many cases, the person assigned to receive a call is not the most appropriate person to respond to it.
Procedures must be in place for calls to be received, recorded, transferred to the most appropriate person
and responded to effectively in an agreed timeframe. If the timeframe is being routinely exceeded,
additional resources may be required to service the hotline.
Use of the hotline number should be closely monitored, with the purpose of calls and the issues raised
being recorded as statistical evidence of the issues that interest or concern stakeholders.
6.8.7 Ballots and polling

Ballot-type exercises are normally formatted as a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote to gauge levels of sentiment
for or against a proposal. A ‘deliberative opinion poll’ is sometimes used to compare attitudes before and
after other communication efforts have taken place. Ballots and polling exercises can provide for large
numbers of stakeholders to express their views. The range of mechanisms available for such exercises
129
include telephone, internet and personal contact. At times they are implemented as non-binding
stakeholder referenda in conjunction with local government elections.
Results of well-designed polling exercises should be straightforward and simple to interpret. However,
their inherent simplicity also contributes to their greatest weaknesses. While polls do give an indication of
stakeholder sentiment, they usually do not provide any significant detail such as why voters chose as they
did or why they changed their opinions. Subtle nuances in the wording of a referendum-type question can
severely skew responses one way or the other. Voting can also be influenced by the volume and quality of
information relating to both sides of the debate.
6.8.8 Stakeholder liaison personnel

The employment of a full-time dedicated stakeholder liaison officer can be an effective means of
soliciting, receiving and processing information from stakeholders in an organised and systematic fashion.
It can also be a means of demonstrating to stakeholders the importance that the water reuse organisation
places on receiving feedback.
The role of a stakeholder liaison officer would be determined to some degree by stakeholder attitudes to
water reuse and the general level of acceptance of the reuse project. Generally, however, it is likely that
the liaison officer would be expected to respond to written and telephone inquiries from stakeholders,
represent the water reuse organisation at stakeholder meetings and be the interface between other staff
members and stakeholders. It is likely that co-ordinating events based on interaction between stakeholders
and water reuse organisation would be another feature of the role.
6.8.9 Stakeholder submissions to issues papers and draft

plans
In many circumstances, stakeholders should be invited to make formal submissions to the water reuse
organisation regarding key contentious issues and draft plans. It is important that the details of the issues
or draft plans be highly accessible to all stakeholders. Possible approaches to this may include display-
boards located in various areas convenient to the public such as council chambers, public libraries,
shopping centres, or community centres. Plans should also be made available online in highly accessible
formats. A draft plan should be on exhibition for at least a month. It should be carefully written in plain
English (and other applicable languages). Written submissions from the community are normally invited
during the time of exhibition.
Key concerns identified through stakeholder submissions should be published and dealt with
appropriately. A new draft may then be re-exhibited if the submissions are substantial enough - otherwise
the final version exhibited.
If it appears that the issues are going to be considerable, consideration might be given to giving the
community and other stakeholders the opportunity to make submissions at the major stepping stones
along the way of the project's development.
130
6.9 PUBLIC CRISIS COMMUNICATION
A public crisis is any situation that has the potential of causing an operational violation, a potential health
risk, or a financial risk to the water reuse organisation. It could include any situation that is critical and/or
sensitive to the water reuse organisation, and that if not addressed or managed correctly could result in
any of the following consequences:
• escalating intensity of the issue
• negative media, government or public scrutiny
• interference with normal operations
• damage to the water reuse operations reputation or image
All potential crises should be dealt with in a pre-considered, organised and systematic manner. The
purpose of this section is to identify procedures and communications that are specifically, or particularly,
applicable to a public crisis situation. It is intended that these will:
• help resolve the current crisis
• minimise ill effect or damage caused to consumer, the general public, or the environment.
• minimise damage to the reputations of the water reuse organisation and other related parties
• prevent or minimise interruptions to the water reuse organisation’s day-to-day operations.
In responding to a public crisis, the water reuse organisation must demonstrate openness, responsiveness,
truthfulness, and empathy. This will reduce any negative media influence and reduce the risk of negative
public perception.
The following are some guiding principles for public crisis communications:
• Put public health and the water reuse organisations customers first.
• Deal with the crisis as quickly as possible.
• Speak with one voice. The face of the spokesperson may change, but all messages relating to the
crisis must be consistent and come from a coordinated communications effort.
• Outgoing communication must be forthcoming assertive, focused on the most important aspects of
the problem and aimed at moving the process toward resolution.
• If appropriate information is not available to answer questions factually and accurately, say so.
• Do not speculate. Do not guess. Do not blame.
• Inform customers and partners about the crisis and the water reuse organisation’s actions to resolve
it. Customers and partners should be armed with key messages when possible.
• Messages should be the same for all audiences and customised only as necessary.
• At all times maintain respect for the legitimate duties of the media.
131
Many potential public crises may occur with little or no warning. Accordingly, it is necessary for the
water reuse organisation to be prepared to deal with a very broad range of potentially damaging scenarios
with minimum notice. An indispensable component of a short-notice emergency response is a list of
prepared standby statements. These should be carefully considered and provided to all personnel that may
be required to provide initial responses to stakeholders and/or the media. The following statements are
examples of useful standby statements to be employed when a crisis breaks and prior to a full assessment.
Unique responses will be tailored and updated to suit the specific circumstances dictated by each
situation.
For the receptionist:
• “We’re aware of the situation, but I’m not the appropriate person to answer your questions. Rather
than speculate or provide you with inaccurate information, please give me your name, telephone
number and email address and I’ll have the appropriate person get back to you as soon as possible.”
For the spokesperson:
• “Because providing clean, safe water is our highest mission, we are fully cooperating with the
‘authorities’ to get to the bottom of this.”
As soon as the crisis details are known, a communications strategy and related communications tools must
be developed immediately. All relevant personnel at the water reuse organisation will need to be
accessible for discussion and rapid review of the strategy and tools, such as public statements, key
messages, and the preparation of FAQ documents.
The crisis communications response should include:
• a primary communications strategy

• a determined and refined list of key messages
• a prepared response statement
• a list of external experts who can be called upon to comment when appropriate.
• a list of key non-media contacts to notify about the crisis.
• a timeline or schedule of activities.
• an FAQ list, plus any questions that still need to be answered.
As a public crisis develops and initial responses have been made, an important task is for the water reuse
organisation is to constantly assess the situation and the impact of their communication activities. This
can be partially achieved by monitoring local and national news coverage. The water reuse organisation
should carefully review reactions and statements of the media and the public. This will allow an
evaluation of stakeholder perceptions of the organisations response.
Detailed evaluation of media coverage will provide a basis for the water reuse organisation to anticipate
the extent and slant of local, regional, and national media coverage during the next 24 hours. Such
anticipation will provide a useful foundation for the careful planning of a continuing communication
strategy. This strategy should include a continuous review and revision of core themes and messages.
132
Until the crisis is properly resolved or contained, the communication strategy must maintain a high
priority among the activities of the water reuse organisation. If the level of media demand escalates
considerably, it will be necessary to carefully prioritise media inquiries and responses. Much of the
burden of responding to media enquiries may be lifted by the distribution of external communications
statements. However, the water reuse organisation should remain open and co-operative at all times. This
may include the on-going necessity to arrange news conferences, individual interviews, or on-site media
visits.
6.10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors appreciate the advice, assistance and information provided by the following people and
organisations:
• Bob Holden, Monterey County Water Recycling Projects, for an edited copy of their “Crisis
Management Plan” 2003 (originally prepared by Edelman Public Relations Worldwide). This was
the major source document for Sections 6.5 and 6.9.
• Lori Steere, East Bay Municipal Utility District, for the provision of many practical communication
resources that were used as reference material for Section 6.4.
• Ron Wildermuth, Orange County Water District, for resources used as reference material for
Sections 6.3 and 6.4.
• Wade Miller and Jeff Mosher, WateReuse Organization, for many reference materials and helpful
contacts.
• Bahman Sheikh, water reuse consultant, for many helpful reference materials.
• Sally Gross, Melbourne Water, for water reuse communications materials.
• Andrew Boyd, Thames Water, for communications materials.
• Les McLean, Western Water (Melbourne, Australia), for communications materials.
• Ong Key Wee, Public Utilities Board, Singapore, for communications and public education
materials.
• Prof. Greg Hampton, University of Wollongong, for the information regarding focus groups
(Section 6.8..3).
• Assist. Prof Troy Hartley, University of New Hampshire, for helpful comments and review of
Sections 6.2-6.4.
• Brisbane City Council, for a copy of their Communication Strategy.
6.11 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnstein S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J. American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-224.
Bruvold W. H. (1988) Public opinion on water reuse options. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 60(1): 45-49.
Burroughs R. (1999) When stakeholders choose: Process, knowledge, and motivation in water quality decisions. Society and
Natural Resources 12(8): 797-809.
Gurabardhi Z., Gutteling J.M. and M. Kuttschreuter (2004) The development of risk communication. Science Communication
25(4): 323-349.
133
Haddad B.M. (2004) Research Needs Assessment Workshop: Human Reactions to Water Reuse; WateReuse Foundation,
Alexandria, Virginia.
Hall W.L. and Rubin A.R. (2002) Reclaimed water: A public perception. In: WEFTEC 2002: 75th Annual Conference and
Exposition Chicago, Illinois.
Hartley T.W. (2003) Water Reuse: Understanding Public Perception and Participation. Water Environment Research Foundation,
Washington DC.
Hurlimann A. and J. McKay (2004) Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part 2. Trust. Water 31(5): 40-45.
Khan S.J. and Gerrard L.E. (2006) Stakeholder communications for successful water reuse operations. Desalination 187: 191-
202.
Marks J. (2004) Advancing community acceptance of reclaimed water. Water 31(5): 46-51.
Marks J. and M. Zadoroznyj (2005) Managing sustainable urban water reuse: Structural context and cultures of trust. Society and
Natural Resources 18(6): 557-572.
Renn O. (2004) Perception of risks. Toxicology Letters 149 (1-3): 405-413.
Renn O., Webler T. and P. Wiedermann (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for
Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
US EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (2002) Superfund Community Involvement Handbook., Washington, DC.
134
AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130 Water reuse system management manual
7 DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES
Disinfection in wastewater reclamation is the process of reducing the presence of pathogenic organisms to
ensure an acceptable health protection for the specific type of reuse application.
In the European Union, technical solutions that have commonly been adopted for wastewater treatment
and discharge – secondary treatment by an activated sludge process, with or without nutrient removal –
produce a quality of the effluent that may be good enough for disposal but with a level of microbial
reduction that is insufficient for most of the water reuse applications. Contrarily to Northern American
legislation, the Directive on Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWTD) 271/91/EC does not lay down limit
values for microbiological parameters for the discharge of treated waste water into receiving water bodies
used for basic quality, including fishing; pathogens must be reduced only there where the discharge
occurs into waters where there is proven (direct) contact with humans e.g. bathing waters.
Figure 7.1 shows the typical faecal contamination, expressed as CFU Faecal Coliforms per 100 mL, at
different stages of treatment in Flemish wastewater treatment plant facilities complying with the
UWWTD for sensitive areas (activated sludge treatment with nutrient removal). The figure also compares
these values with threshold values for unacceptable health hazards for unrestricted use of reclaimed water
in agriculture that have been laid down by the WHO guidelines (1989) and by more stringent legal
requirements typical for EU Countries and Regions (cfr. Figure 2.2).
Figure 7.1 Faecal Coliform content in different stages of wastewater treatment

at Flemish wastewater treatment facilities, Belgium
100,000,000
UWWTD
(fishing quality)
10,000,000
Faecal coliforms [FCU/100mL]
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000 unrestricted irrigation (WHO, 1989)
100 Bathing Water Directive (EC, 1976)
10 typical limit for urban water reuse applications / some unrestricted irrigation
1
raw wastewater primary treatment activated sludge sand filtration advanced
treatment disinfection
Figure 7.1 indicates that the safe use of effluent water is only possible with a selective inactivation /
destruction of pathogens in a dedicated disinfection unit.
135
When it comes to deciding which disinfection technology is appropriate to adequately protect public
health at a specific site one has to consider factors such as the types of microorganisms that are targeted
and likely present in the effluent prior to disinfection, the wastewater quality characteristics and the
wastewater treatment prior to disinfection, the footprint, the temperature, the intensity and nature of
physical agent, the hydraulic conditions, the type and extent of distribution network, etc.
Types of microorganisms that are targeted

The major groups of pathogenic organisms present in secondary and tertiary treated effluent include
bacteria, viruses, helminth eggs and protozoan cysts and oocysts. Generally, the presence of pathogens in
reclaimed water is regulated by testing for microbial indicators. Microbial indicators are used to search for
contamination of the water by faecal matter, indicating the possible (or highly probable) presence of
pathogens. Indicators are used because it is easier to search for indicators of faecal pollution than to
attempt to test for a wide range of pathogens in the water and because it is not always feasible to
demonstrate compliance with generally very low concentrations by direct monitoring of the treated
wastewater (cfr. Chapter 18).
A good indicator of faecal pollution should fulfil the following requirements (WHO, 1996):
• be present universally and in large numbers in the faeces of humans and warm-blooded animals;
• be readily detectable by simple methods;
• not grow in natural waters;
• have similar properties to pathogens in terms of its persistence in (treated) wastewater and its
removal by water reclamation techniques.
The ideal indicator, meeting all these conditions, does not exist.
First, a major shortcoming in the context of health risks is that some non-regulated pathogens are more
resistant to disinfection than the indicator organisms, and thus may be present even when no indicator
organisms are found at all. For example, water that has been disinfected will not necessarily be free of
enteroviruses and the cysts of some parasites (e.g. Cryptosporidium and Giardia). Because of the low
infectious dose and because of the fact that these organisms are ubiquitous in wastewater, this means that
it is possible for reclaimed water to comply with water-quality standards, yet be unsafe for the type of
given reuse application.
Second, one cannot establish a constant relationship between pathogenic indicator and the presence of
pathogens. The prevalence of a particularly infectious disease in a certain area varies in time (Gerba and
Rose, 2003).
Thirdly, the goodness of a given indicator is largely dependent on its physico-chemical properties and the
chosen water reclamation technique. For example, the indicator of bacterial contamination E-Coli fails to
indicate the presence of Cryptosporidium spp. when disinfection is done by chlorination, because
Cryptosporidia are 20 times more resistant to chlorine than E. Coli (see Chapter 8). On the other hand,
with sand filtration, E. Coli may be a good indicator for monitoring filtration as a means of removing
Cryptosporidia, since both organisms are retained with comparable efficiency. For the same reason, with
sand filtration E.Coli is a bad indicator for removal of viruses, due to fact that their removal efficiency is
not comparable.
137
Water reuse system management manual AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130
The concluding remark is therefore that it is short-sighted for reclaimed water utilities to choose a
technology that strictly complies with the microbial indicator based on economic reasons alone, especially
in the case where a broader health protection can be provided with acceptable costs.
Typical target pathogens and indicators within each category are illustrated in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Pathogens potentially present in secondary effluent and used

indicators (modified from AQUAREC, 2005)
PATHOGENS INDICATORS OBSERVATIONS
E. coli, Faecal Coliforms, Total coliforms, Faecal Coliforms determination is
Enterococcus fecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, the more usual; E. coli determination
Bacteria Salmonella spp., Clostridium perfringens, is slowly substituting it. Other
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella bacteria are used for bathing waters,
pneumophila groundwater, etc.
Enterovirus An accepted indicator still does not
Viruses Hepatitis A virus exist. Bacteriophages are being
Bacteriophages studied in this sense.
A lot of negative results in a lot of
Nematode eggs (Ascaris, Trichuris,
Helminth – Nematode countries. Eggs viability is not
Ancylostoma as indicated by the WHO)
required
Other helminths In some cases important for risk

Not known
(i.e. Taenia) related to animal health
Protozoa Analytical tools not well developed

Not known
(include Giardia, until now. For certain disinfection
The presence of one of them could indicate
Cryptosporidium, Amoeba, techniques surrogates have been
the presence of the other
Balantidium) used – e.g. MS-2 coliphage for UV
Fungi, algal toxins Not known Really few cases detected
A detailed description of these and new or emerging waterborne pathogens and indicators is given in
AWWA (1999). Analytical techniques to measure them are reported in Chapter 18.
Effluent water quality characteristics

The reclaimed water constituents influence in many ways the formation of DBPs on the one hand, and the
disinfection effectiveness, on the other. Depending on the amount and type of impurities that are present
in the reclaimed water, one disinfection technique can be more appropriate than the other.
For example, whether or not the treated wastewater is nitrified prior to disinfection may strongly influence
the decision on investing in chlorination, UV irradiation or ozone: non-nitrified effluent has high
ammonia concentrations, which combine with chlorine to form chloramines; on the other hand, complete
nitrification may lead to the formation of NDMA (which is carcinogenic) due to the presence of free
chlorine. Partial nitrification may lead to difficulties in establishing the proper chlorine dose (Chapter 8).
On the other hand, the nitrification process does not (directly) affect neither the UV nor the ozone
disinfection. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that most of the data on inactivation of microorganisms
is generated in laboratories using distilled or buffered water. In practice, the nature of the effluent prior to
disinfection must be evaluated carefully.
138
Contact time
Depending on the disinfection technique, the disinfection step needs contact times in the order of seconds
(e.g. UV disinfection), hour(s) (e.g. chlorine disinfection), weeks (e.g. maturation ponds), or even months
(e.g. soil aquifer treatment). Obviously the choice of the disinfectant may depend on the availability and
cost of land and other site-specific factors such as for instance the existence of contactors that can be
(re)used from the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure.
Concentration of the disinfectant

The doses that have to be applied are strongly dependent on the target pathogen or indicator and the
effluent water quality composition.
Temperature
Temperature strongly affects the population dynamics of microorganisms and therefore the considerations
about target pathogens and indicators and the resulting disinfectant efficacy. For example Legionella
Pneumophila grow in a temperature range of 25-42°C with optimum at 35°C, finding exceptionally
favourable conditions for growth when reclaimed water is used for cooling water purposes (cfr. Chapter
22) but not being of concern when the reclaimed water is applied in agricultural irrigation in moderate
climates. In addition, temperature also influences the solubility in water of gaseous products such as for
instance chlorine or ozone.
Hydraulic conditions
Some disinfection techniques are more flexible for handling varying flow than others. Depending on the
expected variability of the reclaimed water demand, some techniques will be better suited than others.
Good or poor mixing can strongly affect the delivered dose.
The impact of all these aspects in the effectiveness, operability and cost of the disinfection technologies
commonly used in water reclamation and reuse is outlined next.
Post-disinfection regrowth
When applied properly, several disinfecting agents deliver water of the desired quality at the end of the
water reclamation plant, but one must bear in mind that that is not necessarily what arrives at the
consumer. Phenomena that can lead to regrowth must be given careful consideration.
First, simple re-infection by contamination is possible. Precautions must be taken to ensure the integrity
of the distribution system (cfr. Chapter 17) and of the effluent reservoirs (cfr. Chapter 15).
Secondly, regrowth can occur. This can be initiated from those organisms not killed during the
disinfection process or from organisms only partially damaged which are able to repair themselves.
Finally, the development of microbiological populations in biofilms in reclaimed water distribution

systems can also be a cause of concern. Such biofilms can harbour undamaged pathogens that can later be
sloughed off and appear in the reclaimed water (cfr. Chapter 17).
In all cases, a source of nutrients is required to maintain such growths. However, many inorganic nutrients
are required only in trace amounts and conventional wastewater treatment processes are not designed to
remove them.
139
7.2 RECLAIMED WATER DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES

Disinfection techniques can be broken down into four categories according to the working principle:
1. Chemical disinfection is based on the oxidation of the cells and genetic material of
microorganisms by dosing strong oxidants. Out of the many disinfecting agents that can fit the
properties reported in Table 7.1, only few need further consideration when the effectiveness, costs,
practicality, adverse effects and pilot study requirements are considered, namely: chlorine and
chlorine-cleaving compounds (Chapter 8), ozone (Chapter 10) and peracetic acid (PAA) (Chapter
7.3). Bromine is not considered herein, as it is more expensive than chlorine, there is even more
concern than with chlorine about the toxicity of any brominated organic compounds formed as by-
products.
2. Photo-biochemical disinfection works by inducing damages to genetic material of microorganisms

by photo-oxidation of the nucleic acids with UV light radiation, hampering their capacity to
reproduce (Chapter 9). Except in highly specialised situations (e.g. ƣ-radiation for wastewater
sludge disinfection), other types of radiations are not used in the water industry because they are
very expensive.
3. Biological solutions to disinfect reclaimed water include the use of maturation ponds (Chapter 15)
or infiltration-percolation (Chapter 14). The benefits offered by combining lagooning with
constructed wetlands are addressed in Chapter 16.
4. Membrane technologies including membrane bio-reactors (MBR) are emerging water reclamation
technologies whose costs are rapidly decreasing, offering a viable alternative to disinfection for
high quality reuse applications (Chapter 12 and 13). Micro-organisms are removed via a physical
separation, the membrane representing a physical barrier through which only the water and
dissolved impurities can pass.
Heat treatment for the removal of organisms is another well-know physical phenomenon and
process (e.g. boiling, pasteurisation), but it is too expensive for use on the scale required in the
water industry. Thermal inactivation of pathogenic and indicator bacteria at sub-boiling temperature
(55-65°C) has recently been investigated by Spinks et al. (2006), suggested that hot water systems
should operate at a minimum of 60°C.
The biocidal effect of ultrasound technology has also been investigated with some positive results
(Mahvi and Dehghami, but does not find practical application in water reclamation and reuse.
Activated carbon adsorption has also been shown to adsorb some viruses from wastewater;
however; the adsorbed viruses can be displaced by organic compounds and enter the effluent.
5. Electrochemical treatment of secondary effluent was found to be effective, with a bactericidal

efficiency of 3 log or higher within a contact time of 5 (15) min or lower and a current density of 3.5
(7.5) mA/cm² or lower, when a stainless steel/titanium cell (stainless steel electrodes) was utilized
(Pulido, 2005).
140
7.2.1 Chemical and photo-biochemical disinfection

methods
A techno-economical comparison of chlorine, UV, ozone and PAA disinfection is set out in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Techno-economical comparison of some disinfectants

CRITERIA Cl2/ ClO2 UV OZONE PAA
Safety low high moderate low
Bactericidal action high high high high
Virucidal action Moderate moderate moderate–high Moderate
Protozoa removal low high high low
Bacterial-regrowth low moderate- high low high
Residual toxicity high low moderate low
By-products high none Low none
Operability high high high high
Full-scale experience high high moderate low
Operating costs low low moderate low
Investment costs Moderate moderate high moderate
Table 7.3 indicates that there is no single disinfectant that is fully satisfactory in techno-economical terms.
The trend to adopt more stringent disinfection by-products and pathogen removal standards limits the
applicability of chlorine as the only disinfectant. UV, chlorine dioxide or other non-chlorine techniques
such as ozone treatment are generally selected, regardless of cost, and chlorination may sometimes be
applied as secondary disinfecting agent.
Today, several guidelines recommend the use of UV as “best available technology not entailing excessive
costs” to disinfect reclaimed water, in particular when a disinfection-residual is not required (bacterial
regrowth) and for high to medium contact reuse applications (higher health protection than chlorine, when
appropriately pre-treated). Due to its high costs, ozone tends to be chosen where colour should also be
removed or where dissolved oxygen must be high.
Regarding the cost considerations, it is very difficult to draw general conclusions as costs tend to be
affected by many site-specific conditions. In the first place, all other things being equal, the economic
considerations will be influenced by economies of scale. Indicative life cycle cost ratios for facilities of
20,000 population equivalents (P.E.), 100,000 P.E. and 500,000 P.E. are illustrated in Figure 7.2
(Lazarova, 2004). Note that the costs for UV relate to an optimal UV dose, which can be delivered only if
appropriate pre-treatment (generally filtration) is put in place. When it is not strictly needed, pre-treatment
adds to the UV costs (this might be the case for low-contact reuse applications).
Secondly, the cost comparison is affected by financial considerations, the UV system having higher
relative capital requirements than chlorination and ozonation (Figure 7.3).
Thirdly, the given effluent quality is also a key cost determinant. The impact of the effluent quality
characteristics to the disinfection performance of chlorine, UV and ozone are illustrated in Table 7.4.
141
Figure 7.2 Life cycle cost ratio of chlorination, UV and ozonation, in function of
the plant size (redrawn from Lazarova, 2004)
1.2
1 unit = chlorination, 20 000 P.E.

1.0
0.8
Life cycle cost ratio
Chlorination
UV
Ozonation
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
20,000 100,000 500,000
Plant size [P.E.]
Figure 7.3 Cost distribution ofdisinfection with Cl2, UV and O3 (redrawn from
Lazarova, 2004)
Chlorination
Ozonation
Civil Works Civil Works
11% 7%
Equipment Equipment
O&M O&M 35%
60% 29%
58%
UV
Civil Works
3%
O&M Equipment
47% 50%
142
Table 7.4 Impact of effluent quality characteristics to chlorine, UV and ozone

(adapted from Metcalf and Eddy,2003 & Hidalgo Barrio et al., 2004)
Parameter Cl2 UV O3
Affect the chlorine demand. Affect the ozone demand.
BOD, No or minor effect, unless
interference depends on their Interference depends on their
COD, humic materials constitute a
functional groups and chemical functional groups and chemical
TOC large portion of the BOD
structure structure
Reduce effectiveness by forming
Affects the rate of ozone
Humic chlorinated organic compounds, Strong adsorbers of UV
decomposition and the ozone
materials measured as Cl2 residual but not irradiation
demand
effective for disinfection
Can accumulate on quartz
Oil and
Can exert a chlorine demand sleeves of UV lamps, can Can exert an ozone demand
grease
absorb UV irradiation
Suspended Absorption of UV irradiation, Increase ozone demand and
Shield embedded bacteria
solids (SS) can shield embedded bacteria shielding of embedded bacteria
Can impact scaling potential.
Alkalinity No or minor effect Affects solubility of metals No or minor effect
that may absorb UV light
Ca, Mg, and other salts can
form mineral deposits on
Hardness No or minor effect No or minor effect
quartz sleeves, especially at
elevated temperatures
Combines with chlorine to form
No or minor effect, can react at
Ammonia chloramines, thus increasing the No or minor effect
high pH
chlorine demand. However:
With the presence of nitrate,
chloramines are not formed.
Thus, partial nitrification may
Can reduce effectiveness of
Nitrate lead to difficulties in establishing No or minor effect
ozone
the proper dose (and complete
nitrification may lead to the
formation of NDMA)
Oxidized by chlorine, formation
Nitrite No or minor effect Oxidized by ozone
of NDMA
Strong absorber of UV, can
precipitate on quartz sleeves,
Iron Oxidized by chlorine Oxidized by ozone
can absorb on SS and shield
bacteria by absorption
Strong absorber of UV
Manganese Oxidized by chlorine Oxidized by ozone
irradiation
Affects distribution between
Can affect solubility of metals Affects the rate of ozone
pH hypochlorous acid and
and carbonates decomposition
hypochlorite ion
Can impact scaling potential
TDS -
and formation of deposits
* Inorganic compounds including bicarbonate, chloride and nitrate can affect the UV photolysis of constituents such as NDMA
143
7.2.2 Biological treatment

Maturation ponds, occasionally referred to as tertiary lagoons, when properly designed and operated can
be very effective in removing pathogens, especially in warm countries. Typical removal efficiencies at
temperatures above 20°C are reported in Figure 15.1.
Under favourable conditions, ponds can reduce helminth populations by up to six log units within five
days’ detention (Feachem et al., 1983), and achieve total removal at higher retention times (cfr. Figure
15.1). Reflecting the potential concentrations in wastewater, their resistance to treatment and infectious
doses, the World Health Organisation indicated that helminths represent the highest microbial risk for
water reuse (WHO, 1989). In fact, conventional chemical and photo-biochemical disinfection techniques
proved to be quite ineffective with regards to helminth eggs removal and therefore need an additional
reclamation step able to remove helminth eggs from the effluent (generally filtration techniques).
Several guidelines - including the WHO guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated wastewater
used in agriculture (WHO, 1989) - consider maturation ponds best practice. In several cases, however,
natural disinfection via lagoons alone is not recommended as best practice in those cases where high
microbiological quality for the protection of public health is required. For example, EPA Victoria (2002)
discourages its use when reclaimed water with less than 100 E.coli per 100 mL is required.
It is worth noting that some legislations make distinction between effluent limits for reuse when
lagooning are applied. In some parts of Italy, for instance, the requirement for unrestricted irrigation water
microbiological quality is 50 EC/100 mL (80% of the time) and maximum < 200 EC/100 mL, for
lagooning, while for other treatment processes is 10 EC/100 mL, (80% of the time) max. 100 EC/100 mL.
It is worth noting that despite the fact that activated sludge systems do not sufficiently inactivate
pathogens, their type and performance can have a significant impact on the performance of the
downstream disinfection unit:
• We have seen that incomplete particulate removal can result in viruses and bacteria being shielded in
the disinfection stage. Loge et al. (2002) showed that the fraction of particles with associated
coliform bacteria declines exponentially with increasing sludge retention times, concluding that an
increase of the sludge retention time could provide a significant improvement in downstream
disinfection performance. Therefore, low loaded activated sludge systems, typical of nutrient
removal systems, could lead to significantly higher disinfection efficiencies in downstream
disinfection than conventional high-loaded systems.
• Higher sludge and hydraulic retention times, also characteristic of low-loaded systems, can also
directly lead to a higher inactivation of viruses. Knowlton and Ward (1987) have shown that low
loaded activated sludge systems can attain 1 log removal poliovirus at temperatures of 15°C or
higher, while high loaded systems should attain only 0.5 log-removal or lower. The removal
efficiency linked to the biological activity of activated sludge seems also very dependent on process
temperature.
144
7.2.3 Membrane treatment

Four types of membranes find increased application in water reuse projects, namely:
• Microfiltration (MF) membranes, with a pore size in the range 0.1-5 μm
• Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes, with a pore size in the range 5-200 nm
• Nanofiltration (NF) membranes with a pore size down to 1.5 nm or lower
• Reverse Osmosis (RO) membranes (no pores)
The pore size represents a physical barrier to the passage of micro-organisms. Figure 7.3 compares the
pore sizes of the different types of membranes to the typical size of bacteria and protozoa.
Figure 7.5 Membrane pore size versus microbial retention (De Wilde, 2004)
RO Membrane (no pores)
Nanofiltration Membrane pore (0.1-1 nm)
Microfiltration Ultrafiltration Membrane pore (5-200 nm)
membrane pore
average bacteria (1 μm)
(0.1-5 μm)
E. Coli (1x3 μm) big bacteria (2x20 μm)
Cryptosporidium (3μm)
Giardia (5 μm)
Small pin-point floc

amoebae (15 μm) (30 μm)
Microfiltration through membranes and hollow fibres is an emerging technology whose costs have
drastically decreased in the last years as it is becoming a serious water disinfection alternative for high-
contact reuse applications:
Recent studies indicate that variable costs are today comparable with those of UV disinfection of effluent
filtered through conventional sand filtration while the fixed costs, however, are still estimated to be higher
(Gómez et al., 2005). On the other hand, microfiltration provides a more reliable microbiological quality,
and complete removal of bacteria is possible. MF with pore size of 0.2 μm proved to remove total
coliforms, E.Coli, faecal streptococci and salmonella below the detection limit, less than 1 CFU/100 mL
(Dittrich et al., 1996). On top of this, phenomena of adsorption and deposit on and within the membrane
(Madaeni et al., 1995) allowed a 2-3 log rejection of viruses (Madaeni et al., 1995; Dittrich et al., 1996;
Jolis et al., 1999) by MF membranes with a pore size of 0.2 μm. UF (Madaeni et al., 1995) and RO
membranes (Iranpour, 1996) proved to reduce also the concentration of viruses below the detection limits.
Practical experience with both membrane bioreactors and microfiltration/ultrafiltration in combination

with reverse osmosis is reported in Chapters 13 and 12, respectively.
145
7.3 EMERGING DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES

It is clear from the above comparisons that no single disinfectant is capable of providing - in a cost-
effective way - all benefits of the ideal disinfectant. To overcome the disadvantages of single
disinfectants, the last decade witnessed increased research on wastewater disinfection, especially
regarding the combination of strong oxidants.
Research focused on advanced oxidation synergistic effect of combining PAA, peroxide and ozone:
1. PAA / UV for improved micro - organism inactivation in case of photo-reactivation.
2. UV / ozone for improved micro - organism removal.
3. Ozone / H2O2 (peroxone) for effective disinfection with low or no DBP production.
4. UV/ H2O2 for improved disinfection and DOM removal.
BOX 7.1: reuse applications of advanced oxidation processes (other than for disinfection)
AOP’s may be used to treat wastewater, drinking water, contaminated soils or sludges for several types of
contaminants including organic pollutants, toxicity biodegradability improvement, odour and colour
removal and destruction of resin in radioactive contaminated sludge.
Decolourization of wastewater by AOP’s is frequently studied in re-use applications in the textile industry
(cfr. Chapter 22). Besides decolourization, another objective of using AOP’s is reducing toxicity and
enhancing biodegradability. Because of the absorption of radiation, high concentrations of oxidants are
needed when applying photochemical processes.
Furthermore, AOP’s may prove effective in any re-use project where emerging contaminants as endocrine
disruptors, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, PCP’s or other organic micropollutants pose an eco-toxicological
risk. Typical examples are groundwater recharge or drinking water projects (cfr. Chapter 23). However,
full scale applications of AOP’s in this type of projects are limited because of the high costs associated
with it and the lack of regulations on the above mentioned compounds.
1. PAA/UV disinfection
The use of PAA as wastewater disinfectant has been under investigation since the 1980s (Kitis, 2004),
presenting the following pros and cons:
• Pros: PAA is a good bactericide and fungicide and the interest in using it as a disinfectant in
wastewater reuse applications arises from safety considerations and also from the possibility to limit
the formation of DPBs.
• Cons: The main drawbacks of wastewater disinfection with PAA are the increase in the organic
matter, the limited disinfection capabilities towards viruses and parasites and the promotion of
bacterial regrowth due to the presence of acetic acids (Liberti and Notarnicola, 1999; Martin and
Gehr, 2005). Moreover, the disinfection effectiveness is strongly dependent on pH (Liberti et al.,
1999; Nurizzo et al., 2000).
The combination of PAA and UV offers two key advantages:
146
1. Increased disinfection efficiency and synergistic benefits: when used in a proper sequence, the
interaction between UV and PAA residuals leads to higher inactivation ratios than if the two
disinfectants are applied without allowing them to interact (Lubello et al., 2002; Caretti and Lubello,
2003). Synergistic effects seems higher with enteric bacteria than for viruses such as the coliphage
MS2 (Koivunen and Heinonen – Tanski, 2005). The preferred sequence to be applied seems to be the
application of UV after addition of PAA, and before the PAA is quenched (Chen et al., 2005).
2. Reduction of photo-reactivation phenomenon: recent findings indicate that combining PAA and
UV could reduce repair mechanisms of UV damagei (Martin and Gehr, 2005).
2. UV/ozone disinfection
The combined disinfectant UV/ozone can have advantages that each individual disinfectant does not have:
1. Inactivation of a broader spectrum of microorganisms: ozone is an excellent disinfectant killing

almost all bacteria but UV is more effective in inactivating Cryptosporidium.
2. Synergistic effects: the higher inactivation effectiveness of UV irradiation seems associated to the
increase of UV transmittance by Ozonation, while the higher inactivation effectiveness of ozone to
the quicker decay of molecular ozone by UV irradiation and then converted to hydroxyl-radicals (Oh
et al., 2005). The preferred sequence to be applied seems to be the application of ozone, followed by
UV (White, 1999, Venosa et al., 1984).
3. Energy consumption of the synergistic system: the amount of ozone needed as disinfectant in order
to obtain effluents with 14 Faecal Coliform (FC)/100 mL or lower, could be reduced by as much as
80% if UV irradiation either precedes or follows ozone addition (White, 1999, Venosa et al., 1984).
The sequential addition of ozone and UV was found to be more cost-effective than either ozone or UV
alone for large scale water reclamation schemes (White, 1999, Venosa et al., 1984).
3. Peroxone
Peroxone consists of two steps: 1. Ozone dissolution. 2. Hydrogen peroxide addition. The addition of
hydrogen peroxide is used to accelerate the decomposition of ozone leading to the production of relatively
high concentrations of hydroxyl radicals (Karimi et al., 1997). Peroxone has been found to be equal to or
more effective than ozone for pathogen inactivation mainly by enhancing the production of the short-lived
but very active hydroxyl radical. In effluent disinfection, peroxone can be more effective with highly
treated effluents (effluents from micro-filtration and reverse osmosis) (Muttamara and Sales, 1995). Most
of these processes are still being investigated.
Note that the use of H2O2 alone proved to be quite unsatisfactory: doses of 3-150 mg/L H2O2 achieved less
than 0.2 log microbial reductions (Koivunen and Heinonen – Tanski, 2005).
4. UV/H2O2 disinfection
Again, the principle behind the beneficial effects observed using UV-light in combination with H2O2 as
compared to its individual application, lies in the fact that the rate of generation of free radicals is
significantly enhanced in the combination technique. The efficiency depends on several factors, including
i
For the description of the repair mechanisms of UV damage phenomenon refer to Section 9.2.3.
147
the UV source, the concentration of H2O2, presence of hydroxyl scavengers, such as carbonate and
bicarbonate, operating pH, optical path length of the medium, lamp cleanliness (Gogate et al., 2004).
The UV/ H2O2 combined treatment is mostly used as advanced oxidation process (AOP) for dissolved
organic matter (DOM) removal. The combined H2O2/UV disinfectant only slightly improves the microbial
reductions compared to UV treatment alone and showed some antagonism and no synergies (Koivunen
and Heinonen – Tanski, 2005).
Since the major contaminants in reclaimed effluents are: pathogens, organic matter and colour, Ahn et al.
(2005) claim that using an AOP with low-pressure UV and hydrogen peroxide addition (UV/ H2O2)
system they effectively inactivated total coliforms and removed organics and colour. An effective pre-
filtration is required because suspended particles interfere with the performance of the disinfection
system. The UV alone had good disinfection efficiency but did not remove colour and dissolved organic
matter. This was obtained by the addition of hydrogen peroxide. The colour removal by the (UV/ H2O2)
system was substantial when the UV dose was around 20 mWs/cm² and the hydrogen peroxide dose more
than 25 mg/L (0.7 molar ratio of UV/ H2O2 to the COD).
7.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahn K.H., Park K.Y., Maeng S.K., Song K.G., Kim K.P., Lee S.H. and J.H. Kweon (2005) Color removal and disinfection with
UV/ H2O2 system for wastewater reclamation and reuse. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water Supply 5 (1): 51- 57.
AQUAREC project EVK1-CT-2002-00130, (2005) Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater - Work Package 2,
Milestone M2.2 report, Table 1; April, 2005.
AWWA (1999) Manual of water supply practices - M48 Waterborne Pathogens. First edition. American Water Works
Association; Denver, Colorado; 285 pp.
Caretti C. and C. Lubello (2003) Wastewater disinfection with PAA and UV combined treatment: A pilot study. Wat. Res. 37:
2365-2371.
Chen D., Dong X. and R. Gehr (2005) Alternative Disinfection Mechanisms for Wastewaters Using Combined PAA/UV
Processes. Proc. Intl Conf. “Disinfection 2005”, Mesa, Arizona; 6-7 February 2005.
De Wilde W. (2004) Applicability of MBR technology for municipal wastewater treatment – results, discussion and conclusions
of 5 pilot scale research projects. Aquafin Technol. Study 2003.11 (in Dutch).
Dittrich J., Gnirss R., Peter-Frölich A. and F. Sarfert (1996) Microfiltration of municipal wastewater for disinfection and
advanced phosphorus removal. Wat. Sci. Tech. 34 (9): 125-131.
EPA Victoria (2002) Guidelines for environmental management - Disinfection of treated wastewater. EPA Victoria, Australia.
ISBN 0 7306 7623 4; 24 pp.
Hidalgo Barrio D., Irusta R., Fatta D., Papadopoulos A., Mentzis A. and M. Loizidou (2004) Effective practices on treated
wastewater reuse: disinfection systems. Intnl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse
Plants, Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March, 2004. [CD-ROM]
Feachem R.G., Bradley D.J., Garelick H. and D.D. Mara (1983) Sanitation and Disease – Health Aspects of Excreta and
Wastewater Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Gerba C.P. and J.B. Rose (2003) International guidelines for water recycling: Microbiological considerations. Wat. Sci. Tech:
Water Supply 3 (4): 311-316.
Gogate P.R. and A.B. Pandit (2004) A review of imperative technologies for wastewater treatment II: hybrid methods. Advances
in Environmental Research 8: 553-597.
148
Gómez M., plaza F., Garralón G., Pérez J. and M.A. Gómez (2005) A comparative study of tertiary wastewater treatment by
physico-chemical-UV process and macrofiltration-ultrafiltration technologies. Proc. IWA Conf. Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse for Sustainability. Jeju, Korea; 8-11 November 2005. [CD-ROM]
Iranpour R. (1996) Virus removal by advanced membrane filtration for wastewater reclamation. Wat. Env. Res. 70 (6): 1198-
1204.
Jolis D., Hirano R. and P. Pitt (1999) Tertiary treatment using microfiltration and UV disinfection for water reclamation. Wat.
Env. Res. 71 (2), 224-231.
Karimi A.A., Redman J.A., Glaze W.H. and G.F. Stolarik (1997) Evaluating an AOP for TCE and OPCE removal. J.AWWA 89
(8): 41-53.
Kitis M. (2004) Disinfection of wastewater with peracetic acid: a review. Env. Internl. 30: 47-55.
Koivunen J. and H. Heinonen–Tanski (2005) Inactivation of enteric microorganisms with chemical disinfectants, UV irradiation
and combined chemical/UV treatments. Wat. Res. 39 (8): 1519-1526.
Knowlton D.R. and R.L. Ward (1987) Characterisation of virucidal agents in activated sludge. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 53 (4): 621-626.
Lazarova V. (2004) O and M of disinfection systems and quality control. Intnl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of
Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants, Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004. [CD-ROM]
Liberti L. and M. Notarnicola (1999) Advanced Treatment and Disinfection for Municipal Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture. Wat.
Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 235 –245.
Loge F.J., Emerick R.W., Ginn T.R. and J.L. Darby (2002) Association of coliform bacteria with wastewater particles: Impact of
operational parameters of the activated sludge process. Wat. Res. 36: 41–48.
Lubello C., Caretti C. and R. Gori (2002) Comparison Between PAA/UV and H2O2/UV Disinfection for Wastewater Reuse. Wat.
Sci. Tech.: Water Supply 2 (1): 205- 212.
Madaeni S.S., Fane A.G. and G.S. Grohmann (1995) Virus removal from water and wastewater using membranes. J. of
Membrane Science 102: 65-75.
Martin N. and R. Gehr (2005) Photoreactivation Following Combined Peracetic Acid-UV Disinfection of a Physicochemical
Effluent. Proc. 3rd IUVA Conf.; Whistler, British Columbia; 24-27 May 2005. [CD-ROM]
Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering treatment and reuse. 4th ed. Mc Graw-Hill.
Muttamara S. and C.L. Sales (1995). Peroxone: the best alternative for disinfection. Proc. 2nd Int. Symposium “Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse”, Iraklio, Greece; October 17-20: 603-614.
Nurizzo C., Canziani R. and F. Malpei (2000) Technological aspects of wastewater Reclamation and reuse for irrigation. EC
Grant No. 14976-1999-04-FICO-ISP-IT, Final report. DIIAR Politechnico di Milano, Italy.
Oh B.S., Park S.J., Jung Y.J., Park S.Y. and J.W. Kang (2005) Disinfection and oxidation of sewage effluent water using ozone
and UV technologies. Proc. IWA Conf. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Sustainability. Jeju, Korea; 8-11 November 2005.
[CD-ROM]
Pulido M.E. (2005) Evaluation of an electro-disinfection technology as alternative to chlorination of municipal wastewater
effluent. PhD Dissertation; University of New Orleans, Louisiana; August 2005. Available from:
http://etd-db.uno.edu/theses/available/etd-07122005-122244/unrestricted/2005_PhD_Pulido_Maria.pdf
Spinks A.T., Dunstan R.H., Harrison T., Coombes P. and Kuczera G. (2006) Thermal inactivation of water-borne pathogenic and
indicator bacteria at sub-boiling temperatures. Wat. Res. 40 (6): 1326-1332.
Venosa A.D., Petrasek A.C., Brown D., Spark H.L. and D.M. Allen (1984) Disinfection of secondary effluents with Ozone and
UV. J.WPCF 56: 137.
White, ed. (1999) Handbook of chlorination and alternative disinfectants; 4th edition.
149
WHO (1996) Guidelines for drinking water quality. Vol. 2: Health criteria and other supporting information, 2nd ed. World Health
Organization; Geneva, Switzerland.
150
AQUAREC – EVK1–CT-2002–0013 Water Reuse System Management Manual
8 DISINFECTION WITH CHLORINE AND

CHLORINE COMPOUNDS
Chlorination has been the most widespread method of wastewater disinfection since the late 1940s.
Despite increasing concerns about disinfection by-products and safety requirements, is still the most
common disinfection technique that is applied in water reclamation (Bixio et al., 2005). Chlorine
compounds are effective and inexpensive disinfecting agents that show good bactericidal and virucidal
action, prohibit re-growth due to their residual effect and are active at low concentrations. Several
chlorine derivatives in different formulations are used as disinfectants, such as: liquid sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl), gaseous chlorine (Cl2) or chlorine dioxide (ClO2), chloramine, and also solid
calcium hypochlorite [Ca(OCl2)]. Since both their effectiveness and their occupational and ecological risk
vary considerably, a more detailed description is given, which often follows the lines of the EPA-
guidelines even though the popularity of chlorine based disinfection - particularly the use of chlorine -
seems to be lower in Europe than in the US.
Chlorine
Chlorine gas was first prepared by Scheele in 1774. Early uses of chlorine include the use of Javelle water
(chlorine gas dissolved in an alkaline solution) in France for waste water treatment in 1825 and its use as
a prophylactic agent during the European cholera epidemic of 1831. The electrolytic generation of
chlorine and hypochlorite, late in the nineteenth century, led to wider use of chlorine compounds for
disinfection. The growth of chlorine disinfection for water and wastewater applications occurred
simultaneously and became very rapid in the beginning of the 20th century.
Even though on site generation by electrolysis has become feasible, most chlorine used in disinfection is
manufactured in large chemical plants and is transported in cylinders or tank cars to the point of use. In
water dissolved chlorine reacts with water forming HCl and HOCl, which may hydrolyse and or react
with many organic and inorganic compounds.
Chlorine has many attractive features that contribute to its wide use in the industry. It stands out as an
disinfectant because chlorine (EPA, 1999):
Ɣ effectively inactivates a wide range of pathogens commonly found in water,
Ɣ leaves a residual in the water that is easily measured and controlled;
Ɣ is economical, and
Ɣ has an extensive track record of successful use in improving water treatment operations
(despite the dangers associated with chlorine application and handling, specifically chlorine
gas, it still maintains an excellent safety record).
There are, however, some concerns regarding chlorine usage that may impact its future application, such
as (EPA, 1999):
Ɣ chlorine reacts with many naturally occurring organic and inorganic compounds in water to
produce undesirable disinfection by-products (DBPs).
151
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1–CT-2002–0013
Ɣ hazards associated with using chlorine, specifically chlorine gas, require special treatment and
response programs.
Ɣ high chlorine doses can cause taste and odour problems.
Chlorine might be typically added for:
Ɣ re-chlorination at either the “raw” water intake or flash mixer,
Ɣ intermediate chlorination ahead of the filters,
Ɣ post-chlorination at the filter clear-well, or
Ɣ re-chlorination in the distribution system.
In the presence of ammonia, chloramines are formed (see Section 8.2 for the chemistry of
chloramination).
Chloramines
Chloramines are a broad class of inorganic and organic chemical compounds, which contain chlorine
bound to trivalent nitrogen, the least complex of which is mono-chloramine (NH2Cl). Chloramines in
water are produced by action of hypochlorite upon ammonia or organic amines that may be present in the
chlorinated water, or by the addition of chlorine and ammonia, either sequentially or simultaneously.
They were first employed as disinfectants in Ottawa, Canada, and Denver, Colorado, in 1917 (Haas,
1990). In the beginning, the two chemicals were brought to reaction prior to their addition to the full flow
of water. Later, pre-ammoniation (the addition of ammonia prior to chlorine) was developed. Today pre-
chlorination is most common.
Monochloramine (NH2Cl) is less reactive than chlorine. This fact has three consequences for its use in
disinfection:
Ɣ it has a much lower acute effectiveness in inactivating microorganisms, which makes it

inferior to chlorine or chlorine dioxide as primary disinfectant
Ɣ it is more stable and therefore can provide its residual effect longer than chlorine, which
makes it superior in controlling biofilms and coliform bacteria in systems with long retention
times.
Ɣ it has a much lower tendency to react with organic compounds, leading to reduced production
of disinfection by-products and odour and taste affecting phenolic compounds.
Particularly the third argument has gained in importance and has lead to a rapid conversion of many
disinfection systems to the use of chloramine as secondary disinfectant (e.g.
www.pokwater.com/new/chlorine.htm or www.ccwa.com/chloramines.htm).
The use of chloramines was proposed after observing that disinfection by chlorine occurs in two distinct
phases:
Ɣ the initial phase, during which chlorine reducing compounds (demand) cause the rapid
disappearance of free available chlorine and, when ammonia is present,
Ɣ the subsequent disinfection phase affected by the action of the inorganic chloramines.
152
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorine dioxide was first produced from the reaction of potassium chlorate and hydrochloric acid by
Davy in 1811. More widespread use occurred after the industrial production of sodium chlorite, which
offers an easier route to chlorine dioxide. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, when it was first
used at a spa in Ostend, Belgium, chlorine dioxide has been known as a powerful disinfectant of water.
During the 1950s it was introduced more generally as a drinking water disinfectant since it produced less
disinfection by-products than chlorine. The major uses of chlorine dioxide are (EPA, 1999):
Ɣ CT disinfection credit,
Ɣ pre-oxidant to control tastes and odour;
Ɣ control of iron and manganese and
Ɣ control of hydrogen sulphide and phenolic compounds.
In conventional treatment plants, chlorine dioxide used for oxidation is fed either in the raw water, in the
sedimentation basins, or following sedimentation. To limit the oxidant demand, and therefore the chlorine
dioxide dose and the formation of chlorite, it is common to add chlorine dioxide following sedimentation.
Concerns about possible taste and odour complaints and the formation of chlorite and chlorate have
limited the common use of chlorine dioxide, in spite of its superior combination of oxidation power and
low tendency to form organic disinfection by-products (DBPs).
Sodium and calcium hypochlorite

Although the use of sodium and calcium hypochlorite is more expensive than the use of chlorine gas,
many schemes switched to the use of these chemicals because of greater safety involved in their handling
as compared with chlorine gas. Sodium and calcium hypochlorite is commonly used in small–scale water
reclamation schemes (Tchobanoglous, 1996).
8.1. FACT-SHEET
8.1.1 Water quality
Effect of chlorine on pathogens
Chlorine is regarded as a disinfectant that is effective at inactivating bacteria and viruses, and, under
certain circumstances, Giardia.
Bacteria Inactivation: Chlorine is an extremely effective disinfectant for inactivating bacteria, with HOCl
being more effective than OCl- for inactivation of E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhi,
and Shigella dysenteriae (US EPA, 1999). In one study, HOCl was found to be 70 to 80 times more
effective than OCl- for inactivating bacteria (Culp/Wesner, 1986).
Virus Inactivation: Chlorine has been shown to be a highly effective virucide. The least resistant virus
was found to be reovirus and the most resistant virus a poliovirus (Liu et al., 1971).
Protozoa Inactivation: Chlorine has been shown to have limited success inactivating protozoa. Data
indicated that Giardia cysts require two orders of magnitude higher CT-values than enteroviruses and
more than three orders of magnitude higher than enteric bacteria (US EPA, 1999). Chlorine has little
impact on the viability of Cryptosporidium oocysts when used at the relatively low doses encountered in
153
water treatment (e.g. 5 mg/L). Only 40 percent removal (0.2 log) of Cryptosporidium were achieved at CT
values of both 30 and 3,600 mg min/L (US EPA, 1999). Another study determined that “no practical
inactivation was observed” when oocysts were exposed to free chlorine concentrations ranging from 5 to
80 mg/L at pH 8, a temperature of 22°C, and contact times of 48 to 245 minutes (Gyürék et al., 1996). CT
values ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 mg·min/L were required to achieve 1-log reduction of
Cryptosporidium inactivation at pH 6.0 and a temperature of 22oC. During this study, one trial in which
oocysts were exposed to 80 mg/L of free chlorine for 120 minutes was found to produce greater than 3-
logs of inactivation.
Effect of chlorine on the physico-chemical properties of reclaimed water

Reclaimed wastewaters may contain high levels of potentially hazardous organo-halogens. Disinfection of
water with free chlorine then can result in formation of significant concentrations of other organo-
halogens in addition to tri-halomethanes (THMs) (Bauman, 1990)
In wastewater reuse, chlorine is applied not only to secure the safety of recycled water but also to control
biological growth such as slime formation in water distribution pipes. Chlorine residuals that remain in
wastewater can prolong disinfection well after initial treatment. On the other hand, the residual chlorine
may have negative effects on some applications of reuse, such as crop irrigation, as well as upon the
aquatic environment (http://www.unep.or.jp).
Effect of physico-chemical properties of the reclaimed water on chlorine demand

The chlorine demand varies with the amount of oxidisable impurities in the water. Thus organic
compounds and ammonia concentrations affect chlorine demand.
As a consequence, effective biological treatment will reduce the chlorine demand, maximize the
effectiveness of the following disinfection process, and minimize generation of by-products in chlorine
disinfection. However, even at low BOD levels, residual chlorine may be consumed in reactions with salts
and organics in reclaimed water, and bacterial growth and biofilm formation in the reservoir tank may
occur. Therefore, the chlorine injection rate must be monitored carefully and should be kept at an
appropriate level (http://www.unep.or.jp). More details on effectiveness are given in Chapter 7.
8.1.2 Operability
Flexibility
Chlorination offers more dosage flexibility than other means of disinfection, e.g. ozone or UV. Some of
its reaction products (chloramines) continue to exhibit disinfective properties, even if the primary
disinfectant has been consumed. The consequences of moderate temporary over-dosage are not acutely
critical to human health. Chlorine and chloramines show more dosage flexibility than chlorine dioxide,
which then tends to form inorganic toxic by-products in the form of chlorite and chlorate.
Resilience
The good disinfection effect depends on the contact time of chlorine with the effluents that should be at
least 30 minutes to get an effective disinfection. This requires building a contact tank besides the chlorine
injection system. Chloramines are more stable than other residuals, due to their low tendency to oxide
organics.
154
Controllability
Chlorine compounds are relatively simple to apply and control. Different types of on-line sensors are
available (see 8.5) that have in some cases replaced the manual titrations that were commonly used.
The chlorine dioxide dosage may not exceed 1.4 mg/L to limit the total combined concentrations of ClO2,
ClO2-, ClO3-, to a maximum of 1.0 mg/L (EPA, 1999). The use of chlorine dioxide is regulated in many
places. Legislation varies.
In the case of monochloramine, nitrification and generation of bacterial growth can occur, if the Cl2 to N
ratio is too low and conditions exist that are favourable for the growth of nitrifying bacteria. A minimum
residual of 2.0 mg/L of monochloramine has been found effective in controlling nitrification in most
systems.
The presence of chlorine residual is also often requested in the permit. The maintenance of chlorine
residual (bound or free) is complicated, as free chlorine not only reacts with ammonia, but also is a strong
oxidizing agent. As chlorine is added, readily oxidisable substances and organic matter react with the
chlorine and reduce most of it to the chloride ion. After meeting this immediate demand, the surplus
chlorine continues to react with ammonia to form chloramines. With continued addition of chlorine, most
of the chloramines will be oxidized at what is called the breakpoint (compare Figure 8.1). Continued
addition of chlorine past the breakpoint will result in a directly proportional increase in the free available
chlorine.
Reliability
Although free chlorine is very effective in inactivating bacteria (E. Coli at a CT of 0.6 mg min/L) and
viruses (Poliovirus at a CT of 1.7 mg min/L), it is not effective against cysts (Giardia and
Cryptosporidium). In case of non-nitrified or partially nitrified effluents, chlorination leads to the
formation of chloramine that is less effective than free chlorine. In that case the formed chloramine
concentration is not high enough and the disinfection will not be complete.
Safety for occupation

Chlorine requires very stringent occupational safety precautions. These safety precautions (scrubbing
systems, bunkers, etc) affect the initial investment as well as the operation and maintenance costs.
Chlorine gas is a strong oxidant. When wet, it is extremely corrosive. Additionally, handling and use of
chlorine imply important health concerns. Chlorine is very toxic with an eight hour exposure limit of 0.5
mL/m3. Liquid chlorine leaks are more dangerous than leaks in gas lines, since, upon evaporation, 1 kg of
liquid chlorine yields about 315 L of chlorine gas at 0oC and 1 bar. Chlorine gas is heavier than air and
may accumulate near the ground. Safety precautions must be taken in the design and layout of chlorine
installations to safeguard the operators and the public. Gas cylinders should be kept in closed buildings
equipped with chlorine detectors and the buildings should be at a safe distance (up to one km) from any
household.
Many of the safety concerns related to transport, storage, and injection of the gaseous chlorine are
eliminated by the use of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) which is available as solution with concentrations
of 12% or 15%. It can also be manufactured on-site (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). The stability of sodium
hypochlorite is limited. For example, a concentrated solution can loose around 1% of its activity per day
at 26-27oC. For that reason the liquid should be kept in a cool location.
155
Chlorine dioxide does not dissociate or react with water as chlorine does. However, because chlorine
dioxide is normally produced from chlorine and sodium chlorite, free chlorine may remain in the
produced chlorine dioxide (depending on the process) and impact the aquatic environment, as chlorine
residuals do. A free chlorine dioxide residual will also remain, but it has been found to be less
ecologically harmful than chlorine. Regulations concerning the production and the use of chlorine dioxide
vary from state-to-state.
Users of kidney dialysis equipment are the most critical group that can be impacted by chloramines use.
Chloramines can cause methemolobinemia and adversely affect the health of kidney dialysis patients if
chloramines are not removed from the dialyzed water. Chloramines can also be very toxic to fish. The
residuals can damage the gill tissues, enter the red blood cells, and cause an acute blood disorder.
Chloramine residuals should be removed from the water prior to the water contacting any fish, e.g. by
activated carbon. Fish hobbyists should be notified, along with pet stores and aquarium supply
establishments, if a change to chloramine as disinfectant is planned.
8.2. BASIC ASPECTS

Physical properties of different chlorine compounds are given in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Physical properties of chlorine compounds (Metcalf&Eddy, 2003)
Hypochlorite
CHARACTERISTICS Units Chlorine (gas) Chlorine Dioxide
(NaOCl)
Molar mass kg/kmol 74.5 70.91 67.45

Solubility in water g/L ---- 7 70
o
Boiling point @ 1 atm C -34.05 ---- 11
o
Melting point C -100.98 -59
Red(s), Orange (l)
Colour Clear amber Greenish yellow
Orange (g)
o 3
Liquid density (15.5 C) kg/m 1422.4 1640 (20 oC)
Specific gravity (0oC) 1.468
12% sol’n kg/m3 1.168 ---- ----
15% sol’n (21oC) 1.210
Vapour density@ 1 atm, (0oC) kg/m3 ---- 3.213 2.4
Specific volume of vapour kg/m3 ---- 0.3112 0.417
o
Critical temperature C ---- 143.9 153
Critical pressure kPa ---- 7811.8 ----
Heat of vaporization kJ/mol ---- ---- 27.28
Heat of solution kJ/mol ---- ---- 27.61
The chemistry of the chlorination of potable water and wastewater is similar. The reactions differ
primarily because of the differences in concentrations of interfering organic or inorganic substances. In
the case of disinfection of effluents with chlorine the most important interfering substances found in the
effluents are (White, 1999):
Ɣ Ammonia nitrogen,
156
Ɣ Organic nitrogen,
Ɣ Tannins,
Ɣ Cystine,
Ɣ Humic acid and
Ɣ Phenol.
When chlorine gas is added to the water, two reactions occur:
Ɣ hydrolysis:
Ɣ Cl2 + H2O ļ HOCl + H+ + Cl-and ionization:

Ɣ
HOCl ļ H+ + OCl-
Ɣ Free residual chlorine, defined as the sum of [HOCl] and [OCl-], is often used as the measure
of chlorination effectiveness.
Chlorine reacts rapidly with ammonia and organic compounds to form chloramines and chlorinated
organic compounds.
The combined chloramines together with organo-chlorine compounds continue to contribute to the free
chlorine demand as well as non-reacted organics and inorganic compounds like cyanide, inorganic
carbon, sulphides, sulphites, nitrites, bromide, manganese and ferrous ions (White, 1999).
In order to obtain the free chlorine that is more effective than the combined chlorine, breakpoint
chlorination is practiced (Figure 8.1). At a Cl2:NH3-N weight ratio of 7.6:1 (or a molar ratio of 3:2) all of
the available ammonia is theoretically oxidized to nitrogen gas and other oxidized nitrogen products, and
chlorine residuals are greatly reduced or eliminated. At ratios greater than 7.6:1, free chlorine is the
predominant residual.
Figure 8.1 Theoretical breakpoint chlorination scheme (1 mg/L N-NH4, pH = 7,

temperature 25oC, contact time 2 hours) (AWWARF, 1993)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Monochloramine is used as a secondary disinfectant to provide a residual in the distribution system. It is

employed where elevated precursor levels in the treated water would cause high levels of DBP formation
in the distribution system if chlorine is used instead. Monochloramine has been found to be more effective
than free chlorine in controlling biofilms and coliform bacteria in systems with long detention times, due
the lower rate of chloramine decay (LeChevallier et al., 1988 a,b). Monochloramine will have smaller
tendency to react with organics present and hence will form less taste and odour causing compounds.
157
LeChevallier et al. (1988) also showed that chloro-organic biocides did not react with extra-cellular
polysaccharides.
The disinfecting effect of chlorine is greatly enhanced by good mixing at the point of application, mainly
in non-nitrified effluents where there is an appreciable amount of ammonia nitrogen. White et al. (1983)
found that good mixing favours the formation of monochloramine which is a more effective disinfectant
than di - and tri - chloramines and organo - chloramines. If mixing is poor, one finds more chloramines,
which are titrated as di-chloramine and which do not have germicidal action. Ideally, di-chloramine, does
not form when the pH is in the neutral range and the chlorine to N-NH4 weight ratio is 6:1 or less. In well
nitrified and filtered effluents, organic nitrogen is present in small concentrations (0.75-3 mg/L) (White et
al., 1983).
When added to water, chlorine dioxide reacts with many organic and inorganic compounds. The reactions
produce chlorite and chlorate as end products (compounds that are suspected of causing haemolytic
anaemia and other health effects). Chlorate is formed predominantly in downstream reactions between
residual chlorite and free chlorine when Cl2 is used as the distribution system disinfectant. Chlorine
dioxide does not produce trihalomethanes (THMs). The use of chlorine dioxide aids in reducing the
formation of by-products by oxidizing precursors, and by allowing the point of chlorination to be moved
farther downstream in the plant after coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration have reduced the quantity
of natural organic matter (NOM). Due to the restrictions in chlorite concentration, chlorine dioxide in
most cases is not used as the only disinfectant, but only as primary disinfectant.
8.2.1 Chlorine
Disinfection mechanism
Chlorine is capable of producing lethal effects at or near the cell membrane as well as attacking DNA. In
bacteria, chlorine was found to impact cell respiration, transport, and possibly DNA activity (Haas and
Engelbrecht, 1976). Chlorination was found to cause an immediate decrease in oxygen take up in both
Escherichia coli and Candida parapsilosis studies. Chlorine damages the cell wall, promotes leakage
through the cell membrane, and slows down DNA synthesis for Escherichia coli, Candida parapsilosis,
and Mycobacterium fortuitum bacteria.
Disinfection efficacy
Chlorine is considered a strong disinfectant that is effective at inactivating bacteria and viruses and, under
certain circumstances, Giardia. Because of its extremely high virus inactivation efficiency, overall CT
values are almost always governed by protozoa inactivation. For example, Figure 8.2 shows the CT values
required to achieve between 0.5 and 3-logs of virus and Giardia inactivation (US EPA, 1999). As shown,
the CT values required to achieve the recommended disinfection efficiency for conventional filtration
systems (i.e., 0.5-log Giardia cyst and 2-log virus inactivation level) are 23 and 3 mg min/L, respectively.
158
Figure 8.2 Free chlorine Giardia and Virus CT Requirements (US EPA, 1999)
160 10
140 Giardia Cysts 9

CT Values for Giardia Cyst
Viruses 8
Inactivation (mg min/L)
Inactivation (mg min/L)

120
CT Values for Virus

7
100 6
80 5
60 4
3
40
2
20 1
0 0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Log Pathogen Inactivation Level
8.2.2 Chloramines
The mechanisms by which chloramines inactivate microorganisms have been studied less than those of
chlorine. A study of inactivation of E. coli by chloramines showed that monochloramine readily reacts
with the amino acids cysteine, cystine, methionine and tryptophan. The mechanism of microorganism
inactivation for chloramine is therefore thought to involve the inhibition of protein mediated functions
such as respiration.
Few studies have been performed to determine the mechanism for viral inactivation. There are some
conflicting data on where (RNA-fragment vs. protein coat) the initial attack occurs. Similar to free
chlorine, the mechanism of viral inactivation by chloramine may be dependent on factors such as virus
type and disinfectant concentration.
Chloramines are relatively weak disinfectants. Even though this is true for all types of microorganisms, it
is most critical for the inactivation of virus and protozoa. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to achieve
sufficient primary disinfection of Giardia and viruses using chloramines, because very long detention
times are needed. However, since it provides a stable residual, chloramine appears to be feasible for
secondary disinfection protection against microbial growth in distribution systems.
Bacteria Inactivation. Under relatively demand-free, laboratory-controlled conditions, free chlorine

inactivates enteric bacteria much faster than chloramines do.
Virus Inactivation. The majority of the experiments show that inorganic chloramines require much
higher concentrations and considerably longer contact times than free chlorine to achieve comparable
levels of virus inactivation.
159
Protozoa Inactivation. Studies indicate that free chlorine is a more effective disinfectant than
chloramines for oocyst inactivation.
8.2.3 Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is an effective wastewater disinfectant, and is applied to wastewater as a gas that is
generated on-site from sodium chlorite, using excess chlorine. It is relatively easy and economical to
produce but is unstable and reactive and any transport is hazardous.
Chlorine dioxide is effective in oxidizing phenols, but does not react with aquatic humic substances to
produce trihalomethanes (THMs). However, any excess chlorine remaining from the generation of
chlorine dioxide may react with THM precursors and form THMs. Therefore, operators must be careful to
use the correct amount of chlorine when generating chlorine dioxide. While chlorine dioxide will not react
with wastewater to form chloramines, it can produce toxic by-products such as chlorite and chlorate.
Direct damage to bacterial cells or viruses has not been observed at the low concentrations of chlorine
dioxide typically used to disinfect drinking water. Therefore, studies have focused primarily on two more
subtle mechanisms that may lead to the inactivation of microorganisms (EPA, 1999):
Ɣ specific chemical reactions between chlorine dioxide and bio-molecules; and
Ɣ the effect chlorine dioxide has on physiological functions.
The first disinfection mechanism is based on the observation that chlorine dioxide reacts readily with the
amino acids cysteine, tryptophan, and tyrosine, but not with viral ribonucleic acid (RNA). It has also been
shown that chlorine dioxide reacts with free fatty acids.
The second type of disinfection mechanism focuses on the effect of chlorine dioxide on physiological
functions. A study reported that chlorine dioxide disrupted the permeability of the outer membrane
In general, chlorine dioxide has been determined to be equal or superior to chlorine on a mass-dose basis.
It was demonstrated that even in the presence of suspended matter, chlorine dioxide was effective against
E. coli and Bacillus anthracoides at dosages in the range of 1 to 5 mg/L.
The disinfection efficiency of chlorine dioxide has also been shown to be equal to or greater than chlorine
for Giardia inactivation and chlorine dioxide has been shown to be an effective virucidal.
CT values for Giardia and virus inactivation are shown in Figure 8.3 and Figure 8.4, respectively (EPA,
1999).
160
Figure 8.3 CT Values for inactivation of Giardia cysts by chlorine dioxide (US
EPA, 1999)
30
0.5-log Inactivation
1-log Inactivation
25 1.5-log Inactivation
2-log Inactivation
3-log Inactivation
CT Product (mg min/L)
20
15
10
0
5 10 15 20 25
Temperature (°C)
Figure 8.4 CT Values for inactivation of viruses by chlorine dioxide (US EPA,
1999)
30
1-log Inactivation
25 1.5-log Inactivation
2-log Inactivation
3-log Inactivation
CT Product (mg min/L)
20
15
10
0
5 10 15 20 25
Temperature (°C)
161
8.3. PROCESS EQUIPMENT

Chlorine
Chlorine gas can be generated by a number of processes including the electrolysis of alkaline brine or
hydrochloric acid, the reaction between sodium chloride and nitric acid, or the oxidation of hydrochloric
acid. Since chlorine is a stable compound, it is typically produced off-site by a chemical manufacturer,
generally by electrolysis of brine. Once produced, chlorine is packaged as a liquefied gas under pressure
for delivery to the site in railcars, tanker trucks, or cylinders. Chlorine is supplied as a liquefied gas under
high pressure in containers.
Selection of the size of the chlorine pressure vessel should depend on the rate of chlorine usage, cost of
chlorine, facility’s requirement, and dependability of supply. When higher rates are required, the contents
of containers should be drawn as liquid and vaporized in evaporators before use.
Onsite generation of chlorine has recently become practical. These generation systems, using only salt and
electric power, can be designed to meet disinfection and residual standards and to operate unattended at
remote sites.
Chlorine is introduced into the reclaimed water by solution feeders or gas injectors. Chlorine gas is
usually stored in steel containers (150-pound or 1-ton cylinders) and transported in railroad cars and
tanker trucks. Sodium hypochlorite solution must be stored in rubber-lined steel or fibreglass storage
tanks.
Because chlorine is hazardous, safety precautions must be exercised during all phases of shipment,
storage, handling, and use. Emergency response plans are needed for onsite storage of gaseous chlorine.
Several large cities have switched to hypochlorite to avoid the transport of chlorine through populated
areas. For safety reasons, chlorine cylinders have to be kept in concrete buildings (Figure 8.5).
Figure 8.5 Chlorine gas cylinders (left) and concrete building for housing
chlorine gas cylinders (right)
In several countries (e.g. Israel) there is also the obligation to install a scrubber to contain chlorine gas
outbreaks in cases where big chlorine cylinders (1000 kg) are installed (see Figure 8.6). Additionally,
chlorination equipment bigger than 65 kg should be placed at least 700 m away from housing areas.
162
Figure 8.6 Scrubber for chlorine fumes
To ensure a good mixing the chlorine is injected by a multi –injection point system and also in long
distribution lines.
Good disinfection is obtained by means of contact chambers that ensure both the necessary contact time
(30 – 60 minutes) and thorough mixing.
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorine dioxide is usually generated from sodium chlorite solution reacting with gaseous chlorine (Cl2),
hypochloric acid (HOCl), or hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chlorine dioxide must be produced on-site. In most
applications, chlorine dioxide is generated as needed and directly injected into an absorbing stream.
Samples of generated solutions for analysis, with up to 1 percent (10 g/L) chlorine dioxide can be safely
stored if the solution is protected from light, chilled (< 5°C), and has no unventilated headspace.
Because sodium chlorite is about ten times as expensive as chlorine on a weight basis, economical
considerations must be taken into account when choosing the reactants: On-site generation of ClO2 may
be accomplished by combining sodium chlorite with either aqueous or gaseous chlorine (Reaction 1), or
with hydrochloric acid (Reaction 2).
Ɣ Reaction 1:
2NaClO2 + Cl2 ļ 2ClO2 + 2NaCl (chlorine)
Ɣ Reaction 2:
5NaClO2 + 4HCl ļ 4ClO2 + 5NaCl + 2H2O (hydrochloric acid)
Reaction 1 requires 1.34 grams of sodium chlorite to react with 0.526 grams of chlorine to produce 1
gram of ClO2 (pH of chlorine water 1.7-2.4). Reaction 2 requires 1.67 grams of sodium chlorite to react
with hydrochloric acid to produce 1 gram of ClO2.
Excess chlorine is typically required in both of these reactions, potentially resulting in chlorinated by-
products.
163
A new method of ClO2 generation that does not involve chlorine is to radiate sodium chlorite with UV
radiation as follows:
Ɣ Reaction 3:
NaClO2 + hȞ (254 nm) ĺ Na+ + ClO2
Na+ + H2O ļ NaOH
Chlorine dioxide produced via UV radiation does not use aqueous or gaseous chlorine, involves a single
chemical reactant, and is cheaper while not producing any toxic by-products.
A chlorine dioxide disinfection system requires chlorine dioxide generation on site by one of the three
generation methods above. The ClO2-flow is controlled by an on-line measurement or in a constant ratio
to the water flow. The gas enters the suction chamber of an ejector, where it is compressed and finely
dispersed in the stream of water that is pumped through the ejector. This stream is then mixed with the
main water flow in a diffuser, up to where most of the ClO2 is absorbed, before both streams enter an
adequate reaction vessel with ancillary piping.
Instead of the described arrangement, other methods can be used to absorb the ClO2 and mix the streams,
which may employ static mixers, jet mixers or propeller / turbine mixers.
Chloramines
Chloramines are generated by the sequential addition of chlorine (hypochloric acid) and ammonia at a Cl2
to NH3 ratio ranging from of 3:1 to 5:1. Either chlorine or ammonia may be added first. Chlorine is
normally added first to act as the primary disinfectant and after 10 to 30 minutes, ammonia is added to
prevent further formation of DPBs. The most common methods of chlorine addition include gaseous feed
using injectors or ejectors or direct feed of bulk hypochlorite solution (12 percent typical commercial
strength). The most common ammonia feed facilities include anhydrous ammonia fed either directly or
via a dilution water eduction system or direct feed of bulk aqua ammonia solution (20 percent typical
commercial strength).
8.4. PROCESS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

A routine O&M schedule should be developed and implemented for any chlorine disinfection system.
Regular O&M includes the following activities
(http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/pdf/eti/Chl_Dis_tech.pdf):
Ɣ Dissembling and cleaning the various components of the system, such as meters and floats,
once every six months.
Ɣ Iron and manganese deposits should be removed with, for example, muriatic acid.
Ɣ Booster pumps should be maintained.
Ɣ Valves and springs should be inspected and cleaned annually.
Ɣ All manufacturers’ O&M recommendations should be followed.
Ɣ Equipment must be tested and calibrated as recommended by the equipment manufacturer.
164
An emergency response plan for onsite storage of gaseous chlorine must be developed. When using
chlorine it is very important to properly and safely store all chemical disinfectants. The storage of chlorine
is strongly depended on the compound phase. For further details on the safe use and storage of chlorine
refer to chemical’s Material Safety Data Sheets (US EPA, 1999a). Chlorine gas is normally stored in steel
containers (150-pounds or 1-ton cylinders) and transported in railroad cars and tanker trucks. Sodium
hypochlorite solution must be stored in rubber-lined steel or fibreglass storage tanks. Calcium
hypochlorite is shipped in drums or tanker trucks and stored with great care (US EPA, 1999 b).
Injection and initial mixing

The effective initial mixing of the chlorine to the effluent is very important to get the desired final
disinfection effect with a planned initial injected dose. Mainly in ammonia containing partially nitrified
effluents if the chlorine gas is not well mixed, there is a possibility that instead of producing liquid
chlorine or monochloramine, local formation of di- and tri-chloramine that is not an effective disinfectant
may prevail (Mekorot, 2002; Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
The application of chlorine in highly turbulent regime (NRe 104) will result in a better kill (2 orders) than
in a conventional rapid-mix reactor (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Figure 8.8 shows a good arrangement to
inject liquid chlorine to the main stream. Figure 8.10 shows a proper chlorine dosage to a pressure line. In
order to avoid local formation of non-effective chloramines in the partially nitrified effluents, first the
chlorine gas is added by vacuum injection method to a suitable quantity of tap water (to get a good
dissolution) and then the formed liquid chlorine is well mixed by an arrangement shown in figures 8.8 and
8.10 to the pressurised line. In case of open systems the mixing is made by the use of contact basins.
Methods for effective chlorine mixing include (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003):
Ɣ in-line static mixers
Ɣ in-line mixers
Ɣ high-speed induction mixers
Ɣ pressurised water jets
Ɣ pumps
Some examples of good practice in chlorine injection and mixing are provided in figures 8.7 and 8.8.
165
Figure 8.7 Good practices 1 - Chlorine injection and mixing (White, 1999)
Figure 8.8 Good practices 2 – Proper chlorine dosage to a pressure line and on-
line monitoring (White, 1999)
Mixing in contact basins

Mixing in contact chambers for chlorine will result in a better disinfection effect. For a good disinfecting
effect adequate contact time is essential. As contact time decreases the effectiveness decreases. A
minimum contact time of 30 min. for chlorine is essential. In order to ensure an adequate contact time in a
given foot print, multiple pass plug flow chambers (see Figures 8.9 and 8.10) are designed. The contact
time of chlorine is usually specified by the local regulations. For example in regulations in Israel for
unrestricted irrigation quality water call for at least 30 minutes contact time with at least 1 mg/L total
166
flow rate the control is done on a proportional dosing pump to get the proper chlorine concentration. A
more advanced control can be performed by adding an on-line E. coli control. This could also be coupled
with the chlorine dosing pump and the gas chlorinator.
Chlorine gas cylinders operation and containment of leaks

Normally only 10% of the weight of the chlorine gas can be used. Even, this is done by operating heating
systems (mainly during the night). For that reason there is always a need for working with one ton
cylinders.
As it can be seen in Figs. 8.5 and 8.6 and 8.11 and 8.12 the chlorine gas cylinders are kept in concrete
buildings. Storage requirements include:
1. spill control and containment (concrete barriers around the building)
2. proper ventilation
3. chlorine in air monitoring equipment (see Figs. 8.11 and 8.13B)
4. special valves on gas cylinders that close if the chlorine concentration in air is higher (for example
higher > 5 ppm) (Figure 8.14 A)
5. special systems that evacuate the chlorine gas in pipes in case of leakage (Figure 8.14 B)
Chlorine gas cylinders are attached in parallel several of them together as a battery (Figure 8.12) and their
weight controlled by a balance (Figure 8.15). There is always a spare battery which is switch when the gas
in the first battery is depleted. In the mean time the depleted battery is replaced.
8.5. MONITORING AND CONTROL

Contrary to water treatment, where free chlorine monitoring is required, the monitoring of chlorine
disinfectant in tertiary treated effluents is mostly done as total residual chlorine due to chloramine
formation. The most widely accepted method in field monitoring is the diethyl-p- phenylene diamine
(DPD) method using a colorimetric indicating reagent. Other colorimetric methods used for residual
chlorine determination, e.g. the “ortholidine method” have been found not suitable lately due to the
carcinogenic aromatic amines used. Another accepted tool is the amperometric method.
Detailed account of these and other methods for specific chloramine measurement can be found in White
(1999).
For in-line monitoring three different types of systems are available, a measurement of the oxidation
reduction potential (ORP), a membrane cell that measures chlorine residual and automated titrations using
either amperometric or colorimetric detectors. A review of continuous monitoring is available (D.S.
Williams). The ORP instruments provide data on a secondary level, meaning that they need to be
calibrated by a proper analytical method. Operators have three choices for calibration of these continuous
analysers:
1. amperometric titration
2. DPD-FAS titration
3. DPD colorimetric method based on spectrophotometric analysis.
168
8.6. FULL SCALE REFERENCES

8.6.1 The Callala Reclaimed Water Scheme, New South Wales
The Callala water reclamation scheme is part of the Northern Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management
Scheme. The main features of the scheme are (AQUAREC report M7.2, 2005).
Ɣ Design flow rate: 600 m³/d (Callala Sewerage Scheme).
Ɣ Reuse purpose: Irrigation (dairy farm pasture, golf courses, recreational areas)
Ɣ Classification within standard reuse trains: Title 22
The treatment train of the facility is given in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Treatment train of the water reclamation facility (Shoalhaven

Water)
Preliminary Treatment Fine screen, grit removal, flow equalising
Biological Treatment Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Tank (IDEA)
Phosphor removal Alum dosing into the biological stage
Sludge treatment Excess sludge storage, stabilisation and thickening in lagoons
Intermediate storage IDEA effluent is stored in lagoons for flow equalisation (further fine
screening and alum dosing possible)
Tertiary treatment Pressure sand filters
Disinfection Chlorine gas
The design water quality levels for the Callala WWTP are given in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 Design effluent concentrations of Callala WWTP (Shoalhaven Water)

BOD5 NH-N4 TN TP FC
[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [CFU/100 mL]
Concentration 15 5 15 1 200
The standards applicable for the reclaimed water utilized for pasture and golf course irrigation are given
in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4 WWTP Effluent standards for water reuse (yearly averages)
BOD5 COD SS TN TP TDS Faecal col.
Concentration standards [mg/L] < 10 < 15 < 15 < 10 < 700 < 200/100mL
Although the design allowed for 5 mg/L ammonia in the effluents since the nitrification (see Table 8.5)
was almost complete (0.1 mg NH4-N/L) the chlorination resulted in free chlorine (up to 0.2 mg/L)
169
Table 8.5 Effluent results of WWTPs: Test Result (Shoalhaven Water)

Concentration SS BOD5 NH4-N TN TP TDS Thermotol. Col.
[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] Bacteria
[CFU/100mL]
June 2002 2 1 0.1 2.6 1.7 396 400
December 2002 6 1 0.12 1.4 1.2 224 4.50E+02
December 2003 22 6 0.16 3.8 5.5 304 1.70E+02
December 2004 1 2 0.05 1.7 4.8 248 1.20E+01
Average 7.75 2.5 0.1075 2.375 3.3 293 258
Figure 8.11 shows the chlorine gas containers safe arrangement and monitoring equipment.
Figure 8.11 Calalla WWTP chlorine gas containers and monitoring equipment,
NSW, Australia (Shoalhaven Water)
8.6.2 The Dan Region Reclaimed Water Scheme, Israel

The Dan Region reclamation project includes (cfr. Chapter 14):
Ɣ Waste water treatment, 330,000 m3/d, activated sludge system.
Ɣ Infiltration of resulting effluents in a Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT) system.
Ɣ Chlorine disinfection of the "accidental drinking quality" water in the distribution system
Ɣ Intermediate storage.
Post disinfection from the storage system to the customers for agricultural irrigation.
Table 8.6 Treatment train of the water reclamation facility

Preliminary treatment Fine screen, grit removal, oil skimming
Biological treatment Activated sludge, nitrification - denitrification
Phosphorous removal Biological phosphorous removal
Tertiary treatment Soil Aquifer Treatment
Disinfection of the water in the 25,000 m3/h effluents are disinfected by injecting 1.2 mg/L of chlorine
distribution system (gas) to a residual of 0.5-0.6 mg/L free chlorine
Intermediate storage Several local storage reservoirs (operational and seasonal) with a total
volume of about 10 Mm³.
Post disinfection before distribution Post chlorination with up to 10 mg/L chlorine due to algal bloom to
maintain chlorine residual of 1 mg/L
170
The Israeli effluent quality standards for unrestricted irrigation (Halperin, 1999) are given in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7 Unrestricted irrigation effluent standards Israel (Halperin, 1999)

BOD5 NH-N4 TN TP FC
[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [CFU/100 mL]
Concentration 15 5 15 1 200
The quality of the reclaimed water is given in Table 8.8.
Table 8.8 Quality of Dan region reclaimed water (yearly averages)

BOD5 COD DOC N-NH4 TP TDS Faecal col.
Concentration standards [mg/L] <1 4-5 <3 < 0.05 < 0.02 < 1,700 < 2/100mL
No suspended solids in the reclaimed water after the SAT but some algal growth after the reservoirs.
After the SAT system, the reclaimed water has to be chlorinated in order to maintain the bacteriological
quality in long (up to 100 km) distribution lines. The chlorination is performed in the main pumping
station after the SAT system. Chlorine gas cylinders (each 1 ton (see Figure 8.12) chlorinate 25,000 m3/h
at an applied dosage of 1.2 mg/L. The relatively low applied dosage is due to the lack of organic matter
and ammonia as a result of the SAT treatment. For the same reason the residual chlorine is mainly free
chlorine so that 0.5-0.6 mg/L is sufficient to keep the water free of bacteria. At any moment 4 containers
work in parallel (there are 8 containers that each deliver 10 kg/h).
The gas containers are in a concrete building and there is continuous monitoring of the chlorine
concentration in the reclaimed water which is connected to the main monitoring room (see Figure 8.13 A)
and also there is monitoring of the chlorine in the air. If the concentration in the air reaches 5ppm, the
pneumatic valves on the containers are actuated and all the gas flow is cut (See Figure 8.14 A). At the
same time a special vacuum system sucks off all the chlorine in the piping (Figure 8.14 B).
Figure 8.12 Dan Region project- Chlorine gas containers (Mekorot Water, 2005)
171
Figure 8.13 Dan Region project- Chlorine gas monitoring system (Mekorot Water,
2005)
B
A
Chlorine dosage monitoring in effluent (0.5 mg/L) Chlorine gas monitoring in the air (5 mg/L)
Figure 8.14 Dan Region project- Chlorine leak prevention system (Mekorot
Water, 2005)
A B
The gas containers are on a balance (Figure 8.15). When empty containers are detected, a switch to the
spare battery occurs (4 containers) and an alarm initiates container replacement.
172
Figure 8.15 Dan Region project- Chlorine containers weight monitoring (Mekorot
Water, 2005)
The post chlorination for the reclaimed water pumped out of seasonal reservoirs is done in the pumping
stations near the reservoirs. A typical station treats 5000 m3/h of reclaimed water from the reservoirs. The
water is first filtered by 120 mesh wire screens and then chlorinated with up to 10 mg/L chlorine
depending on the degree of the algal bloom. Normally the applied chlorine concentration is 2-3 mg/L. The
residual chlorine should be 1 mg/L according to the unrestricted irrigation regulations (Halperin, 1999).
The chlorine injection can be performed optionally, after the wire screening, on the suction or
compression side of the pumps.
If the injection is performed on the compression side of the pump there is a compressor that works in a
water ring and produces vacuum so that the injection of the chlorine gas is possible.
173
8.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AWWARF (1993) Optimizing Chloramine Treatment. Project No 2760 (2nd Ed.). ISBN-0-89867-687-8.
AWWARF (2003) Guidelines for drinking water and water reuse: UV disinfection, NWRI-2003-06,
NWRI Publishing.
AWWARF (2003) Uber J. G. (ed.), Maintaining distribution system residuals through booster
chlorination, IWA Publishing, Report No 90927F.
Bauman L. C. and M.K. Stenstrom (1990) Removal of Organohalogens and Organohalogen Precursors in
Reclaimed Wastewater. Water Research 24 (8): 949-955.
Bixio D., De heyder B., Cikurel H., Muston M., Miska V., Joksimovic D., Schäfer A.I., Ravazzini A.,
Aharoni A., Savic D. and C. Thoeye (2005) Municipal wastewater reclamation: where do we stand? An
overview of treatment technology and management practice. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Wat. Supply 5 (1): 77-85.
Culp, Wesner, Culp (1986) Handbook of Public Water Systems. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gyürék, L.L., Liyanage L.R.J., Belosevic M. and G.R. Finch (1996) Disinfection of Cryptosporidium
Parvum Using Single and Sequential Application of Ozone and Chlorine Species. Conference
proceedings, AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Boston, MA.
Haas C.N. and R.S. Engelbrecht (1976) Physiological Alterations of Vegetative Microorganisms
Resulting from Aqueous Chlorination. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 52: 1976-1989.
Haas C.N. (1990) Disinfection. In: Water Quality and Treatment – A handbook of Community of Water
Supplies/America Water Works Association (4th ed.) McGraw-Hill Inc.
The Halperin Committee Report (1999) Principles for requirement for irrigation with wastewater
effluents, The Israel Ministry of Health (in Hebrew)
http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Water_Sanitation/wastewater_reuse/Booklet-
Wastewater_Reuse.pdf
Liu, O.C. et al. (1971) Relative Resistance of Twenty Human Enteric Viruses to Free Chlorine. Virus and
Water Quality: Occurrence and Control, Conference Proceedings of the, 13th Water Quality Conference,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: 171-195.
Mekorot Water Company (2002) Pilot experiments for biofilm prevention in effluent carrying pipe-lines.
Internal communications.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering treatment and reuse (4th ed.) Chapter 12. McGraw-Hill
Inc., ISBU-0-07-11250-8.
Nurizzo, C., Canziani, R. and F. Malpei (2000) Technological aspects of wastewater reclamation and
reuse for irrigation, EC Grant No. 14976-1999-04-FICO-ISP-IT, Final report. DIIAR Politechnico di
Milano, Italy.
Shoalhaven Water (2003) REMS – Annual Management Report 2003-04.
Shoalhaven Water (2004) REMS Distribution System Water Quality: Test Result Summary July 2003-
May 2004.
174
State of California (2001) The purple book - California health laws related to recycled water; June 2001.
Tchobanoglous G. and E.D. Schroeder (1996) Water Quality – Characteristics, Modeling, Modification.
Addisson – Wesley Publishing Company.
Twort A.C., Ratnayaka D.D. and M.J. Brandt (1996) Water Supply. Ed. Edward Arnold, London, UK.
US EPA (1986) Design manual: Municipal wastewater disinfection, EPA office of R&D Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/1-86/021.
US EPA (1999a) Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual), EPA/815-R-99-014.
US EPA (1999b) Wastewater technology fact sheet, Chlorine Disinfection, EPA/832-F-99-062.
US-EPA (1999) Combined sewer overflow Technology Fact Sheet. Alternative disinfection methods: UV,
Ozone, Chlorine, PAA disinfection, EPA/832-F-99-036 .
US EPA (2003) UV disinfection guidance manual- UVDGM, EPA/815-D-03-007.
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for water reuse, EPA/625-R-04-108.
WEF (1996) Water Environment Federation Manual of practice - FD-10. Alexandria, Virginia.
White G.C. (1992) Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. Van Nostrand New York,
NY.
White G.C. (1999) Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. (4th ed.), Van Nostrand. New
York, NY.
Williams, D.S. (2005) Online Monitoring of Wastewater Effluent Chlorination, WERF Report Series: 412
ISBN 1843397X.
Lechevallier M.W., Cawthon C.D. and R.G. Lee (1988) Inactivation of biofilm bacteria. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 54 (10): 2492.
175
176
9 ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION
9.1 DESCRIPTION
The germicidal effect of energy from the sun has already been known since 1884, with the appearance of
the first practical application of ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation for drinking water disinfection in the city
of Marseille, France in 1907. Its use as a water disinfectant was abandoned when chlorine became
available free of charge as a by-product of soda production (Kolch, 1999). The interest for UV disinfection
as primary wastewater disinfectant again gained momentum with the discovery, in 1974, of Disinfection
By-Products (DBPs) associated with chlorine use and then boosted in the 2000s after the discovery, in
1998, of the disinfection properties of UV in inactivating protozoan cysts and oocysts such as those of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia at cost-effective doses, where conventional disinfectants fail.
Nowadays, the use of UV as reclaimed water disinfectant finds numerous applications, especially at small
and medium scale facilities and for high contact reuse applications. On top of its effectiveness towards
protozoan and other microbial contaminants, the reasons for its success are to be found in the fact that it is
a safer and more environmentally sound alternative to chemical treatment.
Several guidelines recommend the use of UV as “best available technology not entailing excessive costs”
to disinfect reclaimed water, and state that its use should be preferred over chlorination and ozonation in
particular when a disinfection-residual is not required and for high to medium contact reuse applications.
Two guideline examples on UV application in Europe are the German Association for Water Pollution
Control guidelines (ATV, 1993) and the guidelines proposed by Aquafin to the Belgian Flemish
government in 2003; one example in Australia is the Victoria Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
guidelines (EPA Victoria, 2002). In the US, recent US EPA rules for inactivation of Cryptosporidium
provide also guidance on UV treatment. Pros and cons of UV disinfection with respect to chlorination are
summarised in table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Pros and cons of disinfection with UV irradiation vs. chlorination
Advantages Disadvantages
no residues; not toxic to aquatic life; no alteration of Higher capital costs. Often more expensive on a net present
the physical-chemical properties of water (no basis too, esp. in low-contact reuse applications or if
depletion of oxygen, no increase of dissolved solids dechlorination is not required, if the chlorination contact
content) chambers already exist; at larger plant sizes
Easier and more reliable to operate and maintain (no
A preventive maintenance program may be necessary to
shipment/storage problems; no sludge; no corrosion).
control fouling on the quartz sleeves
Short contact times required
Good bactericidal action. Effective disinfectant for Low virucidal action for some viruses, secondary
Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Effectively oxidize disinfectant required for distribution and storage. Photo-
residual organics like NDMA in water (in reactivation could be a problem using low-pressure UV
combination with an oxidant). lamps if system sized below a minimum UV dose.
more dependent on water quality (in particular: suspended
Efficient with non-nitrified effluent disinfection. No
solids, turbidity and absorbing compounds), no residuals to
effect on odour (and taste).
be measured to monitor effectiveness
177
9.1.1 Disinfection effectiveness

With appropriate pre-treatment and transferred dose, UV appeared to meet reclaimed water disinfection
requirements regardless of geographic location and stringency of the limits (including compliance with the
stringent health protection limits as laid down by the Californian Title 22 legislation):
• Typically, the unrestricted irrigation target of 10 total coliforms (TC) / 100 mL is achieved in the
range of 30-50 mWs/cm² with UV following membrane filtration systems and 40-60 mWs/cm² for
conventional filtration.
• To meet more stringent targets, much higher doses need to be applied. Jolis et al. (2001) concluded
that a minimum dose of 80 mWs/cm² is to be applied to consistently meet the Californian Title 22
Coliform limit of 2.2 CFU/100 mL (when the secondary effluent is filtrated prior to UV disinfection).
A slightly higher UV dose may be necessary to meet the 5-log MS2 bacteriophage reduction of the
same legislation (Jolis et al., 1999; Lazarova et al., 1999). Note that to meet the 2 CFU/100 mL limit
of the Italian legislation for unrestricted reuse, Liberti and Notarnicola (1999) needed higher UV
doses (in the range of 100-160 mWs/cm²).
An indication of the susceptibility of specific pathogens commonly found in treated wastewater to UV

irradiation, relative to the total Coliforms indicator, is shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Relative effectiveness of UV radiation for disinfection of specific

pathogens and indicators (adapted from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Dosage relative to total coliform dosage (based on
Organism
discrete organisms)
Bacteria
Faecal Coliform 0.5-0.9
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1.5-2.0 **
Salmonella typhosa 0.6-0.9
[1]
Vibrio < salmonella spp
Staphylococcus aureus 1.0-1.5
[2]
Helicobacter pylori <1
Total coliform (reference) 1.0
Viruses
Adenovirus 0.7-0.9
Coxsackie A2 1.0-1.5
F specific bacteriophages 0.4-0.8
Polio type 1 0.9-1.1
MS2 bacteriophage 0.9-1.0
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts* 0.2-0.4
Giardia lambia cysts* 0.2-0.6
* Based on infectivity studies, ** however a relative dose of 37 mWs/cm² can limit growth for up to 7 days (Ohgaki, 2005)
source: [1] Cataldo et al. (2001) [2] Hayes et al. (2006)
Table 9.2 shows that total coliforms could be a good bacterial indicator for UV disinfection as lesser doses
are required to inactivate most of the bacterial pathogens to acceptable levels for reuse.
178
On the other hand, at conventional UV doses, UV does not ensure adequate removal of helminth eggs. In
fact, Ascaris eggs have proved to be the most UV-resistant water-related pathogen identified to date,
showing that at typical UV doses (< 100 mWs/cm²) the inactivation may be less than 1 log (Brownell and
Nelson, 2006). Therefore, techniques that proved to be effective against helminth eggs such as for
example filtration (Mawdsley et al., 1994; Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995), or maturation ponds (Feachem
et al., 1983) should precede UV disinfection for the safe use of secondary effluent.
In the past, it was assumed the same applied for protozoa inactivation. Recent studies have shown
however that UV light can actually be very effective – at low dose – for inactivation of a variety of
protozoa, including Cryptosporidia oocysts and Giardia cysts. For Cryptosporidium parvum, Rochelle et
al. (2004) indicate that a 3-log removal could be achieved with a UV dose as low as 7.6 mWs/cm², while
Ware et al. (2003) show that up to 4-log removal Giardia muris could be achieved with even a lower UV
dose (namely 2.3 mWs/cm²).
Typically contact times in reactors are in the range of few seconds or less. Because of the importance of
pre-treatment to achieve optimal UV-dose efficacy, several guidelines advise - and many regulations
require - reclaimed water prior to disinfection to have a transmittance above 60% and a suspended solids,
BOD and turbidity level of respectively 5 mg SS/L, 10 mg O2/L, and 5 NTU/L or lower, prior to UV
disinfection. Moreover, if a significant reduction in the number of pathogens is required (e.g., less than 10
E. coli per 100 mL), the turbidity of the pre-disinfected wastewater should be even lower (typical
standards are 2 NTU or lower, this time for any disinfection method)..
Careful thought should be given also to lamp configuration and reactor design. For this reason, field
validation is believed to be an essential feature in determining the actual disinfection effectiveness of UV
systems under operating conditions. These and other factors will be discussed later on in the chapter.
9.1.2 Operability
Flexibility
Generally speaking, UV systems can be and are designed to cope with highly varying operating
conditions. Multiple channels can be put in place, each with multiple modules, with each module having
multiple rows of lamps and with each row capable of being turned on or off in response to flow or quality
of the effluent to be disinfected.
Resilience
Short term deteriorations in water quality due to for instance, the failure of the preceding filtration step,
can strongly affect the disinfection performance. Various water impurities can directly attenuate or block
the UV light thus reducing disinfection effectiveness.
Controllability
Each individual lamp can be monitored for status and total hours used. The operation can be controlled
remotely. In practice, control can vary from simply turning on the system to work at full power to setting
the UV dose based on the measurement of flow, lamp intensity and UV absorbance.
179
Reliability
UV equipment and instrumentation commercially available are very reliable, provided that there is a
regular maintenance. Key UV system components that impact the reliability and efficiency of UV
disinfection include the UV lamp type, the reactor design, the cleaning mechanism and the ballast system,
used to supply regulated power to the UV lamps.
Safety of occupation
There is no handling of chemicals. Risks of exposure to UV irradiation and mercury (disposal of lamps)
are small but nonetheless existent. These risks are dependent on the type of lamps used and on the reactor
design. The continuous improvements in UV technologies are minimizing these risks.
Complexity
UV systems are generally easy to operate and maintain, especially because there is neither chemical
handling required nor sludge/concentrate production. While the first UV systems required manual hand
cleaning, today automatic cleaning is available and the frequency of wiping can be adjusted by sensor
readings or based on operator selected timer settings. All UV systems will require periodic acid bath
cleaning of the sleeves, done either online or offline. UV lamps need to be replaced regularly.
9.1.3 Costs
UV equipment involves relatively high capital costs, which are difficult to generalise as they vary
depending on factors such as the UV system type, discharge limits, characteristics of the effluent prior to
disinfection and plant size.
Strict water reclamation limits such as the 2 TC/100 mL could be achieved at higher capital and O&M
costs, as high UV doses are required (cfr. Section 9.1.1). Liberti and Notarnicola (1999) estimated such
costs in the range of 0.017-0.035 EUR/m³, for the UV system only. Optimal UV disinfection efficiency on
the other hand, requires that the secondary effluent has a low SS concentration and little colour. Filtration
prior to UV disinfection is typically required, which might add on cost when the reduction of suspended
solids and turbidity is not required (i.e. for low contact reuse applications). Also, the generalisations of
costs will vary depending on the plant size. Figure 7.2 indicates that the unitary cost for a scheme of
20,000 P.E. could be double that of a facility of 100,000 P.E..
Operating costs include power consumption, lamp, ballast, sleeve and wiper replacement, chemicals for
lamp cleaning and labour. The main cost is to be attributed to the replacement of the lamps and to their
power use. Depending on the lamp coating technology and the type of lamp (medium-pressure or low-
pressure types), lamp lifetime varies from 6,000 to 18,000 hours. In areas where energy costs are high, a
key determinant in the choice and economic viability of a UV system is its power use. Operation and
Maintenance Costs: in Australia, power, parts, labour and overhead (administrative) led to costs varying in
the range of $ 0.002 - $ 0.013 AUD per m³ produced.
Finally, costs have decreased in recent years, mostly due to innovation and competition. A typical example
of cost distribution for low pressure lamp systems is reported in BOX 9.1.
180
BOX 9.1: life-cycle cost distribution of UV systems: real life cases
Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority (YCUA) Wastewater Treatment Plant, Michigan

USA (Kang et al., 2004)
The YCUA plant was designed for 238,000 m3/d peak flow, 174,000 m3/d average flow, minimum UV
dosage of 32 mWs/cm² and effluent transmittance of 65%. Out of different options (medium pressure or
low pressure and open or closed channel and vertical (V) or horizontal lamp (H) orientation) the low
pressure- open channel- vertical lamp (LPOV) option was chosen. Table 9.3 shows life-cycle cost
comparison for the LPOV and LPOH cases for the YCUA wastewater treatment plants’ UV disinfection
system. The information was gathered from different manufacturers and checked with other facilities’
operators and design engineers.
Table 9.3 Life-cycle costs of the UV system at YCUA water reclamation scheme
System LPOV* LPOH*
Total capital costs (US$) 1,898,000 2,067,500
O&M costs (US$)
Power consumption 91,581 84,769
Bulb replacement 34,690 63,000
Ballasts, sleeves, wipers n/a 6,300
Annual labour 127,163 156,588
Chemicals from cleaning n/a n/a
TOTAL O&M 127,163 156,588
Present worth O&M 1,458,600 1,796,100
Total present worth 3,357,000 3,864,000
From (Kang et al., 2004) * LPOV – Low pressure open channel vertical lamp arrangement * LPOH – Low pressure open
channel horizontal lamp arrangement
The capital costs include the cost for UV systems, control systems, required buildings or structures for the
equipment. Assumptions for annualizing capital costs and estimating operating costs were: 1) Project life:
20 years, 2) annual interest rate: 6%, 3) Electricity cost: 0.08 US$ /kWh, 4) Labour for maintenance and
bulb changing: 40 US$/h.
9.2 BASIC ASPECTS
9.2.1 Mechanism of UV disinfection

UV irradiation is usually defined as the electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths between 4 and 400 nm
(Koller 1965), the spectral domain that covers the gap between X-ray and visible light.
When proper UV dose is applied, the penetration of UV light into the cell walls of microorganisms results
in irreparable damage to genetic materials of the microorganisms, which affects their reproduction
capacity (Clancy et al., 2000).
The UV spectral of interest for the UV-disinfection applications in water is the UV-C (200-280 nm) where
the DNA in micro-organics absorbs the radiation. Figure 9.1 shows the relative germicidal effectiveness as
a function of wavelength.
181
Figure 9.1 Germicidal effectiveness as a function of wavelength
254 nm
Hg-lamp
Spectral curve of
cell inactivation
DNA absorption curve
Protein absorption curve
250 300 350

Wavelength [nm]
(courtesy of Wedeco)
9.2.2 UV Dose and UV dose calculation

Similarly to chemical disinfection, UV dose can be defined as follows:
UV dose [mW-sec/cm²] = Intensity or irradiance [mW/cm²] x exposure Time [sec]
As with chemical disinfection, real life conditions must be taken into account to deliver the appropriate
UV dose:
Factors of influence
Key factors of influence that impact on the intensity of the delivered UV dose are:
1. the reclaimed water quality characteristics and
2. the UV system configuration and placements of lamps in the reactor, lamp ageing and maintenance
procedures (fouling prevention, …).
1. Water quality characteristics
The UV Transmittance (UVT) (Lawryshyn and Aldin, 2004; Das, 2005) – the UVT or the UV lights’
ability to penetrate wastewater is measured in a spectrophotometer at the same wavelength as produced by
a germicidal UV lamp (254 nm). In other words, UVT measures the loss of UV light by the passage
through the water, the transmission value being the total of all absorbing constituents in the water. The %
transmittance is given as a function of absorbance units (a.u.) by:
% Transmittance = 100 x 10-(a.u./cm)
182
If the UVT is known, then the UV dose that has to be applied into the reactor can be calculated. An
indication of how the UV Transmittance (or absorption) affects the UV dose is given in Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.2 Example of average UV dose calculation vs. transmittance diagram
UV performance diagram
UV transmittivity/cm [%]
(courtesy of Wedeco)
The transmittances vary with the different secondary and upstream treatment systems (Table 9.4). Local
industrial discharges can also have a significant impact on UVT.
Table 9.4 Transmittance values of different effluents as a function of the

secondary treatment
Type of secondary treatment %T
Suspended growth 60-65 %
Fixed film 50-55 %
Lagoons 35-40 %
The presence of particles and their size distribution - Suspended solids in biologically treated effluents are
composed of varying numbers of different size particles with bacteria adsorbed on them. Particulates
provide a “shielding effect” for microorganisms and thus diminish the effects of UV treatment. This effect
is evident in the tailing of dose/response curves (Harris et al., 1987; Lindenauer and Darby, 1994).
Increased levels of suspended solids had the effect of reducing the actual UV intensity reaching the
targeted microorganisms in the disinfected secondary effluents, thus reducing DNA damage and
increasing subsequent photo-reactivation (Lindenauer and Darby, 1994).
Coliform organisms frequently become embedded in particulate matter (Qualls et al., 1983;
Tchobanoglous et al., 1996; Loge et al., 2002), partially or wholly protecting them from the UV light
(Parker and Darby, 1995; Emerick et al., 1999; WERF, 1999). These publications indicate that particles
183
larger than 10 μm can shield microorganisms from disinfection by UV light. These publications also show
that particles > 40μm will not be completely penetrated and a high UV demand may be required but can
be managed with proper UV system design.
The high removal efficiencies obtained from the filtration of secondary effluents together with the
relatively high secondary effluent quality before filtration may produce filtered effluents with low total
particle concentrations and with a relative importance of the < 10μm particles. In these cases if there are
still high numbers of particles < 10μm, occupying high particle area they may also block the UV
irradiation and cause a high UV demand (Arnon et al., 2005).
Inactivation data should be compared only for studies obtained to similar suspended particle distributions
and UV doses (Jolis et al., 2001).
Iron - Iron content influences UV disinfection in three ways:
1. A high content of dissolved iron accelerates the UV light absorption preventing adequate UV light
exposure for microorganisms to be inactivated.
2. Iron precipitates on the quartz sleeves and absorbs UV light at the source.
3. Iron particles that stick to suspended solids or microorganisms may shield them from penetrating UV
light.
Ceiling concentration of iron is in the range of 0.3 mg/L, with the actual maximum concentration very
much depending on the efficacy of the UV system and its design parameters. It is clear, however, that the
higher the iron concentration the more frequent the cleaning of the lamps should be. Thus, wastewater
treatment facilities that apply iron salts - e.g. to remove phosphate from wastewater - may need to
reconsider their chemical dosage and should carefully test the efficacy of the UV system under
representative field conditions.
Inorganic constituents - Calcium and magnesium salts which are present in the effluents as bicarbonate,
sulphate or phosphate salts can cause hardness and mineral deposits on lamps (sleeve fouling). Since the
temperature of mercury lamps is 40°C or higher there will be precipitation on the surface of the lamps. In
cases where the CaCO3 concentration in water is higher than 300 mg/L special care has to be taken and
the lamps need to be cleaned more often.
In conclusion, up stream processes can have a significant impact on the germicidal performance which
should duly be considered by the system designer.
2. Design considerations
Reactor design - dissipation and absorption mechanisms attenuate the light intensity with increasing
distance from the point source (Qualls and Johnson, 1983, 1985; Suidan and Severin, 1986; US EPA,
1986; Qualls et al., 1989). Many studies show that observed UV doses can be reduced with improved
hydraulics (e.g.: Jolis et al., 1999). The lamp and reactor geometry is therefore influencing the UV
disinfection performance. It is clear that UV disinfection contact chambers should be designed with inlet,
channel or pipeline approach, and outlet conditions that promote plug flow and turbulence within the
reactor to create an equal UV dose distribution in the reactor.
Lamps arranged as such that consequences of lamp failure are minimized - once the number of lamps
needed for a UV system is determined the lamps must be put in a particular process configuration
184
consisting of the number of lamps per module or cluster, modules per bank or clusters per reactor, banks
per channel or reactor per pipeline, and the overall number of channels or pipelines so that the
consequence to disinfection caused by lamp failure is minimized. Failures of lamps should be avoided and
immediate replacement is required as a failed lamp will create a large ‘black-spot’ in the module or
reactor. ‘Black-spots’ have enormous influence on the final disinfection performance of a UV system. If
1% of the flow is not treated well, maximum disinfection performance of a reactor is 2 log (99%).
Fouling has been observed to be slightly higher with medium-pressure lamps in some cases, but the key to
prevent significant fouling in both low- and medium-pressure UV systems is an effective frequent sleeve
cleaning system. Fouling of sleeves has to be prevented by automatic cleaning devices, operating via time-
setting, to prevent low UV dose during the disinfection process.
Effect of lamp ageing: the UV intensity reduces with the ageing of the lamp (see Figure 9.3).
Figure 9.3 Effect of lamp ageing for different lamps (courtesy of Wedeco)
100%
Lamp A
90%
Lamp B
80%
70%
60%
Intensity
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Hours of operation
In the USA, validation for ageing factor should be obtained via NRI/AWWARF protocols. To keep track
of the ageing factor, on/off switches have to be recorded.
9.2.3 Repair mechanisms of UV damage

The damage caused to DNA by UV irradiation can be reversed by two mechanisms, namely: photo-
reactivation and dark repair.
Photo-reactivation
Some microorganisms are able to partially repair the DNA damage if the dimerisation of thymine is not
too extensive. The process can be partially reversed by exposing the irradiated cells to visible light in the
range of 330-500 nm (White, 1999). A specific enzyme called photolyase is responsible for photo-
reactivation.
185
Since Kelner’s discovery in 1949, photo-reactivation has been extensively studied and numerous studies
have investigated the photo-reactivation of specific microorganisms in water and wastewater after UV
treatment. Today, the ability to photo-reactivate is recognised in many microorganisms, including E. coli
(Harris et al., 1987; Masschelein, 1992; Lindenauer and Darby, 1994; Oguma et al., 2002; Zimmer and
Slawson, 2002), Legionella pneumophila (Oguma et al., 2004) and Cryptosporidium parvum (Shin et al.,
2001; Zimmer et al., 2003). Organisms that do not have this repair mechanism include Haemophilus
influenzae, Diplococcus pneumoniae, Bacillus subtilis and Micrococcus Radiodurans (US EPA, 1986).
Photo-reactivation tends to increase at low (sub-lethal) UV intensity (Lindenauer and Darby, 1994). When
applying about 15-20 mJ/cm² or higher, this should not be an issue for most organisms (Lindenauer and
Darby, 1994); polychromatic lamps have shown to be more effective in preventing photo-reactivation than
low-pressure UV lamps (Oguma et al., 2002), but there is no consensus yet on whether these results can
be generalised. What is unequivocal is that poorly designed / performing reactors which do not
consistently achieve an adequate dose or which contains ‘black-spots’ will suffer from this phenomenon.
On the other hand, we may come across an organism that requires significantly higher doses to prevent
repair.
The rate at which photolyase can repair DNA damage is dependent on temperature, light intensity, pH and
ionic strength of the medium (Lindenauer and Darby, 1994).
Improved water quality will result in more UV inactivation and lower levels of photo-reactivation due to
increased DNA damage. Suspended solids (SS) and transmittance (UVT) are also related to photo-
reactivation (Lindenauer and Darby, 1994).
Dark repair
Dark repair is a process in which proteins are used to repair DNA damage caused by UV irradiation
(Zimmer and Slawson, 2002). Dark repair presents a hazard especially within piped distribution. In dark
situation the repair capability is lower.
The results of some of the studies about photo-reactivation and dark repair are presented in Table 9.5.
Note that the comparison between these and other photo-reactivation studies is far from evident. Photo-
reactivation studies using treated wastewater have often been quantified by time of exposure to lamps or
sunlight, lamp wattage, distance from lamps, depth of water sample, temperature and sky conditions
(Lindenauer and Darby, 1994).
In conclusion, as photo-reactivation and dark repair mechanisms can have significant impacts on water
quality after UV treatment, the key is to ensure adequate dose. Project developers should therefore clearly
specify minimum equivalent doses when preparing the tender.
9.2.4 Design considerations

For design purposes, typical guidance is to have a minimum allowable wastewater transmittance of 55%
(but a higher UVT may be allowed if continuous UVT data have been collected, White; 1999). Also, the
minimum required design dose generally includes considerations about the end-of-lamp-life factor (default
50 to 70 % of new lamp output) and a fouling factor (default 80%, though some experts think the 80%
fouling factor is not conservative enough, see Salveson et al., 2004).
186
Table 9.5 Summary of studies of photo-reactivation following UV disinfection

(modified from Martin and Gehr, 2005; Arnon et al., 2005)
Duration
Maximum photo- Max dark
Bacterial Light of light
reactivation repair (log Source
indicator source exposure
(log repair) repair)
(hrs)
Chan and
EC Lamps 0-9 Approx. 1 (Max. at 6 hrs.) Approx. 0.6
Killick (1995)
Chrtek and Popp
TC, FC, FS Lamps 0-4 1 (TC, FC); 0 (FS) N/A
(1991)
Harris et al.
EC, SF Lamps 2 3.4 (EC); 2.4 (SF) N/A
(1987)
Kashimida et
Sunlight 0-1.5 Approx. 1 (Max. at 15 min.) Approx. 0
al. (1996)
EC, TC, FC
Approx. 1.5 (TC, FC, max. at
Lamps 0-2 Approx. 0
2 hrs.)
Lindenauer and
TC Sunlight 1 Approx. 1.7 N/A
Darby (1994)
Lamps 0-24 Approx. 1.7 (after 24 hrs.) N/A
2.1 (LP) Oguma et al.
EC Lamps 1-3 N/A
0 (MP) (2002)
Shoenen &
EC Lamps 1-5 3 Approx. 0
Kolch (1992)
EC Sommer et al.
Lamps 0.5-2 1-3.4 (max. at 2 hrs.) Approx. 0
(7 strains) (2000)
Whitby et al.
TC, FC, FS Sunlight 0-6 1 (TC,FC); 0 (FS) Approx. 0
(1984)
0.7-2.8 (max. at 3 hr. LP) Zimmer &
EC Lamps 0-4 Approx. 0
0 (MP) Slawson (2002)
Up to 0,9 at 52-55 mWs/cm²
3
(3 hours at LP)
FC
Up to 1 at 34-35 mWs/cm² (1
1
Sunlight hour at LP)
Meir et al.
(25 N/A
(2005)
mWs/m².d) Up to 3,6 at 52-55 mWs/cm²
3
(3 hours at LP)
TC
Up to 1,6 at 34-35 mWs/cm²
1
(1 hour at LP)
Note: TC= Total Coliforms; FC=Faecal Coliforms; FS=Faecal streptococci; EC=E. Coli; SF=S. Faecalis, LP= Low pressure
lamp; MP= medium-pressure lamp
While in the past average dose calculations have often been used as a proxy for UV sizing, today it is
widely acknowledged that average calculations have limited meaning. In particular, the designer should
look at the worst and average UVT conditions (cfr. Figure 9.3). Best practice in system sizing is nowadays
based on field validated performance (e.g. RED curves: BOX 9.2), the use of average dose type
calculations is only reserved for small extrapolations of bioassay data (Petri et al., 2005).
187
BOX 9.2: algorithms used to calculate UV doses

Various algorithms are used for design purposes, the most common one using the Point Source
Summation (PSS) calculation method. In fact, some recent studies have shown that sophisticated
algorithms can predict dose quite accurately (cfr. Emerick et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2005).
The PSS method is being substituted by Bioassay Reduction Equivalent Dose (RED) methods, the latter
taking care of all issues regarding real lamp output power, sleeve transmittance and hydraulics. The recent
Draft Chinese National Standard of UV Disinfection for Municipal Water Treatment (Standards
Department of Ministry of Construction), for instance, is looking to accept only RED-based sizing.
The use of equations based on third party system validation might replace the existing work methods. The
National Water Research Institute (NWRI) regulations are mandating this now (NWRI, 2003).
To estimate the UV intensity at any given moment, lately the use of the Sensor Set-Point method applied
by the German DVGW, the Austrian ONORM standards and US EPA has found increased use
(Lawryshyn and Cairns, 2003).
9.3 PROCESS EQUIPMENT

The different alternatives that are commercially available are summarised in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.4 Current UV disinfection systems (adapted from Hunter et al., 2006)
CONVENTIONAL
EMERGING
mercury based arc-lamp
UV lamp technologies
technologies
LOW PRESSURE MEDIUM-PRESSURE Pulsed Power
Closed Channel
Open Channel
Horizontal
Horizontal Parallel- Closed Chamber Xenon Excimer
Perpendicular-To-
To-Flow
Flow
CONVENTIONAL HIGH-INTENSITY
Open Closed Teflon U-Shaped Highout

Flat Lamps Horizontal Vertical
Channel chamber Tubes Quadritube Ballast
Horizont
al
Vertical
Parallel-
To-Flow
Key UV system components that vary significantly from one supplier to another are the UV lamp type (§
9.3.1), the reactor design (§ 9.3.2), the cleaning mechanism (§ 9.3.3) and the ballasts type (§ 9.3.4).
The impact on the footprint, process performance and operation and maintenance of the alternative
equipment units are discussed in the following section.
188
9.3.1 UV lamps
UV lamps differ in shape, power consumption etc.. Standard types of commercially available lamps are
mercury based low-pressure low- or high-intensity lamps and medium-pressure high-intensity lamps.
Conventional mercury based arc-lamp technologies

Mercury based lamps apply a high voltage pulse allowing mercury to evaporate and produce an increased
vapour pressure to an equilibrium level for producing UV irradiation. Based on the operating mercury
vapour pressure, mercury lamps can be divided into:
1. Low Pressure (LP) (~ 0.01 mbar Hg ): emit approximately 85-90 % of their light energy around the
wavelength of 254 nm (see Figure 9.2). Each of these lamp types can further be broken down into
low-intensity (LI) and high-intensity (HI) lamps.
2. Medium Pressure (MP) (1.0-2.0 bar Hg) lamps: emit wavelengths between 200 and 400 nm, with
approximately 15 to 20 times the germicidal UV intensity of low-pressure lamps, medium-pressure
lamps disinfect faster and have a greater penetration capacity because of their higher intensity; they
are thought to prevent photo – reactivation. On the other hand, these lamps operate at higher
temperatures and consume more power. Only high-intensity systems are commercially available.
Mercury lamps that are commonly used in commercial applications are compared in Table 9.6.
Table 9.6 Comparison of LP and MP lamps (modified from Metcalf & Eddy,
2003; Schalk, 2005; Dussert, 2005)
Characteristics Units LP/LI LP/HI MP/HI
Monochromatic Monochromatic
UV Spectrumi nm Polychromatic
185-254 185-254
Hg Vapour pressure mbar Hg 0.007 0.001-0.01 1,000-2,000
o
Operational arc temperature C 35-50 80-150 500-900
Power consumption W 15-100 120-500* 400-20,000
UV-C Efficiency % 30-40 25-38 5-22
Lamp output at 254 nm W 25-27 60-400 1-60
Lamp output at 260-265 nm W 0 0 4-250
Specific Electrical power W/cm 1-3 1.5-3.5 50-250
Specific UV – flux W/cm <1 <35
Installation footprint - Large medium Small
Installation head-loss - high Medium Low
Lifetime hours 8,000-16,000 8,000-16,000 4,000-10,000
Lamps to replace No. High Average Low
*1,200 W for high output lamp
Concerning maintenance requirements, LP lamps will therefore require a higher number of lamps to be
replaced but they will have to be replaced at a somewhat lower frequency (factor 0.7, as a rule).
Concerning effectiveness, MP lamps may experience a change in the spectral distribution (lightly more
depreciation has been observed in the UVC than the UVB region, which may be due to a combination of
i
Monochromatic light sources such as the LP lamps emit radiation of one certain wavelength, whereas polychromatic light
sources, like MP lamps, emit a wide wavelength range.
189
lamp and sleeve aging) which could potentially lower inactivation due to reduced DNA absorbance
(Sharpless and Linden, 2003). Moreover, because they give off also visible light, MP lamps tend to make
algal growth worse. On the other hand, process efficiency of low-intensity lamps is very much dependent
on water temperature, while this is not the case with medium-pressure lamps.
Note that while low pressure high intensity lamps run at lower lamp wall temperatures than medium
pressure lamps (cfr. Table 9.6), the actual quartz sleeve wall temperature at the surface-water interface
will not be much higher for medium pressure lamps than for low pressure lamps due to the heat transfer
characteristics with water.
Although a detailed site-specific evaluation is necessary for the selection of the most suitable UV lamp,
MP lamps are generally limited to medium- to large-scale systems whereas LPLI lamps are used for very
small systems.
Considering the environmental impact, most manufacturers today offer recycling of lamps.
Emerging UV lamp technologies

Two new types of lamps (which are not mercury lamps) that can be applied to wastewater are:
1. The pulsed energy broad - band xenon lamp (pulsed UV). The operating principle of the pulsed UV
lamp involves the conversion of an alternating current (AC) to a direct current (DC) which is stored
in a capacitor. The energy stored in the capacitor is released through a high–speed switch and
pulsed to produce an intense UV irradiation field. The irradiation produced by the pulsed UV lamp
is 20,000 times as intense as sunlight at sea level (EPRI, 1996; O’Brien et al., 1996).
2. The narrow-band excimer UV lamps (excilamps). Excilamps are based on the efficient fluorescence
of excimers or exciplexes (Kogelschatz, 2004). In literature, both types of lamps are commonly
referred to as “excimer lamps”. They emit incoherent and almost monochromatic irradiation in the
ultraviolet (UV) or vacuum-UV (VUV) range of the electromagnetic spectrum depending on the
type of filling gas or gas mixture. Thus, they are predestined for wavelength-selective applications
in photochemistry, photobiology, photomedicine and photochemical technology. The development
of excilamps and the principles of the formation of rare gas (Rg2*), of halogen excimers (X2*) and
of rare gas halide exciplexes (RgX*) were comprehensively reviewed by Kogelschatz (2004).
Figure 9.5 Features of modern excilamps (adapted from Oppenlander, 2005)
Variable
Geometries
Electode-less Narrow-band
Configuration Emissions
Long Lamp VUV/UV “Cold Lamp”

Lifetime Excilamps no IR Emissions
Instant Start
Variable Power
at full
Adjustment
Radiation Ouput
Mercury Free
Systems
190
As yet, none of the emerging technologies have proven to be robust and at the same time cost effective.
9.3.2 Reactor design

The reactor design is very important in that it impacts both the disinfection effectiveness – or alternatively,
the power consumption – and the operability, including the easiness of lamp replacement and exposure to
UV light by the personnel.
UV systems for disinfection of wastewater can have two types of flow regime (open or closed channels).
The majority of UV reactors designed for water reclamation are closed-vessel reactors (an example of
closed-vessel reactor is provided in Figure 9.8), notwithstanding that large re-use projects tend to go to
open channel. Closed-vessel reactors offer minimize occupational hazards linked to the exposure to UV
light and reduce the difficulty of cleaning the lamps (cfr. next section).
Another distinction can be made based on the position of the lamps. Conventional reactors have the lamps
installed in the direction of the water flow. In-line reactors have, instead, their lamps mostly positioned
perpendicular on the flow direction (cfr. Figure 9.8).
An appropriate baffle system in closed systems or submerged perforated diffusers in open-channel

systems will ensure dose distributions arising from proper velocity profiles through the reactor.
Depending on the performance requirements and water characteristics each channel or pipeline contains
one or more UV systems in series, each system consists of a specified number of modules of UV lamps
(typically used by manufacturers). More UV systems in series may be desirable to minimize short -
circuiting and inadequate disinfection with poorly designed UV systems.
In a nutshell, UV reactor designs vary substantially. The key to ensuring proper system performance is
field validated system design.
9.3.3 Cleaning mechanism

There are five types of cleaning techniques (White, 1999):
1. Mechanical wiper – does not require a shut down of the system and occupies limited space compared
to chemical cleaning. The whole cycle is automated and activated by e.g. timer or UV light sensors
(cfr. Section 9.3.5). The frequency of these cycles is largely dependent on the biofilm formation rate
of the particular installation.
2. Ultrasonics (not commercialized)
3. High–pressure wash
4. Chemical cleaning with either acids, caustic or detergent (usually diluted citric or phosphoric acids)
5. Chemical / mechanical wiping system (combined)
Even when mechanical cleaning is used, the sleeves will still need to be chemically cleaned from time to
time to ensure removal of deposits. In some commercial applications, today a small volume of low
concentration acid is applied directly to the sleeves.
With open-channel UV systems, the UV lamps must either be cleaned manually, or physically transferred
to an external acid bath. With closed-pipe UV systems, cleaning agents are simply added to the UV
chamber and cleaning takes place internally.
191
As mentioned earlier, NWRI protocols allow manufacturers to demonstrate the effectiveness of their
cleaning systems. Designing a UV disinfection solution with an appropriate fouling factor should
minimize system performance issues associated with sleeve fouling.
9.3.4 Ballasts
Ballasts are used to supply regulated power to the UV lamps. Without a ballast to limit current, the lamp
would destroy itself since UV lamps are arc-devices.
Three types of ballasts are used:
• Standard (Core coil).
• Energy efficient core coil.
• Electronic (solid state). Electronic Ballast Features are: low excess heat production, high frequency
operation (70 kHz), automatic lamp failure detection and restart, power factor > 0.98, harmonic
filtration included, separation of mechanical and electrical components and Easy replacement: max.
1 min.
For a reliable design back–up power, electrical safety and seismic design should be considered.
9.3.5 Control system

Process monitoring is very important in the UV disinfection process. Monitoring systems are composed
of:
1. UV sensor for monitoring of the average UV intensity measured at least by one probe per bank. The
measured UV intensity can then be used in an algorithm to estimate dose either based on bioassay
validate field tests or average dose calculations. Moreover, the UV sensor is used to detect the
operational status of the lamp by giving a measure of the lamp output.
2. Online UV transmittance monitoring
3. Monitoring of the lamp ageing, status of each lamp or bank (on/off)
4. Flow rate
5. Turbidity
6. Liquid level in UV disinfection channels.
9.4 PROCESS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The main UV operational concerns are:
• Dose control: see Section 9.4.1.
• Water quality control: control of the inlet water quality and good operation of up-stream processes.
• Hydraulics: appropriate field validation will ensure that systems with short-circuiting are identified
and corrected.
192
• UV lamp conditions monitoring (intensity, ageing): proper monitoring of the UV intensity and lamp
status will anticipate the proper cleaning time: see Section 9.4.2.
• Electrical and instrumental problems.
Dose control
UV systems can be controlled by flow, intensity and UV transmittance. Typically, one of three control
strategies is used, depending on system components (Hunter et al., 2006):
1. Manual control – the UV system is turned on to operate continuously at full power, regardless of
flow and water quality. Lamp life increases but it wastes power. Small and medium scale plants or
those using LP or LPHI lamps may consider this option.
2. Flow rate control – the lamp intensity is controlled by flow measurements (UV lamps are turned on
and off and their intensity increases or reduces on demand). This control option can therefore save
energy. As flow-pacing control does not take into account the effect of aging lamps or water quality
changes, the worst-case scenario must be used in setting the UV dose.
3. Dose rate control – involves setting the UV dose based on flow, lamp output and water conditions. It
requires the measurement of flow, lamp intensity and UV absorbance. This control strategy enables
the UV dose to match operating conditions in real time, saving power and maintenance costs. This
strategy is typically used in MP and LP systems.
A recent survey on large UV disinfection systems indicates that the most frequently used flow control
devices were determined to be gates weirs and penstocks (Hunter et al.; 2005).
Some key points of UV sensor maintenance are (US EPA, 2003):
• Adequate number of sensors
• Placing sensors at optimum location
• Routine checking with a reference sensor – UV sensors can drift over time and need to be
recalibrated periodically.
• Cleaning of sensors
9.4.1 Validation methods for UV systems

(Preikschat et al., 2005)
In Europe the standardization of testing procedures and validations for use of UV systems in water
treatment has almost reached its peak, resulting in the new German DVGW (German Association for Gas
and Water) Worksheet W294 Dec. 2003, (3) and the Austrian ÖNORM M 5873-1. The American
counterpart is The US EPA UVDGM (US Environmental Protection Agency UV Disinfection Guidance
Manual Draft 06/2003).
Usually, it makes little sense to validate the UV system for one set-point only. Instead, a test matrix of
various flows and UV transmittance rates is developed, to determine the UV system performance (i.e. UV
RED) under different conditions. The result of a test matrix is a performance curve, allowing
interpretation between validated set points. Both, the determination of a single set-point and a complete
test matrix depend on the selected validation protocol approach.
193
While the German and Austrian approaches only allow one (the so-called “UV Intensity Set-Point
Approach”), the UVDGM allows three possibilities:
1. The UV Intensity Set-point Approach (single operational set-point for all conditions).
2. Single Operational Set-point for all Conditions. In this case, a single intensity is used for all flows.
3. Variable Set-point operation for different flow conditions. Variable set-point operation for different
flow conditions and inactivation goals.
1. The UV Intensity Set-Point Approach

A certain set -point (e.g. 1,500 m³/h = 9.5 MGD, UVT of 90%, 60% lamp power) leads to a set-point
specific UV intensity (e.g. 25 mW/cm²) at the UV-sensor. Two microbiological tests are conducted, both
at the identical UV intensity of 25 mW/cm²:
Test A at high UVT and reduced lamp power (i.e. 98% UVT and a reduced lamp power with the UV
intensity equating 25 mW/cm²).
Test B at a high lamp power and reduced UV transmittance (i.e. 100% lamp power and a reduced UV
transmittance with the UV intensity equating 25 mW/cm²).
The lower result of the two tests is selected to rate the UV system’s performance.
2. The UV Intensity and UV Transmittance Set-Point Approach

The microbiological test is conducted for the set-point, which directly provides the rating for the UV
system.
3. The calculated UV Dose Approach

Flow rate, UVT, and UV intensity are all monitored, and the outputs are used to calculate UV dose via a
validated computational algorithm developed by the UV reactor manufacturer.
The “UV Intensity and UV Transmittance Set-Point Approach”, where set-point equals test point, is the
least complex of the three. In comparison to the “UV Intensity Set-Point Approach”, it simply requires a
UV transmittance signal, preferably from an on-line UV transmittance monitor.
While it is questionable whether this would make sense for small/medium UV systems due to implications
on both capital and operating expenses, this kind of instrumentation is usually included in larger UV
systems as standard.
If in the UV disinfection units the decision is made to do the validation according to the “UV Intensity and
UV Transmittance Set-Point-Approach “, together with the transmittance monitor and a flow signal it
will be possible to operate the system under every situation (different intensities given by the on-line
residual intensity sensor) within the tested area.
Tests for different systems can be performed in a field bio-dosimetric test stand. (See Figure 9.6)
194
Figure 9.6 Field bio-dosimetric test stand (US EPA, 2003)
UV Challenge Pressure Pressure

Absorber Microbe Flow Gauge UV Gauge
meter Reactor
PI PI Static
FI Mixer Valve
Water
Supply
Backflow Static Valve Inlet Outlet To
Prevention Mixer Piping Piping Waste
Influent Influent Effluent
Quenching Sample Sample
Agent Port Port
The bio-dosimetric test protocol was designed to characterize MS2 Reduction Equivalent Dose (RED) and
UV sensor measurements as a function of flow rate and UV transmittance for a UV system operating at
the end of lamp life conditions with different rows of UV lamps in operation. Testing was also done to
characterize the MS2 RED and UV sensor measurements at other ballast power settings.
Standard mathematical protocols have also been developed in order to deal with biological uncertainties
typical in field testing based on simple multiple linear regression analysis (Petri and Sakaji, 2004).
9.4.2 Operational challenges

During the normal operation of an already validated system diversion from validated limits can be caused
by low intensity, low UVT, high or low flow rate, poor UV intensity sensor performance and power
quality problems, and the combination of these conditions (US EPA, 2003).
Issues such as level control, the relationship between low flow and treatment effectiveness, and the use of
back up power for large UV systems are examined in Hunter et al. (2005).
9.5 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Current UV reactor validation methodologies do not always produce accurate assessments of dose
delivery and monitoring due to associated experimental limitations: In particular, there is no indicator
organism for UV reactor validation yet. MS2 bacteriophage is typically taken. However, we have seen that
MS2 is not representative of all virus sensitivity to UV (and moreover it does not extrapolate well for 4.0
log inactivation of UV-resistant viruses such as adenovirus). A surrogate is needed that can provide
adequate human health protection against adenovirus and other UV-resistant viruses (AWWA, 2005).
Today there are numerous UV facilities for wastewater disinfection operating within Europe and around
the world. Nevertheless the information about these systems is difficult to gather and the comparison of
their performance is far from evident. It is time to develop a knowledge base of UV reclaimed water
facilities and monitor how they are doing in terms of operation and maintenance issues, costs as well as
with regard to aging and compliance with various types of water reuse permit requirements. Such
information will benefit utilities currently employing UV by allowing them to compare themselves to
other existing facilities as well as benefit utilities considering implementing UV.
195
Although quite a lot of research effort was directed to determine the effects of UV dose on the reactivation
of pathogenic bacteria and other potential indicator micro-organisms there is still work to be done in this
field. Further laboratory testing on UV disinfection is required. It must account for dark repair and the
effect of storage on inhibiting photo-repair mechanisms.
Historically, most UV disinfection facilities have been designed to utilize Low Pressure Low Intensity UV
lamps (LPLI) for disinfection. Medium pressure lamps have shown to better prevent photo–reactivation,
but there is no consensus yet on this issue. The influence of water quality parameters (including different
microorganisms), the design and operation parameters, the effect of various pre-treatment processes on
target organisms, the exposure of organisms to light before UV treatment and effects of the UV dose and
lamp technology on photo-reactivation, should be studied more closely. Also dark repair is still a
phenomenon to be clarified.
New UV disinfection reactors where the light source is external to the reactor and to the water to be
disinfected should be given further consideration. These systems can considerably decrease fouling of
lamp sleeves but if there is any interface between the lamp and the water, then fouling of this interface
needs to be considered too (as it will likely foul as well). Some new developments have been reported
lately (Atlantium, Uni-front disinfection system) where the water flows with no interference from quartz
lamps, wipers, baffles, and the UV light is not absorbed by the reactor walls. These systems are new and
optimization is still required.
Identification of by-products formed in UV disinfection at various UV intensities and their potential health
effects should also be investigated further, although much research works show that UV light does not
cause harmful disinfection by-products.
9.6 FULL SCALE REFERENCES
9.6.1 UV disinfection at Castell-Platja d'Aro water

reclamation scheme (WRRS), Spain (Muñoz, 2004)
The Castell-Platja d’Aro WRRS consists of an activated sludge system followed by rapid sand filtration
and UV disinfection. The UV unit consists of a horizontal closed channel with medium pressure mercury
lamps that are placed perpendicular to the flow (Figure 9.7). The system is equipped with two Berson
inline 5000 NW 300. Each one is able to hold 8 MP lamps, though until the present day there are only 4 of
them installed on each reactor, leaving the empty spaces ready for a quick upgrade of the facility. The
lamps have a useful life of 6,000 hours.
196
Monitoring and control: the UV system is controlled by means of in-line measurement of the UV
transmittance (range of measurement: 240-300 nm), flow and water temperature (operating water
temperature: 45°C).
In case of failure event, the water utility uses an in-house developed protocol which consists of 4 steps:
1. The activation of the UV alarm triggers a mechanical cleaning.
2. Should the UV alarm still be on, the UV transmittance (T254) will then be measured. A T254 value of
55% or lower will trigger a chemical cleaning of the quartz sleeves.
3. Then, the quartz sleeves and the sensor are visually inspected and ensured that they are clean.
4. In case of persistence of the UV alarm, the functioning of the lamp is verified. If it is incorrect, then
the lamp is replaced and the sensor calibrated, otherwise the technical service is called.
BOX 9.3: Pilot study of disinfection performance (Mujeriego et al., 2002)

The disinfection capabilities of the UV irradiation in the effluent of Castell-Platja d’Aro were assessed on
a pilot scale from August 1996 to March 1997. The study could define probability curves for expected
faecal contamination as a function of UV dose. According to calculated probability curves, doses > 120
mWs/cm² allow compliance with the FC limit of 23 cfu/100 mL in at least 95% of the cases (Figure 9.9).
Figure 9.9 Probability curves for expected faecal coliform concentrations

according to UV dose (Mujeriego et al., 2002)
100
80
Percentage
60
40 1000
20 250
0 100
0 23 20 40 60 80 100 120
Dose, mWs/cm2
obs. values for 23 cfu/100 mL obs. values for 100 cfu/100 mL

obs. values for 250 cfu/100 mL obs. values for 1000 cfu/100 mL
Photo-reactivation and dark repair were inversely proportional to the delivered dose.
9.6.2 Large water reclamation scheme using UV:

Manukau project – Auckland (Lawal et al., 2005)
With its 14 m³/s, the Mangere scheme, near Auckland is the biggest UV disinfection scheme of secondary
effluents in the world. The scheme has to comply with the following disinfection efficiency specifications:
1. Fecal Coliforms < 80/100 mL monthly median
< 250/100 mL @ 95%ile
2. Enterococci < 35/100 mL monthly median
< 100/100 mL @ 95%ile
198
< 500/100 mL @ 99%ile
3. Viruses 4 log (99.99%) removal
The selection of the scheme was based on pilot studies, where the dose rates, fouling and ageing of
different systems were compared and verified. From the pilot results the following design results were
obtained peak disinfection flow (14.0 m³/s), peak hydraulic flow (16.5 m³/s), UV transmittance range (30
– 65% / 1 cm @ 254 nm) and UV dose range (45 – 75 mWs/cm²).
The system is equipped with the Wedeco TAK55 UV systems (Figure 9.11 left). Twelve open channel
gravity flow reactor, with three banks per channel (Figure 9.10 right). A total of 7,776 low-pressure high
output lamps are installed, with 2.4 MW of installed power. The UV system is equipped with variable
power and mechanical wiping.
Figure 9.10 Wedeco TAK55 module (left) and completed installation (right)
(Lawal et al., 2005)
The UV system is controlled by a combination of flow pacing and dose pacing. The UV dose control
(dose pacing) occurs independently in each of the 12 standalone UV channel controllers. Dose pacing
control determines the number of UV banks (2 or 3) required to be in operation, as well as the power
output of the UV lamps (50% - 100%).
A combination of thorough hydraulic design and automated outlet penstocks ensures an acceptable flow
split between the UV channels as well as a constant channel water level.
At the start-up, the UV dose set-point was set at a somewhat conservative level, ensuring that the required
disinfection was always maintained despite fluctuations in plant conditions. Over time it was possible to
use historical data from the flow characteristics and biological results, to adjust the UV dose set-point.
The performance of the system during the final commissioning tests is reported in Figure 9.11.
199
Figure 9.11 Final commissioning tests: coliform inlet and discharge levels vs.
discharge permits (Lawal et al., 2005)
1,000,000
counts (cfu/100mL)
100,000
(cfu/100m)
10,000
1,000
FC discharge peLmit
permit
100 EC discharge permit
10
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample no.s
FC Influent EC Influent avg FC effluent avg EC Effluent
The tests results show a reduction in viral incidence by a factor of 104, or 4 log.
9.6.3 Tampere Viinikanlahti WWTP, Tampere, Finland

(Heinonen-Tanski et. al, 2003)
The WWTP treats on average 70,000 m³/d, with peak flows of 4,780 m³/h. The scheme is composed of
primary treatment, activated sludge with simultaneous P-precipitation by use of 175 mg/L ferric sulphate.
The (designed) tertiary treatment consists of a rapid up-flow continuous sand filtration (Dyna – Sand) and
UV disinfection by LP vertical flow lamps.
In preliminary pilot experiments, for an average value of 60% transmittance (flocculated filtered effluents
with poly aluminium chloride), an irradiation dose on the surface of lamps of 180 mWs/cm² could produce
a Faecal Coliform level of < 10/100 mL in the disinfected effluent. Taking the pilot experimental results,
sizing calculations for the full-scale treatment was performed based on the above-mentioned peak and
average flows. The UV dose needed in full scale was estimated to be 25 mWs/cm². For these calculations,
the transmittance was around 50% and the hydraulic flow rate was based on 4,500 m³/h.
The UV power needed can be supplied by 220 high-intensity UV lamps with UV irradiation efficiency of
100 W (electrical efficiency 300 W). The lamps can be set in two parallel water channels as two 10x11
matrixes, with maximum flow rate of 1.1 m³/s (retention time during the UV disinfection 0.9 s).
The use of electrical power by each lamp can be automatically controlled even by remote control through
a mobile phone and broken lamps can easily be found and rapidly replaced.
9.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ATV (1993) Disinfection of Wastewater. ATV-regelwerk: Hinweis H 205. (in German)
Brownell S.A. and K.L. Nelson (2006) Inactivation of Single-Celled Ascaris suum Eggs by Low-Pressure UV Radiation. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology 72 (3): 2178-2184.
200
Cataldo C., Briancesco R. and L. Bonadonna (2001) Water re-use: hygienic and technical aspects related to the occurrence of
enteric pathogens. Rapporti ISTISAN 01/34; Istituto Superiore di Sanità; ISSN 1123-3117; 38 pp. (in Italian)
Clancy J.L., Bukhari Z., Hargy T.M., Bolton J.R., Dussert B.W. and M.M. Marshall (2000) Using UV to inactivate
Cryptosporidium. J. AWWA 92 (9): 97-104.
Das T.K. (2005) UV Disinfection, Towards Zero Discharge, Chap. 9, Wiley – Interscience: 422 –427.
Lawal O., Dinkloh L., Petrick B., Rose D., Heywood J. and G. Jones-Prichard (2005) The Mangere WTP UV Disinfection
Facility. In: 3rd IUVA congress on ultraviolet technologies. Whistler, BC Canada; May 24 – 27, 2005. [CD-ROM]
Dussert B.W. (2005) Selecting the optimum disinfection systems for drinking water applications. In: Texas Water 2005.
www.usfilter.com
DVGW Arbeitsblatt W294 (1997) UV-Desinfektionsanlagen für die Trinkwasserversorgung – Anforderungen und Prüfung. (in
German)
Emerick R.W., Loge F.J., Thompson D. and J.L. Darby (1999) Factors Influencing Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Performance
Part II. Association of Coliform Bacteria with Wastewater Particles. Wat. Env. Res. 71 (6): 1178.
Emerick R.W., Enloe J.P. and L.C. Schegg (2003) Bioassay and dose monitoring performance of a drinking water UV
disinfection system for the North Tahoe Public Utility District. Proceedings, AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado; November 2-6, 2003. [CD-ROM]
EPA Victoria (2002) Guidelines for environmental management - Disinfection of treated wastewater. EPA Victoria, Australia.
ISBN 0 7306 7623 4; 24 pp.
EPRI (1996) UV Disinfection for Water and wastewater Treatment, Report CR-105252, Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Feachem R.G., Bradley D.J., Garelick H. and D.D. Mara (1983) Sanitation and Disease – Health Aspects of Excreta and
Wastewater Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Harris G., Dean Adams V., Sorensen L. and R. Dupont (1987) The influence of photo-reactivation and water quality on UV
disinfection of secondary municipal wastewater. J.WPCF 59(8): 781-787.
Hayes S.L., White K.M. and M.R. Rodgers (2006) Assessment of the Effectiveness of Low-Pressure UV Light for Inactivation of
Helicobacter pylori. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72(5): 3763-3765.
Heinonen-Tanski H., Juntunen P., Rajala R., Haume E. and A. Niemela (2003) Costs of tertiary treatment of municipal
wastewater by rapid sand filtration with coagulants and UV. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water Supply 3(4): 145-152.
Hunter G., Hulsey B., Mackey H. and J. Neemann (2005) Progress of wastewater UV systems – a survey of large systems. In: 3rd
IUVA congress on ultraviolet technologies. Whistler, BC Canada; May 24 – 27, 2005. [CD-ROM]
Hunter G., Wood P. and E. Kobylinski (2006) Light management – choosing the best controls for a UV disinfection system.
WE&T February 2006: 53-56.
Jolis D., Hirano R. and P. Pitt (1999) Tertiary treatment using microfiltration and UV disinfection for water reclamation. Wat.
Env. Res. 71(2), 224-231.
Jolis D., Curtis L. and P. Pitt (2001) Particle Effects on Ultraviolet Disinfection of Coliform Bacteria in Recycled Water. Water
Environment Research 73 (2): 233-236.
Kang S.J., Allbaugh T.A., Reynhout J.W., Erickson T.L., Olmstead K.P., Thomas L. and P. Thomas (2004) Selection of a UV
disinfection system for a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Wat. Sci. Tech. 50 (7): 163-169.
Kashimida K., Kamiko N., Yamamoto K., Ohgaki S. (1996) Assessment of photo-reactivation following UV light disinfection.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 33: 261-269.
Kelner A. (1949) Effect of visible light on the recovery of Streptomyces griseus condia from UV radiation injury. Proc. Nat.
Acad. of Sci. US.: 35-73.
201
Kogelschatz U. (2004) Excimer Lamps: History, Discharge Physics, and industrial Applications, Atomic and Molecular Pulsed
Lasers V (Tarasenko et al., eds.); Proc. SPIE Vol. 5483: 272-286.
Kolch A. (1999) Disinfecting Drinking Water with UV light. Pollution Engineering Online.
Koller L.R. (1965) Ultraviolet Radiation. Ballard SS (ed.) John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York; 312 pp.
Lawryshyn Y.A. and B. Cairns (2003) UV disinfection of water: the need for UV reactor validation. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water
Supply 3(4), 293-300.
Lawryshyn Y.A. and S. Aldin (2004) Sizing UV reactors for wet weather flows. Proceedings, 33rd Annual Water Environment
Association of Ontario Technical Symposium & OPCEA Exhibition, April 18-20, 2004, London, Ontario, Water Environment
Association of Ontario, Milton, Ontario [CD-ROM].
Lazarova V., Savoye P., Janex L.M., Blatchey E.R. and M. Pommepuy (1999) Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies:
state of the art and perspectives. Wat. Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 203-213.
Liberti L. and Notarnicola M. (1999) Advanced treatment and disinfection for municipal water reuse in agriculture. Wat. Sci.
Tech. 40 (4-5): 235-245.
Lindenauer, K.G. and J.L. Darby (1994) Ultraviolet disinfection of wastewater: effect of dose on subsequent photoreactivation.
Wat. Res. 28 (4): 805-817.
Loge F.J., Emerick R.W., Ginn T.R. and J.L. Darby (2002) Association of coliform bacteria with wastewater particles: Impact of
operational parameters of the activated sludge process. Wat. Res. 36: 41 – 48.
Martin N. and R. Gehr (2005) Photoreactivation following combined Peracetic Acid – UV disinfection of a physicochemical
effluent. Proc. 3rd IUVA Conf., Whistler, British Columbia; 24-27 May, 2005. [CD-ROM]
Masschelein W.J. (1992) Unit Processes in Drinking Water Treatment. Marcel Dekker,Inc. New York.
Mawdsley J.L., Brooks A.E. and R.J. Merry (1994) Movement of protozoan pathogens Cryptosporidium parvum through three
contrasting soil types. Biol. Fertil. Soils 21: 30.
Meir A., Cikurel H., Kraitzer T., Tsadik N., Nasser A., Zukerman U., Aharoni A. and Adin A. (2005) Tertiary effluent quality
effect on LP-UV disinfection and photoreactivation: Pilot plant case study" Proc. IUVA First Middle East UV conference, Tel
Aviv, Israel. 20 – 22 November 2005 [CD-ROM].
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering treatment and reuse. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, US.
Mujeriego R., Salavedra M., Sala J. and L. Sala (2002) Experimental assessment of the disinfection capabilities of the UV
radiation in the secondary effluent of the Castell-Platja d'Aro WWTP (Costa Brava, Girona, Spain). Proc. Regional Symposium
on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region; Iraklio, Greece, 26-29 September 2002.
Muñoz J. (2004) Specific aspects of control, conservation and maintenance of UV disinfection equipment. II Jornada Interna
sobre Regeneració i Reutilització d'Aigües a la Costa Brava, Lloret de Mar, Spain; 10 February 2004.
National Water Research Institute (2003) Ultraviolet disinfection guidelines for drinking water and water reuse, 2nd edition.
NWRI, Fountain Valley, California.
Navarotto P. (2005) Risk Assessment on use of Recycled Wastewater in Public Park Irrigation" Med-Reunet II (INCO - CT- 2003
– 502453) added value knowledge report AVKR 1(2005).
Nieminski E.C. and J.E. Ongerth (1995) Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by conventional treatment and direct filtration.
J. AWWA 87 (9): 96.
O’Brien W.J., Hunter G.L., Rosson J.J., Hulsey R.A. and K.E. Carns (1996) UV system design: Past, present, and future.
Proceedings, Disinfecting Wastewater for Discharge and Reuse; Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Oguma K., Katayama H. and S. Ohgaki (2002) Photoreactivation of Escherichia coli after Low- or Medium-Pressure UV
Disinfection Determined by an Endonuclease Sensitive Site Assay. Applied and Envir. Microb. 68 (12): 6029-6035.
Oguma K., Katayama H. and S. Ohgaki (2004) Photoreactivation of Legionella pneumophila after inactivation by low- or
medium-pressure ultraviolet lamp. Wat. Res. 38: 2757-2763.
202
Ohgaki S. (2005) Ultraviolet light disinfection technology and photoreactivation - complex effect of UV and microorganisms.
Proc. IWA Conf. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Sustainability. Jeju, Korea; 8-11 November 2005 [CD-ROM]
ÖNORM M 5873-1 and 2 (2001) Plants for the Disinfection of Water Using Ultraviolet irradiation, ICS 13.060.020
Oppenlander T. (2005) Mercury-free Sources of VUV/UV irradiation: Application of Modern Excimer Lamps (Excilamps) for
Water and Air Treatment. Proc. 3rd IUVA conference. Whistler, British Columbia; 24-27 May, 2005 [CD-ROM].
Oppenlander, T. and G. Baum (1996) Wasseraufbereitung mit Vakuum-UV/UV-Excimer-Durchflu photo-reaktoren; Water

remediation with vacuum-UV/UV-excimer flow through photo-reactors, GWF Wasser-Abwasser 137 (6): 321-325.
Parker, J.A. and J.L. Darby (1995) Particle-associated coliform in secondary effluents: shielding from ultraviolet light
disinfection. Wat. Env. Res. 67 (7): 1065-1075.
Peng, J., Qiu Y. and R. Gehr (2005) Characterization of permanent fouling on the surfaces of UV lamps used for wastewater
disinfection. Water Environment Research 77 (4): 309-322.
Petri B. and R.H. Sakaji (2004) Practical methods for describing UV reactor performance from validation data. Proc. Water
Environment Federation 77th Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana; October 2-6, 2004 [CD-
ROM].
Petri, B., O.K. Scheible, Y. Lawryshyn, J. Robinson and M. Sasges (2005). UVDis requires validation for sizing UV reactors.
Proc. Water Environment Federation 78th Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference; Washington, D.C., WEF, Alexandria,
Virginia; 29 October – 2 November, 2005 [CD-ROM].
Preikschat M., Kolch A. and L. Dinkloh (2005) US EPA Draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual in Practice–Validation and
Operation of UV Systems. Proc. 3rd IUVA Conf.; Whistler, British Columbia; 24-27 May, 2005. [CD-ROM]
Qin S. M. and C. P. Gerba (1996) Comparative inactivation of enteric adenoviruses, poliovirus and coliphages by ultraviolet
irradiation. Wat. Res. 30 (11): 2665-2668.
Qualls R. G., Flynn M. P. and J.D. Johnson (1983) The role of suspended particles in ultraviolet disinfection. J. WPCF 55 (10):
1280-1285
Qualls R.G., Dorfman M.H. and J.D. Johnson (1989) Evaluation of the efficiency of ultraviolet disinfection systems. Wat. Res. 23:
317-325.
Qualls, R.G. and J.D. Johnson (1985) Modelling and efficiency of UV disinfection systems. Wat. Res. 19: 1039.
Rochelle P.A., Fallar D., Marshall M.M., Montelone B.A., Upton S.J. and K. Woods (2004) Irreversible UV inactivation of
Cryptosporidium spp. despite the presence of UV repair genes. J. Eukaryot Microbiol. 51(5): 553-562.
Salveson, A., M. Oliver, K. Bourgeous and E. Mahar (2004) Has something gone foul with your UV? The impact of sleeve
fouling on delivered UV dose. Proc. Water Environment Federation 77th Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference; New
Orleans, Louisiana, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia; 2-6 October 2004. [CD-ROM].
Sharpless C.M. and K.G. Linden (2003) Spectral distribution of UV light during ageing of medium pressure UV lamps. IUVA
conference. [CD-ROM]
Shin G.-A., Linden K. G., Arrowood M. J. and M. D. Sobsey (2001) Low-Pressure UV Inactivation and DNA Repair Potential of
Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67 (7): 3029-3032.
Suidan M. T. and B.F. Severin (1986) Light Intensity models for annular UV disinfection reactors. AIChE J. 32: 1902.
Shalk S. (2005) UV-Lamps for Disinfection and Advanced Oxidation” 3rd. IUVA conference paper, Whistler, British Columbia;
24-27 May 2005. [CD-ROM]
Tchobanoglous G., Loge F., Darby J. and M. Devries (1996) UV design: Comparison of Probabilistic and Deterministic design
approaches, Wat. Sci. Tech. 33 (11 –12): 251-260.
US EPA (1986) Municipal wastewater disinfection design manual. EPA office of R&D. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/625/1-86/021.
203
US EPA (2003) UV Disinfection Guidance Manual. EPA 815-D-03-007 (Draft).
Ware M.W., Schaefer F.W., Hayes S.L. and Rice EW (2003) Inactivation of Giardia muris by Low Pressure Ultraviolet Light.
Presented at Science Forum 2003, Washington, DC, May 5-7, 2003.
Water Environment Research Foundation Project (WERF) (1999) Study 96-CTS-3 99.
White (1999) Handbook of chlorination and alternative disinfectants. 4th edition.
Wright, H., T. Dzurny and A. Salveson (2005) Cost and efficiency of dose pacing strategies used by drinking water and
wastewater UV systems. Proceedings, Disinfection 2005, Sharing Disinfection Technologies: Water, Wastewater, and Biosolids;
Mesa, Arizona, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia; 6-9 February 2005 [CD-ROM].
Zimmer J.L. and R.M. Slawson (2002) Potential repair of E coli DNA following exposure to UV radiation from both medium and
low pressure UV sources in drinking water treatment. Appl. Env. Micro. 68 (7): 3293 -3299.
Zimmer J.L., Slawson R.M. and P.M. Huck (2003) Inactivation and potential repair of Cryptosporidium parvum following low-
and medium-pressure ultraviolet irradiation. Wat. Res. 37: 3517 - 3523.
204
AQUAREC – EVK1–CT-2002-0013 Water Reuse System Management Manual
10 DISINFECTION WITH OZONE

10.1 DESCRIPTION
Ozone was first introduced in the Netherlands in the late 1800’s and then spread over the rest of Europe
and North America. Its use as a disinfectant stayed well behind other alternatives, mainly because of the
high costs associated with it. However, during the past 30 years, there has been a growing attention for the
use of ozone to disinfect water supplies: the detection of harmful Disinfection By-Products (DPB) when
using chlorine led to interest in alternative techniques.
Nowadays, ozone is the most efficient chemical disinfectant applied in drinking water treatment. Even for
micro-organisms which are very difficult to inactivate by means of the ‘conventional’ disinfectants, such
as protozoa (especially C. parvum oocysts), ozone provides adequate inactivation with reasonable doses
and contact times. Additionally, ozone has the benefit of establishing colour reduction, COD-reduction
and oxidation of persistent compounds (pesticides, endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, etc…). This
makes ozone also particularly suitable for disinfection of WWTP-effluents.
Ozone is a powerful disinfecting agent and chemical oxidant in both inorganic and organic reactions..
When introduced in water, ozone decomposes to form highly reactive OH° radicals. Therefore, two
oxidants always have to be considered during ozonation. Because of its oxidizing capacity, ozone is
highly efficient to inactivate micro-organisms. Ozone inactivates or destroys pathogens by oxidizing the
cell wall, the structural material in cell membranes and the genetic material.
In contrast to chlorine, ozone does not form halogenated by-products, except in the presence of bromide.
Other known by-products include numerous organic compounds, oxygen-rich compounds such as
aldehydes, ketones and carboxylic acids. These compounds can be degraded when ozonation is followed
by biological filtration. Inorganic by-products, such as bromate, are not degraded biologically during
typical aerobic water treatment processes and can be problematic. Table 10.1 summarizes the advantages
and disadvantages of ozone as a disinfectant.
Table 10.1 Advantages and disadvantages of ozone as a disinfectant

Effective disinfectant for vegetative bacteria,
Relatively high investment costs (see § 10.1.3)
viruses and Giardia
Removal of unpleasant taste and odour, and
Relatively high O&M costs (see § 10.1.3)
colour
Selective oxidation of persistent substances Produces assimilable organic carbon => risk of
(industrial chemicals, pesticides, …) regrowth
No need for transport and storage of toxic
Needs to be generated on site
chemicals
Only forms small amounts of brominated DBP’s Bromate is formed in the presence of bromide
Increases coagulation Skilled personnel needed for maintenance
Corrosive and toxic: appropriate material
Oxidation of iron, manganese and sulphides
selection and safety measures are needed
Short contact times required
205
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1–CT-2002-0013
10.1.1 Water quality

Effect of ozone on pathogens
Ozone is a very powerful disinfectant for bacteria, viruses and parasites. Typically, the assessment of
disinfection is based on the ozone exposure measured for inactivation of a specific micro-organism by
several orders of magnitude. The necessary ozone exposure to reach a certain disinfection result is
typically expressed as a CT-value, residual O3 concentration X contact time (mg O3 min/L). Several
publications in the area of waste water disinfection refer to the Transferred Ozone Dose (mg O3/L) (Xu et
al., 2002; Paraskeva et al., 2005; Ternes et al., 2003; Savoye et al., 2001).
Compliance with the WHO guidelines (1989) and the EU-bathing directive (1975) can be met when
secondary effluent is ozonated (Savoye et al., 2001; Liberti et al., 1999). The required ozone dose
depends on the water quality (Savoye et al., 2001). The more stringent requirements set by the Californian
Title 22 could only be met after filtration as a tertiary treatment. Other authors found that ozone was not
able to meet these requirements (Liberti et al., 1999).
Figure 10.1 gives an overview of the relationship between the transferred ozone dose and the inactivation
of several micro-organisms (data adapted from Xu et al., 2002; Paraskeva et al., 2005; Ternes et al., 2003
and Savoye et al., 2001). Although the effect of ozone on the inactivation of micro-organisms is strongly
dependent on the effluent quality, Figure 10.1 gives an idea of the ranges of the ozone dose needed for
disinfection of a particular micro-organism. Disinfection results as a function of the CT-value have been
illustrated by Lazarova et al. (1999). Figure 10.1 clearly shows that there is no simple correlation between
inactivation of micro-organisms and transferred ozone dose.
Figure 10.1 Municipal WWTP effluent disinfection with ozone

Log Reduction (CFU/100 mL) [Enterovirus: pfu/10 L]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Transferred Ozone Dose [mg/L]
Faecal coliforms Total Coliforms Clostridium Enterococci E Coli Streptococci
Data adapted from: Xu et al. (2002); Paraskeva et al. (2005); Ternes et al. (2003) and Savoye et al. (2001)
206
Protozoan cysts are much more resistant to ozone and other disinfectants than vegetative forms of bacteria
and viruses. Data available for inactivation of Cryptosporidium Oocysts, suggest that among protozoans,
this micro-organism is more resistant to ozone. Inactivation of parasites with ozone has been rarely
described for municipal effluents. Table 10.2 presents the dose-response relationship for disinfection of
other water sources (surface water or pure water).
Table 10.2 Inactivation of parasites and viruses by ozone

Species CT-value (mg O3.min.L-1)
Log reduction 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
3
C. parvum (10°C) 6.08 9.88 13.7 17.5 21.3 25.1
1
Giardia (10°C) 0.23 0.48 0.72 0.95 1.2 1.43
1
Viruses (10°C) 0.5 0.8
2
G. lamblia cysts (5°C) 0.5-0.6
2
G. muris cysts (5°) 1.8-2.0
2
Poliovirus 1 (5°C) 0.1-0.2
2
Rotavirus (5°C) 0.006-0.06
Source: 1AWWA (1991); 2Koltunski and Plumridge; 3Rennecker et al. (1999)
Effect of ozone on organic micropollutants

Due to the incomplete removal in municipal sewage treatment plants, a multitude of organic
micropollutants such as pharmaceuticals, estrogens, iodinated contrast media as well as personal care
products have been found in secondary treated municipal effluents (Ternes et al., 2003).
An additional benefit of ozone is that besides disinfection, ozone is also an appropriate treatment for the
oxidation of these trace organics. In a three year EU-study (POSEIDON), pilot tests were performed at the
WWTP of Braunschweig (385,000 P.E.) to investigate the effect of ozone on the effluent characteristics.
Table 10.3 illustrates that an ozone dose of around 5 mg/L can reduce a range of emerging
micropollutants to concentrations below the limit of quantification (Ternes et al., 2003). For higher ozone
doses (≥ 10 mg/L) all investigated compounds could be oxidized below the detection limit. Similar results
were observed in another study with a wastewater with a lower DOC which allowed to achieve full
elimination of fast reacting compounds at ozone doses as low as 2 mg/L (Huber et al., 2005)
Table 10.3 Oxidation of organic micropollutants by ozone

WWTP effluent 5 mg O3/L 10 mg O3/L
μg/L μg/L (% removal) μg/L (% removal)

Trimethoprim 0.34 ± 0.04 < LOQ (>85) < LOQ (>85)
Sulfamethoxazole 0.62 ± 0.05 < LOQ (>92) < LOQ (>92)
Clarithromycin 0.21 ± 0.02 < LOQ (>76) < LOQ (>76)
Erythromycin 0.62 ±0.24 < LOQ (>92) < LOQ (>92)
Roxithromycin 0.54 ± 0.04 < LOQ (>91) < LOQ (>91)
Carbamazepin 2.1 ± 0.04 < LOQ (>98) < LOQ (>98)
Ibuprofen 0.13 ± 0.03 0.067 (48) < LOQ (>62)
Naproxen 0.1 ± 0.01 < LOQ (>50) < LOQ (>50)
207
Indomethacin 0.1 ± 0.04 < LOQ (>50) < LOQ (>50)

Diclofenac 1.3 ± 0.1 < LOQ (>96) < LOQ (>96)
Clofibric acid 0.12 ± 0.02 0.06 (50) < LOQ (>59)
Fenofibric acid 0.13 ± 0.04 0.06 (>62) < LOQ (>62)
Atenolol 0.36 ± 0.01 14 (61) < LOQ (>86)
Sotalol 1.32 ± 0.14 < LOQ (>96) < LOQ (>96)
Celiprolol 0.28 ± 0.01 < LOQ (>82) < LOQ (>82)
Propranolol 0.18 ± 0.01 < LOQ (>72) < LOQ (>72)
Metoprolol 1.7 ± 0.04 0.37 (78) < LOQ (>93)
Tonalide 0.1 ± 0.03 < LOQ (>50) < LOQ (>50)
Galaxolide 0.73 ± 0.14 0.09 (>93) < LOQ (>93)
Estrone 0.015 ± 0.002 < LOQ (>80) < LOQ (>80)
Caffeïne 0.22 ± 0.03 0.11 (50) < LOQ (>87)
Source: Ternes et al. (2003)
Effect of ozone on standard parameters

As a result of the oxidation of organics upon oxidation, TSS-, COD and TOC-levels decrease. Dissolved
COD, as well as BOD usually increases. Ammonia oxidation is an extremely slow process and not very
important during wastewater ozonation. Only for unrealistic high doses, partial ammonia oxidation will
occur. The effect of ozonation on standard parameters in municipal effluent is shown in Table 10.4. Note
that different performances are achieved when starting from different effluent qualities.
Table 10.4 Impact of ozonation on standard parameters

Effluent % reduction
(mg/L) Transferred ozone dose (mg O3/L)
9.2(2) 12.3(2) 15(2) 20(1) 21.1(2)
TBOD mg/L 9-24 11 -25 -24 49 -20
TCOD mg/L 70-94 10 2 -1 34 1
COD filtered mg/L 38-47 -0 -19 -34 -24
TSS mg/L 13 38
TN mg/L 26 2
NH4-N mg/L 5.7 20
NO3-N mg/L 17 -16
TOC mg/L 13.7 6
Tot. UV abs cm-1 0.27-0.4 20 17 24 38
Dis. UV abs cm-1 0.22-0.23 25 24 27 44
(1)
Source: Paraskeva et al. (2005) (2)Xu et al. (2002)
Effect of ozone on inorganic compounds

Certain inorganic compounds present in wastewater can be readily oxidised by ozone (Koltunski and
Plumridge):
• Cyanide compounds: thiocyanate is oxidised to cyanide, free cyanide ions and many stable metal
cyanide complexes are oxidised to less toxic cyanate ions
208
• Nitrogen compounds: the reaction of ozone with ammonia is slow. Under normal conditions
ammonia is not significantly affected by ozone but nitrites are oxidized very rapidly to nitrate.
• Sulphur compounds: sulphide ions are oxidised to sulphite and finally to sulphates
10.1.2 Operability
Flexibility
Ozone is generated on site as needed. Ozone doses can be easily adjusted by increasing or decreasing the
voltage or frequency of the generator. Variations in the wastewater flow or quality can be handled as long
as the ozone generator is operated within its design parameters. The last generation ozone generators
provide a very strong correlation between the input signal and the ozone output with an almost immediate
response. Using both frequency and voltage control, an output between 10-100% of the maximum output
can be provided. Typically, at least two generators of the same capacity are installed to allow continuous
operation during maintenance.
Resilience
Because ozone reacts with a wide range of organic and inorganic species, the disinfection performance of
ozonation strongly depends on the quality of the feed water. Savoye et al. (2001) illustrated that the ozone
dose required to meet the 1989 WHO guidelines, was approximately 10 times higher for a secondary
effluent (AS) compared to a tertiary effluent (AS + multi media filtration). To ensure a sufficient degree
of inactivation, variations in the ozone demand caused by varying flow rates or quality should be carefully
monitored in order to match the ozone dose to the ozone demand.
Controllability
Ozone concentrations in the feed gas, the water phase and the off gases of the reactor configuration are
used to control the ozone transfer and to ensure optimal doses. When used in conjunction with process
flow meters, optimal process demands can be provided.
In practice, monitoring can vary from simple automation only measuring ozone transfer and ambient
ozone concentrations to very sophisticated control schemes that ensure optimal ozone dosing, minimum
energy requirements and optimal effluent quality.
Reliability
Ozone equipment and instrumentation are very reliable, provided that there is a regular maintenance. In
addition to the ozone generator, the feed gas preparation and the cooling circuit of the ozone generator
require special attention. Both process units significantly influence the ozone generation efficiency.
To guarantee a proper degree of disinfection, parameters with a strong influence on the ozone demand
(temperature, organics, certain inorganics, …) need to be monitored regularly or continuously if possible.
It is important to conduct bench scale studies prior to full scale application in order to determine
minimum and maximum ozone demands and to get an insight in the variations of parameters influencing
the ozone demand.
209
Depending on the water quality, the half-life of ozone is in the range of seconds to hours. If the
disinfected water needs to be transported in a distribution system with long residence times, an additional
alternative oxidant needs to be dosed to avoid fouling

Ozone is highly toxic and corrosive. The 2000 WHO guideline for Europe proposes a health protection
threshold of 120 μg/m3 (~0.06 ppm, mean over 8 hours). This concentration is well above the odour
threshold at which ozone can be smelled (20 – 100 μg/m3 ~ 0.01 – 0.05 ppm).
Sufficient measures should be taken to prevent any leakage in ozonation systems. Ozone generators need
to be housed indoor for weather protection. The room should be ventilated and an ambient ozone detector
is needed to activate an alarm in case of accidental ozone spills, e.g. a visual and sound alarm at ambient
ozone levels of 100 μg O3/m3 + shut down of the generator at ozone levels of 300 μg O3/m3 (US EPA
1999).
Ozone in the off gases is destroyed by a catalytic or thermal destructor. This is usually equipped with an
ozone detector to ensure proper operation of the destructor.
Complexity
The ozone generator and instrumentation is relatively complex and requires skilled technicians for
maintenance. Although the process is highly automated and maintenance can be provided by the
equipment manufacturer, ozone processes require a higher degree of operator skill and training.
10.1.3 Costs
Ozonation equipment usually involves relative high capital and operating costs. Operating costs can be
attributed to power consumption, chemicals and supplies, equipment repairs and labour.
Ried et al. (2004b) reported operating costs for the treatment of secondary effluent (COD 30-50 mg/L, SS
< 10 mg/L) at an ozone dose of 10-15 g/m3 were 0.02-0.035 €/m3. This dose proved sufficient for the
removal of substances with a reasonable reactivity towards ozone and for a 4 log reduction of E. Coli and
a 1 log reduction of Clostridium (Ternes et al., 2003). Investment costs were in the range 0.003-0.006
€/m3.
Similar values for operating costs are found for ozone disinfection of wastewater by Liberti et al. (1999):
operation and maintenance costs were estimated at 0.037 €/m3 for an ozone dose of 15 mg/L and a contact
time of 10 minutes. This dose led to a 3.5 log reduction of total coliforms for filtered effluent, and a 2.3
log reduction for clarified effluent.
Investment costs are estimated by NSFC at 75,000 € for a plant of 380 m3/d wastewater vs. 1,600,000 €
for a plant of 38,000 m3/d (NSFC, 1998).
The costs for ozone instrumentation are illustrated by Kilham (2005):
• simple hand held sensors and small monitors: 250 € - 1,700 €
• accurate monitors and controllers for process control: 400 € - 3,500 €
210
• highly accurate and stable analyzers and controllers: 4,000 € - 12,500 €
10.2 BASIC ASPECTS
10.2.1 Mechanism of ozone disinfection

General
When ozone is introduced in water, it partially decomposes into OH°-radicals. These radicals are highly
reactive and react with a wide range of species. There is discussion about whether or not these radicals
contribute to the disinfection, but is generally recognized that the main route for disinfection is by direct
ozone action:
• The protective cell wall of micro-organisms and the semi-permeable membranes are composed of
moieties that can be attacked by electrophiles such as ozone. This favours a very selective and
therefore efficient action of ozone (Koltunski and Plumridge). Beyond the cell wall and cell
membrane, ozone acts on the DNA, which is the main target for inactivation (von Gunten,
2003b).
• OH°-radicals on the other hand are very strong but short lived (less selective than ozone). They
react with organic or inorganic pollutants present in the water. In contact with micro-organisms,
they are assumed to be scavenged in the cell wall or used by other cell constituents on their way
to the DNA (von Gunten, 2003b).
Ozone exposure
The most common model to describe disinfection efficiency is the Chick-Watson equation. It has been
found that the logarithmic relative decrease of vital micro-organisms is proportional to the ozone
exposure, the ozone exposure calculated as the time-dependent concentration of the disinfectant c(t)
integrated for the time t of its action:
N/No = exp( –k CT)
where:
C = disinfectant concentration (mg/L)
N = number of vital micro-organisms at time t
No = number of vital micro-organisms at time t =0
T = contact time (min)
k = rate constant for inactivation of a particular micro-organism (L mg-1 min-1)
This equation is generally converted to so-called CT-requirements that express the disinfectant
concentration and contact time needed to achieve a particular log-reduction of a specific micro-organism.
For micro-organisms which are more difficult to inactivate (protozoa), a temperature dependant lag-phase
is observed during which no disinfection occurs, followed by a first order process (Rennecker et al.,
1999):
N/N0 = 1 als CT ≤ CTlag
211
N/N0 = exp( –k (CT-CTlag) als CT > CTlag
This is the method most commonly applied to describe disinfection of drinking water. For wastewater
however, there is discussion on whether this approach is applicable.
Required contact times for disinfection with ozone are generally assumed to be within 10-30 minutes (US
EPA, 1999). However, Xu et al. (2002) reported that in wastewater, even very low hydraulic retention
times (2 minutes) are sufficient for adequate faecal coliform inactivation, provided a sufficient ozone dose
was transferred to the effluent. The transferred ozone dose (TOD) appeared to be the critical parameter in
wastewater disinfection. Even when the TOD approximates the immediate ozone demand of the water
(i.e. when there is no measurable ozone residual in the water), a significant 1-3 log inactivation of faecal
coliforms is reached. This is in agreement with a recent laboratory study in which the ozone concentration
during wastewater ozonation could be measured from 300 ms to 20 s with continuous quench flow system
(Buffle et al., 2006). Based on the ozone evolution a CT and hence an inactivation of micro-organisms
could be calculated. It could be shown that vegetative bacteria, viruses and even Giardia are readily
inactivated whereas C. parvum oocysts are not (Buffle et al., 2006). This can be explained by the fact that
bacteria themselves participate in the immediate ozone demand. Similar results were reported by
Paraskeva et al. (2005) and Lazarova et al. (1997, 1998). As a consequence, mass transfer is the critical
step to be optimised in the ozonation, as also illustrated by Liberti et al. (1999).
Most of the findings reported above, focussed on faecal coliforms and E. Coli. Literature provides very
little data on the inactivation of more resistant micro-organisms in wastewater treatment effluents, such as
Giardia or Cryptosporidium. Liberti et al. (1999) illustrated that ozone at a dose of 15 mg/L and a contact
time of 10 minutes was rather effective towards Giardia lamblia, but showed little or no effect towards C.
parvum oocysts. This is in agreement to laboratory experiments with a continuous quench flow system
(Buffle et al., 2006). Inactivation of parasites by ozonation in municipal effluent needs further research,
especially with respect to the required transferred ozone dose and the need for additional contact time at a
certain residual ozone level.
Factors of influence
Factors of major influence on the required amount of ozone to achieve a desired inactivation of micro-
organisms are temperature, pH and the effluent quality.
Temperature
In general, it can be stated that CT-values are substantially lower at higher temperatures (Corona-Vasquez
et al. 2002; Larson et al., 2003; Rennecker et al., 1999). On the other hand, ozone solubility decreases
at higher temperatures and ozone becomes less stable in water. These two phenomena may compensate
each other within the range of 0-30°C (Kinman, 1975).
pH
The influence of pH on ozonation is a consequence of the pH dependence of ozone decomposition in

water: OH° radicals are formed faster at higher pH. Since it is unlikely that OH° species significantly
influence the inactivation rate, it would be expected that disinfection is more efficient at neutral pH
compared to higher pH.
212
Effluent quality
The most important parameter influencing the ozone dose needed for a specific degree of inactivation is
the water quality of the effluent. Competitive reactions of the water matrix contribute to the “ozone
demand” which can be described as the transferred ozone dose required to get a measurable residual in the
effluent. Compounds that contribute to the immediate ozone demand are constituents of DOC, COD and
all compounds that are readily oxidized by ozone.
Experiments conducted on different effluents led to values of ozone demand ranging from a few mg O3/L
for several secondary and tertiary effluents, up to more than 10 mg/L for a primary effluent (Lazarova et
al., 1999). Determination of the immediate ozone demand on 3 different WWTP effluents by Xu et al.
(2002) showed that the ozone demand was 2-3 higher for a high loaded effluent (SS 18 mg/L, COD 71
mg/L, TOC 26 mg/L) compared to the lower loaded effluents (SS 2.3/5 mg/L, COD 30/36 mg/L, TOC
8/10 mg/L). Similar results were reported by Koltunski and Plumridge when comparing a secondary
effluent with a filtered nitrified effluent. Savoye et al. (2001) illustrated that the stringent requirements
imposed by Title 22 could be met with filtration only as a tertiary treatment followed by ozonation with a
TOD of 10 mg/L.
Taking into account the different variables involved, laboratory and pilot tests should always be
conducted to determine the ozone dose needed to achieve a specific degree of disinfection on a specific
wastewater.
DBP formation
Disinfection processes may lead to the formation of by-products that can be undesired because of their
potential toxicity. Generally, the concentration of by-products increases with the ozone exposure. Micro-
organisms that are more resistant against disinfection, such as C. parvum oocysts, require higher ozone
exposures and in turn lead to higher by-product formation (von Gunten, 2003).
Organic by-products result from the reaction of ozone with the organic matter present in the effluent. A
variety of organic by-products can be formed (aldehydes, ketones, keto-aldehydes, carboxylic acids, keto
acids, hydroxy acids, alcohols and esters), but most of them are readily biodegradable and –if necessary-
can be easily removed in a subsequent biological filtration step. In the presence of bromide, many bromo-
organic by-products can be formed (bromoform, bromopicrin, dibromoacetonitrile, bromoacteone,
bromoacteic acid, bromoalkanes, bromohydrins, etc., von Gunten, 2003b) The main by-product of
concern formed in the presence of bromide is bromate (BrO3-). Bromate is a potentially carcinogenic
compound and is formed upon oxidation of bromide with ozone and hydroxyl radicals. The WHO
guideline for bromate in drinking water is 10 μg/L, which –after ozonation- may be exceeded for waters
with bromide levels above 50 μg/L if the process is optimised for enhanced disinfection such as C.
parvum Oocysts. Once formed, bromate is very difficult to remove. Lowering the pH or adding ammonia
can minimize the formation of bromate during ozonation (Von Gunten, 2003b). In wastewater bromate is
of lesser concern since the standards have been set for drinking water. The bromate level after wastewater
ozonation can be reduced by several processes such as dilution and reduction under anaerobic conditions
(e.g. bank filtration).
It should be emphasized that formation of harmfull DBP’s is not a primary issue in wastewater ozonation.
213

The main parts of an ozonation plant are: feed gas preparation, ozone generator, gas transfer- and reaction
systems, residual ozone destruction and safety equipment. This is relatively complex, but compact
designed systems are readily available.
10.3.1 Feed gas and feed gas preparation system

Ozone can be produced from air or from pure oxygen. The feed gas must meet certain requirements in
terms of dust content, humidity and purity (Stanley, 1999):
The presence of dust in the feed gas should be avoided in order to prevent the build-up in the ozone
generator or instrumentation.
Moisture in the feed gas decreases the efficiency of ozone generation and the reaction of ozone with
nitrogen and moisture can lead to the formation of nitric acid which would lead to corrosion of the ozone
generator. Dew point should be below -60°C. This can be obtained by passing the inlet air via a desiccant
type dryer unit.
Hydrocarbons entering the ozone generator are converted by the process into water vapour. The content of
hydrocarbons in the feed gas should therefore be below 15 ppm. Furthermore, freons and solvents can
have a negative effect on the electrode surfaces and reduce production efficiency. Figures 10.2 and 10.3
illustrate the influence of moisture and hydrocarbons present in the feed gas (Lenntech).
Figure 10.2 Influence of feed gas moisture on the ozone yield (Lenntech)
Oxygen
Mg H2O/m³ air (NTP) [Curve A]
80 800
Air
Relative Yield, %
60 600
40 400
A
50 200
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

-76 -58 -40 -22 - 4 +14
Dewpoint, °C
°F
214
Pure oxygen is either produced on site by means of an operation plant or it can be delivered in a liquid
form.
Oxygen can be generated by means of pressure swing adsorption (PSA). In PSA, a molecular sieve
(zeolite) separates high purity oxygen from air. One of the advantages of PSA is that the oxygen
generated is ideally suited for use as a feed gas for ozone generators (Stanley, 1999). The output oxygen is
very dry and it is produced on demand.
Alternatively, liquid oxygen storage is a relatively simple solution consisting only of a storage tank and
evaporators to convert the liquid into gas. The investment cost is lower than for PSA.
10.3.2 Ozone generator

Ozone needs to be generated on site because it is an unstable gas. It is formed by the reaction of an
oxygen atom and oxygen molecule:
O2 + O ⇔ O3
This reaction is endothermic and needs a considerable amount of energy input.
Ozone is produced in ozone generators by means of silent electrical discharge. The principle of corona
discharge is schematically shown in Figure 10.5 (Ozonia, 2000). A high voltage (7-20 kV) is applied
between two concentrically arranged electrodes. The electrodes are separated from each other by a
dielectric. An alternating high voltage field is applied over the electrodes. The feed gas flows through the
gap between the electrodes across which the discharge occurs. This corona discharge ruptures the oxygen
molecules into oxygen radicals which can in turn combine with oxygen molecules to form ozone. The
dielectric in between the two electrodes controls and maintains the electrical discharge. An ozone
generator is a drum-like vessel containing many such electrode pairs (Fig 10.6) (Ozonia, 2000).
Most of the electrical energy input is lost as heat. Because the decomposition rate of ozone increases with
increasing temperatures, it is important that the generator is cooled. This is usually done with cooling
water. An ozone generator producing 1 kg O3/h from pure oxygen needs +/- 1.1 m3/h of cooling water at
12°C. The inlet temperature of the cooling water should not exceed 20°C.
Figure 10.5 Principle of ozone generation by dielectric barrier discharge

(redrawn from Ozonia, 2000)
F Feed gas
O O3-containing gas
1 High voltage electrode 1
2 Dielectric 2
O F
3 Discharge gap
3
4 Earth electrode
4
216
Figure 10.6 Ozone generator with electrode pairs (source: Ozonia, 2000)
The past 20 years, a significant progress has been made in the field of ozone generation. Generators
operating at a frequency > 800 kHz provide many benefits over the older low frequency generators.
Higher ozone yields can be achieved at lower energy consumption and the output of the generator is very
linear to frequency variations. This in turn leads to a process which is more reliable and easy to control.
Depending on the input gas, the strength of the electric field, cooling and the design of the ozone
generator, ozone yields of 1 to 16 wt% can be achieved. When dry air is used as a feed gas, energy
consumption is usually between 12-18 kW/kg O3 depending on concentration and temperature of the
cooling water. When using oxygen or oxygen enriched air, 1 kg of ozone can be generated using between
6 and 10 kW. The trend towards ozone generators with yields of up to 13% and more by weight has
significantly improved the economic efficiency of the process (Wedeco, 2006). The relation between
energy consumption, feed gas characteristics and ozone output is illustrated in Figure 10.7 (Lenntech).
Figure 10.7 Influence of oxygen concentration in the feed gas on ozone

production (Lenntech)
217
10.3.3 Ozone injection and contact

The amount of gas that dissolves in water is subject to Henry’s law. This law states that the amount of a
gas dissolving into liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid phase. The partial pressure
of ozone depends on its concentration in the gas phase. A more practical approach to calculate the
dissolved ozone concentration in equilibrium with the gas above the liquid, is given by the solubility ratio
coefficient S (Lenntech):
ClO3
S=
C gO3
with: ClO3 = concentration of ozone in the liquid (mg O3/L)
C gO3 = concentration of ozone in the gas phase (g O3/m3)
Solubility of ozone is influenced by several parameters (temperature, pH, ionic strength) but temperature
is the most important factor of influence. Figure 10.8 shows the solubility ratio coefficient as a function of
temperature (Lenntech).
The driving force in mass transfer is the difference between the dissolved ozone concentration and the
solubility of ozone in the liquid phase. Higher ozone concentrations in the feed gas will thus lead to a
more efficient mass transfer of ozone to the water phase, whereas the mass transfer becomes limited as
soon as the dissolved ozone concentration approaches the theoretical solubility.
Figure 10.8 Solubility ratio coefficient as a function of temperature (Lenntech)
0,5
DVGW (1987)
0,4 Gurol (982), μ=0.1 M
Gurol (1982),μ=1 M
solubility
0,3 Kosak (1983),μ=0 M

Kosak (1983), μ=0.15 M
0,2 Kosak (1983), μ=0.3 M
Kosak (1983), μ=0.6 M
0,1 Morris (1988)
??
0,0
0 10 20 30 40
temperature T [°C]
Considering that relatively low concentrations of ozone are produced in the generator gas stream, the
method of diffusing ozone into the nutrient solution is of great importance. Ozone can be introduced in
water with bubble columns or high efficiency injectors.
Bubble diffusers
Ozone is bubbled into a column or basin via porous ceramic or stainless steel diffusers. The water depth
should be 3-5 m (Leitzke, 1995) to assure an efficient ozone transfer (85-95%). To prevent short-
218
circuiting, the contact basins can be equipped with baffles that separate the basin into 2 or more contact
stages. The only energy required for this type of ozone introduction is the pressure needed to overcome
the hydrostatic head. Usually, the ozone generator should release the ozone gas at a pressure of 0.7 to 1
bar.
Bubble diffusion is a simple and efficient way of introducing ozone in the liquid phase and there are no
moving parts involved. Important disadvantages of this type of diffusors are that the diffusors are
susceptible to clogging and that large volumes are needed. Diffusor clogging is of particular concern
when iron or manganese precipitates are formed.
High efficiency injector

High efficiency injectors pull the ozone into the water by means of a Venturi. This may be performed in a
side stream of the liquid flow which is pumped to a higher pressure to create a vacuum for ozone suction
into the water phase. The injector can be succeeded by an in-line static mixing device to provide sufficient
mixing between gas-liquid mixture in side stream and the remaining liquid flow. If necessary, a
subsequent contact volume can provide the necessary contact time. The gas-liquid ratio varies usually
between 0.05 and 0.1. The efficiency of Venturi injection ranges between 85% and 99% and increases
with decreasing gas/liquid ratios, increasing injector discharge pressure and increasing ozone
concentrations (Overbeck et al., 1997)
Venturi injection is an efficient way of diffusing ozone into the water phase and the required reactor
volumes are found to be smaller than for bubble diffusion. Operation is however more complex and there
is an additional need for hydrostatic pressure.
10.3.4 Ozone off gas destruction

If the ozone concentration in the off gases is too high to be directly discharged they need to be captured
and reduced to oxygen by thermal or catalytic destruction.
Ozone is thermally destroyed at temperatures > 300°C. Operational costs for such a thermal destruction
unit can be high. Addition of a catalyst can lower the required temperatures to below 100°C. Manganese
dioxide is the most widely used catalyst for ozone decomposition. This catalyst can destroy ozone at
ambient temperatures but manufacturers advice to heat the inlet air stream to prevent water condensation
on the surface of the catalyst (Sigmund, 2001).
If pure oxygen is used as a feed gas, the off gases can be recycled to the ozone generator.
Point of application
In municipal wastewater treatment, ozone is generally applied as an additional treatment after biological
treatment and clarification (and/or filtration).
Besides inactivation of micro-organisms, ozone readily reacts with oxidisable contaminants present in the
wastewater. Oxidation of organic material often results in smaller biologically degradable molecules.
These substances can be removed by
• filtration over sand or activated carbon (Koltunski and Plumridge) (Aeppli and Dyer-Smith, 1996)
219
• filtration with any other biological system (particularly efficient with a fixed bed biofilter)
Alternatively, an additional disinfectant (e.g. chlorine) can be added to prevent regrowth in e.g.
distribution systems. In literature, there is however discussion on whether this is necessary: Lazarova et
al. (1998) showed that ozone treated effluent did not support E. Coli regrowth in ozone treated effluent.
Cipparone et al. (1997) however reported substantial increase in bacteria count after ozonation indicating
that other bacteria can regrow.
Estimation of the ozone dose

Prior to designing an ozonation plant, pilot tests should be conducted to evaluate the required ozone dose,
the influence of the contact time, the formation of by-products and the need for a subsequent filtration
step. Furthermore, it is important to have an idea on the fluctuations in water quality and ozone demand.
Estimation of the ozone demand is important to ensure sufficient inactivation of micro-organisms with
minimal energy requirements. This can be of particular importance for WWTP’s with strong variations in
flow rate and water quality. The WWTP of Indianapolis uses ozone for disinfection and installed a pilot-
scale ozone contactor to allow the measured ozone demand on a daily basis (US EPA, 1999)
Material selection
Ozone is a very corrosive gas and materials should be selected very carefully to prevent corrosion or
leakages. Large contact basins can be made of concrete, smaller vessels can be constructed in PVC, glass,
plexiglass or PVC. 316L stainless steel is preferred for piping. Connections should be made with ozone
resistant gaskets such as Teflon or Viton®, Kynar®, Kalrez®.
Contact basins should be covered. Complete sealing is often very difficult to maintain. It is therefore
suggested to operate contact vessels under negative pressures or to build them outside in open
atmosphere.
Operation
Table 10.5 provides an overview of the parameters which should be monitored regularly (continuously if
possible).
Table 10.5 overview of parameters for monitoring

Parameter Purpose
Feed gas properties
Feed gas flow rate Process operation
Feed gas pressure Process operation
Dew point detection Generator protection
Moisture content feed gas Generator protection, process operation
(feed gas preparation unit)
Temperature feed gas Process operation
Equipment
Voltage & frequency ozone generator Process operation
Cooling water inlet and outlet Generator protection
Temperature ozone destructor Safety aspects
220
Parameter Purpose
Ozone gas properties
Ozone concentration feed gas Process operation
Ozone concentration exhaust gas Process operation
Ozone concentration off gas destructor Process operation (destructor), safety
aspects
Temperature off gases before and after ozone destructor Process operation (destructor)
Off gas flow rate Process operation
Wastewater characteristics
Wastewater flow rate Process operation
Basic parameters e.g. pH, temperature, turbidity, … (in & Process operation
out)
Wastewater quality (e.g. TOC, COD, TSS, …) (in & out) Process operation
Microbiological parameters (in & out) Process operation
Initial ozone demand (in) Process operation
Residual ozone concentration (out) Process operation
These parameters can be used to calculate the following operational parameters (calculation at equilibrium
conditions or alternatively integration with specific software):
Mass transfer efficiency is defined as the percentage of ozone applied that actually goes into solution:
C gO,3in ⋅ Qg ,in − C gO,3out ⋅ Qg ,out

MTE =
C gO,3in ⋅ Qg ,in
The transferred ozone dose TOD is the amount of ozone transferred to the liquid
C gO,3in ⋅ Qg ,in − C gO,3out ⋅ Qg ,out

TOD =
Ql ,in
The initial ozone demand is the amount of ozone that needs to be transferred before any residual ozone
appears at the output of the reactor (integration of the TOD over the time span where Cl ,out
3
=0)
O
CT-value is in practice calculated as the residual ozone concentration measured at the output of the
reactor multiplied with the contact time t10, corresponding to the time required for 10% of an applied
conservative tracer to travel trough the reactor:
CT = ClO,out
3
⋅ t10
with:
C gO,3in Ozone concentration feed gas in mg O3/L

O3
C g ,out Ozone concentration exhaust gas in mg O3/L
O3
C l ,out Residual ozone concentration wastewater (output reactor) in mg O3/L
221
Qg ,in Feed gas flow rate in L/h
Qg ,out Off gas flow rate in L/h
Ql ,in Wastewater flow rate in L/h

t10 the time required for 10% of a tracer to travel trough the reactor in minutes
This approach is rather suitable for drinking water treatment, because in wastewater ozonation there is
typically no measurable residual.
Maintenance and safety

Because of the toxic nature of ozone, the occurrence of leaks should be checked routinely. Ambient ozone
sensors should be present and be tested and calibrated as prescribed by the manufacturer. Furthermore,
ozonation equipment should be located in a separate room with sufficient ventilation When parts of the
equipment need to be opened, e.g. for maintenance or in case of problems, the equipment should be
purged before it is opened. After maintenance or shutdown, the generator should be purged with dry air to
prevent any condensation of moisture in the generating equipment
Ozone equipment is relatively complex and requires skilled personnel for maintenance or –alternatively-
can be provided by the manufacturer. Guidelines on periodical maintenance are recommended by US
EPA (1999):
• Generators should be checked daily. Dielectric tubes should be periodically cleaned (when the
generator efficiency drops 10-15%).
• Filters and desiccant in air preparation systems should be changed periodically, the frequency
depends on the quality of the feed gas and the operating hours.
• Liquid oxygen (LOX) tanks should be pressure checked periodically.
• Piping and contact chambers should be inspected periodically for leaks or corrosion
10.5 MONITORING AND CONTROL
10.5.1 Monitoring equipment

Gas phase ozone
UV absorption
The method generally used for gas phase ozone measurement is UV absorption at 254 nm. Ozone is a
strong UV absorber at 254 nm. Ozone detection with UV spectrometers compares the absorption in ozone
free air with the absorption of the ozone gas sample. The UV absorption method is very accurate, has a
wide concentration range (0-20%) and is almost free of interferences with other gases. The main
disadvantage is the high investment cost.
Heated metal oxide semiconductor
Heated metal semiconductors (HMOS) are commonly used in ozone gas sensors. The sensor consists of a
metal oxide in the form of a thin film on a substrate, between two electrodes. When the semi-conductor
material (e.g. doped TiO2) is heated to +/- 150°C, the material becomes sensitive to ozone and its
222
electrical resistance changes proportionally with the ozone concentration. Advantages of these types of
sensor are that they are small and inexpensive, but the baseline can drift, the energy consumption is high
compared to other measuring devices and it requires a several hours warm-up time to heat the material.
Typical applications are ambient ozone monitoring, alarm sensors, ozone generator control systems.
Electrochemical sensors
Electrochemical cells are often used in portable instruments. The principle is based on a porous membrane
that allows ozone to diffuse into a cell containing a liquid or gel electrolyte. When the electrolyte comes
into contact with ozone a change in electrochemical potential between the electrodes occur. The
advantages are the reasonable costs, rapid response and low energy requirements. However, the lifetime
of the cells is limited (+/- 1 year).
Dissolved ozone
Electrochemical sensors
Measurement of dissolved ozone with an electrochemical sensor is based on the same principle as the
electrochemical measurement of ozone in the gas phase: ozone passes a membrane and then produces an
electrochemical reaction and current flow in direct proportion to the ozone concentration. The
electrochemical method is the typical online method. Different types of sensors are available.
Indigo colorimetric method
The indigo colorimetric method for analysis of the residual ozone concentration in water is described in
Standard Methods, 2005. It is based on the principle that in acidic solution, potassium indigo-trisulfonate
is discoloured by aqueous ozone. The degree of discoloration is compared to a blank solution of the dye.
The decrease in absorbance is linear with increasing ozone concentration. The range of application of this
method is 0.05 to 0.6 mg O3/L.
Test kits using this method are available for concentrations up to 4 mg O3/L. This method is the typical
method for manual measurement.
Stripping
Ozone can be stripped from the water and then be measured in the gas phase by UV absorption. The
method is very specific and has a high measuring range, but the equipment costs are high.
10.5.2 Automation and control

Automation of ozonation is mainly focussed on energy minimization.
The ozone input can be varied by adjusting the voltage, or –preferably- the frequency of the ozone
generator. Control strategies can be based on the transferred ozone dose, the residual ozone concentration
in the treated water or the residual ozone concentration in the gas phase.
Because the transferred ozone dose is the main parameter influencing the result of the ozonation, the
approach to vary the dose with fluctuating water flows or quality is the most appropriate. In case of
constant water quality, the control strategy is relatively straightforward: the power supply or frequency of
223
the ozone generator is varied in proportion to the wastewater flow. More complex control schemes
include water quality monitors to match the ozone dose to the process demands.
Monitoring of the ozone residual can be used in control schemes to prevent overdosing and the formation
of undesired DBP’s. Furthermore, the conventional approach towards the effect of ozone on inactivation
of micro-organisms, states that the disinfection performance is closely related to the residual ozone
concentration. Although this approach is questioned for wastewater disinfection (Xu et al., 2002), there is
no alternative for the CT-concept for inactivation of pathogens that are difficult to inactivate
(Cryptosporidium, …).
10.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Whereas there is a lot of information on the disinfection of parasites (Giardia, Cryptosporidium) by
ozonation in drinking water, the inactivation of these micro-organisms in municipal wastewater is not
well documented. Several authors have illustrated that the classic CT-approach used to describe the dose
relationship for disinfection of drinking water, is not applicable to wastewater (Xu et al., 2002). However,
these results mainly concern the inactivation of faecal coliforms and E. Coli. Further research is needed to
evaluate whether the CT-concept and the same CT-values for inactivation of parasites in drinking water
can be applied for disinfection of wastewater effluent

Table 10.6 gives an example of some WWTP’s that have installed ozonation:
Table 10.6 Examples for ozonation plants in different WWTP

OZONE CAPACITY
PROJECT TYPE OF REUSE FLOW RATE (m³/d) START UP
(kg/h)
Agricultural
Almeria Este, Spain irrigation + 8,400 3.7 2002
wetland recharge
Agricultural
Tubli Tse, Bahrain 200,000 2 x 48 2002
irrigation
Kalundborg, Denmark No reuse 28,800 2 x 90 2002
Tienen, Belgium Industrial 6,800 1.5 2002
Catania, Italy Industrial 115,200 4 x 15.2 2003
Source: Adapted from WEDECO
The water reuse schemes of Catania/Italy, Tubli Tse/Bahrain and Kalundborg/Denmark are illustrated in
the following section as examples. The case study of Tienen, Belgium is described further on in the
manual (Chapter 22 Industrial reuse).
Catania plant/Italy
The Catania plant in Italy uses ozone and UV to treat municipal effluent for cooling purposes. Figure 10.9
provides a schematic overview of the plant layout. The details of the plant are summarized in Table 10.7
224
Figure 10.9 Air feed based ozone system + UV for waste water disinfection
Catania (courtesy of WEDECO)
Ozone
Destruct
Unit
Air Air Ozone UV

Compressors Dryers Generators
Outlet
clarifier
4 Ozone Contact Chambers reuse
incl. Diffusing system
Air Feed Based Ozone System + UV

for waste water disinfection Catania
Seite 24
Table 10.7 Technical data of the Catania plant (Italy)

Flow rates
Number of lines 4
Municipal line 3,200 – 4,800 m³/h
Industrial line 1,260 – 1,890 m³/h
Inlet design parameters
Faecal Coliforms 60,000 CFU/100 mL
SS max. 30 mg/L
COD max. 60 mg/L
Temp. air 40°C
Temp. water 25°C
Outlet requirements
Faecal Coliforms < 600 / 100 mL
Reduction of odour, COD, SS
Ozone generators
Capacity 4 x 15.2 kg/h
Feed gas air
4 x air preparation
4 x ozone dissolution systems based on ceramic
diffusers
4 x catalytic ozone destruction units
4 x PSU- units
4 x PLC- systems
Energy consumption < 0.16 kWh/m³ treated water
< 1050 kW/h total cons.
Ozone concentration 32 g/m³ gas at 1.5 bar g
Cooling water 25 °C
225
The following two practical examples described by Ried et al. (2004) will give a more detailed picture of
advantages using ozone in the municipal waste water treatment.
Tubli plant / Bahrain

The Ministry of Works and Agriculture of the State Bahrain decided to use an ozone treatment step for
the municipal waste water treatment plant Tubli. The total treated water flow is 200.000 m³/d
(300.000 m³/d future extension). The traditional primary and secondary treatment steps cannot reach the
limits given by the World Health Organisation Guidelines in association with California standards and
United States Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for the unrestricted agricultural irrigation.
Beside certain types of bacteria the main focus, in this case, is the removal of the helminth “Strongyloides
stercoralis”. The established treatment techniques are not able to remove it to acceptable limits (< 1
helmith/L). Pilot tests conducted by Associated Consulting Engineers (ACE) showed that in comparison
with chlorine ozone is the more powerful agent for helminth removal (Abumaizar et al., 2003).
The experimental results illustrate Strongyloides stercoralis removal rates of more than 95% with an
ozone dosage of 10 mg/L and 25-30 min reaction time. For the same removal rate a chlorine dosage of 30
mg/L and a reaction time of 120 min were determined.
For that reason an ozone plant with an overall capacity of 144 kg ozone/h (3 times 48 kg/h) was installed.
The designed ozone dosage is 12 mg ozone per litre secondary effluent. For gas introduction a diffuser
system is used. The overall ozone dosage of 12 mg/L is split into two dosage points – into a pre-ozonation
and a post-ozonation step (see Figure 10.10). Each ozonation step comprises a 3-chambered contact basin.
In each case the retention time is around 25 minutes. Figure 10.11 shows the ozone Wedeco generators.
Figure 10.10 Flow chart ozone plant Bahrain (Ried et al, 2004)
226
Figure 10.11 Ozone plant Bahrain (WEDECO Effizon HP generators) (Ried et

al, 2004)
Kalundborg / Denmark
The wastewater treatment plant of Kalundborg purifies and clarifies mixed sewage consisting of 20%
municipal and 80% industrial waste water. The industrial fraction largely derives from a sizable
international pharmaceutical company, which operates one of the largest insulin production plants
worldwide at this site.
Although the character of Kalundborg is that of a smallish town, the treatment plant is designed to purify
and clarify the waste water of nearly 350,000 residents resulting from the adjacent pharmaceutical
company. The waste water contains difficult-to-degrade organic impurities monitored as COD value. Due
to the extension of production scheduled by the pharmaceutical company, the authorities of Kalundborg
had decided to redevelop the treatment plant completely.
As last treatment stage ozone treatment was projected within the recirculation system, for degrading a
volume of up to 1,250 kg COD per day. Therefore the ozone system was designed for 180 kg ozone/h (2
times 90 kg/h). Table 10.8 gives an overview of the technical data of the plant. Figure 10.12 provides a
scheme of the plant.
After passing through treatment stages typical for water treatment plants, the biologically pre-clarified
waste water is treated by ozone within the recirculation system. This ozonation takes place in six reaction
227
vessels with a total volume of 300 m³. Within a period of only 15 minutes of total contact, a drastic
reduction of the stubborn organic impurities occurs. The COD level before the oxidation step is between
100-150 mg/L. The treatment goal is to achieve a COD < 70 mg/L.
Such types of waste water not only contain organic impurities as mentioned above, but can also contain
drugs and hormonally active residues, so called “endocrine disruptors”. By conventional purification and
clarification processes these impurities are not degraded sufficiently and endanger the environment.
Research results prove that ozone is an appropriate means to degrade these harmful substances in
municipal waste water.
Table 10.8 Technical data of the Kalundborg ozonation plant (Denmark)

Waste water flow rate: 1200 m3/h
Ozone generator: WEDECO Type PDO 6500
Ozone capacity: 2 x 90 kg/h O3 at 10 wt% by oxygen
Gas transfer system: 4 booster pumps + 4 injectors
Reaction volume: 300 m³ (6 times 50 m³ vessels)
Reaction time: 15 minutes
Feed gas: VPSA oxygen (1216 Nm³/h)
Source: Ried et al, 2004.
Figure 10.12 Schematic overview of the Kalundborg ozonation plant

(Denmark) (Ried et al, 2004)
228
10.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.J. Abumaizar (2003) Disinfection of treated Waste Water for Reuse in Irrigation,
International Conference for water technology, Bahrain, conference papers pp. 353-363.
Aeppli J. and P. Dyer-Smith (1996) Ozonation and granular activated carbon filtration: the solution to many problems. Proc. of
the first Australian Conference of the International Ozone Association Down Under ’96. Sydney, New South Wales; February
1996.
AWWA (1991) Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems
Using Surface Water Sources. AWWA Publishing. ISBN 0898675588.
Buffle M-O., Schumacher J., Salhi E., Jekel, M. and U. von Gunten (2006) Measurement of the initial phase of ozone
decomposition in water and wastewater by means of a continuous quench-flow system: Application to disinfection and
pharmaceutical oxidation. Water Research 40: 1884-1894.
Cipparone L., Diehl A and G. Jr. (1997) Ozonation and BDOC removal: effect on water quality. J. AWWA 89 (2): 84-96.
Corona-Vasquez B., Samuelson A., Rennecker J. and B. Marinas (2002) Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with
ozone and free chlorine. Water Research 36: 4053-4063.
Huber M., Göbel A., Joss A., Hermann N., Löffler D., McArdell C., Ried A., Siegrist H., Ternes T. and U. von Gunten (2005)
Oxidation of pharmaceuticals during ozonation of municipal wastewater effluents: A pilot study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39: 4290-
4299.
Kilham (2005) Methods for measuring ozone as a gas and dissolved in water as well as ozone characteristics. Available at
http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=523
Kinman, R. (1975) Water and Wastewater Disinfection with Ozone: A Critical Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Contr. 5:141-152.
Koltunski E. and J. Plumridge. Ozone as a disinfecting agent in the reuse of wastewater. Ozonia Ltd. Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Available at http://www.ozonia.com/library
Larson M. and Marinas B. (2003) Inactivation of Bacillis subtilis spores with ozone and monochloramine. Water Research 37:
833-844.
Lazarova V. Bourdelot J., Janex M.L. and Laîné (1997) Advances in wastewater disinfection: technical and economic evaluation
and large scale operation. Proc. WEFTEC Asia’98, Singapore, March 8-11 (2): 129-139.
Lazarova V., Janex M.L., Ficksdal L., Oberg C., Barcina I. and M. Pommepuy (1998) Short and long term efficiency of different
disinfection technologies. Proc. 19th IAWQ conference. Vancouver 21-26 June 1998.
Lazarova V., Savoye P., Janex M.L., Blatchley E. and M. Pommepuy (1999) Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies:
state of the art and perspectives. Water Science and Technology 40 (4-5): 203-213.
Leitzke O. (1995) Production of ozone and absorption in water: historical overview and development. Proc. of the Ozone
Symposium; Elewijt, Belgium; 27 April 1995.
Lenntech. http://www.lenntech.com/ozone/ozone-overview.htm
Liberti L. and M. Notarnicola (1999) Advanced treatment and disinfection for municipal wastewater reuse in agriculture. Water
Science and Technology 40 (4-5): 235-245
NSCF. (1998) Ozone disinfection. Fact sheet. West Virginia University. P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, USA. Available at:
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/pdf/eti/Ozone_Dis_gen.pdf &
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/pdf/eti/Ozone_Dis_tech.pdf
Overbeck P. and A. Mazzei (1997) High efficiency in-line pressurized ozone contacting. Proc. of the International Conference on
ozonation and related oxidation processes in water and liquid waste treatment. Berlin, Germany; 21-23 April 1997.
Ozonia 2000. Commercial scale generation and use of ozone. Ozonia Ltd. Duebendorf, Switzerland. Available at
www.ozonia.com/ozone/pdf/Commercial_scale....pdf
229
Paraskeva P. and N. Graham (2005) Treatment of a secondary municipal effluent by ozone, UV and microfiltration: microbial
reduction and effect on effluent quality. Desalination 186: 47-56.
Rennecker J., Marinas B., Owens J. and E. Rice (1999) Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with ozone. Water
Research 33 pp 2481-2488.
Ried A. and Mielcke J. and H. Stapel (2004). Ozone and UV- a tool for multi-barrier concepts in drinking and wastewater
treatment. Proc. of the International IOA conference. Barcelona, Spain; 10-12 march 2004.
Ried A., Mielcke J. and M. Kampmann (2004b) Ozone and UV processes for additional wastewater treatment to remove
pharmaceuticals and EDC’s. Proc. of the 2nd IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies,
1 June 2004 Prague, Czech Republic.
Savoye P., Janex M.L. and V. Lazarova (2001) Wastewater disinfection by low pressure and ozone: a design approach based on
water quality. Water Science and Technology 43 (10): 163-171.
Sigmund J. (2001) Catalytic destruction of ozone: a cost effective approach to controlling off-gas ozone emissions. Water
conditioning and purification March 2001: 50-53.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater 21st edition (2005). American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association & Water Environment Federation. ISBN 0875530478.
Stanley B.T. (1999) Feedgas for modern high-performance ozone generators. Ozonia Ltd, Duebendorf, Switzerland. Available at
http://www.ozonia.com/library
Ternes T., Stüber J., Herrmann N., McDowell D., Ried, A., Kampmann, M. and B. Teiser (2003) Ozonation: a tool for removal of
pharmaceuticals, contrast media and musk fragrances from wastewater? Water Research 37: 1976-1982.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Ozone Disinfection. EPA 832-F-99-
063. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ozon.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA-815-R-
99-014.
von Gunten U. (2003) Ozonation of drinking water: Part I. Oxidation kinetics and product formation. Water Research 37: 1443-
1467.
von Gunten U. (2003b) Ozonation of drinking water: Part II. Disinfection and by-product formation in presence of bromide,
iodide or chlorine. Water Research 37: 1469-1487.
WEDECO AG. Boschstr,4. 32051 Herford:
http://www.wedecoag.com/Ozone_Technology.419.0.html
WHO (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. World Health Organization Technical
Report Series, No. 778, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (2000) Air quality guidelines for Europe 2nd edition. WHO, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. ISBN 92
890 1358 3.
Xu P, Janex M.L., Savoye, P. Cockx A. and V. Lazarova (2002) Wastewater disinfection: main parameters for process design.
Water Research 36: 1043 – 1055.
230
11 “TITLE 22” BENCHMARK TECHNOLOGY

11.1 DESCRIPTION
The State of California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (Title 22) for unrestricted reuse of wastewater
requires after secondary treatment, the advanced treatment with a coagulation/filtration step followed by
chlorination/de-chlorination to strive for a 0 FC/100 mL limit. This chapter is focused on the filtration
step and Title 22 specific aspects for the disinfection step. General considerations for the treatment with
disinfection can be found in chapter 7. Figure 11.1 presents the different options for the treatment before
disinfection.
Figure 11.1 Layout of the Title 22 treatment before disinfection

( adapted from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
The advanced treatment step with filtration in the official definition of the Title 22-scheme will be
replaceable with any kind of (conventional) filtration technique for the purpose to define a general scheme
for current similar applications (Table 11.1).
231
Table 11.1 Options for filtration with the related function and process
operations
A.
Coagulation/flocculation*/ Bio-filtration
Direct-filtration
filtration (denitrifying)
B. Flotation/filtration
A. suspended solid removal
Continuous filtration suspended solid removal for
and/or P-precipitation
continuous and discontinuous
A or B. nitrate removal
Discontinuous filtration filtration
suspended solid removal
Activated carbon adsorption of micro pollutants -
Remark: Up to now flotation is only applied for industrial wastewater treatment.
The different process operations for the purposes of suspended solids, nitrate and P removal can be
applied in single or combined use regarding the needed application, e.g. rest-nutrient removal in a
discontinuous filter using simultaneous coagulation/flocculation, chemical phosphate precipitation and
denitrification.
In the Californian Title 22 regulations coagulation may be waived if the filter influent turbidity does not
exceed 2 NTU, the filter influent is continuously measured, the filter influent turbidity does not exceed 5
NTU (as the effluent of a well designed and operated activated sludge plant), and automatically activated
chemical addition or diversion facilities are provided in the event filter effluent turbidity exceeds 5 NTU
(State of California, 2003).
The final disinfection step with chlorination in the official definition of the Title 22 scheme will be
replaceable with any kind of (conventional) disinfection technique for the purpose to define a general
scheme for current similar applications. For a description of the disinfection techniques it is referred to
chapter 7.

Table 11.2 gives indications of achievable concentrations for different combinations of treatment steps. A
proper primary treatment followed by an activated sludge system with nitrification/denitrification is
assumed (first column of Table 11.2).
232
Table 11.2 Achievable quality of effluent in mg/L, (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Activated sludge Biological
Activated
+ granular Activated Metal salt addition to nitrogen
sludge +
Para- medium sludge/nitrification- activated sludge + and
granular
meter filtration + denitrification nitrification/denitrification phosphorus
medium
carbon separate stages + filtration removal +
filtration
adsorption filtration
TSS 4-6 <5 10-25 5-10 10
BOD5 <5-10 <5 5-15 5-10 <5
COD 30-70 5-20 20-35 20-30 20-30
Ntot 15-35 15-30 5-10 3-5 5
NH3-N 15-25 15-25 1-2 1-2 2
PO4-P 4-10 4-10 6-10 1 2
Turbidity 0.3-5 0.3-3 5-15 0.3-2 0.3-2
NB: The primary and secondary treatment of the treatment facility need to function as stable and optimal
as possible in order to provide a proper water quality for the following reuse scheme (advanced
treatment).
For Title 22 treatments with Amiad filtration systems (down flow, deep bed, pressure, horizontal/vertical)
and chlorine disinfection in Israel provides final effluent turbidity of 1.5 – 4.5 NTU, with the process
influent turbidity of 3-20 NTU. The residual chlorine concentration is about 1-2 mg/L with a disinfection
dose of 3-8 mg/L, see Amiad filtration Systems in the chapter 11.7 Full-scale references.
As an example for achievable effluent quality of denitrifying continuous filtration, the operating
experience at the WWTP “De Groote Lucht” in the Netherlands indicates a reduction of nitrate from
between 6 to 27 mg/L in the WWTP effluent down to 0-7 mg/L in the filtrate of a continuous denitrifying
filter with a flow 600-3,600 m3/h (Kramer and Wouters, 2003).
Table 11.3 Average performance data WWTP De Groote Lucht, (Kramer and
Wouters, 2003)
Parameter IN OUT
Flow [m3/d] 58,3600 50,830
TSS [kg/d] 397 212
NOx-N [kg/d] 953 151
Ntot [kg/d] 1,089 256
COD [kg/d] 2,375 2,027
Biofilm growth due to methanol degradation requires 0.1-0.3 mg P/L (denitrification 5.0-15.0 mg N/L) in
the form of soluble ortho-P. Nitrite accumulation, especially in periods of warm temperatures, has to be
taken into account (Koch and Siegrist, 1997).
Laboratory observations of parameters, which indicate the plant performance, are necessary. The Water
Environment Federation (Water Environment Federation, 1996) recommended a manual for sampling and
quality control within an activated sludge system for some of these parameters, shown in Table 11.4.
233
Table 11.4 Sampling and quality control, (Water Environment Federation, 1996)
Frequency per size <
Sampling point Parameter Type of sample
380 m3/d / >380 m3/d
Secondary clarifier
Turbidity/pH Daily Grab
effluent
BOD/TSS Weekly Composite
Ammonia/Nitrate/Nitrite Monthly / weekly -„-
11.1.2 Operability
Table 11.5 Summary of process indicators
Indicator Evaluation
Flexibility
upgrading -
seasonal changes +
Resilience +
Controllability -/+
Reliability -/+
Safety for occupation +
Complexity -/+
Flexibility
The filtration installations need a constructional effort for building a full-scale filtration installation in
which its measures are based on the designed flow of recycled water. This does not allow a high
flexibility regarding increasing recycled water needs.
In that sense the application of a Title 22 reuse scheme is evaluated as less flexible. On the other hand
upgrading of an existing wastewater treatment plant with an optimal working biological treatment step
with the Title 22 scheme is advantageous. In that sense no operational changes have to be considered on
the existing facility.
The flexibility of the process due to seasonal changes of the wastewater quality is evaluated as high.
Changes in loadings of constituents can be easily adapted, e.g. concentration proportional dosing of
chemicals (carbon source and coagulant/flocculant) for nutrient and suspended solids removal and
decreased filtration run time (in case of activated carbon and discontinuous filtration). In case of
temperature changes with a consequently change of the pH of the wastewater treatment plant effluent
coagulants with different optimal pH-ranges can be varied.
Resilience
The filtration process without biological activity is quite resilient to handle short-term disturbances.
• Rain-weather and consequently increased amount of suspended solids events can be handled
by increasing the cleaning frequency.
234
• A good filtration performance with or without the use of coagulants/flocculants can already
be achieved directly after the start-up of filtration run time.
• It has to be considered that the filtration process improves with time that means an additional
filtration effect of already captured particles (ripening effect).
• Furthermore a period of no production has no negative effect on the filtration performance.
For filtration with biological activity it has to be taken into account that for the biological activity a start-
up period is needed during which the capacity of denitrification is sub-optimal (adaptation period max. a
few days to weeks (Koch and Siegrist, 1997)).
After that period the process is quite resilient to fluctuations of nitrate concentration in case of
proportional dosing of carbon source to the influent nitrate concentration. The system will be less resilient
after periods of no or little production as the biomass will have to reacclimatize to the loading conditions.
This can take days or even weeks, depending on the length of the periods of no production.
The resilience of the disinfection step due to sub optimal operation of the preceding filtration unit has to
be considered as not optimal due to possible breakthrough of organic material in the filtration step.
Controllability
Discontinuous media filtration plants are complex to operate. The filters require frequent backwashing to
maintain satisfactory operating heads in the system. Filter runs may vary from only a few hours to as
many as 24 to 72 hours, depending on the suspended solids in the influent. Optimization of filter
backwashing is not an issue in case of continuous filtration.
Filter operation for simultaneous nutrient and suspended solids removal increases the complexity of the
process. Online monitoring of nutrient concentrations in the process influent and effluent improves the
controllability.
The controllability of the disinfection step due to sub optimal operation of the preceding filtration unit
cannot be evaluated.
Reliability (or operational availability)

Discontinuous media filtration plants with or without chemical treatment can effectively treat high solids
loadings and produce high outputs. In case of continuous filtration the filtration performance regarding
suspended solids removal cannot be improved by changes of backwash frequency.
Simultaneous nutrient removal can be highly effective in case of optimal dosing conditions; although,
decrease of temperature might be followed by a decrease of denitrification capacity. Occurring nitrogen
gas bubbles in the filter bed causing clogging problems can be removed with bumping cleaning.

Filtration techniques are safe for occupation if the safety precautions for the used chemicals are
considered. That counts especially for the handling of the dosed carbon source (e.g. methanol) in case of
application of biological activity.
235
Complexity
Operator training is required in order for the plant to produce a product water of consistent quality and
quantity. In general the treatment processes within the Title 22 scheme are evaluated as user-friendly for
operators. The complexity of the filter operation increases for simultaneous nutrient and suspended solids
removal.
11.1.3 Costs
The costs of treatment techniques for the Title 22 schemes depend on the manufacturer, the site, the
capacity of the plant, and the characteristics of the wastewater. Indications of energy consumption,
chemical requirements, by-product management and maintenance are given in the following. Unless
specified otherwise, costs for the disinfection step are as described in chapter 7-10.
Denitrifying continuous filter (Basic design for system election for WWTP Uithoorn,
The Netherlands), (Daamen and Piekema, 2003)
• Methanol dosing: 3 kg CH3OH/kg NO3-N + 0,65 kg CH3OH/kg O2 (2 mg O2/L effluent)
• Design: 6 filter cells (surface 5 m2 each, 3m filter bed height) and hydraulic load 13.3 m/h
• Investment costs: 76,000 Euro/year
• Operational costs (energy, methanol): 56,000 Euro/year
• Total exploitation costs: 132,000 Euro/year
• (Repayment of investment is over 15 years, interest rate 6%; Energy costs: 0,07 Euro/kWh;
Methanol: 250 Euro/t)
Denitrifying continuous filter (Operating experience at the WWTP “De Groote Lucht”,
The Netherlands), (Kramer and Wouters, 2003)
• Design: 6 filter cells with flow 600-3,600 m3/h, total filter area 240 m2, filter bed height 3.6 m
• Total operating costs (operators attendance, energy, chemicals, maintenance, sludge handling):
543,000 Euro/year
Denitrifying discontinuous filter, (Koch and Siegrist, 1997)

• Denitrification with methanol (3 kg CH3OH/kg NO3-N) in tertiary filtration based on an
elimination of 10 mg N/L (300,000 kg N/a), including investment, operation, methanol, sludge
treatment/disposal. Repayment of investment is over 12 years, interest rate 5%.
• Investment and operation (equipment, on-line measurement, repayment, personnel): 150,000

sFr*/year (~100,000 Euro/year)
• Methanol (0.50 sFr*/kg methanol, ~0.32 Euro/kg): 700,000 sFr*/year (~450,000 Euro/year)
• Sludge treatment and disposal (1,000 sFr*/t TSS): 300,000 sFr*/year (~200,000 Euro/year)
• Total annual costs: 1,150,000 sFr/*year (~750,000 Euro/year)
• Total costs per kg N: 3.80 sFr*/ kg N (~2.45 Euro/g kN)
* sFr = Currency “ Swiss francs”

236
Energy consumption
The height of the filter installation influences the energy consumption during filtration in case of
construction above groundwater level. For discontinuous filters does that mean that the height of the
overflow lies 3 m above the filtrate overflow compared to 4 m in case of continuous filter installations.
What leads to advantage of the discontinuous filter of 2.0 kW (Daamen and Piekema, 2003).
Continuous filters (Fluidized bed filters) require relative high water velocities to fluidize the media.
Energy loss due to the water flowing through a pipe or filter increases with the square of the velocity.
Thus, doubling the water velocity through the same pipe increases the energy loss by four times. A similar
energy loss is experienced when water velocity through a filter increases. Thus, a designer must balance
energy usage against other desirable features of a specific filter.
Continuous filter have an average energy consumption of 0.18 kW/m² (for use of compressed air with 1.5
Nm3/m2).
Chemical requirements
The costs for the chemicals used for conditioning the filtration are strongly variable. In the following
indications are given from selected literature.
Coagulants
Chemical precipitation of phosphorus occurs by the addition of the salts of multivalent metal, like calcium
(Ca++), Aluminum (Al+++), and Iron (Fe+++). The addition of calcium is usually introduced in the form of
lime. As the pH of the wastewater increases beyond 10, excess calcium ions will then react with the
phosphate. The quantity of lime required to precipitate the phosphorus in wastewater is typically about 1.4
to 1.5 times the total alkalinity expressed as CaCO3. Because a high pH value is required to precipitate
phosphate, the pH usually requires adjustment before the subsequent treatment or disposal.
In the case of alum and iron, 1 mole will precipitate 1 mole of phosphate. These chemical precipitation
reactions must be considered in light of the many competing reactions, their associated equilibrium
constants, the effects of alkalinity, pH, trace elements, and ligands found in wastewater. Therefore,
dosages are generally established on the basis of bench scale tests and occasionally by full-scale tests,
(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). Can et al. (2005) indicates for PAC 0.5 US$/kg and for alum 0.2 US$/kg. Judd
and Hillis (2001) estimates £70 a tonne for a 38-wt% (as FeCl3).
Table 11.6 Costs for dosage of FeCl3 (Schäfer et al., 2001)
Units Ferric chloride dosage as FeCl3
Ferric chloride mg/L 25 100

Consumption Kg/d 25 100
Cost US$/d 7.3-177.5 29.4-710.0
Cost US$/m3 0.007-0.18 0.029-0.71
237
Carbon source
The needed dosing of e.g. methanol is calculated with the following equation:
[Methanol] = 2.47 [nitrate] + 1.53 [nitrite] + 0.87 [oxygen]
Published literature indicates a commonly used ratio for methanol of: 3 kg CH3OH/kg NO3-N +
overdosing for O2.
Operating experience at the WWTP “De Groote Lucht” in the Netherlands, with denitrifying continuous
filter (consumption of 3.3 mg/mg N removed) indicates 230,000 Euro/year (2000-2002) as costs for
methanol (averagely 338 t/year NOx-N removed; 21.8 mill m3/year treated). On an annual basis methanol
costs amount to 120,000 – 300,000 Euro (Kramer and Wouters, 2003).
By-products management
For all filtration processes the backwash water has to be considered.
Regarding the used carbon source it has to be taken into account that methanol has a small sludge
production compared with other products used as carbon source (Koch and Siegrist, 1997). Operating
experience at the WWTP “De Groote Lucht” in the Netherlands, with denitrifying continuous filters
indicates 110,000 Euro/year as costs for the sludge handling (digestion) (Kramer and Wouters, 2003).
The handling and disposal of the sludge resulting from chemical precipitation is one of the greatest
difficulties associated with chemical treatment. Sludge is produced in great volume from most chemical
precipitation operations, often reaching 0.5 percent of the volume of wastewater treated when lime is
used. In Metcalf & Eddy (2003) the maximal removal of TSS without chemical is estimated up to 60
percent. With the addition of chemicals, ferrous sulfate and lime, TSS removal rates may climb up to 85
percent.
Assume that the following data apply to this situation:
• Wastewater flow rate = 1.0 Mgal/d (~ 3,783 m3/d)
• Wastewater suspended solids = 220 mg/L
• Ferrous sulfate (FeSO4 * 7 H2O) added = 70 lb/Mgal (~ 8,4 g/m3)
• Lime added = 600 lb/Mgal (~ 72 g/m3)
• Calcium carbonate solubility = 15 mg/L
A. 60 percent removal of the TSS without chemicals will produce 1,100 lb/sludge (~ 0.5 kg*) on a dry
matter basis (DMB).
B. 85 percent removal of the TSS with the chemicals will produce 3,042 lb/sludge (~ 1.4 kg*):
• 1,560 lb/d (707.6 kg/d*) of sludge from the TSS
• 27 lb/d (12.2 kg/d*) of sludge from the Ferric Hydroxide
• 1,455 lb/d (660 kg/d*) of sludge from the Calcium carbonate
• 3,042 Total lbs (1,380 kg*) of sludge on a dry basis.
C. 99 percent removal of the TSS with EC will produce:
238
• 1,817 lb/d (824.2 kg/d*) of sludge from the TSS
• 8 lb/d (3.6 kg/d*) of sludge from the aluminum chambers
• 1,825 Total lbs (827.8 kg/d*) of sludge on a dry basis (Volume, 285 cubic feet / day)
*with x [lb]*0.4536 = x [kg]
When chemical precipitation is used, anaerobic digestion for sludge stabilization may not be possible
because of the toxicity of the precipitated heavy metals. For land application of sludge, concentrations of
heavy metals often limit the sludge application rate and the useful life of the application site to which it is
applied (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
Maintenance
Table 11.7 indicates maintenance costs for discontinuous media filtration.
Table 11.7 Percentage maintenance costs for assumed construction (C)* and
electro-mechanical (EM)* costs for rapid media filtration
(Miska et al., 2003)
C EM Maintenance: percentage of C / EM
(€) (€) (€ per year)
Rapid filtration 3,600 per m2 3,400 per m2 0.5% / 2.0%
* for construction and electro-mechanical investments an additional ‘overhead’ factor of 0.7 is assumed
Operating experience at the WWTP “De Groote Lucht” in the Netherlands with denitrifying continuous
filters indicates 50,000 Euro/year as maintenance costs (Kramer and Wouters, 2003).
11.2 BASIC ASPECTS
11.2.1 Filtration
In Title 22 CCR (State of California) it is stated that filtered wastewater must be oxidized and passed
through natural undisturbed soils or a bed filter media. Filtration processes are applied in order to reduce
the suspended solids concentration in the wastewater treatment plant effluent. Coagulants and/or
flocculants are added in order to agglomerate filterable compounds of suspended solids and to precipitate
orthophosphate and/or heavy metals.
Dosing of an easy degradable substrate, a carbon source such as methanol, ethanol or others, can drive the
biological activity. Heterotrophic bacteria present in the secondary effluent will form a biofilm on the
filter grains. Under low concentrations of free oxygen (anoxic conditions) nitrate will be reduced to
nitrogen gas.
The different purposes of the process can be applied in single or in combined use (e.g. simultaneous
nutrient and suspended solids removal) regarding to the purpose of the process.
For discontinuous and activated carbon filtration the performance can be improved by optimization of the
backwashing procedure and frequency in case of change in suspended solids load in the process influent.
This is not possible for continuous filtration, because of continuous backwashing and filtration. In regard
to that it has to be considered that the different filtration processes have different performance in the
removal of suspended solids.
239
11.2.2 Disinfection
Disinfection of wastewater before discharge reduces the number of pathogenic organisms and protects the
receiving water, thereby decrease the risk of disease outbreaks. The commonly methods used in title 22
treatment are UV and chlorine disinfection.
Wastewater reclamation in California is regulated by the California Department of Health Services (DHS)
under Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (frequently referred to as Title
22). Chlorine addition has been the dominant form of disinfection in the United States and that is the
reason why Title 22 criteria do not discuss UV disinfection. But the regulations allow alternative
disinfection procedure that is demonstrated to be equivalent to Title 22 criteria. UV disinfection has been
accepted by DHS as an equivalent technology provided certain guidelines are met. In a research the use of
a low pressure-high intensity, open channel UV system, collimated beam apparatus, and a pulsed UV
system for inactivation of various microorganisms have been investigated. This results in the conclusion
that low- pressure, high- intensity open channel UV systems were effective for meeting California’s Title
22 reclamation criteria using Wedeco-Ideal Horizons TAK 55 lamp technology (Orange County Water
District, 2002).
The "UV Disinfection Guidelines for Wastewater Reclamation in California" developed of National
Water Research Institute's (NWRI) for unrestricted reuse effluents require a turbidity of < 2 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU), TC < 2.2/100 milliliters (mL) and a 4-log inactivation of poliovirus.
In a research within NWRI knowledge was gained for the different performances of disinfection with
chlorine and UV. Different secondary effluents with a range of 5-31 mg total suspended solids (TSS) per
liter were tested. Standard chlorine and UV doses were selected site depending to achieve the final
concentrations of non-detectable FC to < 200 FC/100mL and < 2.2 TC to 23 TC/100mL. With the result,
that also disinfection with UV is applicable for meeting title 22 requirements (Sakamoto, 2000; National
Water Research Institute, 1993) .
The effectiveness of a UV disinfection and chlorination system depends as well on the characteristics of
the wastewater, the intensity of disinfection dose (chlorine dose and UV radiation), the amount of time the
micro organisms are exposed to disinfection, and the reactor configuration. For any treatment plant,
disinfection success is directly related to the concentration of colloidal and particulate constituents in the
wastewater. Parameters, which might affect the chlorination performance and UV-installation, are shown
in Table 11.8 and 13.9.
Table 11.8 Wastewater characteristics affecting chlorination performance

(National Water Research Institute, 1993)
Wastewater characteristic Effects on UV Disinfection
Ammonia Forms chloramines when combined with chlorine
Nitrite Reduces effectiveness of chlorine and results in THMs
The degree of interference depends on their functional groups and
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
chemical structures
Hardness, Iron, Nitrate Minor effect, if any
Affects distribution between hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ions
pH
and among the various chloramines species
Total suspended solids (TSS) Shielding of embedded bacteria and chlorine demand
240
Table 11.9 Wastewater characteristics affecting UV disinfection performance

(National Water Research Institute, 1993)
Wastewater characteristic Effects on UV Disinfection
Ammonia Minor effect, if any
Nitrite Minor effect, if any
Nitrate Minor effect, if any
Minor effect, if any.
Biochemical oxygen
Although, if a large portion of the BOD is humic and/or un-saturated (or conjugated)
demand (BOD)
compounds, then UV transmittance may be diminished.
Affects solubility of metals that can absorb UV light.
Hardness
Can lead to the precipitation of carbonates on quartz tubes.
Humic materials, Iron High absorbency of UV radiation.
pH Affects solubility of metals and carbonates.
TSS Absorbs UV radiation and shields embedded bacteria.
UV disinfection produces in contradiction to chlorination no harmful disinfection by-products and the

disinfected effluent is non-toxic to the environment.
11.3.1 Filtration
For filter installation eventually enhanced by coagulation/flocculation and/or biological activity
(denitrification) following general process equipment has to be considered:
• Flow meter
• Pumps for control of filtration/backflush cycle
• Chemical-aid dosing equipment
• Coagulant and carbon source dosing proportional to process-influent concentration
• Backwashing automatically with head-loss control; the frequency is depending on run time or
performance decrease (filtrate turbidity increase)
Table 11.10 gives an overview about process specific equipment.
Table 11.10 Process equipment

A. Coagulation/flocculation*/
Bio-filtration
Direct-filtration filtration
(denitrifying)
B. Flotation/filtration
TSS and pressure meter, IN&OUT:
Continuous filtration Pressure meter
turbidity meter, phosphate analyser
IN&OUT:
TSS and pressure meter, IN&OUT: IN & OUT: Nitrate
Discontinuous filtration Turbidity meter
turbidity meter, phosphate analyser analyser and
turbidity meter
IN&OUT:
Activated carbon Turbidity meter -
Pressure meter
241
The California Code Regulations CCR for Title 22 (State of California) suggest for the preceding
coagulation and filtration step the following process equipment:
(a) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with the following mandatory features for
uninterrupted coagulant feed:
1. Standby feeders.
2. Adequate chemical stowage and conveyance facilities.
3. Adequate reserve chemical supply.
4. Automatic dosage control.
(b) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
• Alarm and multiple coagulation units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in
operation.
• Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.
• Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
• Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.
• Alarm and standby coagulation process.
All filtration unit process shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
• Alarm and multiple biological treatment unit capable of producing oxidized wastewater with one
unit not in operation.
• Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions and standby replacement equipment.
• Alarm and standby filtration unit process.
242
Figure 11.2 Conventional rapid sand filtration unit at WWTP Waregem

(Belgium), courtesy of Aquafin NV
11.3.2 Disinfection
For the disinfection step with chlorine Title 22 CCR (State of California) suggests following:
All disinfection unit processes where chlorine is used as the disinfectant shall be provided with the
following features for uninterrupted chlorine feed:
• Standby chlorine supply.
• Manifold systems to connect chlorine cylinders.
• Chlorine scales.
• Automatic devices for switching to full chlorine cylinders.
• Automatic residual control of chlorine dosage, automatic measuring and recording of chlorine
• residual and hydraulic performance studies may also be required.
All disinfection unit processes where chlorine is used as the disinfectant shall be provided with one of the
following reliability features:
• Alarm and standby chlorinator.
• Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions and standby replacement equipment.
243
• Alarm and multiple point chlorination, each with independent power source, separate chlorinator
and separate chlorine supply.
11.4.1 Filtration
Title 22 CCR (State of California) states that filtered wastewater must be oxidized and passed through
natural undisturbed soils or a bed filter media pursuant to the following.
At a rate that does not exceed 5 gallons per minute per square foot of surface area (~3.5 L/m2/s = 12.6
m3/m2/h) in mono, dual or mixed gravity, up-flow or pressure filtration systems, or does not exceed 2
gallons per minute per square foot of surface area (~1.4 L/m2/s = 5.0 m3/m2/h) in traveling bridge
automatic back wash filters; and
So that the turbidity of the filtered wastewater does not exceed any of the following:
1. An average of 2 nephlometric turbidity units (NTU) within a 24-hour period.
2. 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period; and
3. 10 NTU at any time.
These states can be seen as optimal operation practice in order to guarantee the required effluent quality.
More in detail, breakthrough and leakage detection is needed for an efficient filtration/backflush cycle, as
well as the control of operating water flow and depth. In case of denitrifying filtration NO3 measurement
(infrared) should be applied for operation control of the biological activity (2 in parallel per filter).
Operation can be followed also by DO analyses. NH3 can be monitored for effluent quality as indicators
for toxicity and total N removal.
11.4.2 Disinfection
Disinfected tertiary recycled water is defined as a filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that
meets the following requirements.
The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either:
• A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a chlorine residual/contact time
value of not less the 450 milligram-minutes per litter at all times with a modal contact time of at
least 90 minutes, based on peak dry weather design flow.
• A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been demonstrated to
inactivate and or remove 99.999 percent of plaque forming units of F specific bacteriophage MS2,
or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus
may be used for purposes of demonstration.
The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a
most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 mL utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days
for which analyses have been completed and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an
244
MPN of 23 per 100 mL in more than one sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN
of 240 total coliform bacteria per 100 mL (State of California).
The guidelines developed by National Water Research Institute's (NWRI) "UV Disinfection Guidelines
for Wastewater Reclamation in California” for unrestricted reuse effluents suggested operational average
UV dose of 140 mWs/cm2 to achieve the required turbidity of < 2 NTU, TC < 2.2/100 mL and a 4-log
inactivation of poliovirus, in order to achieve title 22 requirements. This is based on appropriate operation
and maintenance practice, like continuous monitoring of lamp intensity, UV transmittance and flow rate.
Design specifications include reactor chambers, lamp orientation and a minimum number of UV banks,
monitoring with alarm systems and system redundancy (National Water Research Institute, 1993).
11.5 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING : SPECIFIC

REQUIREMENTS
For filtration units memory devices can be used for storage of online measurements at the installation like
pH, temperature, process-influent/effluent turbidity, flow rate, alarm, backwash sequence and head loss.
Together with the data measured within a monitoring program, including analyses of suspended solids,
phosphate and nitrogen, at the treatment plant optimal operation for different weather conditions can be
achieved.
Title 22 CCR (State of California) gives following methods for testing, analysis and record keeping:
Disinfected tertiary recycled water shall be continuously sampled for turbidity using a continuous
turbidity meter and recorder following filtration. Compliance with the daily average operating filter
turbidity shall be determined by averaging the levels of recorded turbidity taken at four-hour intervals
over a 24-hour period. Compliance with turbidity pursuant to section 60301.320 shall be determined using
the levels of recorded turbidity taken at intervals of no more than 1.2 hours over a 24-hour period. Should
the continuous turbidity meter and recorder fail, grab sampling at a minimum frequency of 1.2 hours may
be substituted for a period of up to 24 hours. The results of the daily average turbidity determinations
shall be reported quarterly to the regulatory agency.
Furthermore, following operating records and reports requirements are set:
• Operating records shall be maintained at the reclamation plant or a central depository within the
operating agency. These shall include: all analyses specified in the reclamation criteria; records of
operational problems, plant and equipment breakdown and diversions to emergency storage or
disposal; all corrective or preventive action taken.
• Process or equipment failures triggering alarm shall be recorded and maintained as a separate file.
The recorded information shall include the time and cause of failure and corrective action taken.
• A monthly summary of operating records as specified under (1) of this section shall be filed
monthly with the regulatory agency.
• Any discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to the use area, and the cessation of
same shall be reported immediately by telephone to the regulatory agency, the State Department
of Health and the local health officer (State of California).
245
Table 11.11 Recommended Process Parameters and Alarm Conditions to Be

Monitored in a Water Reclamation Plant (Richard, 1998)*
Category Characteristic Monitored
Filter influent turbidity / Filter effluent turbidity (composite and individual filters) /
Water quality parameters
Effluent chlorine residual / Wastewater transmittance (UV systems)
Treatment process Influent flow / Effluent flow / Filter backwash rate / Filter surface wash rate / UV
characteristics intensity / UV dose
High filter influent turbidity / High filter effluent turbidity Chlorine contact tank
bypass (high filter effluent turbidity) / Low chlorine residual / Low chemical supply /
Alarm conditions
High chlorine supply / Multiple UV lamp failure / Low UV intensity / Low UV
transmittance / Pump/equipment failure / Power failure /Chemical feeder malfunction
*Limited to chemical addition-flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection unit processes in reclamation facility.
11.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

The Title 22 CCR (State of California) limit the filtration to a filter loading rate that does not exceed 5
gallons per minute per square foot of surface area (~3.5 L/m2/s = 12.6 m3/m2/h) in mono, dual or mixed
gravity, up-flow or pressure filtration systems, or 2 gallons per minute per square foot of surface area
(~1.4 L/m2/s = 5.0 m3/m2/h) in traveling bridge automatic back wash filters.
But higher filtration rates may be capable of producing reclaimed water of acceptable quality, what would
lead to the possibility of production of greater quantities of recycled water, thus increasing the amount of
recycled water available to users.
Critical aspects for increased filtration rates are:
• shorten coagulation/flocculation time resulting in decreased P-/suspended solids/microbial

removal performance
• fairly quick clogging of the media resulting in a decrease of filter run time and therefore
decreased production
• early breakthrough of suspended solids resulting in a decrease disinfection performance
Sheikh et al. (2005) evaluates a variety of filter loading rates and determines relevant performance criteria
under a range of conditions in designed a pilot and full-scale experiments. Filtration rates of 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10
and 12.5 gal/ft2-min have been tested while investigations of turbidity (set point for filter backwash is 2
NTU), particle size distribution, head-loss development, microbial removal, disinfection and filtered
effluent production took place.
Preliminarily, it appears that recycled water can be produced at some of the higher filter loading rates
equivalent to the quality of water produced at the “standard” 5 gal/ft2-min rate. Variation of particle size
distribution in the filtered effluent with filter loading rate is of particular interest because of the potential
for pathogenic parasite (oo)cysts to break through the filters. With turbidity and a wide range of particle
sizes being monitored with on-line instruments, as well as grab samples to quantify coliphage, total
coliform, and E. coli removal at each run, it may be possible to draw conclusions about water quality
equivalence at elevated loading rates.
246
The California Department of Health Services is closely monitoring the planning, conduct, and progress
of the study with a view toward possible revision of (or ad hoc waivers from) the filter loading rate
criterion, in the future (Sheikh et al., 2005).
In case of simultaneous denitrifying filtration, the increased filtration rate can lead to problems, like bio-
film loss due to filter clogging and higher backwash frequency or maybe breakthrough of carbon source
due to decreased contact time in the filter material. Therefore, research is needed to evaluate the critical
state of filter loading including optimal reachable process performance and possibilities for
troubleshooting.
11.7 FULL-SCALE REFERENCES

The Title 22 concept is the most applied treatment train for unrestricted uses worldwide. In the European
Union, however, only a limited number of installations apply the full Title 22 concept. In the EU-
Mediterranean countries, aiming at the 10 FC/100 mL limit (Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus)
the most common process is coagulation – flocculation and direct (or contact) filtration followed by
disinfection. It is worth reminding here that the Californian Title 22 allows filtration without flocculation
if the effluent turbidity before filtration is less than 5 NTU. As the effluent of a well designed and
operated activated sludge plant achieves that limit, several unrestricted reuse applications require thus
only filtration (no flocculation) and disinfection steps, whereas the coagulation – flocculation step may
serve as a back-up.
In the following section three case studies will be provided:
• WWTP Is Arenas, Sardinia
• WWTP Cyprus
• WWTP Chelas, Portugal
• WWTP Frielas, Portugal
• Impianto IDRA
• Almeria, Spain
• Hersonissos, Greece
11.7.1 Water reclamation scheme Is Arenas, Sardinia

Introduction
Sardinia, as many other Mediterranean regions, suffers from serious water deficit in all sectors (water
deficits in 2002: 35% drinking water, 97% agriculture, 30% industry). Although the natural surface and
groundwater resources are decreasing due to high water demand for agriculture, households and industry
recycling of municipal wastewater is still not very popular and accepted. Effluents from wastewater
treatment plants are discharged into rivers or the sea without any reuse. The municipal wastewater
treatment plant for Cagliari and its suburbs produces every year about 40 mill m³ of effluents and is even
predicted to rise to 60 mill m³ within the next few years (Vacca et al., 2005).
247
The potential of wastewater reuse for irrigation of the southern Sardinia (area of about 7900 ha) has been
studied and a realization has been planned. First experimental activities for the wastewater reuse have
been chemical and microbiological characterization of Is Arenas wastewater in 1995. For the reuse of the
effluent from the wastewater treatment plant the design of a tertiary treatment was necessary including a
phosphorus and bacterial content reduction (filtration, flocculation and UV disinfection) and the best
tertiary treatment had to be defined without decreasing the water quality in the Simbirizzi reservoir where
the effluent is discharged and stored before use. Since May 2002 the tertiary treatment is operated and the
wastewater can either be reused directly (mixed with water from Simbirizzi reservoir) in the agriculture or
used indirectly and stored before. The amount of the reused water is about 95,000 m³/d (Juanico et al.,
2005; Vacca et al., 2005).
Figure 11.3 Cagliari wastewater reuse scheme (Vacca et al., 2004)
Simbirizzi
reservoir
Collection
pipeline for the
Cagliari sewage plant reused water
with tertiary treatment
Cagliari line
Harbour
To ensure the absence of negative impact on the soil quality lysimetric experiments have been carried out.
The samples have been taken from different places presented in Figure 11.4.
248
Figure 11.4 Irrigation area and soils sampling points (Vacca et al., 2005)
Water quality
A monitoring period of three years has been carried out to receive in-depth knowledge of the effluent
quality and its short-term and long-term quality changes. The results show that most critical are the
concentrations of simple salts, sodium chloride mostly. Periodical high conductivity and high
concentrations of sulfate, magnesium and boron indicated the seawater intrusion into the Cagliari sewer
system. After confirmation of this hypothesis the city technical service was taking the appropriate
countermeasures (Vacca et al., 2005).
Simbirizzi pilot plant has been operated and for UV disinfection a mobile unit set up in collaboration with
the Environment Institute of the Joint Research Center of the European Commission at Ispra has been
employed to predict the bacterial and phosphorous removal efficiency and the main design parameters of
the tertiary treatment line. The mean total phosphorous concentration of the treated water was 0.3 mg/L
(70-90% removal) for flocculant addition of between 15-30 mg/L and 0.15 mg/L (90-98%) for flocculant
addition between 30-40 mg/L and after disinfection the overall bacteria content reduction amounted on
the average to 98% with average total residual chlorine of about 0.1 mg/L.
Costs
Cost analysis of wastewater reuse for irrigation resulted in price figures equivalent to those from
freshwater supply.
Operation and maintenance

The tertiary treatment plant has been operating since May 2002 after detailed experimental activities,
environmental impact studies, long-term monitoring of the effluent quality and pilot tests.
The tertiary treatment consists of flocculation (with FeCl3), filtration and UV disinfection.
249
Figure 11.5 Is Arenas Tertiary treatment plant scheme (Vacca et al., 2005)
Disinfection
B B
UV-C
Sedimentation
ClO2
A
Flocculation Sand filtration
Pump
Sludge treatment
Direct reuse
B A
Irrigation
Simbirizzi reservoir
Public acceptance
In many regions the acceptance of municipal wastewater reuse is still a major issue. For this reason not
only water quality monitoring and risk assessment are necessary for the success of reuse projects but also
a study of the attitude of the public towards the water.
In Cagliari public perception has been studied in cooperation with the Politic Science Department of
University of Cagliari. Questionnaires have been prepared and distributed among the public and pointed
out some issues of concern in the use of treated wastewater, regarding mainly impacts on the
environment, produce quality and water savings (Figure 11.6).
Figure 11.6 Results of questionnaires on water reuse (Vacca et al., 2005)
100 Do you think that the use of recycled

90 Do you consider it an advantage to water will have a negative impact on
reuse recovered water? 90
80 the sale of your products?
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
very a little no don't know no yes don't know
11.7.2 Water reclamation scheme in Limassol, Cyprus

Introduction
In the second largest urban area of Cyprus, Limassol, a wastewater reuse plant is in operation since 1995
(Figure 11.7). About 75,000 inhabitants are connected to the 300 km long sewerage network and served
250
by the treatment plant. End of 2003 27 million m³ sewage have been treated and the tertiary treated
effluent is delivered to the Water Development Department (WDD) which distributes and sales the water
for many purposes such as for groundwater recharge and irrigation of golf courses, hotel gardens and
olives, deciduous trees and some vegetables. The total flow of the treated effluent is about 3.5 mil.
m³/year (Papaiacovou, 2001). The tertiary treatment plant has a daily capacity up to 22,000 m³ with total
organic load BOD5 of 4,567 kg (Christou, 2006).
Figure 11.7 Sewage treatment plant of Limassol (Christou, 2006)
Water quality
The secondary treatment has been designed to produce effluent of the following quality: BOD5 < 20 mg/L
and TSS < 20 mg/L. After tertiary process BOD5 values below 10 mg/L and TSS 10 mg/L are achieved.
Quality requirements by the European Union are achieved (Papaiacovou, 2001; Christou, 2006).
Costs
The costs for tertiary treated wastewater are much lower than for desalination. The costs for secondary
treatment are not taken into account for comparison purposes because secondary treatment is considered
as unavoidable fro environmental and other hygienic reasons.
Table 11.12 Total tertiary operation cost for the period 1995-2000
(Papaiacovou, 2001)
Year Cost [cent/m³] Annual flow [m³]
1995 40.0 500,000
1996 10.5 2,452,000
1997 8.7 2,984,000
1998 8.3 3,024,000
1999 8.5 3,139,000
2000 8.7 3,146,000

The primary treatment includes a pre-treatment unit to remove larger sized particles and to degrade the
organic load of the sewage. Additionally, screen, sand and grease collectors before the biological
251
treatment ensure a good degradation in the secondary treatment process which consists of a conventional
activated sludge treatment. The tertiary treatment: includes sand filtration and disinfection step performed
using chlorine gas (Figure 11.8).
Figure 11.8 Limassol re-use scheme

Cl-
Settling Settling Disinfection
tank tank
Pre-treatment Sand filtration

Activated sludge
treatment
Sludge
Sludge
thickener Reservoir
In the sand filtration the wastewater pass through layers of sand and gravel to trap in the sand small
particles that still exist in the water. The organic load, the suspended solids and the total nitrogen of the
effluent have values below 10 mg/L. Following gas chlorine is put through the contact tank and the
pipelines of WDD and the treated water is pumped to the reservoirs and transferred later to the end-users
(Christou, 2006).
Sludge from primary and secondary settling tanks and aeration tank is accumulated, removed and
thickened. Form the sludge thickener the sludge is pumped to the anaerobic digester. There the reduction
of organic load is achieved in 35°C and 15 day-retention-time. The generated methane is used for digester
heating. After removing the water from the sludge in filter belt presses the end product is used as fertilizer
in the agriculture (Christou, 2006).
The operation and maintenance of the system is performed by employees of the Board (15 laborers, 5
technicians) as well as sub-contractors.
11.7.3 Water reclamation scheme Chelas, Portugal

Introduction
In this case study a discontinuous filter installation (down-flow gravity) is fed with secondary WWTP-
effluent followed by UV-disinfection.
This reuse system is designed for 52,500 m3/d recycled water capacity. The filtration step includes 4 filter
installations. Approx. 30% of the recycled water is reused for unrestricted irrigation and approx. 70% for
mixed types of industrial applications. For the UV-disinfection an IDI/Degrémont system (low pressure,
Hg vapor vertical lamps) is used.
252
Water quality
No permitting requirements are existing in Portugal, but national legislation and environmental
considerations give requirements about unrestricted water reuse (landscape irrigation and mixed types of
industrial), summarized in Table 11.13.
Table 11.13 Maximum allowable concentrations considered for reuse (landscape

irrigation and mixed types of industrial applications)
Parameter Max. concentration
BOD5 * < 25 mg/L
SS * < 35 mg/L
COD * < 125 mg/L
E.coli * < 200 MPN/100mL
Ntot* < 15 mg/L
Ptot* < 10 mg/L
Fats, oil and grease < 15 mg/L
Cdtot <0.2 mg/L
Pbtot < 1 mg/L
Cutot < 1 mg/L
* Indicative for plant performance or failure
The following Table 11.14 shows the frequency of the monitored parameter at the reuse installation by
laboratorial control.
The regular monitoring of the plant performance includes the parameter flow, energy and water quality
(biological and chemical). Continuous (laboratorial) monitoring occurs for PO4-P, NH4-N, NO3-N and
turbidity.
Table 11.14 Frequency for monitoring parameter

Location in the plant Parameter Frequency
Overall monitoring Energy Daily
Flow -“-
Before filtration unit pH, SS, TS, SSV, SSF, DS, COD, BOD5 2 days/week
After filtration unit E. coli -“-
Before UV unit E. coli -“-
After UV unit E. coli -“-
pH, SS, TS, SSV, SSF, DS, COD, BOD5 3 days/week
Total phosphorus 1 day/month
PO4-P, NH4-N, NO3-N, Nk-N 2 days/month
Turbidity continuous
Costs
Primary energy use is 0.11 kWh/m3.

20 people are employed in the operation of the scheme. During operation following problems were
encountered:
253
• UV-module overheating; consequently installation of cooling systems in all modules
• Ballast failures
• Flooding of UV system caused by extreme rainfall
Only equipment failure alarm is installed at this reuse plant.
11.7.4 Water reclamation scheme Fielas, Portugal

Introduction
The water reclamation scheme Fielas consists of a continuous filter installation (up-flow gravity) fed with
secondary effluent, followed by UV-disinfection.
This reuse system is designed for 70,000 m3/d recycled water capacity with purpose of 50% unrestricted
landscape irrigation and industrial application. For the filtration system the OTV Biostyr biofilter is used.
A TROJAN UV 3000 (low pressure, horizontal) is placed for the UV-disinfection.
Water quality
For the maximum allowable concentrations it is referred to the requirements in the previous case study
described in chapter 1.6.2. Additionally following requirements have to be considered:
• pH 6-9;
• Cdtot < 0.2 mg/L;
• Cutot < 1 mg/L;
• Pbtot < 0.05 mg/L;
• Crtot < 2.0 mg/L.
The regular monitoring of the plant performance includes the parameter flow, energy biological and
chemical parameters:
• BOD5, COD, SS, pH for 2 days/week
• Ntot, Ptot, Fats/oil & grease for 1 day/week
The other parameter mentioned in the section Water quality are surely monitored frequently.
Costs
The primary energy use is 11.50 kWh/m3.

Also at this plant 20 people are employed in the operation of the scheme. Encountered problems during
operation were:
• Failures in valves and compressor of biofilter; consequently replacement
• Failure in fuses and ballast in UV system
No alarms are installed.
254
11.7.5 Water reclamation scheme IMPIANTO IDRA

Introduction
The reclamation of the secondary effluent occurs by sandfiltration, activated carbon filtration and finally
UV-disinfection.
This reuse system is designed for 15,000 m3/d recycled water capacity with purpose of industrial reuse
(1.3 % cooling tower applications, 98.7 % Manufacture). The management of the plant belongs to a
consortium of the users.
Water quality
In particular, the following values are considered expression of proper plant functioning:
• Pressure in the network > 4 bar
• Water level in the tank > 50%
• COD < 50 mg/L
• Colour < 0.015 abs/cm
• Turbidity < 1 NTU
• Total Coliforms < 10 CFU/100 mL
Several parameters are measured at the reclamation plant, some also in continuous:
• Flow measurements, water level in the tanks, pressure in the network, total energy consumption;
• pH, red-ox potential, conductivity;
• color, turbidity;
• Alkalinity (total), hardness;
• COD;
• Nitrogen (as ammonia, nitrite and nitrate);
• Total chlorine and free chlorine;
• Surfactants and Chloride solvents;
• Heavy metals;
• Total coliforms and E. Coli;
• Total bacteria at 22 ºC and 36 ºC;
• Fecal Streptococcus and Salmonella.
Costs
The primary energy use is 0.47 kWh/m3. Further 0.44 kWh/m3 are required for the distribution through a
network of about 15 Km with 45 m head loss.
255

Control strategy is complete and remote automation on each single step. Alarms are installed on each
component. In order to obtain high system reliability, all the monitoring devices are regularly cleaned,
checked and calibrated.
The electrical network is inspected on a 2 year basis, and failures have never been recorded.
The filtration system is flocculation + flash mixing + down-flow gravity filter. The flocculation dose is
10-30 mg/L of Polyamines.
Filters control combines head-loss control with timer and effluent quality control. Filter back flush water
is discharged to the city WWTP. Clogging problems have never occurred.
Disinfection is applied at continuous high dosage (not specified) as a consequence of high loads (not
specified) in the influent. Chlorine is not dosed in a liquid form (not specified).
The final effluent composition is continuously monitored and in case of malfunctioning the distribution
pumps are stopped and water is discharged to tanks for a total volume = 8,000 m3
During 14 years of operation no failures or malfunctions have been recorded. There is no risk
management plan.
For the operation and maintenance 3 men are employed full time.
11.7.6 Almeria, Spain (van Nieuwenhuijzen, 2001)

The region produces intensively vegetables and fruit (tomatoes, citrus) but brackish water cannot be used
for irrigation. In 1997 it has been suggested to re-use the effluent of Almeria wastewater treatment plant
(» 210,000 P.E., 54,000 m3/day) for irrigation purposes. The BOD5 in the effluent is around 35 ppm
(abatement 90%) and TSS around 30 ppm (abatement 92%). The abatement for nitrogen is 50%. Large
variations of COD (20 to 120 mg/L) are observed. TSS correlates well with turbidity. A series of steps has
been set up: after the final clarifier, the effluent is stored (capacity 10,000 m3), filtered (battery of 28 sand-
filters for high speed filtration (30 m/h)) to remove helminth eggs and treated by ozone in two tanks to
remove viruses. The water is finally stored (140 000 m3) in covered reservoirs to limit algae and odour
production. The colour at the outlet is at the limit of the quality needed. The only goal of the sandfilters is
the elimination of helminth eggs. Their efficiency for Clostridium spores removal is low but low counts of
spores are found at the inlet. For ozonation 28.6 mg O3/L was the highest tested value and with an average
of 15 mg O3/L, a removal rate of 4 – 5 Log is obtained. If chlorine (with high dosing) is used instead of
ozone, the removal rate drops to 2 – 3 Log.
11.7.7 Water reclamation scheme Hersonissos, Greece

Introduction
Hersonissos is a well-known Mediterranean resort located on the eastern part of the island of Crete. The
Hersonissos WTP has been managed and operated since July 2001 by the Hersonissos Municipal
Enterprise for Water Supply and Sewerage (Figure 11.9). The population served by the WTP shows a
high seasonal variation due to tourism, ranging from 10,000 in winter to 60,000 in summer. The WTP has
been designed to treat both municipal wastewater from the Hersonissos Municipality and septage from the
wider area. The WTP-effluent passes a sandfiltration unit followed by a chlorination step. The final
256
effluent is reused mainly for agricultural irrigation; secondary uses include fire protection and landscape
irrigation.
Figure 11.9 Hersonissos WTP operational flowchart (Borboudaki et al., 2005)
After receiving tertiary treatment in the Hersonissos WTP, effluent is used for the irrigation of agricultural
land and landscapes and for fire protection. The whole system is divided into two irrigation zones: a low
zone (0–80 m above sea level) and high zone (70–100 m above sea level). The reuse infrastructure
comprises the following units (Borboudaki et al., 2005):
• A storage tank (Vtank = 300 m3) at the plant exit.
• A pumping station with three pumps, two of which pump treated effluent to the high-zone
irrigation tank (HZIT) (pump capacity: 167 m3/h) and one to the low-zone irrigation tank (LZIT)
(pump capacity = 152 m3/h). The pumping station can be upgraded in the future, with up to eight
pumps (four at the HZIT and four at the LZIT.
• An irrigation discharge pipe, with an overall length of 3.2 km.
• A central electromagnetic flow meter installed at the irrigation discharge pipe, and an electro-
valve for selecting the irrigation zone (high or low) to be supplied with the reclaimed water.
• A LZIT (Vtank = 800 m3, 100 m above sea level), with the possibility to build an additional tank of
total volume 1600 m3.
• A HZIT (Vtank = 200 m3, 140 m above sea level), with the possibility to build an additional tank of
total volume 500 m3.
• A low-zone irrigation pipe network.
• A high-zone irrigation pipe network with a total length of 2050 m irrigating an area of 200 ha.
• Forty-five irrigation collectors.
• Thirty-two fire hydrants.
257
Water quality
The composition of sewerage wastewater is within the typical range reported for municipal wastewaters in
Greece (Tsagarakis et al., 2001). The significant amounts of septic wastewater that are discharged in the
WTP (800–1000 m3/day during summer), however, dramatically change the qualitative characteristics of
the WTP influent. It is estimated that septic wastewater accounts for up to 22% of the total flow rate, 46%
of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 64% of the suspended solids (SS), 45% of the total nitrogen
(TN), and 54% of the total phosphorus (TP) loads (Table 11.15). The pH values of WTP influent were not
affected by septic wastewater (Table 11.16). There is no need, therefore, to adjust the pH by adding
chemical agents. As shown in Table 11.16, the average removal of BOD5, TN, and TSS reached 95.86%,
87.65%, and 97.23%, respectively. The sand filtration unit, which is in operation only during the summer
period (April–October), resulted in a further 56% removal of SS on average. Although the TP removal in
WTP reached 73.1%, the effluent phosphorus concentration still remained at enhanced levels. This can be
attributed to the high portion of septage wastewater in influent and to an increased use of detergents in the
tourist resorts.
Effluent nitrogen is mainly present in the form of nitrates (NO3) in relatively low levels as a result of
nitrification–denitrification processes and does not appear to pose a significant risk for groundwater
pollution (denitrification is achieved by the sequence of anoxic and anaerobic conditions).
Table 11.15 Quality characteristics of influent wastewater (Tsagarakis et al.,

2001)
Parametera Unit Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.
BOD5 mg/L 80 440 215 87
BOD5 b mg/L 120 2120 634 283
CODc mg/L 218 729 430 149
CODb mg/L 420 20,235 3,196 3,849
SS mg/L 140 540 204 92
SSb mg/L 260 1880 747 386
TN mg/L 14.00 62.00 33.62 12.15
TNb mg/L 58.00 125.00 86.40 15.51
TP mg/L 23.30 58.80 30.94 8.17
TPb mg/L 17.50 98.00 50.86 25.01
pH — 6.70 7.30 6.99 0.16
pHb — 6.20 8.00 7.41 0.44
Samples for the analysis were taken twice per week.
abc Septic.
chemical oxygen demand.
With regard to electrical conductivity (EC), treated effluent is water with potential problems (Ayers and
Westcot, 1985). Likewise, increased concentrations of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) were assessed in
treated effluent (Table 11.16). Thus, appropriate management practices should be adopted to eliminate
adverse effects of salinity on plant growth and production. Such management practices include leaching
of accumulated salts (Ayers and Westcot, 1985), drip or subsurface irrigation (Oron et al., 2002), and
limiting effluent application to salt-tolerant species or genotypes (Paranychianakis and Chartzoulakis,
2005).
258
Table 11.16 Qualitative characteristics of secondary treated and filtered (SF)

effluent
Parametera Unit Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.
BOD5 mg/L 2.00 24.00 11.33 5.12
COD mg/L 25.00 92.00 53.84 18.54
SS mg/L 0.25 47.00 7.66 7.97
TN mg/L 0.90 26.00 6.03 6.14
TP mg/L 0.01 18.30 6.06 5.44
pH — 6.80 7.90 7.32 0.27
N-NO3 mg/L 0.00 24.90 5.49 6.38
N-NH4 mg/L 0.00 3.00 0.52 0.77
TC CFU/100 ml 0.00 8600.00 1702.56 2607.88
FC CFU/100 ml 0.00 2100.00 446.75 654.60
K mg/L 16.00 58.00 27.51 7.86
EC dS/m 2.34 2.84 2.59 0.13
Cl mg/L 526.00 633.00 576.13 31.46
Na mg/L 237.00 306.00 277.27 19.27
SF_pH — 7.00 7.60 7.38 0.16
SF_SS mg/L 0.25 10.75 4.46 2.83
a
Samples for the analysis were taken twice per week, except microbiological parameters, which
were taken once a month.
The levels of trace elements (Table 11.17) do not imply any risk for agricultural production, because their
concentration is below the threshold concentrations suggested by Ayers and Westcot (1985). Apparently,
more analyses on trace elements should be performed to ensure the safe use of the produced effluents in
agriculture. Average numbers of fecal coliforms (FC’s) in the effluent exceeded the limits suggested by
the US EPA (US EPA, 1998) and those proposed for unrestricted irrigation in Greece (Tsagarakis et al.,
2004). This fact, in conjunction with the great variation in the number of FC’s, stresses the need for more
careful management and reconsideration of disinfection processes to eliminate potential health risks
associated with irrigation of green areas with treated effluent. These deviations can be attributed to
overloading from septic wastewaters discharged in the WTP during summer months. On the other hand,
the microbiological characteristics of the produced effluent do not appear to represent a significant risk for
public health when used for irrigation of trees (US EPA, 1998; WHO, 1989).
Table 11.17 Trace elements of treated wastewater

Date of sampling
Constituent 3/12/2003 8/28/2003
Cu [mg/L] 0.14 0.0225
Ni [mg/L] 0.12 0.01
Zn [mg/L] 0.37 1
Total Cr (Cr45,
0.0036 < 0.002
Cr46) [mg/L]
Cd [mg/L] 0.0048 0.0039
Pb [mg/L] 0.0064 0.0068
Bo [mg/L] 0.42 0.3
259
Costs
The steps for the calculation of life costs are described in detail by Mara (1996), Tsagarakis and
Georgantzis (2003) and Tsagarakis et al. (2003). Taxes and other transfer costs are subtracted from the
historical costs. Then these costs are referenced with respect to a base year. Capital costs are annualized
and are summed with the annual operation and management (O&M) costs to give the total annual
economic cost (TAEC). Thus, all prices must be reported to reflect early 2004 values. This analysis
provides an economic value for each cubic meter cleaned, taking into consideration all of the stages of
wastewater management. These are the costs for collection, secondary treatment, and reuse. Additional
treatment, if required, will also have to be considered and, in the case of Hersonissos, filtration is
examined separately, as it is used to provide effluent suitable for irrigation purposes.
Table 11.18 Summary of the annual O&M costs

Cost
Cost category
(EUR)
Personnel 276,739
Energy 135,610
Chemicals 45,173
Chemical analyses (subcontracting) 3,010
Transportation companies 1,328
Lubrication, gasoline, vehicle services 10,792
Electrical equipment 2,948
Hydraulic equipment and pipes 11,207
Machinery and tools 7,868
Subcontracting of other works 25,726
Other 10,956
Total 531,357
Table 11.19 Calculation of the total annual economic costs for the individual
stages of wastewater management
Flow
Cost category PV (1)€ r (2) t (year) CRF (3) AEC (4) TAEC (5) TAEC/m3 (5)
m3 /year
Sewerage network 727,100
Civil works 687,179 0.02 40 0.03656 25,121 87,195 0.12
Electromechanical
431,861 0.02 15 0.07783 33,609
works
O&M 28,465
WTP 727,100
Civil works 2,579,782 0.02 40 0.03656 94,305 778,576 1.07
Electromechanical
1,925,101 0.02 15 0.07783 149,822
works
Cost of land 84,548 0.02 40 0.03656 3,091
O&M 531,357
Filtration 580,721
Civil works 80,543 0.02 40 0.03656 2,945 29,191 0.05
Electromechanical
115,867 0.02 15 0.07783 9,017
works
260
Flow
Cost category PV (1)€ r (2) t (year) CRF (3) AEC (4) TAEC (5) TAEC/m3 (5)
m3 /year
O&M 17,229
Irrigation infrastructure 580,721
Civil works 686,174 0.02 40 0.03656 25,083 44,454 0.08
Electromechanical
97,862 0.02 15 0.07783 7,616
works
O&M 11,754
Total Cost 1.32
(1)
PV: present value’s
(2)
r: The rate used as the opportunity cost of capital (OCC) is the one that subtracts expected inflation rates from the long-term
borrowing rates (r = R – f ).
(3)
CRF: capital recovery factor
(4)
AEC: annual economic costs
(5)
TAEC: total annual economic costs
11.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayers R.S. and D. W. Westcot (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29, Rev. 1. FAO, Rome.
Borboudaki K.E., Paranychianakis N.V. and K.P. Tsagarakis (2005) Intergrated wastewater management reporting at tourist areas
for recycling purposes, including the case study of Hersonissos, Greece. Environmental Management 36 (4): 610-623.
Can O.T., Kobya M., Demirbas, E. and M. Bayramoglu (2005) Treatment of the textile wastewater by combined
electrocoagulation. Chemosphere, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 5 July 2005.
Christou A. (2006) Sewerage Board of Limassol Amathus, Cyprus.
Daamen B. and P. Piekema (2003) Inventarisatie en systemkeuze post-denitrificatie-systemen voor rwzi Uithoorn. Vertrouwelijk,
October 2003 (in Dutch).
Juanico M. and M. Salgot (2005) Water reuse in the Northern Mediterranean. Workshop: The Integration of reclaimed water in
water resource management, Lloret de Mar, Spain; October 2005.
Judd S.J. and P. Hillis (2001) Optimisation of combined coagulation and microfiltration for water treatment. Water Research 35
(12): 2895-2904.
Koch S. and H. Siegrist (1997) Denitrification with methanol in tertiary filtration at wastewater treatment plant Zürich-
Werdhölzli. Wat. Sci. Tech. 36 (1): 165-172.
Kramer J.P. and J.W. Wouters (2003) Moving bed biofiltration for dynamic denitrification: Four years of operating experience.
Mara D. (1996) Low cost urban sanitation. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Metcalf&Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. McGraw-Hill.
National Water Research Institute's (NWRI) (1993) UV Disinfection Guidelines for Wastewater Reclamation in California.
Oron G., DeMalach Y., Gillerman L., David I. and S. Lurie (2002) Effect of water salinity and irrigation technology on yield and
quality of pears. Biosystems Engineering 81:237–247.
Paranychianakis N.V. and K.S. Chartzoulakis (2005) Irrigation of Mediterranean crops with saline water: From plant physiology
to management practices. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 106:171–187.
Region of Crete (2002) Integrated management of water resources of Crete. Available from:
http://www.creteregion.gr/greek/fysikoi%20poroi/disa/INTRO.html (accessed November 17, 2004) (in Greek).
Orange County Water District (2002) Task 2.5 B: Disinfection Alternatives in Municipal Wastewater Reclamation. Project
Development Group, California.
261
Miska V., A. Ravazzini and J. de Koning (2003) Report on Milestone M7.1, Review report on wastewater treatment unit
operations, October 2003.
Richard D. (1998) The cost of wastewater reclamation and reuse. In: Wastewater reclamation and reuse. T. Asano (eds)
Technomic publishing Water quality management library Vol. 10.
Sakamoto G. (2000) Finite and non-renewable, UV disinfection of reclaimed wastewater: The North American experience.
Environmental Protection 11 (10).
Schäfer A.I., A.G. Fane and T.D. Waite (2001) Cost factors and chemical pretreatment effects in the membrane filtration of
waters containing natural organic matter. Water Research 35 (6): 1509-1517.
State of California (2003) Treatment technology report for recycled water, Department of Health Services, Division of drinking
water.
State of California (2000) Title 22 California Code Regulations CCR, Appendix Q Summary Title 22.
Sheikh B. (2005) Filter loading evaluation for water reuse. Water Reuse Association, California Section, Conference papers 2005.
Available from: http://www.watereuse.org/ca/2005conf/papers.htm.
Tsagarakis K.P., Mara D.D. and A.N. Angelakis (2001) Wastewater treatment in Greece: Experience and lessons for developing
countries. Water Science & Technology 44 (6):163–172.
Tsagarakis K.P., G. E. Dialynas and A.N. Angelakis (2004) Water resources management in Crete (Greece) and proposed quality
criteria for use of recycled water in the Mediterranean region. Agricultural Water Management 66 (1):35–47.
Tsagarakis K.P. and N. Georgantzis (2003) The role of information on farmers - willingness to use recycled water for irrigation.
Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 3(4):105–113.
Tsagarakis K.P., Mara D.D. and A.N. Angelakis (2003) Application of cost criteria for selection of municipal wastewater
treatment systems. Water Air & Soil Pollution 142(1–4):187–210.
Vacca S. (2005) Reclamation and agricultural reuse of wastewater: the experience of Cagliari sewage treatment plant. Torino,
Italy; December 2005.
Vacca S., Botti P., Coppola A. and B. Meloni. Reclamation and agricultural reuse of wastewater: the experience of Cagliari
Sewage Treatment Plant.
van Nieuwenhuijzen A.F. (2001) Standards for reuse options of wastewater. Report on the 1st Small Group Meeting 8 - 9 March
2001, Delft – The Netherlands COST 624 "Optimal Management of Wastewater Systems" Small Group "Reuse concepts and
strategies".
Water Environment Federation (1996) Wastewater sampling for process and quality control, Manual of practice No. OM-1.
WHO (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. WHO Technical Report Series 778;
WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
US EPA (1998) Water recycling and reuse: The environmental benefits. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Available from http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/.
US EPA (1992) Guidelines for water reuse. US Agency for International Development, Technical Report No. EPA/625/R-92/004.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Aquarec questionnaires:
Bronze Figueiredo, M.I., Facility SIMTEJO, ETAR de Beirolas in Lisboa, Portugal.
Albuquerque Álvaro, P.M.F., Facility SIMTEJO, ETAR Frielas in Lisboa, Portugal.
Santos Martins, J.A. dos, Facility SIMTEJO, ETAR de Chelas in Lisboa, Portugal.
Facility IDRA (Prato, Italy).
Papaiacovou I. (2001) Case study - wastewater reuse in Limassol as an alternative water source. Desalination 138 (2001): 55-59.
262
AQUAREC – EVK1–CT–2002-0013 Water Reuse System Management Manual
12 HIGH-QUALITY BENCHMARK: DOUBLE

MEMBRANE SYSTEM
12.1 DESCRIPTION
Membrane processes can be used to reclaim water to very high quality, suitable for many applications. In
particular reverse osmosis (RO) has been used for desalination of reclaimed municipal wastewater since
the 70’s. The development of the process has been a long time challenge due to the very high fouling
potential of the treated streams. Initially, so-called conventional pre-treatments were based on
flocculation, lime clarification, recarbonation, settling and slow gravity filtration. Alternatively, for
smaller systems, in-line coagulation and 2 stages pressure filtration followed by cartridge filtration were
used. Nowadays such pre-treatments have been replaced by MF and UF, which provide a better effluent
quality and smaller operational efforts, with smaller footprint.
In a typical scheme, secondary or tertiary effluent from municipal wastewater treatment plants is fed to a
MF/UF system prior to filtration on RO membranes and UV disinfection. The role of MF/UF system is to
remove particulates and large colloids, in order to reduce fouling on the RO system. MF and UF provide
also bacterial and viruses removal and constitutes a physical barrier to protozoan cysts and similar. During
the RO step, colloidal and/or dissolved compounds are removed, down to the size of bivalent and
(partially) single-charged ions. Disinfection is applied before distribution and reuse.
The reuse application can be of very high level, such as groundwater recharge, direct/indirect potable
reuse, process water for microelectronics and boiler feed.
The combination of MF/UF with RO is the most applied scheme for the production of high quality water.
However, other possibilities exist and are applied at full scale. In Windhoek (Namibia) water for potable
purposes is produced from secondary effluent by conventional technologies followed by UF. At Baranco
Seco (Isla de Gran Canaria, Spain) water for agricultural purposes is produced from secondary effluent
using UF and electrodialysis reversal (EDR) (Broens et al., 2004).
A specific aspect of membrane systems is that they are comprehensively recognised as “multiple barriers”
systems. Redundant independent barriers for critical (microbiological) parameters are provided by
separate processes, and when integrated with intermediate monitoring and surveillance programme, they
can minimise the risk associated to particular contaminants. A multiple barriers system is not limited to
the reclamation process facilities but includes selection, protection and monitoring of feed water sources
and management and monitoring of product water before the reuse application. In Figure 12.1, the
multiple barrier approach as realised at NEWater factory (Singapore) is illustrated.
263
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1–CT–2002-0013
Figure 12.1 Multiple-barrier approach for microbial and chemical contaminant

removal (http://www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater_files/newater_tech/index.html)

Water quality depends on the applied membrane process. In Table 12.1 the effluent quality of some full
scale installations are compared.
Table 12.1 Examples of achieved water quality in full-scale (double) membrane

systems compared to US-EPA National Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Standards and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines
US-EPA GWRS Goreangab

/WHO NeWater Orange Target and Sulaibiya# Wulpen ##
Standards County ** (Absolute)***
REFERENCE [1] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Physical
Turbidity (NTU) 5/5 <5 0.1 0.1 (0.2)
Colour (Hazen units
15 / 15 <5 8 (10)
or mg/L Pt)
Conductivity
-/- <200 51.1 45
(μS/cm)
pH Value 6.5-8.5 / - 7.0 - 8.5 7.2 6-9 6.2 – 7.3
>1000
Total Dissolved
500 / 1000 <100 15 or 200 above 100 34
Solids (mg/L)
raw water
Total Alkalinity
-/- <20
(CaCO3) (mg/L)
Total Hardness Not
<20 <1 (0 -8) <1
(CaCO3) (mg/L) available
Chemical (mg/L)
BOD <1
264
US-EPA GWRS Goreangab

/WHO NeWater Orange Target and Sulaibiya# Wulpen ##
Standards County ** (Absolute)***
Total Organic
-/- <0.5 0.25 3 (5) <0.2
Carbon
N-NH4+ - / 1.5 <1.0 1.4 (0.10) <1 0.15
Nitrate (NO3) -/- <15 0.31 Not removed <1 2.4
Phosphates <0.01
Chloride (Cl) 250 / 250 <20 5.4 Not removed 2.6
Fluoride (F) 4 / 1.5 <0.5 0.13 <0.02
Silica (SiO2) -/- <3 0.2
Sulphate (SO4) 250 / 250 <5 Not removed <1
Residual Chlorine
-/5 <2
(Cl Total)
Total 0.08 / - <0.08 0.0002 0.02 (0.04) 0.002
Trihalomethanes
Metals (mg/L) (0.15)

0.05-0.2 /
Aluminium <0.1 <0.01
0.2
Barium (Ba) 2 / 0.7 <0.1
Boron (B) - / 0.9 <0.5 0.28
Calcium (Ca) -/- <20 <2
Copper (Cu) 1.3 / 2 <0.05 <0.002
Iron (Fe) 0.3 / 0.3 <0.04 0.05 (0.1) <0.005
Manganese (Mn) 0.05 / 0.5 <0.05 0.01 (0.025) <0.0005
Sodium (Na) - / 200 <20 6.1 11.2
Strontium (Sr) -/- <0.1
Zinc (Zn) 5/3 <0.1 <0.002
Bacteriological
Total Coliform
Not Not Not
Bacteria (0) 0
detectable detectable detectable
(Counts/100 mL)
Not Not (> 0 / 10 L or 4
Enterovirus
detectable detectable log removal)
> 0 per 100 L or
Giardia 6 (5) log
removal
> 0 per 100 L or
Cryptosporidium 6 (5) log
removal
E) Other
Chlorophyll a (1)
Pesticides <0.01
Gagne D. (2004) ; [5] Van Houtte E., direct contact.
* = in “Singapore Water Reclamation Study”, (2002) the complete result list from the Sampling and Monitoring Programme
realised during the demonstration studies is available, including microbiological parameters. Some inorganic and organic
compounds showed detectable concentrations in the product water, but always within the regulatory ranges.
265
** = Data from System phase 1. In Daugherty et al (2005) results from several other parameters are reported, including EPA
priority pollutants and various chemicals not included in regulation, VOC, non-volatile SOC, disinfection by-products, EDC and
Pharmaceuticals. They all resulted below detection limit.
*** = Absolute values within brackets ( ). A wider list of Microbiological Indicators is reported in (NORIT Membrane
Technology, 2003).
#
= Kuwait.
##
= Belgium; average RO filtrate adjusted for pH (Dec 2004-Nov2005)
12.1.2 Operability
Flexibility
Pilot studies are critical to understand the variability and nature of the feed water and properly design the
membrane system. When appropriate design is made, difficult or variable feed waters can be treated. With
regard to increase in water flow or unexpected low performances, membrane systems have modular
structure and can be easily upgraded when sufficient space is allocated during design. For short-term
events, as during storm events, it is possible to temporarily operate above design-flux, in order to cope
with peak-flows (e.g. storm weather flow = 150% of dry weather flow). However, it must be remarked
that for each membrane system there exist a critical flux and operating beyond this value will have a rapid
negative impact on the system. The average productivity relies on the efficiency of backwash and
periodical chemical cleaning. Decreases in water flow are not problematic and eventually some modules
can be put off-line.
UV systems are also modular and lamp intensity is adjustable.
Resilience
Variation in the quality of the fed secondary effluent mainly reflects on the operation of the MF/UF
system, and less on the RO step. Turbidity is often used as indicator of the quality of the secondary
effluent with respect to the MF/UF process. While the quality of the effluent of conventional RO-
pretreatments oscillates with influent turbidity, MF/UF deliver consistent filtrate quality with respect to
turbidity, conductivity and Silt Density Index (SDI) (Lazarova et al., 2003; Singapore Water Reclamation
Study, 2002; Wilf and Alt, 2005). When higher fouling occurs on the MF/UF system because of bad
influent quality, the productivity can be maintained constant at the cost of more frequent chemical
cleaning. However, even if this case is not documented in literature, in principle higher conductivity in
the feed cannot be hindered by MF/UF and could affect RO rejection of solutes, causing plant production
to decrease.
Controllability
The typical operational parameters of a membrane systems are transmembrane pressure (TMP), flux,
crossflow velocity, aeration rate, back-flush cycle, recirculation flow and concentration rate. All of them
can be easily manipulated for short term variations, eventually at the cost of higher cleaning necessity.
In the UV system water flow and lamp intensity can be regulated for temporary higher requirements.
Dealing effectively with chemical dosages may be more difficult, especially when depending upon feed
water quality. For instance, during the validation trial at NEWater (Singapore), oscillations in ammonia
concentration in the feed secondary effluent (0.3-12 mg/L) resulted in difficult chlorine level control,
because of the formation of chloramines. This increased the rate of biological fouling in the MF system.
266
Stable operations were guaranteed by an increase in the chemical cleaning frequency, which was in any
case lower than the 10 days design requirement (Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002).
Safety and reliability

Given the modular structure, membrane systems are usually reliable in operation due to system
redundancy. During the procedures for chemical cleaning, some units are taken off-line regularly;
therefore if an occasional equipment failure occurs to one of the production “trains”, this does not affect
relevantly the system capacity.
The UV system, which is placed after the RO, requires only low turbidity to operate properly. Therefore,
it is hardly affected by punctual leakage or similar in the membrane systems Using chlorination as back-
up process, a reliable disinfection can be guaranteed.
Despite the high reliability of the system, it must be noted that sensitive reuse applications may tolerate
very little uncertainty due to technical problems along the water reclamation train. In the case of direct
potable reuse in Windhoek , the plant delivered excellent quality water during its first year, before being
temporarily shut down due to a failure in the Oxygen generator system during February 2005 (Du Pisani,
2005).
At WF 21, during the period 1985-1996, the facility has been on-line for average 302 days per year,
ranging from minimum 212 to maximum 350 days per year (Leslie et al., 1998).
Complexity
A high degree of expertise is required to handle membrane systems properly. Manual operations are really
limited with respect to traditional plants, as membrane and UV systems are almost completely automated.
The exception is represented by some cleaning procedures and membranes integrity tests. However, it has
been reported that being “unusual” and “enclosed” equipment, operators may find difficulties to fully
understand the process outside their usual tasks. Therefore, good training is required.
The safety for operators is high. The usual precautions must be taken in dealing with chemicals storage
and disinfection systems (Chlorine, UV, ozone).
12.1.3 Costs
A first remark is necessary with respect to calculated costs. Usually, the cost of wastewater reuse excludes
the cost of wastewater collection, and often only the marginal cost of the additional treatment on the
secondary effluent of a biological-based plant is considered. The distribution of capital and O&M costs
varies strongly from different projects, depending both on the treatment train and on local constraints such
as land costs, labour costs, retrofitting and others.
In general, MF/UF systems have smaller footprint and lower chemical consumption than conventional
RO-pre-treatments (Wilf and Alt, 2000). They also produce better effluent quality, resulting in cost
reduction also on the RO system. Durham et al. (2001) report for Water Factory 21 O&M costs about
0.26 US$/m3 with conventional pre-treatments and 0.15 US$/m3 with MF pre-treatments. In Lazarova et
al. (2003) it is reported that marginal life cost of water reclamation with RO membranes can range
between 0.23-0.75 US$/m3 with conventional pre-treatment and 0.22-0.42 US$/m3 with MF. Among
267
different membrane systems, submerged systems have lower footprint (up to 50%) and lower energy
consumption (Durham et al., 2001; Andreozzi et al., 2003).
In the following, some examples about costs in full scale installations are reported. When available,
details are given in Table 12.2. Costs are calculated for the reclamation process from secondary effluent to
final product water.
• Honolulu: boiler feed water from secondary effluent with crossflow MF + RO at 1.32 US$/m3
(Durham et al., 2001)
• GWRS Orange County: groundwater recharge from secondary effluent with submerged MF + RO
at estimated 0.28 US$/m3 for O&M and 0.25 US$/m3 for capital costs (calculated from
Deshmukh (2004) and GWRS (2005) assuming 20 years of life-duration);
• Goreangab: direct potable reuse from secondary effluent with coagulation/filtration, ozonation
and UF; total operation and capital cost of the water reclamation scheme are given as 0.76
US$/m³, of which 0.46 US$/m3 are operational (Du Pisani, 2005);
• Baranco Seco: irrigation water from secondary effluent with UF + EDR; estimated O&M cost
0.191 euro/m3 (Broens et al., 2005);
• West Basin: CMF + RO are used for groundwater recharge, boiler water, cooling water; the MF
system has capital cost of 0.13 US$/m3 and O&M costs of 0.093 US$/m3 (Durham et al., 2001).
Table 12.2 O&M Costs Summary for full-scale plants with membrane processes
for water reclamation and reuse
West Basin
Baranco Seco GWRS Orange
(MF only )
Cost Description County
[Durham et al.,
[Broens et al , 2004] [Deshmukh, 2004]
2001]
US$/m3 €/m3 US$/m3
Replacement and supplies 0.02 0.07 0.044
Chemicals +(consumable) in MF/UF 0.013 + (0.022)
Chemicals +(consumable) in EDR 0.017 + (0.021)
Chemicals 0.03 0.056
Sludge handling 0.003
Power 0.02 0.077* 0.12
Manpower 0.02 0.030 0.037
Compliance Monitoring 0.015
Others 0.004 0.004
TOTAL O&M 0.093 0.191 0.276
* = Power consumption is 1.1 kWh/m3; power costs here are estimated assuming 0.07 €/ kWh
12.2 BASIC ASPECTS
12.2.1 Removal capability and Reuse during membrane

filtration
Water and wastewater treatment membranes are typically classified in order of decreasing pore size as
microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO). As a general rule,
268
MF is suitable for the removal of suspended solids, including larger micro-organisms like protozoa and
bacteria. UF is required for the removal of viruses and organic macromolecules down to a size of around
20 nm. Smaller organics and multivalent ions may be removed by NF while RO is even suitable for the
removal of all dissolved species (Wintgens et al., 2005). A scheme is given in Figure 12.2.
Figure 12.2 Membranes classification with pore size, in comparison to the size of
removed components
Porous membranes: MF and UF

It has been previously said that MF and UF are used to remove particulate and large colloids.
Conductivity and dissolved oxygen content remain unaffected by both MF and UF treatment. The
decolouration due to UF is more noticeable than that due to MF. Elimination of detergent and phenol
concentrations of 40% has been achieved by micro and ultra-filtration. Fe, Zn, Al, Cr, Cu and Mn can also
be significantly eliminated by filtration, not only by direct precipitation as hydroxides or phosphates, but
also through association of metals to suspended matter and macromolecules (Wintgens et al., 2005).
UF can be coupled with powdered activated carbon (PAC) to treat water contaminated by dissolved
organic matter and micro-pollutants. PAC is added to the recirculation loop of the membrane systems.
Contaminants (including disinfection by-product precursors) are adsorbed onto the activated carbon
particles which are separated from water by either UF or MF (Wintgens et al.., 2005; Zhou et al., 2002;
Laîné et al., 2000).
With respect to pathogens removal, it is remarked that MF and UF are effective in eliminating many
wastewater contaminants associated with suspended matter. Elimination of viruses and nematodes
accompanies to some extent the removal of suspended matter, and indeed it has been demonstrated that
viruses (28 nm) can be effectively retained by a (0.2 μm nominal pore size) MF membrane. Virus
retention is enhanced at lower (trans-membrane) pressures, in the presence of shear and in the presence of
biomass/turbidity. The latter both provides extra surface area for adsorptive removal and forms a
secondary filter-cake layer on the membrane (Wintgens et al., 2005).
It has also been reported that microbial pollution is totally eliminated by MF and UF, explicable due to
bacterial sizes being higher than membrane pore sizes. However, as typically designed and operated in the
field of wastewater treatment, UF cannot be considered a complete barrier to bacteria. Positive coliforms
269
results were obtained when membrane systems were operating (see for example Gomez et al.,2005). The
passage of bacteria across membranes may be attributable to the following: imperfections in the
membrane surface, degradation of the membrane by bacterial enzymes or other materials, inferior packing
of membrane modules or elements. Another possible reason for the detection of bacteria in membrane
filtrate is the introduction of bacteria from exterior sources such as contamination of the permeate tank.
Also, because nutrients are not eliminated from the water, re-emergence is best avoided through a
disinfection process (Bourgeous et al., 2001).
In conclusion, bacterial and viruses removal within 3 to 6 log by MF and UF membranes are well
documented (EPA, 2001). Protozoan cyst as Giardia and Cryptosporidium are mechanically sieved, often
to below detection limit (EPA, 2001; Dewettinck et al., 2001; Du Pisani, 2005; NORIT Membrane
Technology, 2003). However, results rely on membranes integrity.
With respect to reuse applications of UF/MF filtrate, the quality of the feed to MF/UF has a high
influence on the final effluent quality. Permeated water might be suitable for unrestricted irrigation
purposes, as it is rich in nutrients (N and P are practically insensitive to filtration), poor in micropollutants
and micro-organics content, and exhibits favourable inorganic ratios (Bourgeous et al., 2001; Poele et al.,
2004). The application of UF to treat filtered secondary and secondary effluents may (as appropriate) be
considered equivalent to an oxidized, coagulated, clarified, and filtered wastewater as per the Title 22
California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (Bourgeous et al., 2001).
Dense Membranes: NF and RO

Dense membrane processes (NF/RO) are capable of separating ions (and dissolved solids) from water.
Separation relies to some extent on physical-chemical interactions between the permeating components
and the membrane material. The effective operation of NF and RO systems is dependent upon avoiding
conditions leading to fouling, scaling, or chemical interactions, hence affording extensive pre-treatment.
In wastewater treatment and reclamation, RO systems are typically used as polishing processes of treated
water. The impact on bulk parameters is significant: the removal of total organic carbon (TOC) is 65-80%
and 85-99% with NF and RO respectively. RO systems have been demonstrated to be effective in
removing other various contaminants of concern, including base neutral compounds, dissolved metals and
pathogens (Gauwbergen van and Baeyen, 1999; Levine et al., 2001; Levine et al., 1999; Snyder et al.;
2005). In regards to endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), hormones and other organic
micropollutants, knowledge is still limited. For both NF and RO rejection has been found to depend both
on size exclusion and solute-membrane interactions, leading to variable results with time, fouling and
membrane conditions (Nghiem et al., 2004; Snyder, 2005). Nevertheless, RO filtration is considered a
superior technology for the removal of trace organics, as in most cases micropollutants concentrations in
the RO permeate of wastewater reclamation schemes are below detection limits (Snyder et al., 2005).
Although viruses are unlikely to pass through an RO membrane, leakage is possible (via glue strips or
permeate seals) in spiral-wound elements. Thus, there is an incentive for virus removal at the pre-
treatment (Te Poele et al., 2004).
RO membranes is the prevalent choice for water reclamation to the highest standards such us boiler-feed
water, groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse. The typical double membrane system MF/UF +
RO + AOP (advanced oxidation processes) have proved to be capable of reclaiming secondary effluent to
drinking-water standard, as shown in Table 12.1 and in the following case studies (paragraph 12.7).
270
12.2.2 Systems Design

MF/UF can be designed in cross-flow or dead –end configuration. During wastewater reclamation cross-
flow filtration is predominant for the high fouling attitude of the feed waters. However, there exist some
examples of dead-end UF as quaternary treatment, after clarification with pre-filters or DAF, often in
combination with coagulants.
In cross-flow configuration, the feed water is pumped with a flow tangential to the membrane. This can be
either using tubular inside-out, or flat sheet, or outside-in hollow fibre membranes. Water that does not
permeate through the membrane is recirculated as concentrate and blended with additional feed water. A
bleed stream may be employed to control the concentration of solids in the recirculation loop and
concentrate waste is discharged from the recirculation loop at various times. When the concentrate is
recirculated under pressure (to the pre-filter that precedes the membrane feed), the energy requirements is
lower than when recirculated to an open reservoir. Cross flow microfiltration is realised also in so- called
“submerged” systems, where bundles of hollow fibres are placed in a tank. The wastewater circulates
around the fibres because of movement created by the introduction of air bubbles from the bottom. The
feed water recirculation loop is avoided, but the tank must be regularly emptied for cleaning operations.
In dead-end configuration, no cross-flow is present. Pre-filtered water is applied directly onto the
membrane, until permeation is interrupted for cleaning. In the dead-end mode, there is a considerable
energy savings since there is no recirculation of the concentrate and a capital savings because no
recirculation pumps or associated piping are necessary.
RO systems are typically made with spiral wound membranes staged in a so-called Christmas tree
configuration. 2-3 stages are connected in series and the total number of module per stage (connected in
parallel) decreases with increasing feed water concentration. In facts, while the feed water volume reduces
because of permeation through the membrane, the filtrating membrane surface is reduced. This allows a
high average feed water solution velocity through the modules.
12.2.3 Materials
The application of membrane systems for wastewater reclamation followed a long history of research and
upgrades to improve technical and economical issues (this story can be followed in the case study about
Water Factory 21). Currently, the prevalent technology makes use of MF/UF capillary (hollow fibre)
membranes coupled with low-fouling (RO) thin composite (polyamide) membranes. Capillary membranes
are preferred because of capital cost, energy efficiency, fouling resistance and the possibility to restore
flux by a combination of flushing and chemical cleaning.
The available MF membranes have typical pore sizes from 0.08 to 0.35 micron. UF membranes designed
for use as pre-treatment to RO have nominal molecular weight cut-offs of 100 to 750 kDa , approximately
corresponding to 0.01 to 0.05 microns nominal pore size (Van Houtte et al., 2004).
MF/UF membranes can be developed from inorganic ceramic material or from polymers. The polymeric
membrane materials include PVDF, polypropylene, polysulfone, polyethylene, cellulosic and other
proprietary formulations. The membrane material typically has a wide pH tolerance range to
accommodate for low and high pH cleaning chemicals. The polysulfone, PVDF, cellulosic, ceramic and
some of the proprietary materials have a free chlorine tolerance that allows for periodic or continuous
271
sanitization. Maximum operating temperatures for the polymeric membranes is in the area of 40 ºC where
the ceramic is much higher.
Capillary membranes material can be polypropylene, sulfonated polyether sulfone or cellulose acetate
polymer. Design configuration can be inside-out or outside-in, with internal bore ranging from 0.3 to 1.5
mm. The most relevant property that characterises the success of such membranes is the short duration
frequent automatic backflushing, which enables fouling control at very low feed crossflow velocity or
even in dead-end mode (Atkinson, 2004). Tubular cross-flow membranes can also be backwashed but the
energy expenditure for recirculation purposes is much higher.
RO membranes are generally spiral wound configurations, where two flat membrane sheets are folded on
each other and separated by spacers. The typical standard module is a cylindrical pressure vessel 8*40
inches. The membranes sheets can be Cellulose Acetate blend (CA) or Thin Film Composite (TFC). In the
latter case, a thin active layer is cast on a more robust layer with supporting function. The thin active layer
can be polyamide, polysulfone or other polymer. With respect to traditional polyamide composite, TFD in
respect to traditional polyamide composite TFC membranes present higher salt rejection at lower
operating pressure, but they are more sensitive to fouling and less resistant to chlorine. Low fouling
composite membrane are characterised by hydrophilic surface and less negative surface charges, which
results in reduced rate of adsorption of organic matter, thus in less fouling (Lens et al., 2002). Because of
the mechanical properties and the assembly method, backflush cannot be applied to RO membranes. Only
recently attempts were done to design new modules that could support this function (Sagiv and Semiat,
2004; Wilf et al., 2001).
12.3 PROCESS EQUIPMENTS

Typically, a membrane plant for water reclamation from secondary effluent includes the following sub-
categories:
• Feed water intake and pressure pumps;
• Pre-treatments to MF/UF, which usually includes pre-screening and chlorine dosing for cross-
flow systems, and coagulation followed by multimedia filtration or DAF for dead-end systems;
• MF/UF membrane filtration units;
• Pre-treatments to RO, which usually includes disinfection (with chloramines, to limit biofouling),
pH adjustment (for scaling prevention and protection of cellulose acetate membranes) and dosage
of antiscalant. Also cartridge filters can be present;
• RO membrane units;
• Decarbonation (CO2 stripper) and pH adjustment;
• Disinfection of product-water (usually with UV or chlorine disinfection);
• Chemical cleaning station, backwash station (which can use chlorinated product water), chlorine
station, conditioner/anti-scalant station;
• Line for discharge or treatment of backwash water; and
• Concentrate treatment and disposal.
272
Pre-treatments to MF/UF
Starting from secondary effluent, pre-treatment requirements to a MF/UF system are typically coarse
filtration and chlorine addition. Strainers usually rate from 100 to 300 μm, but in some cases 1 mm sieves
are used (see paragraph 12.7.2, case study “Wulpen”). The use of a coagulant aid, like a ferrous or alum
salt, is usually considered in the application of dead-end UF, eventually also to enhance Phosphorous
removal (Broens et al., 2004; Qin et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2000). In case of dead-end UF, also
conventional (multimedia) filtration can be considered and combined with coagulation. Powdered
activated carbon (PAC) can be used for the adsorption of organics when UF is the last treatment step
before reuse.
Chlorine dosage is usually within the limit of 6 mg/L, in order to guarantee residual active chlorine of 3-5
mg/L despite oxidation of organics compounds and side reactions (Singapore Water Reclamation study,
2002; Chalmers et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 2000). Obviously, lower dosages are required for cleaner
feed waters.
Coagulants dosages are reported in the range of 2-4 mg/L of Alum (Drewes et al., 2003; Van Houtte and
Verbauwhede, 2004; Poele et al., 2004; Drewes et al., 2003).
MF/UF
As previously said, the feed has a very high fouling attitude (peak turbidity values can be above 10 NTU)
and membranes are usually operated in cross-flow mode, as dead-end systems require extensive pre-
treatment. During operation, control of flux decline due to membrane fouling is the major concern.
Fouling depends upon wastewater characteristics (contents of particles, fouling compounds, nutrients
favourable to bacterial growth, scaling agents) as well as operational parameters (applied transmembrane
pressure, flux, flow regime etc.). Therefore optimal operating conditions can extend membranes life and
increase performances. Operational problems can be summarised as bacterial growth, deposition of
material on the membrane, adsorption of organics, scale and precipitation. The phenomena can also be
related. For instance some bacteria oxidise ferrous to ferric ions, which forms precipitates; organic
foulants give “autonomous” fouling (i.e. adsorption and pore blocking) and at the same time may promote
biological fouling.
There are basically three ways for maintaining or re-establishing permeate flux after the membranes are
fouled:
• Feedwater pre-treatment;
• Membrane flushing and backwashing (eventually with chemicals or air addition) and
• Chemical cleaning.
The variables that should be considered during membrane cleaning include: frequency and duration of
backflush and cleaning, chemicals and their concentrations, cleaning and rinse volumes, temperature of
application of cleaning solutions, recovery and reuse of cleaning chemicals, neutralization and disposal of
cleaning chemicals.
273
Typical operating fluxes are in the range 25-40 L/(m2h) for secondary effluent and can increase to 75-100
L/(m2h) for tertiary effluent (Bourgeous et al., 2001; Broens et al., 2004; Bates, 1999; Sadr Ghayeni, et
al., 1998; Van Houtte et al., 1998; Chalmers et al., 2000). The actual flux depends on the fouling attitude
of the feed water and the membrane system in use (pore size, material, configuration etc.). In some cases
fluxes can be shortly increased (typically up to 50%) to cope with flow peaks.
Typical operational transmembrane pressure (TMP) ranges from 0.2 to 1-2 bar (NORIT Membrane
Technology, 2003; Palmer et al., 2002; Bates, 1999). TMP requirements will be higher for membranes
with smaller pore sizes, and increase with higher flux rate, low water temperature, and most significantly
when fouling occurs.
MF and UF systems usually operate at 90 to 95% recovery. In some cases, feed water recovery can be
improved up to 98% by collecting the water used for periodic flushing and allowing the solids to settle out
(Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002; Deshmukh, 2004; US Filter/Memcor, 2003). The concentrate
is usually recycled at the head of the wastewater treatment facility, thus the MF/UF system treats and
produces 100% of the influent flow.
A major reason for the emergence of MF/UF technology has been the improvements in the control of
fouling during service operation by the use of short-duration periodic backwashing. Backwash is usually
accomplished with MF/UF permeate and sometimes it is combined with coarse bubble aeration.
Frequency is every 15 to 60 minutes (typically 20-25 minutes) and the duration is between 30 to 60
seconds. The backwash flux rate can be up to 185 gfd (300 L/(m2h)) at pressures up to 35 psi (2.5 bar)
(Broens et al., 2005; Bates, 1999; Thompson et al., 2000). A disinfectant (chlorine or hydrogen peroxide)
can be introduced in the backwash water (eventually every 1 to 4 hours) to control biological fouling and
organic fouling (Chemically Enhanced Backflush, CEB). It must be noticed that during the backwash
procedure some systems require to drain the tank/vessel where the membranes are placed, reducing the
operative membrane surface.
With capillary membranes, the off-line time for pulse-cleaning is short and power consumption is
reduced. In actual field operation a single module can produce 30-150 m3/day at a power consumption of
0.1-0.2 kWh/m3 (Bates, 1999; Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 1998)
Chemical cleaning at an expected frequency from one week to two months (usually few weeks) may be
required to restore the flux and feed pressure. The procedure is often referred to as Cleaning In Place
(CIP), as membranes are not removed from their skids. It is one of the most labour-consuming
maintenance procedures, and requires the presence of an operator. The membranes are taken off-line and
soaked in cleaning solutions, typically a sequence of acid and alkaline cleaning, in order to remove scaled
and organic compounds respectively. The chemical bath can last few hours and make use of warm
cleaning solutions (30-35°C). Typical chemicals are citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, sodium
hydroxide or sodium hypochlorite, or other proprietary cleaning products (usually containing also
surfactants and chelants).
With time the performances of MF/UF membranes decrease as the membrane deteriorates with use and
chemical cleanings. A current practice is to replace them when the produced water presents a SDI> 3
(Dale, 2004). Expected life-time is about 4-5 years.
A final remark has to be done with regard to the temperature, which directly affects the performances a
MF/UF plant. The membrane flux rates achieved at a given pressure in facts varied considerably in
274
relation to the temperature of the feedwater: a 35% decrease in flux can be observed for water
approaching 0°C as compared to water at 20 °C.
Pre-treatment to RO
Generally speaking, both MF/UF and conventional clarification + multimedia filtration are referred to as
pre-treatment for RO. However, here we intend the treatments in between the MF/UF and the RO stages.
Typically, the MF/UF filtrate quality is significantly better and more consistent than conventionally
pretreated water, in terms of turbidity and SDI. Typical turbidity values are 0.04 to 0.1 NTU and do not
increase with increase in feed water turbidity. Typical SDI values are 0.3 to 2.5 (SDI <3 is recommended
for stable RO operation).
This MF/UF filtrate is usually stored in a break-tank, from where it is pumped to the RO system.
Eventually, additional cartridge filtration is present before the RO membranes, and several chemicals can
be dosed:
• acid and anti-scalant to minimise chemical precipitation on the RO membrane surface; dosing of
sulphuric acid has also been reported deemed necessary for pH adjustment, in order to minimize
hydrolysis of cellulose acetate RO membranes (Santosusso et al., 1998).
• strong oxidants to control bacterial growth, which is done dosing chlorine or specific biocides.
However, strong oxidative products may also affect membrane life duration (Liu et al., 2000).
RO
In the application of RO, it must be realised that the first item affecting operation and maintenance costs
and efforts is represented by the efficiency of the pre-treatments (intended as MF/UF). Proper pre-
treatments can result in savings up to 60% of the power cost of the RO portion (Lazarova et al., 2003).
The second item is represented by the membrane choice, which should be appropriate for the feed water.
Unfortunately, generalisations are hardly possible and pilot testing is recommended during prelimary
studies. Generally speaking, cellulose acetate (CA) membranes have lower fouling tendency than thin-
film composite (TFC) membranes and can withstand higher chlorine dosage. Unfortunately, they operate
at higher feed pressures (24 bar for CA versus 6-13 bar for TFC). During municipal wastewater
reclamation, reducing the fouling potential of the feed water to the RO system enabled the use of TFC
polyamide/polysulfone membranes (see paragraph 12.7.1). Further research indicated that the use of low
fouling membranes is important to obtain long-term stabilized flux and feed pressure requirement
Differently from MF/UF systems, RO systems are produced in a standardised configuration. Spiral wound
membranes are housed in horizontally placed cylindrical pressure vessels (e.g. 8*40 inches), and
replacement with different (improved) membranes is often possible.
The main operational problem is, once again, represented by membrane fouling. Common fouling
mechanisms are scaling, organic fouling and biofouling. Feed water pre-treatment and dosage of
chemicals may reduce the fouling rate, but proper operating conditions are also fundamental.: fouling
increases when the imposed flux and concentration factor increase.
Typical design fluxes are 8 to 12 gfd (14-20 L/(m2h)) and concentration factor is between 75% and 82%,
varying with the number of membrane module in series (2 or 3).
275
Calcium phosphate precipitation is frequently the limiting factor for water recovery during desalination of
municipal effluent (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). During RO concentrations close to saturation are reached also
for carbonates and sulphates. Organic fouling is reduced when the feed water presents low SDI.
When a RO membrane is fouled, it is taken off-line and undergoes a CIP procedure. Chemicals and
procedure are similar to the ones for MF/UF membranes, applying acid cleaning to remove scalants,
alkaline cleaning (+surfactants) for organics and oxidants/biocides for biofouling. Application of citric
acid, and sodium hydroxide is reported in literature (USFilter/Memcor, 2003).
When a system is properly run and the quality of the feed water is good, chemical cleaning of the RO
membranes can be expected to occur every 2 to 6 months with PA membranes (Dale, 2004; Wilf and Alt,
2000; Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002; Thompson and Powell, 2003), decreasing with the
aging of the MF/UF membranes. Using CA membranes at WF21, cleaning intervals varied from 2 weeks
(with conventional pre-treatment ) to about 2 months (with MF) (Wilf and Alt, 2000). However, at
Eraring Power Station, CA membranes have not been cleaned for 12 months (Durham et al., 2001)
Waste Production and disposal

A major concern in membrane treatment is the disposal of the produced waste streams. The concentrate
quality and quantity, the characteristics of the receiving water and the regulatory environment determine
the feasibility of the surface discharge.
Low-pressure membrane (MF/UF) residual is typically made of the backflush/rinsing water. The
backflush water contains coagulants, powdered activated carbon (PAC), oxidized metals, chlorine acid
and caustic. Since MF and UF membrane constitutes a barrier for bacteria, Giardia and Cryptosporidium
cysts, these pathogens can also be found in the backflush water. The waste-stream is usually clarified in a
settling tank/pond and the surnatant is recirculated to the head of the WWTP.
Desalination waste is made of concentrate and backflush water, and is characterised by few-added
chemicals (acid for pH control and anti-scalant). Acids are made of anions already present in the raw
water (sulphate and chloride), while anti-scalant are usually non-toxic at the concentration in use. The
most common methods of concentration and disposal are: discharge in the sewer to a downstream
WWTP, discharge in surface water, discharge in the sea, land application, deep well injection and
evaporation ponds (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991; Lynch et al., 2005).
Failure and failure management

Both in literature and by plant operations is difficult to collect information about failure and failure
management. Generally speaking, operators have indicated the following as issues of major concern while
running a plant:
• Mechanics: valves (open and close continuously), sealing and o-rings
• Cartridge filters
• Quality : bacterial regrowth in reservoirs and sampling points, effect of bad sealing and O-rings
• Noise : Air (blowers, compressors), pumps and valves
• Automation: Should be easy to adapt
276
• Concentrate disposal: regulations, taxes, environment
In literature, the following remarks have been frequently encountered:
Membrane technologies, offer a potential alternative to disinfection by providing a barrier to pathogens;

however the potential for leakage and membrane failures must be taken into account. Membranes should
be regarded as providing a reduction but not complete exclusion of pathogens
For membrane treatment processes, the design specifications for flux should be prudent, ensuring stability
but with the potential to exceed the specified values.
During RO, treating water with high value of hardness at high recovery (greater than 75%) will result in
greater scaling problems; this requires higher dosing rate of scale inhibitor plus acid for pH correction.
12.5 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING: SPECIFIC

REQUIREMENTS
One of the most critical aspects of employing membrane technology is ensuring membranes integrity over
the life of the module, in order to maintain the initial efficiency. Leakage of the reject streams may indeed
contaminates the permeate through breaks or inadequate sealing.
For MF/UF hollow fibre systems, the most common integrity test is a pressure-holding (or vacuum-
holding) test that can be used at first to quickly detect leaking modules. The test takes few minutes and,
according to the system in use, can be executed on-line or off-line. The volume of lost air (pressure) in
time can be related to the “open” area of membranes and is translated into bacterial log-removal. The
sensitivity of the test is about 5 log, operatively reduced to 4 log for background noise. Sensitivity can be
increased with Diffusive Air Flow tests, when the volume of air actually crossing the membrane is
measured (but the membrane must be off-line). An additional diagnostic tool to help recognising damaged
modules is the so-called “Sonic Analysis” that amplifies the noise produced by air-bubble formation on
the damaged fibre. When a damaged module is spotted, it is taken off-line and the single broken fibre is
identified with a pressure hold test. Pin reparation is executed on-site in about 30 min, basically consisting
in sealing of the damage fibre.
Fibre damage occurs rarely. At West Basin Recycling Plants in Los Angeles, 2 out of 450 modules have
been repaired during 2 years of operation, and at Eraring Power Station no module was replaced within 5
years (Durham et al., 2001).
RO membranes performances are evaluated in terms of flux and salt rejection. Decrease in salt rejection
may indicate membrane aging. However, the most common tools for monitoring proper RO operation are
turbidity measurement, conductivity measurement and particle counting. As turbidity is always very low,
and particle counters are expensive, conductivity is the often the favourite choice. Monitoring is on-line
and continuous. Conductivity sensors can be installed at any stage of a multi-stage RO array (Singapore
Water Reclamation Study, 2002).
Turbidity is also often used to monitor MF/UF systems, but it must be noticed that the filtrate flowing
from one entire module (or more) might not be relevantly affected by a single pinpoint leakage, and
therefore it is not an accurate method. Particle counting is instead used to determine the actual maximum
pore size of a membrane.
277
The parameters required for the operational control of a typical double membrane system are reported in
Table 12.3. Other usual measurements are flow (in- and out-side membrane stacks) and everything that is
necessary to comply with the legislation.
Table 12.3 Monitoring control parameters for a typical double membrane

system
MF/UF
MF/UF filtrate RO feed water RO filtrate UV feed
feed water
Routinely
Routinely
Routinely
Routinely
Routinely
On-line
On-line
On-line
On-line
On-line
Turbidity x x x x X
TSS x
COD x x
NH4+ x x x
Chloramines
Residual Cl- x x x
Conductivity
pH x x x x
TDS x x
TOC x x
Total
x x
Alkalinity
Total
x x
Hardness
Silica x x
Sulphates x x
Phosphates x x
12.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Double membrane system technology can be considered well established, as it can be seen from the size
of recently installed reclamation plants that make use of it (see paragraph 12.7). However, three main
points are still open and requires further investigation, namely: membrane fouling, the fate of
micropollutants (endocrinal disrupting compounds, other organics of potential concern) and concentrate
treatment.
Fouling is the main limiting factor in membrane applications with respect to produced flux, thus limiting
the economy of the process. Developments in membrane materials and operation control currently enable
stable operation, but pilot testing is still fundamental to overcome the gaps of theoretical knowledge and
modelling. Apart from biofouling, little is known about the way that different fouling mechanisms
interacts and overlap to give the overall result observed in practice. Effective parameters to quantitatively
measure water “filterability” and avoid long full-scale demonstration tests are still under development and
validation. Among others:
278
MFI (Modified Fouling Index): introduced by Schippers et al. (1980), is largely applied in drinking water
treatment. Despite being measured with a MF membrane, the MFI is a critical issue for NF and RO: MFI
< 1 is usually recommended with respect to fouling accumulation on the spacers.
SDI (Silt Density Index): commonly applied; from practice it is known that a value of SDI below 3
corresponds to optimal filterability with respect to RO.
SUR (Specific Ultrafiltration Resistance): introduced by Roorda and Van der Graaf (2001), to predict the
filterability of a given secondary effluent with respect to UF. According to Roorda (2004), SUR values
below 10*1012 m-2 in the feed water would indicate the possibility to obtain stable UF operations.
However, the unresolved problem is to quantitatively relate the filterability indicated by short term
experiments (<30 minutes) to long term results, which depends on issues as fouling reversibility,
adsorption of contaminants on the membrane and variations in the feed water characteristics with time.
Micropollutants are an emerging issue involving all the wastewater treatment works. Concern is really
high, as human health is directly involved and the effect of many compounds is still unknown. Especially
as new contaminants emerge, the performances of membrane systems needs to be validated. Reverse
osmosis is one of the most effective treatment for the removal of micropollutants, others being the so-
called Advance Oxidation Processes (AOP) and Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC). A recent updated
extensive study on the role of membranes (MBR, UF, NF, EDR and RO) and activated carbon in the
removal of Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals is presented in Snyder (2005). The main conclusions
are that UF is not effective for the removal of most compounds except some steroidal hormones, whereas
RO is a superior technology with respect to organic contaminants. Nevertheless, even in the RO permeate
some compounds can still be detected at trace levels (ng/L). Further investigation involving different
membrane materials and operating conditions must be conducted. Especially because the mechanisms at
the basis of the removal and the operational limits still need to be better understood for many classes of
compounds (for NF membranes, see Nghiem et al., 2004).
Combining RO and UV, a typical double membrane system for water reclamation appears to be one of the
most robust possible schemes with respect to micropollutants removal. It has been demonstrated indeed
that micropollutants can be removed below detection limit (see Table 12.1, Singapore Water Reclamation
Study, 2002 and Snyder, 2005). However, it is noticeable that UV systems designed for disinfection
purposes are ineffective with respect to micropolllutant removal (Snyder, 2005), therefore to this purpose
the system relies only on the RO. The concentration of hazardous pollutants into the rejects streams of
membrane systems also constitutes an hazard, as pointed out in Nghiem and Schafer (2006).
The management of concentrate and washing waters is mostly accomplished trough “liquid disposal”
options, which means that rejected liquids are discharged to receiving “bodies”: the sewer, a confined soil,
some surface water, the sea. In the future, discharge to the sea and to surface water bodies will be more
strictly regulated, and options for the reduction of the discharged volumes must be considered
(crystallization and landfill, incineration, or Zero Liquid Discharge, as realised at Eraring Power Station
(Durham et al., 2001)).
279
12.7 FULL-SCALE REFERENCE
12.7.1 Groundwater Replenishment System in

Orange County, California
Nota: In this paragraph U.S. customary units commonly found in literature are converted into S.I. units according to the
following (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003): 1 mgd = 3.78*103 m3/d; 1 gfd = 1.70 L/(m2h); 1 psi = 0.069 bar. Figures are slightly rounded.
General
The Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System is a joint program of the Orange County Water District
(OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The GWR System takes secondary treated
wastewater from the OCSD and treats it to drinking water standards. This allows the water to be injected
into a seawater intrusion barrier or a groundwater recharge basin. In this case, the retention time in the
groundwater basin, which supplies the 75% of the water used by nearly 2,000,000 residents, is about 2
years (Chalmers et al., 2000; Daugherty et al., 2005; Deshmukh, 2004; Guendert, 2004).
The first facility for reclamation of secondary effluent has been in operation for almost 30 years and is
worldwide famous as Water Factory 21. The original treatment scheme included conventional pre-
treatment (flash mixing and flocculation at pH 11.4 using slaked lime, clarification, recarbonation and
granular media filtration) prior to parallel treatment with granular activated carbon and RO. 19,000 m3/d
of reclaimed wastewater were produced and after blending with other sources, 57,000 m3/d of water were
injected to prevent seawater intrusion.
In 1992, pilot testing began to evaluate MF/UF system as pre-treatment for a RO. The technology
demonstrated exceptional effectiveness in comparison to conventional pre-treatments, and global
performances improved further when thin film composite RO membranes replaced the old CA
membranes (Wilf and Alt, 2000; Bates, 1999; Wilf and Alt, 2000; Daugherty et al., 2005). When it was
clear that the system capacity had to be expanded, a double membrane system was selected for the new
facility.
The new facility is called Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) Facility and has been commissioned in
2004. The AWT is designed to produce 325,000 m3/d of MF filtrate, among which 265,000 m3/d will be
further reclaimed with RO. The system may even be expanded in the future to 491,000 m3/d of product.
The start up is expected for May 2007, while the GWR System Phase 1 is currently ongoing. It consists of
a 23,000 m3/d facility, that uses MF followed by polyamide RO membranes and UV to maintain the
seawater intrusion barrier until the complete new system is ready (Guendert, 2004).
The AWT will consist of three major treatment processes: MF, RO, and an advanced oxidation process
(AOP), which combines UV light and hydrogen peroxide (UV/H2O2). The multi-barrier approach
(conventional WTP + MF + RO + AOP + groundwater recharge) produces water with quality higher than
other conventional water sources available in the Orange County area. The removal of emerging
contaminants below regulated levels has in facts been proved by the demonstration Facility (Daugherty et
al., 2005; Deshmukh, 2004).
The Case of Water Factory 21

Starting from 1976, Water Factory 21 has been successfully operating for more than 20 years, producing
19,000 m3/d of water to supply a 57,000 m3/d seawater intrusion barrier. During 1998, because of the
280
increasing demand for water injection, it was decided to replace the old plant with a larger one, so that
WF 21 has been finally decommissioned on 21st January 2004. The evolution of the double membrane
system at WF 21 (and San Pasqual Site) is indicative of the developments in desalination of wastewater
with membrane technology.
Initially (1989-1991), cellulose acetate (CA) RO membranes were fed with conventionally pretreated
water. With such feed, in order to maintain constant production, the operating pressure for RO had to be
increased from initial 14 bar to 21 bar within few months (-80% of specific flux). This, irregardless of the
chemical cleaning conducted every 2-3 weeks. However, salt rejection remained stable, as 94-96%. (Wilf
and Alt, 2000)
Experiments to quantify the benefits of using MF as a pretreatment for RO commenced in October 1992,
at pilot scale (106 m3/d). CA RO membranes were operated at a flux of 20 L/(m2h) downstream of 0.35
μm MF membranes for up to 13 weeks before cleaning. Similar membranes, operating at 18 L/(m2h)
downstream of the conventional process had to be cleaned every four to six weeks, showing the higher
efficiency of membrane pre-treatments (Leslie et al., 1998).
A step further was done in the reduction of energy requirements of the RO process by replacing the CA
RO membranes with polyamide (PA) thin film composite membranes, which operate at lower pressure. At
a flux of 18 L/(m2h), one set of thin film PA membranes could operate for over 5000 h without cleaning
and attaining a feed pressure of 13.8 bar, whereas CA membranes at WF21 routinely reached 22.7-24.1
bar after 700 hours of operation (Wilf and Alt, 2000; Leslie et al., 1998). It was also shown that the
pressure requirements for the RO process could be reduced by decreasing the pore size of the pre-treating
MF/UF membrane (Leslie et al., 1998).
Results of the pilot scale studies were confirmed at the demonstration scale on a 2,700 m3/d MF system
followed by a 1,600 m3/d RO system (Leslie et al., 1998).
In Table 12.4, an O&M cost comparison between the conventional treatments operated at WF21 for 12
years and the GWR double membrane system is given, as estimated in 1998 on the basis of the
demonstration facilities results.
Table 12.4 Comparison of O&M costs for conventional reclamation scheme (12
year average at WF 21) and double membrane scheme
Water Factory 21 (12 year average) GWR system process (estimation)
US$/af US$/m3 % US$/af US$/m3 %
Chemicals 52 0.042 16 23 0.019 12
Power 163 0.132 51 65 0.053 33
Natural Gas 33 0.027 10 - -
Membranes 24 0.019 8 51 0.041 26
UV Lamps - - - 9 0.007 5
Maintenance 48 0.039 15 48 0.039 24
Total 320 0.259 196 0.159
During the same period, similar research on double membrane system was carried out also at the San
Pasqual Wastewater Treatment Facility (California). The application of PA membranes and low fouling
thin composite membrane (LFC1) to MF filtrate was tested. Using PA membranes, feed pressure
281
increased from 4.8 bar to almost 10 bar, where it stabilised fluctuating with temperature (-60% specific
flux). Using LFC1, operating pressure stabilised at about 6.2 bar, where specific flux decline was only
15%. Additionally, no chemical cleaning was performed during the 8 months testing and at the end of
operation a cleaning procedure with 0.5% NaOH solution restored the permeate flux completely (Wilf and
Alt, 2000). Table 12.5 summarises the different performances of different RO membranes (CA, PA, and
LFC) during testing with conventional pre-treatments or MF/UF filtrate at WF 21 and at San Pasqual
(Wilf and Alt, 2000).
Table 12.5 Effect of pre-treatment technology on specific permeate flux and

power consumption for various types of RO membranes (Wilf and Alt,
2000)
Cellulose Low Fouling
Membrane Type Polyamide Polyamide
Acetate Composite
Capillary Capillary
Pre-treatment Conventional Conventional
membrane membrane
Initial Specific
L/(m2*h*bar) 1.72 5.91 5.91 4.18
Flux
Final Specific
L/(m2*h*bar) 0.98 0.98 2.46 3.69
Flux
Flux Decline 40% 85% 60% 12%
Operating Feed
bar 13.8-24.1 20.7-24.1 9.7-12.4 6.9-10.3
Pressure
Power
kWh/m3 5.0-6.0 5.0-6.0 2.5-3.2 1.7-2.7
consumption
Actual Process description

The feedwater to the GWR System is clarified secondary effluent from the activated sludge process and
tricking filter effluent from the Orange County Sanitation District’s plant No. 1, with average composition
approximately as reported in Table 12.6.
Table 12.6 Feed water quality to the GWR system (Daugherty et al., 2005;
Chalmers et al., 2000; Guendert, 2004)
TSS BOD5 N-NH3 TOC TDS Alkalinity
20 mg/L 20 mg/L 20 mg/L 9.47 mg/L 950 mg/L 260 mg/L
The first pretreatment for the combined effluent flowing to the GWR System Influent Pump Station is
represented by 2 mm automatic strainers. Sodium hypochlorite is also dosed to achieve total chlorine
residual of 3-5 mg/L and avoid biofouling on the MF membranes.
The MF treatment separates suspended and colloidal solids including bacteria and protozoa. The design
recovery is approximately 90%, for the production of 32,000 m3/d of filtrate. MF reject stream is returned
to the OCSD plant No 1, while excess filtrate may be used for tertiary non-potable reuse.
The MF filtrate is collected in a break tank and passes through polypropylene wound cartridge, prior to
RO. Sulphuric acid and a threshold inhibitor are dosed to lower the pH and control carbonate scaling. The
282
RO design recovery is approximately 85% producing a total of 26,000 m3/d. During RO total dissolved
solids, dissolved organics, pesticides, silica and viruses concentrations are reduced.
The RO permeate is directed to the AOP treatment, whereas the concentrate is discharged to the ocean.
The AOP (UV+H2O2) provides additional bacterial and viral inactivation, together with oxidation of
organic compounds (including NDMA and low molecular weight organics). To prevent the corrosive
effect of the desalted RO permeate on concrete pipes, UV product water is dosed with lime.
Finally the water is blended with other potable and deep well water, and injected into the seawater
intrusion barrier or percolate to the groundwater basin. The fraction of product water that is used for
groundwater basin recharge is diluted with Santa Ana river water before reaching the percolation ponds.
Along the 14 miles pipe to the recharge ponds, further disinfection barrier is provided by chloramines
dosing.
In the following, more details about the operation of the main process units are given.
MF system
The MF system is actually under construction. Four different systems have been considered during
preliminary studies, among which the following have been tested at demonstration scale and about 90%
recovery:
• US Filter/Memcor CMF, as previously tested at WF 21;
• US Filter/Memcor CMF-S , in-basin system (790 m3/d at 40.7 L/(m2h));
• Pall in vessel system (2,450 m3/d at 40.7 L/(m2h));
• Zenon in-basin system (220-600 m3/d at 40.7 L/(m2h));
The results have been used for the preliminary design of the AWT Facility. The specifications of the
systems proposed by manufacturers are compared in Table 12.7, while the preliminary cost estimation for
the “typical” MF system of AWT is presented in Table 12.8 (Chalmers et al., 2000).
US filter/Memcor’ CMF-S system was chosen for lower capital costs and present-worth lifecycle costs.
During the six months demonstration period it showed advantages in respect to the CMF configuration at
WF 21: reduced footprint (50% less), reduced complexity (-80% peripheral equipment) and reduced costs
(-10/15% on operational cost and -20% on capital costs). The validation test at 24.5 m3/d proved 28-days
CIP interval and high degree of integrity (pressure decay test < 0.10, utility factor >93%) (Guendert, 2004).
Estimated O&M costs for the chosen MF system are indicated in Table 12.9.
283
Table 12.7 Comparison among MF systems proposed for GWRS (Broens et al.,
2004)
US Filter/Memcor US Filter/Memcor
Pall Zenon
CMF CMF-S
Pressure vessel Pressure vessel In-basin In-basin
Configuration hollow fibres hollow fibres (submerged) hollow (submerged) hollow
(bundle) outside-in (bundle) outside-in fibres outside-in fibres outside-in
Membrane material Polypropylene PVDF Polypropylene Proprietary polymer
Pore size 0.2 μm 0.1 μm 0.2 μm 0.035 μm
32 membrane
Bundle of 20,000 Bundle of 6,360 “cassette” with max
Module Assembly elements of 5 inch
fibres fibres 12 modules
diameter
Membrane area per
370ft2 (34 m2) 540 ft2 (50 m2) 318 ft2 (30 m2) 650 ft2 (60 m2)
module
Total membrane area ~394,740 m2 ~272,000 m2 ~362,880 m2 ~293,760 m2
Low pressure
blowers
Centrifugal filtrate
Strainers pumps
Variable speed raw Controls Centrifugal
Air system,
water pumps Control Chemical feed backpulse pumps
Filtrate pumps,
stations CIP Reject pumps
CIP,
Ancillary equipment CIP system Air compressors Maintenance
Backwash pumps,
Compressed air Excess feed cleaning pumps
Surge control on the
Surge control for recirculation pumps Recovery clean
feed
pressure spikes Pressure control pumps
Master PLC CIP
Chemical metering
system
30,400 ft2 (2,824 m2)

76,000 ft2 47,500 ft2 56,000 ft2
Total footprint excluding filtered
(7,060 m2) (4,413 m2) (5202 m2)
water storage
Filtration
filtration+reverse
Filtration+ Filtration+ (continuous coarse
Filtration cycle filtration (RF)+ air
backwash backwash bubble aeration) +
scrub
backpulsing
5-25 psi Vacuum: -4/-12 psi Vacuum: 0/ -9 psi
Operating pressure
(0.35 -1.73 bar) (-0.28 /-0.83 bar) (0 /-0.62 bar)
Operating flux 36 L/(m2h) 24 gfd [40 L/(m2h)] 20.4 gfd [61 L/(m2h)] 14 gfd [24 L/(m2h)]*
30.6 gfd
Peak flux 54 L(m2/h) 36 gfd [40 L/(m2h)]* 27 gfd [46 L/(m2h)]
52 L/(m2h)*
Every 20 min
2.5 min RF every 15 min, air Diffusion of low 30 s
Regular Backwash
every 17.5 min scrub every 30 min pressure air; 15 s of every 15 min
BF
Following air scrub
Regular chemical NaOCl is dosed in
100 mg/L NaOCl is
cleaning the backwash water
dosed
284
US Filter/Memcor US Filter/Memcor
Pall Zenon
CMF CMF-S
At each backwash At each backwash
Draining drying and rewetting After air scrub drain and refill
required required
Water +
Draining discharge hypochlorite To sump
solution to WWTP
97% (84% during
Overall recovery rate 89% high flow
conditions)
CIP frequency 3 weeks 3 weeks 1-2 months
Not resistant to free- Not resistant to free-
chlorine but to chlorine but to Resistant to Chlorine
Chlorine resistance 5,000 mg/L
chloramines at 1-5 chloramines at 1-5 and sulfites
mg/L mg/L
Citric acid,
Citric acid,
Citric acid , (neutral pH rinse)
sodium hydroxide, Sodium hypochlorite
CIP chemicals sodium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide,
proprietary in the basin
sodium hypochlorite proprietary
surfactant
surfactant
*= “revised” flux during demo-testing (Deshmukh, 2004).
Table 12.8 Preliminary estimation of O&M Cost for MF system at GWRS

(Chalmers et al., 2000)
Description Cost (US$/yr) Cost (US$/106m3)*
Power**
MF CIP pumps 14,000 126
Other pumps 10,000 90
MF compressors 160,000 1445
Waste sump pumps 4,000 36
MF CIP tank Heathers 45,000 406
Building electrical 16,000 144
HVAC 16,000 144
Miscellaneous 90,000 813
Chemical and Membrane cost
Sodium Hypochlorite 322,000 2,909
Citric acid 19,000 171
Caustic soda 6,000 54
Membrane replacement 2,030,000 3,134
*= assuming water production equal to 80 MGD ~ 300,000 m3/d
** = at 0.08 US$ per kWh
The system produced effluent with average Silt Density Index (SDI) = 1.2, TOC = 9.5 mg/L and TSS =
0.2 mg/L. It is expected that the MF filtrate turbidity will range from 0.05-0.3 NTU and the SDI values
will be always < 3.0 (mostly 1-2).
285
The final MF treatment design includes 26 concrete cells of 608 sub-modules each. Each cell produces
about 12,800 m3/d in normal condition and 50% more during peak storm event. The total building area is
approximately 3,160 m2, comprehensive of ancillary equipment (Guendert, 2004).
During the GWR System Phase 1, started in June 2004, the same MF system selected for the full scale
facility has been installed. The actual filtration cycle includes 3 minutes of backflush every 22 minutes
and the CIP procedure of approximately 3 hours has been carried on every 21 days (Daugherty et al.,
2005).
RO System
The RO treatment consists of chemical pre-treatments (sulphuric acid and threshold inhibitor), RO at 6.9-
22.4 bar, and post-treatment with decarbonation and lime stabilization (the product water is so low in
mineral content that it is corrosive).
At the time of writing, the design of the final RO system is not known yet. During GWR System Phase 1,
the old facilities of WF21 are used for the RO system, where the old CA RO membranes have been
replaced with PA RO membranes (ESPA, Hydranautics). Operations are designed at 20.4 L/(m2h) and
85% of recovery, compared with the previous 17 L/(m2h) using CA membranes. Normal operating
pressure is expected between 7 and 14 bar and cleaning twice a year (Daugherty et al., 2005).
AOP
The advanced treatment process combines hydrogen peroxide and UV so as to produce hydroxyl radicals
because of UV induced photolysis.
The hydrogen peroxide dosage during GWR System Phase 1 is approximately 3 ppm, added upstream of
the UV system. The UV treatment consists of a low-pressure high-output system (Trojan UVPhox). One
train is supplied for the GWR System Phase 1, being rated for 33,000 m3/d. A train is composed of three
chambers with two reactors each. Each reactor houses 72 lamps, whose intensity is regulated on the basis
of flow, temperature and transmittance (Daugherty et al., 2005).
Operation and Maintenance

In Table 12.9 estimated annual O&M costs of the complete system are given, as reported in (GWRS,
2005).
Table 12.9 Annual estimated operations and maintenance costs for GRWS
(GWRS, http://www.gwrsystem.com/about/pdf/0503gwrs_cost_paper.pdf)
Item Annual Cost [in million US$] US$/m3 (*)
Power (at $0.10 per kWh) 11.5 0.12 (1.2 kWh/m3)
Contract Maintenance 0.4 0.004
Chemicals 5.4 0.056
Plant refurbishment 1.2 0.012
Membrane Replacement 2.8 0.029
Ultraviolet lamp replacement 0.3 0.003
Compliance monitoring 1.5 0.015
Labour 3.6 0.037
Total 26.7 0.276
*= calculated for RO filtrate production equal to 70 mgd
286
The UF units are ZeeWeed modules by ZENON (ZW500C), working at a maximum design flux of 40
L/(m2h). The filtration time is 480 to 600 seconds, while backwash is 30 seconds. Every 30 to 35
backwashes chlorinated backwash is performed.
The RO is composed by low energy membranes from DOW (30LE-440) in 2/1 configuration with 75%
recovery. The design flux is maximum 20 L/(m2h).
Effluent quality
The activated sludge system preceding the double membrane system is overloaded. Despite a nominal
capacity of 83,000 P.E., during 2003 it has served 108,000 P.E.. This impacted the feed water to the
reclamation scheme, whose quality is reported in Table 12.10.
Table 12.10 Influent of the Wulpen reclamation unit: yearly average in 2003
BOD5 COD SS TN TP
Concentration [mg/L] <5 33.8 6.6 10.4 1.3
The reclamation facility complied with the norms for infiltration for 100% of the times. Initially the
infiltration water was composed of 90 % RO filtrate and 10 % UF filtrate resulting in a quality that
matched the natural dune water. However it was observed that pesticides (atrazine, simazine and diuron)
were present in the effluent, and as they are not removed by UF, they could be traced into the infiltration
water. Although the levels were low (a maximum of 0,2 μg/L of total pesticides was observed whereas
water standards allow 0,5 μg/L), the IWVA decided that UF filtrate would no longer be used to produce
infiltration water. Instead sodium hydroxide is dosed to the RO filtrate in order to adjust the pH. This
started in May 2004. Comparative tests showed that the RO membranes removed pesticides between 97,6
and 98,6% (at 75% recovery) and over an 18 months campaign all pesticide measurements were below
detection limit of 0,01 μg/L. Effluent results are presented in Table 12.11 (Van Houtte and Verbauwhede,
2006).
288
Table 12.11 Effluent results of the Wulpen reclamation unit: quality of different
waters during December 2004- December 2005 (Van Houtte and
Verbauwhede, 2006)
UF filtrate RO filtrate Infiltration water
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
EC μS/cm 1.154 442 1.442 22 9 50 43 7 75
pH 7.59 8.44 5.38 6.99 6.14 7.35
TOC mg/L 8.2 3.2 12.0 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2
Total hardness mg/L CaCO3 27. 3 11.3 35.8 <1 <1
Total alkalinity mg/L CaCO3 23.3 7.6 31.3 <1 2.3 1.7 3.5
Chloride mg/L 202 65 280 2.6 <1 5.1 2.6 1.4 5.1
Sulfate mg/L 74 36 97 <1
Total nitrogen mgN/L 8.3 2.9 15.7 <2
Nitrate mgNO3/L 2.3 <1 4.5
Ammonia mg/L <0.15 <0.05 0.47
Total mgP/L 1.8 0.4 3.2 <0.1 <0.1
phosphorous
Fluoride mg/L <20
Silica mgSiO2/L 19.2 6.7 24.6 0.2 <0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4
Total THM's μg/L 2 0.56 3.16
Total pesticides μg/L <0.01
Aluminium μg/L <10
Chromium μg/L <2
Copper μg/L <2
Iron μg/L <5 <5 31.2
Lead μg/L <3
Manganese μg/L <0.05 <0.05 24.5
Mercury μg/L <0.02
Nickel μg/L <2
Sodium mg/L 148 46 214 3.6 1.3 6.8 11.2 5.2 19.4
Zinc μg/L <2 <2 3
Total Coliforms Counts/100mL 0 0 0
E.Coli 0 0 0
HPC 22°C 7 0 31 <1 0 1 <1 0 20
Effect on Groundwater Quality

By half December 2005, three and a half years after starting, 7 million cubic meters had been recharged.
The recaptured water, extracted at 1,4 the volume of infiltration, is of better quality compared to what it
was before infiltration started (Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2006):
• The salinity of the recaptured water gradually decreased from 800 μS/cm to currently 300 μS/cm
and has stabilized;
• The nutrient and organic content is much lower;
• The hardness decreased from 35 °F to currently 12 to 15 °F adding to the comfort of the

customers and benefiting to the environment as less soap could be used for washing;
289
• The iron content gradually decreased from around 5 mg/L to 1 mg/L which means that the sand
filters are less frequently backwashed saving groundwater (during drinking water production).
Energy Consumption
The average energy consumption of the double membrane system is 0.82 kWh/m³, of which:
±0,2 kWh/m³ is consumed to run the UF unit
±0,6 kWh/m³ is consumed to run the RO unit
Manpower
The reclamation facility is run with the support of one full-time employee.
Chemicals
Table 12.12 summarises the chemicals in use and their consumption during the year 2005.
Table 12.12 Chemical usage at Wulpen reclamation scheme: double membrane

system (Dec 2004-Nov 2005)
Dosage per m³
produced
Product Dosed to Comment
infiltration
water
Effluent Control of bio-growth in effluent reservoirs
Sodium hypoclorite 3.6 mg/L

UF filtrate To produce monochloramines for bio-
fouling prevention
To produce monochloramines for bio-
Ammonium chloride UF filtrate 2.5 mg/L
fouling prevention
Sulfuric acid UF filtrate 40 mg/L pH adjustment for scaling prevention
Scale inhibitor
UF filtrate 2.4 mg/L Scaling prevention
HYPERSPERSE MDC 220
Protection of RO membranes for free
Bisulfite UF filtrate 1 mg/L
chlorine
Sodium hydroxide RO filtrate 13 mg/L pH adjustment before infiltration
Monitoring requirements
The Monitoring practice at Wulpen reclamation scheme is set out in Table 12.13.
Table 12.13 Monitoring practice at Wulpen reclamation scheme: double

membrane system
Flow, conductivity, pH and temperature on all waters, Turbidity on UF filtrate, pressures and
Online
energy consumption of processes
Daily SDI, conductivity, pH on UF and RO filtrate
Weekly bacterial analysis, salt and nutrient content
Monthly greater set of parameters (to comply with the norms)
290
Regular conductivity measurements are applied on every pressure vessel. The UV unit, when active, has
the only purpose of disinfection barrier. E. coli, total coliforms, Enterococci and HPC (Heterotrophic
Plate Counts) are monitored both in the feed and in the effluent.
Waste production
The amount of rejected water during the membrane stages is easily calculated from the system recoveries:
12.5% and 25 % of the incoming flow to the system for the UF and the RO respectively.
In agreement with Belgian legislation, the total volume of concentrate is drained into a canal, together
with the fraction of WWTP effluent that is not treated. The canal drains to the sea.
Process operation
The process manager indicated that the process operation is very stable. The filtration period for the UF
varies from 480 seconds to 600 seconds; maintenance cleanings are performed monthly. The use of air,
used intermittently to produce turbulence along the membranes, has been reduced since the start-up of the
plant. The turbidity of the UF filtrate is constantly below 0,1 NTU and most of the time below 0,05 NTU.
The UF system can cope with variations in quality. In Figure 12.4 it is shown the behaviour of the UF
units during a failure occurred in the first months of operation. The graphic represents the suction
pressure of the 5 UF units. After some maintenance work, an operator forgot to activate the automatic
backwash of unit 4, which fouled dramatically until stop working. The other units were capable of taking
over the excess flow, despite a visible pressure drop (i.e. increased suction demand).Global plant
operations were not affected and when unit 4 was reactivated, the others recovered to normal efficiency
(Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2004).
Figure 12.4 Monitoring of the RO skids during a period of failure of the UF unit
(Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2004)
1 M F s k id o u t o f p r o d u c tio n :
4 M F s k id s ta k e o v e r p r o d u c tio n
M F s k i d r u n s m a n u a l l y f o r 7 1 /2 h r s :
no backw ashes
N o rm a l
p ro c e s s
The prevention of bio-fouling and scaling performed very well up to now. The RO skids need to be
cleaned every 2 to 3 months (Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2006).
291
In the following, the case study of Kranji NEWater Reclamation plant is described in detail.
Kranji NEWater Reclamation plant

The Kranji facility is an advanced water reclamation plant that treats 40,000 m3/d and is designed to allow
an extension to 72,000 m3/day. Prior to the construction of the actual facility, the project study included
the construction and operation of a 10,000 m3/day “demonstration” plant, which was operated for 2 years
starting from May 2000. Most of the data presented here originate from this demonstration study, when
the implementation of the RO system was slightly different from the actual. The RO system was indeed
configured with 3-stage instead of a 2-stage arrays (Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002). Some
other information comes from the 30-days “validation period” of the actual full-scale plant, which took
place during December 2002, or from the following first 6 months of operation (US Filter/Memcor, 2003;
Thompson and Powell, 2003).
Process description
Feedwater is clarified secondary effluent from an activated sludge process with typical quality as reported
in Table 12.14.
Table 12.14 Influent water quality at Kranji NEWater Reclamation Plant during
demonstration period (Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002)
TSS BOD5 N-NH3 TOC TDS
10 mg/L 10 mg/L 6 mg/L 12 mg/L 400-1,600 mg/L
The secondary effluent is microscreened (0.3 mm) and then pumped to the equalization tank. 5 mg/L of
chlorine are dosed, resulting in a chloramines concentration of about 2-3 mg/L after reaction with the
ammonia in the feed. The MF system makes use of one train of six Memcor 4801S10T CMF-S cells
(Continuous Microfiltration- Submerged). Each cell is individually equipped with a filtration pump (flow
control), backwash and cleaning-in-place (CIP) system. A service access platform is provided for
membrane installation and service (one for each train, in the future expansion). The feed water is drawn
through the 0.2 μm porous membranes by suction from the filtrate pump. Operations are run at fluxes
varying between 25.8 to 35.8 L/(m2h), according to demand. Every 25 minutes, the membranes are
backwashed with permeate, while low-pressure air scours the fibres surface. Backwash water is returned
to the head of the plant. The CIP interval has proved longer than 21 days during validation trial, but the
average frequency during demonstration period was 13.4 days. Analogously, the average system
recovering has been validated as 92% but in average it was as 87% during the demonstration period.
Before the RO, the MF permeate is stored and 5 mg/L of chlorine is dosed again, to stably obtain residual
chloramines of 2 mg/L. The RO system is made of 5 trains by 2 stages of 8-inch Hydranautics LFC-1
elements (Low-Fouling Composite, thin-film aromatic polyamide). The 2 stages are separated to allow
recirculation of the permeate of the first stage into the RO feed tank in case conductivity exceeds
requirements. The total system recovery is 75% (it was 80-82% with the 3 stage arrays). Operating
pressure is approximately 10 bar and a CIP system is provided for recovering membrane permeability.
Anti-scalant is used to prevent fouling. (Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002)
Following RO, UV treatment and pH adjustment are performed before end use. For disinfection three UV
chambers are allocated, one of which is usually in standby. The UV lamps are medium-pressure broad-
293
spectrum (Hanovian Photon) delivering a UV dose of approximately 90 mJ/cm2 (minimum = 60 mJ/cm2).

They are remotely operated and feature dose pacing and automatic sleeve wiping technology, allowing the
plant to operate unattended. The pH of the product water averages around 5.9, but after exposure to open
air for 2-3 hours, the release of dissolved CO2 from the water is sufficient for a pH increase to 7
(Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002; Thompson and Powell, 2003; USfilter/Memcor, 2003)
Energy Consumption
The overall energy consumption during the demonstration period (May 2000 - May 2002, flow = 10,000
m3/d) resulted in the range 0.7-0.9 kWh/m3, with respect to design specification of 1.2 kWh/m3
(Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002).
Chemicals
Chlorine is dosed to MF feed, approximately 5 mg/L to react with 1-3 mg/L of ammonia in the secondary
effluent. About 2-3 mg/L of the chlorine is consumed by the organics and about 2-3 mg/L of chloramines
are formed. After the CMF-S the chloramines level drops to 1-2 mg/L and more chlorine is added to
stably achieve 2 mg/L in the RO feed, aiming to biofouling control. The dosage is critical because an
excess of free chlorine would oxidise the RO membrane. Further addition takes place after the RO to
guarantee the required residual for the distribution system (Thompson and Powell, 2003)
The MF CIP procedure consists of soak and recirculation of a warm caustic and Memclean CTM solution.
Once a quarter also acid is added for inorganic scalant.
Scale inhibitor is added in the RO feed.
Monitoring
Process monitoring: Chloramine levels are measured in the MF feed and permeate using Total Chlorine
analyzers and ORP meters to measure the oxidation potential of the secondary effluent. Chlorine
measurements are effectuated before and after RO filtration as well.
The MF filtrate is monitored for turbidity, particle counts and SDI (15 min). During the CIP procedure,
also pH and conductivity of the cleaning solution are constantly measured.
Routine membrane integrity tests are conducted. On the MF system, this consists of pressure decay test,
whereas for the RO system permeate conductivity is measured separately at the first and second stage
(Thompson and Powell, 2003).
Effluent quality: The monitoring programme has been especially developed for NEWater and includes
the testing of feed water secondary effluent, process water and final water of NEWater plant. It is based
on a preventive water quality management system using the concept of Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP). 278 parameters are included with frequency varying from real-time monitoring, weekly,
monthly, quarterly to annually grab sampling. The quality of NEWater meets both World Health
Organisation Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality and USEPA national primary and secondary drinking
water standards. Among the 278 parameters, there are some 150 test parameters that are not listed under
the drinking water guidelines or standards (Leong Yin Hou, 2006).
294
Maintenance
The MF design includes CIP procedure every 3-6 weeks. As said, it consists of a soak/recirculation of
NaOH and surfactant solution for about two hours, aiming to organic removals. During the validation
testing the average cleaning frequency was 13.4 days, as a result of difficulties in control of chlorine
residual. This originated by fluctuation of ammonia concentration in the influent. Approximately once
every three months an additional acid clean is performed to remove inorganic foulants. The spent CIP
solution is returned to the head of the plant (Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002; Thompson and
Powell, 2003).
During demonstration period (when a 3-stages RO system at 80-82% concentration was used) cleaning
interval was longer than 6 months for the first stage and longer than three months for the second and third.
During the first six months of operation of the full-size plant the RO system has not required any
cleaning. (Thompson and Powell, 2003)
Routinary procedure includes calibration and verification of all on-line monitoring instrumentation.
(Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002)
Resilience
The MF system proved to tolerate high turbidity of the feed water, up to 20 NTU. However, at turbidity <
2 NTU the water recovery in the MF system is at least 90%, while it reduces to 84% at turbidity >10 NTU
(Singapore Water Reclamation Study, 2002). Membrane integrity tests (pressure decay) showed 4.4 log
removal of particles > 0.2 microns (Thompson and Powell, 2003).
For the RO system, during the first six months of operation, no appreciable changes in flow or salt
passage were observed (Thompson and Powell, 2003; USfilter/Memcor, 2003) During demonstration,
some problems were encountered to control calcium phosphate scaling, but the fouling was removed with
citric acid and operation became stable when the antiscalant was changed.
Standby units are provided for all critical equipment.
12.7.4 Direct potable reuse in Windhoek, Namibia

General
To date, the only direct potable reuse project worldwide is operating in Windhoek (Namibia), one of the
driest regions in Southern Africa. It produces 21,000 m³/d of potable water from a mixture of pre-treated
domestic wastewater effluent and surface water. Having several decades of experience in potable reuse,
the scheme had been recently significantly refurbished and the new Goreangab Water Reclamation project
is in operation since 2002 (City of Windhoek, 2004). The complex treatment train includes coagulation,
dual media filtration, ozonation, multi-stage activated carbon adsorption and UF prior to chlorine
disinfection (see Figure 12.6). This treatment scheme possesses multiple barriers for most microbial and
chemical contaminants of concern and reduces the potential for disinfection by-product formation.
Process scheme
The first protective barriers concern the quality of the feed water to the Gorengab plant, which originates
from a sewerage treatment plant that receives domestic wastewater only. In this way, the risk of
295
potentially toxic contaminants in industrial effluent is prevented. Additionally, the product water of
Goreangab plant is blended to other water sources to constitute no more than 35% of the drinking water.
The treatment train, represented in Figure 12.6, is made of the following steps (NORIT Membrane
Technology, 2003; Du Pisani, 2006):
• Blending with raw water surface and powdered activated carbon (PAC) addition (used as and
when required)
• Pre-ozonation (aeration and first oxidation/cracking of organic pollutants, using off-gas of main
ozonation)
• Coagulation and flocculation (using FeCl3 but also acid for pH adjustment and polymers when
required)
• Dissolved air flotation (separation of the flocs)
• Dual media filtration (filtration of the remaining flocs)
• Main ozonation (oxidation of dissolved organic compounds)
• Biological activated carbon filtration (biodegradation of organic compounds)
• Granular activated carbon filtration (filtration of bacteria and organics)
• Powdered activated carbon dosage (adsorption of residual pollutants)
• Ultrafiltration (rejection of bacteria and viruses, it is considered the “germination” of the new
water)
• Disinfection (chlorination to prevent bacteria after-growth in the distribution network)
Figure 12.6 New Goreangab Reclamation Plant scheme, from

(http://www.vatech.at/Truman/up-media/1653_Windhoek2001en.pdf)
Ultrafiltration system
The UF membranes are hollow fibres, operated inside-out in dead-end mode (NORIT XIGA S-225 FSFC
PVC UFC). The layout comprises 5 membranes units of 14 housing each, where 4 8-inches modules are
fitted in one housing. The total installed membrane area is 9,800 m2 (105,490 ft2) and the system recovery
296
is higher than 91%. The wastewater generated from the membrane units is recycled to the head of the
plant.
Feed water reaches the membrane after a sequence of coagulation/filtration/adsorption steps, therefore the
suspended solids content is already very low. However, a pre-screening on a 100 micron strainer is
performed. Average permeate gross-flux is 107 L/(m² h) at a transmembrane pressure of 0.4-0.7bar (5.8-
10.1 psi). Filtration periods of 25 minutes are alternated to short backflushes (without chemicals).
Chemically Enhanced Backflushes (CEB) are performed every 6 hours with NaOCl (removal of adsorbed
organics) and every 24 hours with NaOCl and HCl at pH=2 (to prevent scaling). Soaking time during a
CEB is about 10 minutes (NORIT Membrane Technology, 2003).
Detection of damaged fibres is routinely performed at unit level (Airflow integrity tests), housing level
(pressure hold test) and module (bubble test).
The role of the membrane process in this scheme is especially to provide a physical barrier to pathogens,
as positive analyses to Giardia and Cryptosporidium occurred in the plant effluent in the past (Menge et
al., 2001). However, it also ensures water clarity, maintaining turbidity below 0.1 NTU. Results are
reported in Table 12.15.
Table 12.15 Typical UF permeate quality at Goreangab (NORIT Membrane Technology,

2003)
Item Units Value

Turbidity NTU 0.08
Total Coliforms per 100 mL 0
Coli per 100 mL 0
Faecal Coli per 100 mL 0
Heterotrophic Plate Count per mL 1
Faecal Streptococci per 100 mL 0
Coliphage per 100 mL 0
Enteric viruses per 100 mL 0
Giardia Not detected
Cryptosporidium Not detected
Operational costs
The total operation and capital cost of the water reclamation scheme are given at 0.76 US$/m³, of which
0.46 US$/m3 are operational (Lahnsteiner et al., 2004; Du Pisani, 2006). However the cost of water is
very sensitive to the quantity produced, decreasing when production is maximised.
Chemicals
PAC, FeCl3 and polymers are added prior to coagulation/flocculation and DAF process, eventually with
pH (acid) adjustment. Before sand filtration also KMnO4 and NaOH are used. Ozonation is provided
twice, and H2O2 may be added during the second ozonation to enhance performances. PAC can be dosed
prior to the UF system. Chlorine is dosed for further disinfection prior to distribution.
297
Monitoring
Given the potable reuse application of the reclaimed water, water quality is a fundamental issue through
the whole treatment train. In the event of any quality parameter exceeding an absolute value the plant goes
into recycle mode and water is not delivered. After each treatment step the parameters for which that step
is critical are monitored. A list of intermediate water quality requirements is reported in Table 12.16.
Also the final water product is continuously monitored by mean of on-line instrumentation and composite
sampling. The full range of parameters according to product water specification and local drinking water
specifications (Rand Water Act) is analysed.
In the last 6 years (2005) no consumer complaints have been lodged.
Table 12.16 Intermediate monitoring parameters along Goreangab treatment

train (Du Pisani, 2006)
Measuring
Treatment process parameter Units Target Values
procedure
After DAF Turbidity NTU 1.5 (5.0 peak) On-line*
Turbidity NTU 0.2 (0.35 peak) On-line*
After Rapid Sand Filter Manganese mg/L 0.03
Iron mg/L 0.05
Ozone mg/L Minimum 0.1 On-line*
COD mg/L 25
After Ozonation DOC mg/L 15
Microbiological, disinfection by According to treated water
products and biological quality specifications
After GAC Filters DOC mg/L 5 (8 peak) On-line*
* = computed every 15 minutes
Figure 12.7 Membrane filtration racks at Windhoek/Namibia (City of Windhoek,

2004)
298
12.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andreozzi, R., Raffaele, M. and P. Nicklas (2003) Pharmaceuticals in STP effluents and their solar photodegradation in aquatic
environment. Chemosphere 50 (10): 1319-1330.
Atkinson S. (2004) CMF-S systems aids microfiltration scale-up and reduces capital costs. Membrane Technology May 2004: 10-
12.
Bates W.T. (1999) Capillary UF as RO pre-treatment. Proc. Intl. Water Conf., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; October 1999. Available
at http://www.hydranautics.com/docs/papers/03_capillary_uf_as_ro.doc.pdf
Bourgeous K., Darby J. and G. Tchobanoglous (2001) Ultrafiltration of wastewater: effects of particles, mode of operation, and
backwash effectiveness. Wat. Res. 35(1): 77-90.
Broens L., Liebrand N., Futselaar H. and J. C. de Armas Torrent (2004) Effluent reuse at Barranco Seco (Spain): a 1,000 m³/h.
case study. Desalination 167: 13-16.
Chalmers R.B., Leslie G., Sudak D. and K.P.E. Alexander (2000) Selection of a Microfiltration process for the groundwater
replenishment system, the largest advanced recycled water treatment plant in the world. Available at
http://www.membrane.unsw.edu.au/staff/papers/gleslie/wf21coststudy.pdf
City of Windhoek (2004): http://www.windhoekcc.org.na/Default.aspx?page=118
Dale C. (2004) Successful wastewater reuse. Pollution Engineering Magazine 09/02/2004. Available at
http://www.pollutionengineering.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/Features_Index/1,6650,38-
65545,00.html
Daugherty J.L., Deshmukh S.S., Patel M.V. and M.R. Markus (2005) Employing advanced technology for water reuse in Orange
County. Proc. Water reuse 2005; S. Diego, California; February-March 2005. Available at
http://www.watereuse.org/ca/2005conf/papers.htm
Deshmukh S. (2004) The Groundwater Replenishment System, Launching a 70 MGD Indirect Potable Reuse Project. Intl
Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM]; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12
March 2004.
Dewettinck T., van Houtte H., Geenens D., van Hege K. and W. Verstraete (2001) HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points) to guarantee safe water reuse and drinking water production– a case study. Water Sc. Tech. 43 (12): 31-38.
Drewes E., Reinhard M. and P. Fox (2003) Comparing microfiltration-reverse osmosis and soil-aquifer treatment for indirect
potable reuse of water. Wat. Res. 37: 3612-3621.
Du Pisani P.L. (2006) Direct Reclamation of Potable Water at Windhoek’s Goreangab Reclamation Plant. Desalination 188: 79-
88.
Durham, B. , Bourbigout, M. M. and T. Pankratz (2001) Membranes as pre-treatment to desalination in wastewater reuse:
operating experience in the municipal and industrial sectors. Desalination 138: 83-90.
Gagne D. (2004) Sulaibiya water reuse, project begins full operation. Water & Wastewater Int. 19 (9): 19-21.
Gauwbergen D. van, Baeyen J. (1999) Assessment of the design parameters for wastewater treatment by Reverse Osmosis. Wat.
Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 269-276.
Gomez M., Plaza F., Garralon G., Perez J., Gomez M.A. (2005) A comparative study of Tertiary Wastewater Treatment by
Physico-chemical-UV Process and Microfiltration-Ultrafiltration Technologies. Proc. IWA Conf. Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse for Sustainability; Jeju-Do, Korea; 8-11 November. [CD-ROM]
299
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1 – CT – 2002-0013
GWRS (2005) Examining the cost of building and operating a water purification system to provide a new source of water for an
arid region. Available at http://www.gwrsystem.com/about/pdf/0503gwrs_cost_paper.pdf
Guendert D. (2004) Orange County’s innovative water project to purify 70 mgd in 2007. AWWA J. 96 (7): 1-6.
http://www.hyflux.com/pj_sg_seletar.html
http://www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater_files/newater_tech/index.html
http://www.vatech.at/truman/up-media/1653_Windhoek2001en.pdf
http://www.zenon.com/resources/case_studies/water_reuse/bedok.shtml
Laîné J.-M., Vial D. and P. Moulart (2000) Proc. Intl. Conf. on Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production, Vol. 1:
17–25. Desalination Publications, L’Aquila, Italy; October 2000.
Lazarova V., Shields P., Levine B., Savoye P., Hranisavljevic D. and P. Renaud (2003) Production of High Quality Water for
Reuse Purposes. Wat. Sci. Tech: Wat. Supply 3 (3): 167–175.
Leong Yin Hou J. (2006) Personal Communications, March 2006.
Lens P., Hulshoff Pol L., Wilderer P. and T. Asano (2002) Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry (Analysis,
Technologies and Implementation); IWA Publishing.
Leslie G.L., Mills W.R., Dunivin W.R., Wehner M.P. and R.G. Sudak (1998) Performance and economic evaluation of
membrane process for reuse applications. Proc. American Desalting Association Biennial Conf., Williamsburg VA; August 1998.
Levine B., Madireddi, Lazarova V., Stenstrom M. and M. Suffet (1999) Treatment of trace organic compounds by membrane
processes: At the lake arrowhead water reuse pilot plant. Wat. Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 293-301.
Levine B., Reich K., Shields P., Suffet I. and V. Lazarova (2001) Water quality assessment for indirect potable reuse: a new
methodology for controlling trace organic compounds at the West Basin Water Recycling Plant (CA USA). Wat. Sci. and Tech.
43 (10): 249-257.
Lahnsteiner J., Sevitz D. and G. Lempert (2004) Potable Reuse in Windhoek/Namibia.
Liu C., Caothien S., Hayes J., Caothuy T., Otoyo T. and T. Ogawa (2000) Membrane Chemical Cleaning: From Art to Science.
Proc. AWWA 2000 Water Quality Technology Conf. Available at www.pall.com
Lynch S.T, Rohwer B. and A.F. Lynch (2005) Brine/concentrate management strategies for southern California. Proc. Water
Disinfection 2005. Mesa, Arizona; February 2005. [CD-ROM]
Menge J.G., Haarhoff J., König, Mertens R. and B. van der Merve (2001) Occurrence and removal of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium at the Goreangab Reclamation Plant Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water Supply 1 (1): 97-106.
Metcalf & Eddy (1991) Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. 3rd edition; McGraw-Hill Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. 4th edition; McGraw-Hill Inc.
Nghiem D.L., Schafer A.I. and M. Elimelech (2004) Removal of natural hormones by nanofiltration membranes: measurement,
modelling and mechanism. Env. Sci. Tech. 38: 1888-1896.
Nghiem L.D. and A.I. Schafer (2006) Critical risk point of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processes in water recycling
applications. Desalination 187: 303-312.
NORIT Membrane Technology (2003) New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant, Windhoek (Namibia). Available at:
http://www.x-flow.com/import/assetmanager/6/2526/CASE_HISTORY_GoreangabB.pdf
NORIT Membrane Technology (2003) Barranco Seco Ionics Iberica, S.A.
300
http://www.x-flow.com/import/assetmanager/1/2521/CaseHistoryBS.pdf
Palmer A., Jefferson B., Jeffrey P. and S.J. Judd (2002) Proc. IWA Biennial Congress Melbourne, Australia.
Poele te S., Menkveld W., Boom J. and W. van Bragt (2004) Effluent treatment by multimedia filtration, microfiltration and
ultrafiltration. Results of a pilot investigation at WWTP Hoek van Holland. Proc. Aquatech 2004, Amsterdam, NL.
Qin J.J., Htun Oo M., Lee H. and R. Kolkman (2004) Dead-end Ultrafiltration of RO in reclamation of municipal wastewater
effluent. J. of Membrane Science 243: 107-113.
Roorda J.H. and J.H.J.M. van der Graaf (2001) New parameter for monitoring fouling during Ultrafiltration of WWTP effluent.
Wat. Sc. & Tech. 43: 241-248.
Roorda J.H. (2004) Filtration Characteristics in dead-end Ultrafiltration of wwtp-efflent. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of
Technology. ISBN 90-9017992-5. Available at www.library.tudelft.nl/dissertations
Sadr Ghayeni S.B., Beatson P.J., Schneider R.P. and A.G. Fane (1998) Water reclamation from municipal wastewater using
combined microfiltration-reverse osmosis (MF-RO): preliminary performance data and microbiological aspects of system
operation. Desalination 116: 65-80.
Sagiv A. and R. Semiat (2004) Backwash of RO spiral wound membranes. Proc. MDIW2004; L’Aquila, Italy; 15-17 November
2004.
Santosuosso K.; Pollney D., Pelavas N., Musgrave P., Lake K., Adham S., Gagliardo P., Smith D., Ross D., Gramith K. and R.
Trussell (1998) Monitoring the integrity of reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 119 (1): 143-150.
Shippers J.C. and J. Verdouw (1980) The Modified Fouling Index, a method of determining the fouling characteristics of water.
Singapore Water Reclamation Study – Expert Panel review and findings (2002), available on line at:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater_files/download/review.PDF
Thompson M. and D. Powell (2003) Case Study – Kranji high grade water reclamation plant, Singapore. Proc. IMSTEC 03
Conf.;Sydney, New South Wales; September 2003.
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for Water Reuse (625/R-04/108) available on-line at http://www.epa.gov
US EPA (2001) Low Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application, Implementation and Regulatory Issues
EPA 815-C-01-001, available on-line at http://www.epa.gov
Usfilter/Memcor (2003) Kranji NEWater reclamation plant Memcor® CMF-S/RO/UV. Available at
http://www.usfilter.com/NR/rdonlyres/AD020511-DB6D-42C2-8D80-
FD8FD8AA4B2D/0/Memcor_KranjiCaseStudy.pdf
Usfilter/Memcor (2003) Scottsdale Water Campus. Available at
http://www.usfilter.com/water/Municipal/Membranes/Case+Studies/
Van Houtte E., Verbauwhede J., Vanlerbege F., Demunter S. and J. Cabooter (1998) Treating different types of wastewater with
micro- and ultrafiltration for further desalination using reverse osmosis. Desalination 117: 49-60.
Van Houtte E. and J. Verbauwhede (2004) Closing the water cycle: twenty months of operational experiences in Torreele
(Flanders). Proc. Intl Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants [CD-ROM];
Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Wilf M. and S. Alt (2000) Application of low fouling RO membrane elements for reclamation of municipal wastewater
301
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1 – CT – 2002-0013
Wilf M. (2001) New composite membrane and element configuration for reclamation of heavy fouling waters. Available at
http://www.hydranautics.com/docs/papers/23_NewCompositeMembrane.pdf
Wintgens T., Melin T., Schafer A., Khan S., Muston M., Bixio D. and C. Thoeye (2005) The role of membrane processes in
municipal wastewater reclamation and reuse. Desalination 178 (1-3): 1-11.
Zenon (2002) http://www.zenonenv.com/investor/news/Nov2502.shtml
Zhou H. and D. Smith (2002) J. Environ. Eng.Sci. 1 pp. 247-264.
van Houtte E. and J. Verbauwhede (2006) Operational experiences with indirect potable reuse at the Flemish coast. Proc. Integrated
Concept for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater Conf. [CD-ROM]; Barcelona, Spain; 1-3 February 2006.
302
13 CENTRALISED MBR
13.1 DESCRIPTION
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is based on the combination of the conventional activated-
sludge process and membrane filtration. The biological process is similar to conventional systems, being
potentially configured with aerobic, anaerobic and anoxic zones for nitrogen and phosphorus removal.
However, sludge retention is not achieved by sedimentation in a secondary clarifier, but by membrane
filtration utilising micro- or ultrafiltration membranes. The main consequence of replacing the
sedimentation step by a membrane step is that the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration is
no longer the limiting factor for the process. However, due to problems with oxygen transfer to the
biomass, the MLSS concentration cannot be increased unlimitedly. In conventional activated sludge
systems the MLSS concentration is commonly between 2 and 5 g/L, whereas in MBRs concentrations can
be as high as 8-12 g/L. The higher biomass concentrations result in a reduced footprint of the installation.
Moreover, the potential for low organic loading rates in combination with membrane separation provide
outstanding effluent quality. MBR technology provides effluent particularly suitable for re-use options
(Wedi, 2005). Industries use MBRs to recycle their wastewater to process-water (Donn et al.; 2005, Britz
et al., 2005). MBR effluent from municipal wastewaters can for example be used as irrigation for parks,
golf fields, fire hydrants, or as pre-treatment for dense membrane processes such as nanofiltration or
reverse osmosis (Melin et al., 2005; Wintgens et al., 2006).
MBRs are applied in two system configurations:
• Submerged membranes: used mainly in municipal wastewater treatment.
• External membranes: mostly used for industrial applications, considered as non-economically

competitive for municipal wastewater treatment, because of high energy costs to maintain high
cross-flow velocities.
Submerged membranes can be installed in separate filtration tanks or immersed within the nitrification
tanks (see Figure 13.1). Both systems are applied in full scale, for instance at Vasserveld membranes are
external whereas in Nordkanal they are in the nitrification tank. Obviously, each system has assets and
bottlenecks (Engelhardt et al., 2005; Schyns and van der Roest, 2005). The optimal application must be
checked in each individual case concerning three important criteria: required space, energy demand and
suitability for nitrogen removal.
303
Figure 13.1 MBR system configurations: submerged (a) and side-stream (b)
In table 13.1 the main advantages and disadvantages of MBR technology are listed.
Table 13.1 Advantages and disadvantages MBR technology

Reduced footprint (3-4 times smaller bioreactor
Higher energy consumption compared to conventional
footprint, 2-3 times smaller WWTP footprint) than
activated-sludge system
conventional activated-sludge system)
Superior effluent quality Little long time experience in full-scale applications
Reduced surplus sludge production (only if plant is
Membrane replacement cost
designed at low sludge loading rate)
Flexible and phased/modular extension of current Investment cost compared to conventional systems are
WWTPs possible only lower when high quality effluent is required
Concerning the pore sizes of the membranes mainly microfiltration (0.1 – 1 ȝm) and ultrafiltration (0.01 –
0.1 ȝm) are applied. For re-use options the smaller pore sizes of ultrafiltration membranes are more
appropriate because they also provide higher removal performances for microbiological parameters such
as bacteria and viruses.
Different membrane module configurations are used in MBR technology. Most applied membranes are
tubular, hollow fibre and “plate and frame” (see paragraph 13.6 “Process Equipment”).
13.2 EFFLUENT QUALITY

MBR technology delivers effluent with high quality, suitable for various re-use options and ideal for post
membrane treatments. Without exceptions all quality requirements for microorganisms stated in the EU
Council Directive concerning the Quality of Bathing Water (76/160/ EEC, now updated) can be fulfilled
by MBR effluent. The removal of organic load and nutrients is mainly achieved through optimisation of
the biological process, whereas complete removal of solids and bacteria and very low turbidity can be
304
ascribed to the membrane separation. Table 13.2 shows the removal efficiency and effluent quality that is
generally achieved for the treatment of municipal wastewater.
Table 13.2 Removal efficiency and effluent quality MBR technology

Quality parameter Removal efficiency MBR Effluent quality MBR
TSS > 99 % < 1 mg/L
Turbidity 99 – 100 % < 1 NTU
COD 90 – 99 % 10 – 30 mg/L
BOD > 98 % < 5 mg/L
DOC n.a. 5 – 10 mg/L
NH3-N 80 – 90 % < 5.6 mg/L
NTOT 30 – 80 % < 27 mg/L
PTOT* 60 – 99 % 0.1 – 3 mg/L
Total coliforms 5 – 8 log < 10 - 100 CFU/100 mL
Faecal coliforms n.a. < 20 CFU/100 mL
Bacteriophages > 4 log n.a. PFU/100 mL
It has to be kept in mind that Table 13.2 contains rather conservative data. Most of the published sampling
campaigns showed quite better effluent qualities (Wedi, 2005; Rondi and Montagnoli, 2005).
Most of the MBRs treating municipal wastewater are applied with chemical precipitation for phosphorus
removal. Therefore the discharge values of phosphorus are basically influenced by the applied chemical
dosage. Due to the complete retention of particulate phosphorus compounds and the exclusion of
phosphate solution within the secondary clarifier an enhanced effluent quality in term of phosphorus can
be achieved by MBRs (DWA, 2005).
The microfiltration membranes applied in MBRs have proven to achieve consistently high removal rates
for microbiological parameters such as total coliforms, faecal coliforms and even bacteriophages. The log
removal reported varied between 6-8 log for bacteria and 3-5 log scales for viruses (Stephenson et al.,
2000). MBR effluents were found to be compliant with the EU Bathing Water Directive (EC/160/75)
including parameters such as total coliforms, faecal coliforms, Streptococcus faecalis as well as
Salmonella spp. and Coliphages (Günder, 1999). Experiments conducted by Cicek et al. (1998) with
indicator viruses MS-2, which have an approximate diameter of 25nm and were spiked to the feed of the
membrane, revealed a 94.5% removal. A 5.88 log removal for bacteriophages was observed by Ueda et
al. (2000) in an MBR treating settled sewage and partially attributed to retention by the membrane and
adsorption to activated sludge. A 6.86 log removal was found for faecal coliforms. This compares
favorably with a conventional activated sludge treatment plant (CAS), showing only 1.31 log reduction
for bacteriophages and 2.34 log for faecal coliforms (Ueda et al., 2000). Ottoson et al. (2006) have
conducted a comparative with respect to removal of viruses, parasitic protozoa and microbial indicators in
a conventional tertiary treatment plant and a MBR (0.4 μm membrane). The log removal rates for
Enteroviruses were 1.67 and 1.79, for Norovirus 0.95 and 1.14 respectively. Both types of viruses were
still detected in membrane treatment in 5/17 and 3/17 cases respectively. Giardia and Cryptosporidium
cysts were not detected after MBR treatment while they occurred in 1/18 and 2/18 cases in conventional
treatment (Ottoson et al., 2006)
305
Due to the non-sterile conditions on a wastewater treatment plant a contamination with microorganisms of
the equipment on the permeate side (e.g. pipes, pumps, tanks etc.) is very likely. This has to be considered
with respect to sampling procedures. To ensure a high microbiological quality of MBR effluent periodic
cleaning steps of the equipment on the permeate side are essential (Wedi, 2005). The described high
effluent quality, however, requires the absolute integrity of the membranes and pipe connections.
Therefore periodic membrane integrity monitoring tests should be conducted.
Knowledge about the removal of micro-contaminants (organic micro-pollutants, heavy metals, AOX and
viruses) with MBR is limited so far. In order to remove these substances, they have to be embedded
within the sludge flocs and/or chemical precipitates. Substances and microorganisms being smaller than
the pore sizes of the membranes can be retained if they tend to associate with larger particles and/or
macromolecules. Recently, much research has been developed in this topic, however results are still
contradictory (see also chapter 13.9.2). Up to now a safe removal of these low molecular organic
constituents cannot be ensured.
Another remarkable point is that certain strategies of operation could affect the effluent quality. For
example the application of cleaning agents for back-flush of the membranes could lead to the solution of
already precipitated substances. The application of oxidizing agents (particularly hypochlorite) for certain
cleaning steps may generate hazardous by-products (e.g. detected as AOX) (Drensla et al., 2004; Pampus
and Stein, 2005; Heinrichmeier, 2006). Therefore periodical checks of this parameter are indispensable to
ensure a high effluent quality.
Appraisal of effluent qualities has to consider climatic conditions. Low temperatures and wet weather
periods can lead to declined discharge values. Furthermore there could be alterations in the membrane
material with increasing operating time (Drensla et al., 2004). The influence of operating time and
membrane age on effluent quality cannot be assessed before extensive operation experiences with full
scale MBRs exist.
13.3 OPERABILITY
Full scale MBRs for the treatment of municipal wastewater have been applied in the last few years. For
this reason experience on how to operate a full-scale MBR is still limited. First publications showed that
the warranty of a constant level of permeability requires to conduct periodic cleaning procedures.
Experiences from operators of full scale treatment plants highlight that in principle MBR is a technology
which is suitable for application in different scales, with plants running in sizes from a few P.E. up to about
80.000 P.E. and that cleaning performance is reliable. Particularly membrane operation aspects such as
pre-treatment, cleaning, integrity monitoring, membrane replacement and adaptation of filtration to
varying hydraulic and climatic conditions pose challenges to the operator but have proved to be
manageable.
13.3.1 Flexibility
MBRs are considered flexible wastewater treatment systems. In case of an increase of the average influent
flow rate over long time periods, an existing (conventional activated sludge) plant can be extended easily
by membrane filtration without having to interrupt the total process. Boosting efficiency of existing
wastewater treatment plants (conventional activated sludge system) is assumed as one of the most
promising application of MBRs in future (DWA, 2005). Newer module systems like the PURON®-MBR
306
system are supposed to be designed as flexible and modular systems. Hence, they should be applicable
irrespective of basin geometry. In general, MBRs are designed to cope with a wet weather flow (WWF)
that is higher than the dry weather flow (DWF). WWF to DWF ratios from 2 to 5 times are reported.
Medium to large scale MBR plants include multiple lines of membranes. Therefore it is possible to take
certain lines out of operation in times of dry weather flow or maintenance work. Nevertheless balanced
operating hours of all membrane lines have to be ensured (De Wilde et al., 2005).
Most often all aggregates – especially sensitive pre-treatment equipment like screens and sieves – are held
redundant. For re-use options this is an indispensable safety aspect.
Unsteady inflow is more important for MBRs compared to the conventional system. Because of smaller
biological reactor volumes the contact time is reduced to a minimum during wet-weather flow. This may
result in decreased removal rates for nutrients (Drensla et al., 2004).
In general it can be stated that an MBR can provide greater operational flexibility than the conventional
activated sludge process as the control of sludge retention time is independent of the hydraulic retention
time.
13.3.2 Resilience
The membrane provides an absolute barrier for particles larger than its pore-size. This ensures high
quality effluent concerning turbidity. Sludge quality parameters like the Sludge Volume Index (SVI) do
not affect the removal efficiency. But recent studies point out a correlation between sludge quality and
filterability. Conventional parameters like SVI do not help to describe this correlation; therefore adapted
parameters like filtration indices have been established (Rosenberger et al., 2002).
MBR-technology can deliver high-quality effluent, despite of significant fluctuations in influent

composition. Comparison with other technologies used for water recycling reveals that MBRs are more
robust than the alternative processes (Jeffrey et al., 1999). That is to say the distribution of effluent
qualities produced shows less variation in MBR processes compared to the other technologies. In the case
of grey water treatment with a submerged flat plate MBR, a UF tubular membrane and a biologically
aerated filter (BAF), the MBR was the only technology to meet the reuse standard of 10 mg/L BOD 100%
of the time. The BAF also met the standard over the majority of the monitoring period, but exceeded the
limit 5% of the time. This reduces the need for downstream chlorination as 99.5% of the chlorine demand
comes for the oxidation of organics rather than the disinfection of microbiological contaminants
(Wintgens et al., 2006).
Abrupt fouling of the membranes can happen due to sudden decrease of sludge quality, for example de-
flocculation caused by a toxic influent shock. A full-scale reference concerning this topic is the
experience with the MBR at Schilde, in Belgium. At MBR Schilde permeability dropped from 210 L/(m²
h bar) to 120 L/(m² h bar) within a period of 15 days. This was the result of a poor sludge quality,
probably caused by a toxic influent shock. However, without changing the operation of the MBR, original
permeability values were recovered after approximately 7 weeks.
At MBR Varsseveld similar flux declines were found. The most severe flux drop was related to an
industrial discharge of PVC containing cheese wrapping material. After cancellation of this discharge the
membrane flux increased again.
307
13.3.3 Controllability
Concerning controllability, a distinction has to be made between the biological and the membrane part of
the MBR. Properties of the biomass are difficult to control. Changing the biomass properties by
increasing the sludge retention time for example will take a long time, from several days to several weeks.
The membrane part of an MBR can be controlled easily. Cross-flow velocity (aeration rate), TMP or
cleaning measures can be adapted instantaneously. A medium to small scale MBR system is normally
equipped with a range of sensors which are needed to ensure good control of the systems. Constantly
measured parameters include inflow, outflow and recirculation rates, trans-membrane pressure, sludge
concentration, temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration. To control cleaning conditions pH-meters
in the permeate lines can be designed in addition to other standard measurements of effluent parameters.
While in wastewater treatment applications only turbidity meters are used it is recommended for larger
reuse applications to use particle counters for integrity monitoring (Jenderek and Ganster, 2005; Cote and
Adams, 2005).
13.3.4 Safety
MBR systems are sensitive for equipment failure. The efficiency of the process is in facts significantly
depending on the performance of technical equipment. Good pre-treatment and sufficient mixing in the
membrane tank created by aeration are essential to prevent sludge accumulation. Failure of membrane
aeration can severely impact membrane fouling.
13.3.5 Complexity
Intensive training and technological support of operators is a critical factor in order to guarantee a quick
and efficient start-up and reliable control and operation. Numerous mechanical devices and sensors must
be properly maintained, and operators rely on sensors for understanding of actual process conditions.
Additionally, the use of chemicals for cleaning procedures demands specific instruction for operators with
respect to safety issues.
13.4 COSTS
In comparison to the CAS system, MBR based wastewater treatment is about as expensive with respect to
investment and more expensive in terms of operational costs, like energy consumption and membrane
maintenance or replacement. Extensive research and development has been carried out during the last
years to strengthen the competitiveness of MBR technology. In the following chapters, an overview of
investment costs and operating costs is given.
13.4.1 Investment costs

Wastewater treatment plants using a submerged MBR system require less foot print than conventional
activated sludge systems due to a higher tolerable sludge concentration in the reactor and thereby due to
smaller tank dimensions. In addition to that, the higher biomass concentration and the membrane filtration
lead to higher effluent qualities, so that subsequent treatment steps to the reactor can be omitted. The
drawback is the high technical complexity of a MBR unit, which is also costly. Therefore, an accurate
investment costs comparison is always site-specific and effluent-quality specific. In figure 13.2, the
calculated investment costs for the design of the WWTP Nordkanal (Germany) are compared for (i) a
308
MBR system, (ii) a conventional system with anaerobic sludge stabilisation, and (iii) a conventional
system with aerobic sludge stabilisation.
Figure 13.2 Calculated investment costs for different design concepts of the
WWTP Nordkanal (Germany) (Engelhardt et al., 2001)
Investment costs [Mio €]
Giving the specific local boundary conditions, in this case the investment costs for the MBR system are
lower than for both conventional activated sludge (CAS) system options. Additionally, these calculations
are based on specific membrane costs of 60 EUR/m2. Due to an increasing demand on membrane
materials in waste water treatment applications, the membrane costs will continuously decrease during the
next years, which in turn promote the economic advantages of this system.
It is important to note that for plants of an increasing capacity (capacity of WWTP Nordkanal: 80,000
P.E.), the investment costs are decreasing due to lower specific membrane costs for high capacity
facilities and usual economy-of scale effects (Wintgens, 2005).
Important aspects for estimating the required membrane surface are hydraulic feed fluctuations
corresponding to dry weather or wet weather water influx. In general, MBR plants are designed based on
maximum influx conditions, so that the regional average rainfall is influencing the investment costs of a
MBR plant explicitly. In figure 13.3, the maximum wet weather flow, the dry weather flow, and the ratio
of both is plotted for different MBR based WWTPs in Germany. As one of the most important parameters
for estimating the specific membrane costs and thereby the investment costs, the fraction of wet weather
and dry weather flow is varying explicitly due to local conditions such as population served, climate, type
and current state of water infrastructures. It is a significant investment cost advantage if only the dry
weather flow has to be treated by the MBR.
Apart from the investment costs, operating costs play a decisive role from the stakeholder’s point of view.
The operating costs are subdivided into energy costs, membrane replacement costs, personnel costs, costs
for maintenance resources, costs for sludge treatment and residue disposal, and effluent discharge costs
(Wintgens, 2005). The most important types of costs regarding a comparison of the MBR and the CAS
system are described in detail in the following chapter.
309
Figure 13.3 Wet weather flow, dry weather flow, and a fraction of both for
different WWTPS in Germany (Wintgens, 2005)
2000 3,0
max. wet weather flow Qm [m³/h]
1800 dry weather flow Qt [m³/h]

Qm/Qt
2,5
1600
1400
2,0
1200
1000 1,5
800
1,0
600
400
0,5
200
0 0,0
Rödingen Knautnaundorf Markranstädt Nordkanal Monheim Markkleeberg
During the last decade, membrane prices per m2 of membrane surface have been decreasing due to an
increasing request of wastewater treatment plants utilising membrane filtration units. This trend is
illustrated for Zenon membranes since 1995 in figure 13.4 and is still ongoing. The development of large-
scale MBR based WWTPs and decreasing costs for membrane replacement strengthen this evolution. The
experience from industrial applications of membrane modules in municipal wastewater treatment leads to
a higher reliability and longer membrane life time. Up to now, the indicated life time of MBR membranes
varies between 5 and 10 years.
Figure 13.4 Evolution of membrane costs in MBR applications (Zenon)

1.00
Relative cost (1994 cost equals 1)
0.90 Membrane cost (per unit flow rate)

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
ZW-150 ZW-500a ZW-500b ZW-1000
(1995) (1997) (1999) (2000)
13.4.2 Energy costs

The energy costs to run a MBR plant strongly affect the overall economy of the system. The total energy
demand is generated by (i) the perpetuation of the driving force, i.e. the transmembrane pressure (TMP),
by (ii) providing aeration to avoid fouling of the membrane and clogging of the module, by (iii) providing
310
oxygen for the biochemical reaction, and by (iv) external recycling of sludge in case separate filtration
tanks are designed. Apart from that, other factors can significantly contribute to total energy consumption,
e.g. the need to heat up permeate necessary for maintenance cleanings, or additional purification steps.
The case of MBR Rödingen (Germany) is shown in Figure 13.5. Besides the filtration, which is the
treatment step with the highest energy consumption, the pretreatment and the biological treatment are
taken into account.
Figure 13.5 Specific energy consumption of the MBR WWTP Rödingen (Germany)
in 2001 (Engelhardt et al., 2001)
3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
More recent work indicates that aeration is the major expense factor, contributing 67 to 90 % to the total
energy consumption (DWA, 2005). Therefore, the aeration step is a focus of several present research
studies. Aeration is provided for two main reasons: a) transfer oxygen to the biomass (usually with micro-
bubbles or fine bubbles); and b) to reduce membrane fouling by inducing sufficient cross-flow velocity
along the membrane surface (using coarse bubbles). Crucial factors are the following:
• The characteristics of the mixed liquor, which affect both the fouling tendency and the
oxygen transfer coefficient to the biomass (α-factor);
• The design of the membrane modules and the aeration system;
• The aeration regime (continuous or intermittent, aeration rate).
In figure 13.6, the evolution of Zenon ZeeWeed® modules since 1994 is shown with respect to the
energy consumption for filtration and aeration. It can be seen that permeate extraction (in this case
obtained by suction) consumes little energy when compared to aeration. Additionally, it is clear that the
energy demand for aeration has been steadily reduced by improvements in the system design.
311
Figure 13.6 Evolution of the MBR technology (Zenon)
1
Filtration Aeration
0.9
Energy (kWh/m3) 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ZW-130 ZW-150 ZW-500a ZW-500a ZW-500c
(1994) (1995) (1997) (1999) (2000)
The specific energy consumption (energy consumption divided by the hydraulic throughput) is much
dependent on the aeration regime (continuous/periodic) and on the hydraulic deviations. Intermittent
aeration, recently introduced, surely contributes to energy saving. Under flow conditions which are much
lower than the design inflow, the specific energy consumption increases as the process cannot be perfectly
adapted to the smaller hydraulic load. Moreover, the specific energy consumption of a WWTP of an
increasing capacity is lower. While in Rödingen (Germany; capacity: 2,200 P.E.), 1 m3 of waste water can
be treated by applying 1.7 to 2.7 kWh of energy (depending on the hydraulic load), the same amount of
wastewater in Nordkanal is treated by applying 0.8 kWh only, although the same type of hollow-fibre
module is used (Wintgens, 2005).
As a general rule, flat sheet membranes can use the aeration more effectively compared to hollow fibres.
The cause of this would be the more defined path for air rising in the channel between fixed membranes.
A lower aeration rate is required especially with a double deck configuration, i.e. when two “cassettes” of
flat sheets are piled on top of each other, thus using more effectively the dispersed air. Toray declares
variable aeration rates in the range 0.39-0.86 Nm3/(m2 h), according to the membrane stack configuration
and the feed water characteristics (http://www.toray.co.jp). In Judd (2002) two similar MBRs are
compared, one using flat sheet membranes and the other hollow fibers. The aeration rate is 0.7 and 0.82-
0.97 Nm3/(m2 h) respectively. Hollow fibre membranes can compensate the disadvantage of less efficient
air utilisation but periodic back-washing of the membranes, which is currently not possible with most flat
sheet membranes (Howell, 2004).
Apart from the aeration of membranes, air has to be provided for the biological process. Due to higher
biomass concentrations, the aeration for biological processes in an MBR system has to be more intensive
compared to the CAS process. The transfer of oxygen from air into water depends on the characteristics
of the transfer layer and on the air bubble size as well as mean residence time of a bubble in the reactor.
Thus, the viscosity of the suspension plays an important role and can be influenced by the reactor
configuration, the mixing/aeration device, and the concentration and characteristics of the activated
sludge. In general, higher suspended solids concentrations in MBR systems leads to higher viscosities of
the suspension compared to CAS systems. This usually results in a lower mass transfer α-factor in MBRs
312
( α = 0.5 − 0.6 ) compared to CAS processes ( α = 0.7 − 0.9 ). Consequently higher gas flow rates have to
be applied (Krause et al., 2005). However, in some other cases, despite the higher biomass concentration
the α-factor resulted in the same range as in a CAS process (Cornel et al., 2003).
It has to be noted that the air which is supplied for membrane aeration also leads to a certain oxygen
transfer to the biomass. Recycling streams from the membrane filtration tanks will be saturated with
oxygen, and as a result the biomass aeration capacity can be designed smaller. At the MBR of Schilde it
was estimated that membrane aeration can approximately deliver 25-50% of the total aeration demand at
low sludge loading rates.
Nevertheless, the energy demand of state-of-the-art MBRs is still higher than that of a CAS system of the
same capacity. Therefore, intermittent aeration (air-cycling) is applied to achieve an optimum regarding
filtration performance and fouling prevention on the one hand and energy-saving operating conditions on
the other hand. The specific energy consumption of single modules at the MBR based WWTP
Markranstädt (Germany) is plotted in figure 13.7.
Figure 13.7 Specific energy consumption of single modules at the MBR WWTP
Markranstädt (Germany) (Stein, 2003)
1.8
Specific energy consumption [kWh/m3]
influx
1.6
1.4 recirculation
1.2
permeate
drain
1.0
fine bubble
0.8
aeration
0.6 coarse bubble
aeration
0.4
Total energy
0.2 consumption
0.0
10/2000 12/2001 01/2002 03/2002 08/2002 11/2002 02/2003 05/2003
2027 1780 1645 1568 1882 1874 2495 1674
Amount of treated waste water [m³/d]
In the end of 2002, the ZW 500 A module (Zenon) in Markranstädt was replaced by the ZW 500 C type,
which is running with intermittent aeration. In this so-called air-cycling mode, half of the membrane
modules are alternately flushed with air. This leads to specific aeration energy demands, which are 50 %
lower than those of the ZW 500 A type module (Stein, 2003).
Multistage modules (e.g. for plate and frame modules) and optimised air-cycling modules will be applied
in the near future, so that the energy consumption needed to perpetuate filtration operation will be further
reduced. All in all, the competitiveness of MBR technology compared to the conventional sedimentation
is explicitly depending on the stabilisation and the enhancement of the membrane filtration performance,
so that this will be a main research focus during the next years (Melin, 2001).
13.4.3 Costs for maintenance

Using filtration instead of sedimentation to separate the biomass from the treatment product and thereby a
highly automatic process control system might lead to less personnel expenses, as soon as a stable
operation of the system is guaranteed (Engelhardt, 2003). Up to now, personnel expenses for MBR
313
systems are similar compared to those for CAS systems, so that no advantage of process controlling can
be observed in this regard (Wintgens, 2005).
Although aeration and backwashing steps are integrated in the filtration procedure, both intermediate and
intensive cleaning steps have to be carried out to remove persistent fouling layers and blocking within the
module, respectively. Several industrial and scientific research groups try to improve the cleaning
procedure in terms of cleaning frequency and duration as well as chemical cleaning agents (Drensla et al.,
2003; Joss et al., 2003; Batsch et al., 2004; Wedi et al., 2005). According to (Wedi et al., 2003), the
specific costs for chemical cleaning agents at the MBR based municipal wastewater treatment plant
Monheim (Germany) are in-between 0.01 and 0.02 €/m3.
13.4.4 Comparison of total costs

Up to now, MBR technology is economically competitive compared to the conventional activated sludge
process only in the case of stringent effluent quality regulations. This is shown in figure 13.8, in which the
relative costs for CAS and MBR processes are presented (capacity of WWTP: 2,500 m3/h). In case of
normal effluent quality regulations, the advantage of MBR technology regarding investment costs is more
than compensated by its disadvantage regarding energy consumption and membrane replacement costs
(van der Roest et al., 2001).
Figure 13.8 Comparison of relative costs for MBR and CAS treatment (van der
Roest et al., 2001)
Normal Effluent Quality Stringent Effluent Quality

(N = 10 mg/L ; P = 1 mg/L) (N = 2.2 mg/L ; P = 0.15 mg/L)
Membranes
100% Electrical
Mechanical
Civil
Traditional MBR Traditional MBR
Generally speaking, the MBR market is not mature yet, and still under development. As an example, it
can be said that the commercialization of hollow fibre systems started only in the second part of the ‘90s.
Cleaning procedures and operational improvements can still lead to consistent savings. The actual full
scale plants for municipal wastewater treatment have been often built as demonstration plants, and
therefore outside a purely commercial frame. MBR technology is supposed to bet definitively attractive
mainly for niche applications in the presence of stringent effluent quality or footprint requirements, and
for industrial wastewaters. With respect to municipal wastewater, the competition with the reliable
technology activated sludge + tertiary filtration, is expected to be strong, especially for large plants. In
314
Figure 13.9, the expected domain of competitiveness for the two main MBR technologies and tertiary
filtration is given (Lesjean et al., 2004).
Figure 13.9 Expected domain of application for membrane technology in

municipal wastewater treatment in a competitive market (Lesjean et al., 2004)
13.5 BASIC OPERATIONAL ASPECTS

Main operational aspects of MBR application aim at reaching high effluent quality and minimizing
membrane fouling. Fouling is a very complex process, which is still not fully understood (Wett et al.,
2005). Some of the influencing aspects are described below.
13.5.1 Pre-treatment
MBR technology requires an extended pre-treatment compared to the conventional activated-sludge
process, to reduce fouling and prevent damaging of the membranes. The common pre-treatment in MBR-
technology consists of:
• Screening for removal of coarse material, hair, debris (mesh typically around 1 mm, some
producers claim that they can accept up to 3 mm meshes);
• Flotation and settlement for removal of fat and sand.
The required opening of the fine-sieves is under consideration. A stable operation of fine-sieves requires
an efficient removal of fat in a previous stage. Another experience is that mesh sieves remove hairs and
debris more efficient than split sieves (De Wilde et al., 2005; Pampus and Stein, 2005).
Some operators screen the activated sludge to remove or at least decrease the fibrous material. For
example at MBR Varsseveld a recirculation of the activated sludge is practices in order to remove coarse
material (Schyns and van der Roest, 2005). At MBR Rödingen a discontinuous recirculation of activated
sludge over the pre-treatment equipment (especially the sieves) is conducted to prevent an accumulation
of leaves and fibrous materials within the membrane modules (Drensla et al., 2004).
315
13.5.2 Biology
The operation of an MBR is based on mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) control, instead of the
sludge volume index (SVI) as in conventional activated sludge systems. Investigations on adaptability of
SVI as parameter to evaluate the filterability of MBR sludges are contradictory. In MBR-technology
MLSS concentration is no longer the limiting factor for the process. In industrial MBRs, MLSS
concentrations are varying in-between 6 and 35 g/L (Noronha, 2001; Wagner et al., 2001; Ohle et al.,
2003; Wintgens et al., 2003; Tarnacki et al., 2004). In municipal wastewater treatment, MLSS
concentrations of 10-15 g/L are advised (Pinnekamp et al., 2006). Higher values will cause operational
problems with respect to a decrease in oxygen transfer efficiency and clogging of the membranes.
Biological operating conditions for submerged MBR-systems are listed in table 13.3:
Table 13.3 Biological operating conditions submerged MBR (STOWA, 2002)

Parameter Unit Value
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) hours 1–9
Solids retention time (SRT) days > 20
Food to mass ratio (F/M) kgCOD/(kgMLSS d) < 0.2
Volumetric load kgCOD/(m³ d) up to 20
Sludge production kgSS/(kgCOD d) 0.3 – 0.5 1
1
Usually decreases with increasing sludge age.
Filtration performance of an MBR treating wastewater with high fouling potential can be enhanced by
low food/mass ratios. A (biological) parameter often related to membrane fouling is EPS, which stands
for Extracellular Polymeric Substances. EPS are already contained in the raw wastewater but they are also
formed by the micro-organisms in the sludge/wastewater mixture. They consist of various organic
components of which proteins and polysaccharides are considered to be the main ones. It appears that
EPS in the water phase (suspended EPS) contributes mainly to the fouling process (Tarnacki et al., 2005).
However, the effect of EPS is discussed controversially. Current opinion is that an increase of
macromolecules in the liquid phase of mixed liquor causes a decline in filterability (Rosenberger et al.,
2002).
The floc size of MBR sludges is smaller than sludge flocs of CAS systems and therefore a higher specific
surface is expected compared to a conventional activated sludge (approximately 10 – 50 μm) (Joss et al.,
2004). However a comparable de-waterability is reported in recent studies (DWA, 2005).
Some experiences with MBRs showed a serious foaming problem which seemed to originate from the
specific biocenosis of MBR sludges (Pampus and Stein, 2005). The optimal use of anti-foaming agents
has to be arranged with the membrane manufacturers. Often the problem of filamentous bulking sludge
can get under control by splashing the layer of foam with permeate (Wedi et al., 2005).
13.5.3 Membranes
Controlling membrane fouling is the key-factor in proper operation of an MBR. In the first place this can
be achieved by suitable pre-treatment and management of the biomass. Secondly the membranes have to
be operated properly, by inducing a sufficient feed-sided mass transfer conditions (e.g. through aeration)
and sub-critical permeate fluxes, as well as by backwashing and relaxation. Despite the hydraulic
cleaning, periodical chemical cleaning of MBRs is necessary.
316
The influence of precipitated and flocculated products is not fully explained. Besides the formation of
metal phosphates, a formation of metal hydroxides and a precipitation of foulants (e.g. humic acids) may
occur. DWA (2005) supposed no effect, whereas Wett (2005) found a positive effect due to an increase in
porosity of cake layers. Drensla et al. (2004) reported an optimal dosage of flocculants and coagulants.
High shear force arising from pumping, e.g. for cross-flow applications, should be prevented. This can
result in break-up of the flocs, generating fine colloids and cells which then create a denser and less
permeable cake layer on the membrane (van der Roest et al., 2002).
The temperature of the sludge also plays a role in the assessment of the membrane performance due to
changes in the viscosity of permeate and feed. With decreasing temperature the permeability of the
membrane is reduced.
Extreme pH values can negatively affect the membranes (Wett, 2005). Although most membranes are
able to cope with pH values between 3 and 10, care has to be taken during cleaning operations.
13.5.4 Cleaning modes

Two types of cleaning can be distinguished: chemical cleaning and mechanical cleaning (van der Roest et
al., 2002). Chemicals are required for the periodical cleaning of the membranes. Both the used chemicals
and the applied dosage have to be checked with the membrane manufacturer. In general, the chemicals
can be classified according their effects into six main classes:
• Acids
• Bases
• Oxidizing agents
• Reducing agents
• Enzymatic agents
• Surface active agents
It is clear than, that the design of MBR plants has to consider suitable facilities for storage and dosage of
the chemicals. The choice of suitable materials of basins and pipes demands attention as well.
Applied cleaning procedures are system-dependent and very often the conclusion of extensive on-site
testing. Following parameters can be varied: the dosage time, the residence time, the concentration of
chemicals, the combination / sequence of different chemicals and the type of cleaning steps (in-situ / on-
air). A distinction can be made between two types of cleaning processes:
• Maintenance cleaning (MC)
• Intensive cleaning (IC)
MC is a preventive clean carried out with low chemical concentrations, on a frequent basis. It is carried
out automatically. For certain types of modules MC can be performed as so called “on-air cleaning”,
which may sometimes enhance results (Schyns and van der Roest, 2005). In contrast to the typical in-situ
cleaning steps, in this case the sludge level is dropped down. Therefore no dilution of cleaning agents
appears on the permeate side. This procedure results in additional efforts for operational staff.
317
IC is intended to return the membrane back to its original permeability. For IC some manual supervision
is required.
In municipal MBRs permeability decline during operation is mainly due to cake formation, colloidal
fouling and bio-fouling. Scaling can be an issue particularly related to the phosphor precipitation by ferric
chloride which can cause hydroxide precipitation (Drensla et al., 2004). Cake formation is continuously
controlled by aeration, relaxation and back-flush cycles, which reduce colloidal fouling as well. Bio-
fouling can be treated with an oxidizing cleaning eventually followed by an acid cleaning (van der Roest
et al., 2002). Chemically enhanced back-flush (often using NaOCl) and routinely chemical cleaning (MC)
are somehow effective on all fouling mechanisms, preventing long term fouling. The effects of several
cleaning agents are not fully explained and part of ongoing research (Strugholtz et al., 2005).
In the case of the full-scale installation in Varsseveld (the Netherlands) with a capacity of 23,150 P.E. the
following chemicals and quantities are used for the membrane cleaning (dosage of active chemical):
• H2O2: 0.350 kg/m² membrane area per year
• Citric acid: 0.263 kg/m² membrane area per year
• NaOCl: 0.015 L/m² membrane area per year
Wedi et al. (2005) reported for the full scale MBR in Monheim (Germany) with a capacity of 9700 P.E.
the following chemicals and quantities used for membrane cleaning:
• H2O2: 0.5 kg/m² membrane area per year
• Citric acid: 0.32 kg/m² membrane area per year
• NaOH: 0.08 kg/m² membrane area per year
• Nitric acid: 0.08 kg/m² membrane area per year

The main difference in the type of equipment between MBRs and conventional activated-sludge systems
is represented by the pre-treatment and the membrane units. Pre-treatment in MBR systems has to be
more extended, compared to conventional activated sludge systems for early removal of substances that
can damage or foul the membranes. Major equipment components required are:
• Influent pump
• Pre-treatment: screening, flotation, settlement
• Tanks (anaerobic, anoxic, aerobic, membrane)
• Recirculation pumps
• Substrate dosing pumps (when total de-nitrification is required)
• Membranes
• Permeate extraction pumps and tank
• Tanks and dosing units for chemicals required for MC and IC cleaning
318
• Online measurement tools: pH, turbidity, permeability, MLSS concentration
In the following subchapters, the basic characteristics of widely-spread MBR systems are presented. More
detailed data is provided by Melin et al. (2004) or by the module manufacturers.
13.6.1 Hollow-fibre modules

Submerged hollow-fibre (HF) modules are commonly used in municipal wastewater treatment
applications due to high packing densities in the range of 100-150 m2/m3 module volume (40 – 75 m2/m3
filtration tank volume respectively) and thereby small foot prints. Compared to flat-sheet systems, the
production costs of HF modules are lower, which is another advantage of this type of MBR. To avoid
clogging by fibrous material like hairs, a more intensive pretreatment of the inflow is needed compared to
flat-sheet membrane modules and to the CAS system. Disadvantageous are also worse mass transport
conditions at membrane and the susceptibility to clogging of the membrane module (Melin et al., 2004).
For this reason, different types of modules have been developed to avoid clogging by enforced shear
stress and fibre movement via air flushing. In the ZeeWeed® module (see figure 13.10), the fibres are
fixed both at the module head and the module base. To allow fibre movement, the length of the fibres is
bigger than the distance in-between the module head and the module base (Zenon).
Figure 13.10 ZeeWeed®-module of ZENON (Melin et al., 2004; Zenon)
In the Puron® module (see figure 13.11), the fibres are potted at the module base only, so that fibre
movement is taking place to a higher degree (Koch Membrane Systems) and fibrous material is enabled
to leave the module in aeration direction.
319
Figure 13.11 PURON®-module of Koch Membrane System (Melin et al., 2004;

Koch Membrane Systems)
In comparison to this, the Sterapore® module is constructed with horizontally oriented fibres (see view
from above shown in figure (13.11)) to take advantage of the gravity driven rise of air bubbles within the
whole length of the module (Mitsubishi).
Figure 13.12 Sterapore®-module of Mitsubishi (Melin et al., 2004;

Mitsubishi)
320
13.6.2 Flat-sheet modules

Another very important type of membrane module is shown in figure 13.13 (Kubota, Toray). In general,
flat-sheet (FS) membrane modules are less susceptible to clogging (Melin et al., 2004), because air
flushing is more effective in the case of defined flow channels between two membranes.
Figure 13.13 Flat Sheet Membranes Module: KUBOTA concept (a); KUBOTA double
deck system (b) and Toray system (c) (Kubota: Melin et al., 2004;
Toray: http://www.toray.com/products/mizu/index.html)
a) b) c)
Other advantages are that single sheets in FS modules can be exchanged very easily, and that a broader
range of materials can be employed compared to HF, thanks to the manufacturing method (Lesjean et al.,
2004). This increases the applicability to more aggressive feed waters. The main disadvantages are a
smaller packing density and a higher cost of manufacturing per m2 membrane. In addition to that,
currently backwashing is not practicable according to the construction of the membranes in most cases
(Melin et al., 2004).
13.6.3 Modules with rotating membranes

In conventional FS cross-flow filtration systems, the flow velocity close to the membrane surface is
perpetuated via air flushing only. In the “vacuum rotation membrane (VRM)” system, which is shown in
figure 13.14, the entrainment of sludge is caused by both air flushing and a liquid cross-flow current. The
membrane modules constantly rotate, and air is released from the central rotation axis scouring the
passing sections of the module.
321
Figure 13.14 VRM-system of HUBER (Melin et al., 2004; Huber Technology)

Process operation should be based on the two main aspects of the MBR: effluent quality and fouling
prevention. Effluent quality depends on the “management” of the biomass. Recirculation from the
membrane tank can cause a transport of oxygen into the de-nitrification zone. This has to be controlled
during the process, especially if separate membrane tanks are used. Oxygen saturation due to the
extensive aeration of the modules may occur and enforces the problem of oxygen entrainment into
anoxic/anaerobic zones (Drensla et al., 2004). Fouling can be mitigated by a good pre-treatment, avoiding
high shear conditions for the biomass and by good management of the membranes (sufficient cross-flow
circumstances by applying a high aeration flow rate, back flush, relaxation, chemical cleaning). The main
operating conditions for submerged MBR are summarized in table 13.4.
Table 13.4 Typical operating conditions submerged MBR (sources:

www.toray.co.jp, 2005; Melin et al., 2004; Lesjean et al., 2004; Judd, 2002)
Parameter Units Value
Net Flux - instantaneous L/(m² h) 25 – 30
- sustainable in long term operation L/(m² h) 15 – 25
Transmembrane pressure kPa < 20 (50)*
Biomass concentration gMLSS/L 5 – 25
(12 – 15 g/L is advised, higher concentrations can cause operational problems like clogging of the membrane
and decreased oxygen transfer efficiency)
Volumetric load kgCOD/(m³ d) up to 20
Air flow rate Nm³/(h m3 permeate produced) 0.38-0.98
Operational temperature °C 5 – 35
Operating pH - ∼ 7 – 7.5
Backwash frequency min 5 – 16
Backwash duration sec 15 – 45
Energy consumption for filtration kWh/m³ 0.20 – 0.60 (2)*
- for membrane aeration % 80 – 90
- pumping for permeate extraction % 10 – 20
*
( ) between brackets recorded “extreme” values
322
Operation of a full-scale MBR implies a different approach compared to conventional activated sludge
systems. Most specific maintenance aspects can be automated: flushing and cleaning of the membranes,
permeability measurements, effluent flow (flux).
A few basic rules to prevent cake formation on the membranes are described below:
• use a membrane with high maintainable permeability
• reduce dead zones in the membrane tank and avoid too high packing densities
• select sustainable operating fluxes
• generate large sludge flocs to achieve a good filterability and to allow the formation of a
permeable cake layer on the membrane, a more permeable cake layer might be achieved by an
optimized precipitation/flocculation with adapted precipitants (Wett, 2005);
• install and maintain good biological conditions, thus limit formation of EPS and filamentous
organisms
• regularly carry out a visual control for a correct distribution of coarse bubble aeration
If a cake-layer is formed some actions can be undertaken to remove it (van der Roest et al., 2002):
• high turbulence/recirculation of the fluid in the membrane tank, without the sludge flocs to be
macerated or stressed
• temporally more air-bubbling or intermittent air can break down the layer
• back-flush, but this will only help if the frequency is high
• relaxation is very helpful, but reduces the system productivity and over-all recovery.
• dosing of polymers to the activated sludge to increase the permeability of the cake layer
13.8 MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING

Like any process operation, monitoring and record keeping should be based on two basic aspects of the
MBR: effluent quality and fouling mitigation.
13.8.1 Process monitoring

For proper operation of the biological and membrane filtration processes, the parameters listed in table
13.5 should be controlled and monitored.
Table 13.5 Monitoring and record keeping for MBR process
Parameter Unit Record keeping

Flow rate influent effluent m³/h Continuously
Recirculation flow between tanks m³/h Continuously
Dissolved oxygen content mg/L Continuously
Mixed Liquid suspended solids concentration mg/L daily
Volatile suspended solids concentration mg/L daily
Surplus sludge flow m³/h daily
Air flow rate m³/h Continuously
pH (-) Continuously
Temperature ºC Continuously
323
Permeate Flux L/(m² h) Continuously

Permeability L/(m² h bar) Continuously
Trans-membrane pressure bar Continuously
13.8.2 Effluent
In terms of the effluent quality monitoring, requirements very much depend on the local quality target.
This is valid with regard to both the choice of parameters and the frequency of monitoring. The
parameters listed in table 13.6 may deal as a stick yard for process control, comprehensive organic load
parameters, nutrients and pathogens indicators. Those parameters concern the effluent quality as such, and
therefore are more relevant to the operation of the activated sludge system rather than of the membranes.
Only TSS and bacterial indicators are strictly depending on membrane integrity.
Table 13.6 Monitoring and record keeping for MBR effluent quality
Parameter Unit Record keeping
TSS mg/L weekly
Turbidity NTU Continuously
COD mg/L daily-weekly
BOD mg/L weekly
NH3-N mg/L daily-weekly
NTOT mg/L daily-weekly
PTOT* mg/L daily-weekly
total/faecal coliforms CFU/100 mL weekly
Bacteriophages PFU/100 mL weekly
13.9 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

In this section the most important knowledge gaps in MBR technology are listed and briefly discussed.
13.9.1 Fouling
An important point of attention to ensure an economical operation of MBR technology is the fouling of
the membranes that inevitably takes place during the filtration process to some extent. Extensive research
has been conducted in the recent years to tackle this problem; however knowledge about how to control
fouling is still limited. Fouling can be subdivided into different phenomena like irreversible cake layer
formation, pore blocking, inner pore adsorption, and bio-fouling (Melin et al., 2004; see figure 13.15).
• Due to particle-particle interactions, the cake layer in front of the membrane is compacted, which
leads to an irreversible fouling layer and thereby a lower permeability recovery after a cleaning
step.
• Immediately after the initiation of a virgin membrane module, the largest pores of the pore
structure are often blocked by particles of a larger diameter, which in turn causes a decreasing
permeability during the very first period of operation.
• Particles of a smaller diameter than the pores and with a high affinity to the membrane material
might adsorb within the porous membrane material. This leads to smaller effective pore diameters
and thereby to a higher flow resistance.
324
• Bio-fouling is caused by micro-organisms embedded in a gel matrix (extracellular polymeric

substances) and settled on the membrane surface. EPS were considered as very relevant foulants.
The detailed knowledge on mechanisms of formation and degradation of EPS during the
treatment process is still limited.
Figure 13.15 Fouling mechanisms of porous membranes (Melin et al., 2004)
Approaches to fouling control include pre-dominantly operation and cleaning strategies as discussed
before as well as progress improvements in membrane materials (surface modifications towards lower
fouling susceptibility, better resistance to cleaning chemicals and conditions) and modules (towards better
hydrodynamics, appropriate packing density, better clean ability) (Wett, 2005; Drensla et al., 2004; van
der Roest et al., 2002).
13.9.2 Removal of organic micro-pollutants

Micro-pollutants such as hormones, pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) are
too small to be retained by the UF/MF membrane in MBRs. Indeed, the nominal molecular weight cut off
(NMWCO) of ultrafiltration membranes showed no influence on the elimination (Schröder et al., 2000;
Clara et al., 2005). In order to remove these substances from the wastewater, they have to be biologically
degraded or transformed, or attached to the sludge flocs. Therefore, the removal mechanisms during MBR
treatment or activated sludge treatment are supposed to be similar. Knowledge about this process is
limited and experimental results are contradictory (Yoon et al., 2006; Engelhardt et al., 2005; Clara et al.,
2005a; Joss et al., 2004; Clara et al., 2004; Holbrook et al., 2004; Yamamoto et al., 2003; Schäfer et al.,
2002; Holbrook et al., 2002).
Micropollutants are expected to adsorb onto biosolids and organics of activated sludge according to their
physical properties. In particular, hydrophobic substances are expected to be more readily removed (Clara
et al., 2005b). Relevant factors for the biological treatment seem to be the loading rate, the redox
conditions (alternation of anaerobic and aerobic environment) and especially the sludge age. A low
loading rate decrease the available competitive substrate for bacterial growth, thus it might enhance the
estrogen degradation (Clara et al., 2005a). Some compounds are (more readily) degraded only at certain
325
redox conditions (Clara et al., 2005a; Joss et al., 2004). Finally, it is obvious from several studies that the
high sludge age is fundamental, probably because long sludge retention times allow the development of a
more complex and adapted bacterial population. Since sludge age in MBRs is usually higher, this
promotes the degradation or transformation of a wider range of micropollutants. However, it must be
noted that some substances appear in any case resistant to biological treatment (Clara et al., 2005a).
Although many articles have been reported on the application of MBRs to treat municipal and industrial
wastewater, there are only a few papers that consider the fate of estrogenic compounds during the MBR
process. It is also true that for estrogens, pharmaceuticals and other endocrine disrupting compounds the
concentration in WWTP effluent is very close to the analytical detection limit, thus inhibiting the
possibility of quantitative estimation of removal efficiencies. The review of several papers which
compared the elimination efficiency of estrogenic trace contaminants during MBR and CAS
(conventional activated sludge treatment) treatment resulted in the generation of table 13.8.
Table 13.8 Elimination efficiencies of MBRs and CAS process (Lyko et al., 2005)
SRT/sludge SRT/sludge
Com- MBR
scale load load CAS rejection Reference
pound rejection
(MBR) (CAS)
0.03 – 0.05 0.07 kg
pilot (MBR) /
NPEOs kg COD/kg 91 – 97 % COD/kg < 86 % Schröder et al., 2000
full (CAS)
MLSS/d MLSS/d
NP2EO full n/a 97.8 % n/a 98.5 % Hegemann et al., 2002
NP full n/a 81.2 % n/a n/a Hegemann et al., 2002
E1 full n/a 96.3 % n/a 91.2 % Hegemann et al., 2002
E2 full n/a 100 % n/a 91.0 % Hegemann et al., 2002
EE2 full n/a 92.4 % n/a 100 % Hegemann et al., 2002
0.09 – 0.18 0.12 – 0.18
pilot (MBR) / 93.8 –
E1 kg COD/kg kg COD/kg 87.8 – 97.5 % Zühlke et al., 2003
full (CAS) 99.7 %
MLSS/d MLSS/d
0.09 – 0.18 0.12 – 0.18
E2 kg COD/kg kg COD/kg 94 – 97.5 % Zühlke et al., 2003
full (CAS) 98.5 %
MLSS/d MLSS/d
0.09 – 0.18 0.12 – 0.18
EE2 kg COD/kg kg COD/kg 59.4 – 81.5 % Zühlke et al., 2003
full (CAS) 93.6 %
MLSS/d MLSS/d
pilot (MBR) /
E2-Eq 20 -25 d 75 % 8 – 12 d 58 % Holbrook et al., 2002
full (CAS)
full (MBR) / 92.7 –
BPA 22 – 82 d 48 d 82.6 % Clara et al., 2005
full (CAS) 99.9 %
NPEOs = nonylphenol ethoxylates
NP2EO = nonylphenol diethoxylate
NP = nonylphenol
E1 = estron
E2 = 17ȕ -estradiol
EE2 = 17Į-ethinylestradiol
E2-Eq = 17ȕ-estradiol-equivalence
BPA = bisphenol A
326
It appears that MBRs have a slightly higher elimination efficiency compared to the CAS processes in
terms of estrogenic compounds. To this date, it is not fully explained what the reasons for this
phenomenon are, which is indeed not always observed. A potential reason could be the shift of NMWCO
of the membranes due to the gel layer formed during the operation, but more likely results depend on the
different optimisation of the biological step.
13.9.3 Start-up of an MBR

When starting up an MBR the biomass in the installation is not yet in a stable situation. This may lead to
fouling problems, for example if organic compounds are not degraded sufficiently by the biomass.
Many operators experience problems during the start-up months of their first MBR. These start-up
problems can range from membrane fouling because of suboptimal filtration or cleaning settings to a bad
design of the pre-treatment. Some problems are inherent to a plant start-up, but often they are the result of
the fact that MBR technology is not yet in the mature phase of its life cycle.
13.9.4 Transition from pilot-scale to full-scale

application
Experience with MBR technology on a large scale is limited yet. Scaling up an MBR is not simply a
matter of dimensions. Attention has to be paid to the (hydraulic) design of the installation. “Dead zones”
have to be avoided and coarse bubble aeration, permeate extraction and sludge recycling has to be equally
distributed over the total membrane surface, to avoid an unbalanced filtration process.
13.9.5 Aeration efficiency

With respect to oxygen transfer, conventional activated sludge processes can be regarded to have poor
aeration performance. Aeration accounts for more than 50% of the total energy costs (DWA, 2005), but
less than 5-15% of the oxygen supplied is transferred to the water phase (Imhoff, 1993). In MBR systems
the oxygen transfer is even lower, due to high concentrations of solids (Krause et al., 2005), leading to
higher energy requirement for aeration. This stresses the need for a better understanding of the potential
causes and measures to be taken to improve the aeration efficiency in MBR systems.
13.9.6 Membrane cleaning

It is recognised that MBR cleaning procedures have to be further improved in relation to full-scale
integration, protocol and chemicals. While the main MBR market players already did significant
optimisation of their cleaning strategy during the last 5 to 10 years, cleaning procedure of a lot of other
smaller suppliers still has to be thoroughly examined. In particular, innovative membrane regeneration
solutions and alternatives to chlorine-based cleaning can still be investigated, such as hydrogen peroxide
based solutions or enzymatic formulations.
13.9.7 Modelling of biological process and filtration

performance
Although it was demonstrated that the usual biological activated sludge models (ASM) developed by
IWA can be easily adapted to MBR, some kinetic parameters (such as biomass decay coefficient, growth
rates of organisms) still need to be calibrated to the MBR conditions, especially for operating conditions
like high sludge age or low TS content in the influent.
327
Few references exist of models simulating long-term permeability decrease of MBRs outlining the
influence of main operating parameters on flux performance. There is a growing need of accurate
filtration models which are able to simulate long term membrane filtration performance, both to allow a
better design of new MBR plants and to improve the operational characteristics of existing MBRs
(Wintgens et al., 2003; Geissler et al., 2005).
13.9.8 On-line data acquisition and advanced filtration

control systems
Few data are available on optimised or dynamic control of filtration conditions in MBR plants. A data
acquisition and control system could provide easier reporting on operational parameters, diagnostic of
disturbance or drifts in process conditions, operational assistance (e.g. prediction of next cleaning) and
dynamic control and optimisation of filtration parameters. Finally an advanced filtration control system
should also be able to optimise operational costs while reducing stress on the membranes. This would lead
to an increased lifespan of the membrane modules.
13.9.9 Standardisation of MBR technology

The MBR technology did not undergo a process of standardisation yet, unlike other membrane filtration
systems such as nanofiltration or reverse osmosis. Little is known about the economical potential (market)
and technical possibilities (module geometry) of undergoing a standardisation process of MBR
technology.
13.9.10 Optimisations of operational costs

One of the main bottlenecks impeding a widespread application of MBR technology for municipal
wastewater treatment is the current high level of operational costs. Although a lot of research was already
dedicated to this subject by different market players, the boundary conditions under which energy
consumption in MBRs can be decreased, are still unclear, and more research and product developments in
this area are definitely necessary in the future.
13.9.11 Effect of feedwater quality on MBR performance

Little research has been dedicated to the effects of wastewater origin and quality on filterability, cleaning
and energy consumption in full-scale MBRs. Every MBR performs different in respect to permeate
quality and filtration stability, and different sludge quality as a result of a specific influent composition is
one of the main reasons for that. A better understanding of the relation influent composition – sludge
quality – filtration performance could lead to a better design and operation of MBRs.

MBR technology is increasingly applied for small-scale reuse facilities such as “in building” schemes and
for community facilities. There are also significant expectations for the use of membrane bioreactors
(MBR) for larger scale projects, from which the effluent might be reclaimed directly, for unrestricted
irrigation, or as a pre-treatment of reverse osmosis to produce drinking water quality.
The first series of MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment in Europe were commissioned in 1998. The
entry of membrane bioreactors into larger sized projects has been slow. Many potential customers were
328
deterred by the lack of full-scale experience and drawbacks such as complexity, high costs of membranes,
and uncertainties on the life expectancy of the membranes, operator skills and maintenance requirements
as well as the issue of membrane fouling. It is also true that the first installations had to face unexpected
technical problems (Stein et al., 2003).
In the last couple of years, the use of MBRs for medium to large-scale domestic wastewater applications
is beginning to shows a strong increase (Wintgens et al., 2006). A list of medium to large sized full-scale
projects in Europe is described in Table 13.7. In the US and Canada, installation of MBRs is also in great
expansion (Lenhardt, 2005; Yang et al., 2006).
The main factors that contributed to their development were the experience gained with pilot/small-scale
projects, the drastic decrease in the cost of membranes, the availability of subsidies and the improvements
in membrane performance. Other important aspects are footprint limitations, discharge into sensitive
/bathing water and development of better guarantees on membrane life-spans and of maintenance
contracts.
Table 13.7 Large/medium scale (>2000 m³/d) municipal wastewater treatment

with MBRs in Europe (Wintgens et al., 2006)
Location Size Type of Start- Comments
(m3/d) mem- up
branes
Rödingen, DE 2,400 Zenon 1999 Discharge of effluent into a small creek
Markranstädt, 3,600 Zenon 2000 MBR only has to treat dry weather flow.
DE
Swanage, UK 12,720 Kubota 2000 Environmentally sensitive area nearby a bathing beach
Campbeltow, 2,678 Zenon 2001 By selecting MBR technology, effluent can be discharged
UK directly to the Campbeltown Loch, thereby eliminating the
need for the long sea outfall if a conventional activated
sludge (CAS) system was constructed.
Westbury, UK 3,536 Kubota 2002 MBR was built in parallel to the existing trickling filters to
treat increased domestic flows and the effluent produced by a
new dairy facility for compliance with new Environment
Agency discharge consent.
Lowestoft, UK 14,160 Zenon 2002 Three separate secondary treatment streams were developed
so that appraisal of new treatment systems and optimisation
of future treatment strategies is possible: 60% of the flow is
treated in a CAS plant, 20% in a Moving Bed Biological
Reactor, and the remaining 20% is treated in an MBR plant.
Brescia, IT 42,000 Zenon 2002 Upgrading of one of the three existing CAS treatment lines.
Very limited available land to extend the plant footprint
possibility of reusing the water for irrigation in the future.
Monheim, DE 2,400 Zenon 2003 Strict requirements because discharged wastewater percolates
through carstic soil
Schilde, BE 6,520 Zenon 2003 Extension of the CAS system to comply with a more stringent
effluent regulation and an increase in load. MBR is operated
at constant flow in parallel to the existing conventional
activated sludge system.
Kaarst, DE 45,144 Zenon 2003 Largest operational MBR in the world. To produce EU
“bathing water” quality effluent. Possibility to use the
329
Location Size Type of Start- Comments

(m3/d) mem- up
branes
receiving canal for water sports
Waldmössingen, 2,160 Zenon 2004 Sensitive receiving surface water because of (very) low flows
DE in summer.
Guilvinec, FR 2,600 Kubota 2004 Effluent can be discharged directly in the harbour i.o.
offshore outfalls. It meets the bathing water norms of best
quality
La Bisbal, SP 3,240 Zenon 2004 In Zenon reference list. No info available
Riells I Viabrea, 5,160 Kubota 2004 In Kubota reference list. No info available
SP
Uerikon, CH 5,200 Zenon 2004 In Zenon reference list. No info available
Cardigan, UK 8,640 Kubota 2004 In Kubota reference list. No info available
Buxton, UK 10,627 Zenon 2004 Replacement of the existing WWTP. The scheme is driven by
1) the Fishery consent as part of the UWWTD.
2) the fact that several obstacles posed problems for an
expansion, including a road and the unusual topography
Varsseveld, NL 18,120 Zenon 2004 Demonstration installation, co-financed by a number of
innovation subsidies
Ile de Yeu, FR 2,260 Zenon ? In Zenon reference list. No info available
Note that the list has become quickly incomplete as many projects were about to be commissioned when
the mapping study was carried out in 2004. The particularly large number of pilot and demonstration
installations can also give a clear indication of the growing interest in the technology.
Despite the fact that several MBR plants are now operational in almost every Western European country,
the high quality effluent is rarely reused. Identified water reuse projects are summarized in Table 13.8.
Table 13.8 Municipal reuse projects with MBRs effluents in Europe

Start-
Location Size Type of membranes Comment
up
1. Villefranque, FR 168 m³/d Dégrémont BRM1® 1997 Reused for washing water in a tannery
2. Collegno, IT 960 m³/d Zenon ZW500® 5/2001 Industrial reuse
3. Rocca Imperiale,
960 m³/d Zenon ZW500® 5/2003 Demonstration project Agricultural reuse
IT
13.11 CASE STUDY: MBR SCHILDE, BELGIUM

Although MBR technology for domestic wastewater treatment is often claimed to be entering the growth
stage of its lifecycle, still a lot of uncertainties and operational problems exist. These are rarely reported in
the literature. The following section will provide an overview of some relevant full-scale operational
problems at WWTP Schilde/Belgium (De Wilde et al., 2005).
The MBR of Schilde is the first MBR for municipal wastewater treatment in the Benelux and is run by the
regional wastewater company AQUAFIN NV. The facility is operated at a constant flow of 230 m3/h
(maximal design flow 355 m3/h), while the remaining flow being treated in the existing conventional
activated sludge (CAS) system. Although the system was conceived by experienced external and in-house
330
designers, it showed some important operational problems, partly due to the inherent nature of a plant
start-up, and for a significant part, because MBR technology for medium-large scale domestic wastewater
treatment was still in the development stage of its lifecycle.
Pre-treatment appeared to be one of the most critical factors for guaranteeing a stable and continuous
MBR operation. While it was clear from intensive long-term pilot plant trials that influent sieving of at
least 1 mm was necessary, two severe problems occurred while the 1 mm drum sieve was scaled up:
• The wedge wire sieve (slots) showed low removal efficiencies. Later it was replaced by a better
performing woven mesh type sieve. The type of sieve installed is very important regarding the total
screening removal, especially towards hair and fibres. After replacement of the drum, severe and
frequent clogging of the mesh type sieve occurred, caused by an inadequate automated cleaning
system. Frequent manual high pressure cleaning by the operators was necessary to guarantee a
continuous operation.
• After the start-up it was decided to cover the bioreactor completely in order to prevent leafs, needles
and other debris from falling into the bioreactor.
13.11.2 Necessity of in-line sludge filtration

Unexpectedly, the 10 mm punched hole safety screen placed on the external sludge recycling to the
membrane filtration trains gave significant clogging problems, although the influent was treated by a 1
mm drum sieve. This was partly due to the fact that the bioreactor was not covered, but also by the
agglomeration of fibrous material in the bioreactor leading to the formation of particles and products
much greater than 1 mm. This was further investigated by measuring sludge trash content in several
particle size classes. Low-flow sludge recycling over the drum sieve appeared to be a successful measure
to obtain a significant sludge trash content decrease. In a few recent applications, this practice has been
taken into consideration in the design phase (e.g. Varsseveld, Netherlands). On the other hand, two and a
half year after start-up of MBR Schilde there is hardly any accumulation of trash material in between the
fibers and it appears that no additional costs will be necessary for side stream sludge sieving.
13.11.3 Automation requirements and programming

Automation and programming of the MBR plant by in-house programmers before and during start-up was
relatively time consuming since it was their first experience with this new technology. During the initial
months after MBR start-up numerous program bugs or suboptimal controls had to be optimised (e.g.
logging precision, unwanted alarms, program errors resulting in prolonged backflush periods etc.). Apart
from fixing problems inherent to the program itself, it is a must to have experienced in-house
programmers available at almost any time. The reason for this is not the complexity of an MBR PLC
program – since it is not more complex than for a conventional system – but because of the high
automation degree of almost every basic operation. If a program error or alarm is generated for an MBR,
in almost any case permeate flow will be shut down as a safety measure, while in a conventional plant
wastewater will just follow its gravity path through the installation.
331
13.11.4 Operator training and attendance

One disadvantage of a plant refurbishment with two parallel bioreactors like the one in Schilde is the fact
that a lot of tasks – like sludge / effluent analyses and trending interpretation - have to be done twice.
Weekly WWTP maintenance tasks are also more labour intensive in respect to a system treating the same
capacity with only a single biology. In addition to that, Schilde was the first plant within the company
where MBR technology was introduced, and although a lot of experience with MBR pilot plants was
already gathered, operating a full-scale hybrid MBR-CAS was not a straightforward job. Many operator
tasks were not standardised or well-known like in a conventional WWTP and therefore more time
consuming. On average, the hybrid MBR-CAS system in Schilde is operated by 2.3 person equivalents.
Obviously a preceding operator training was necessary to ensure a proper operation of the plant during
and after start-up. In addition, after start-up frequent contacts with the membrane supplier were necessary
and useful. Nevertheless, the AQUAFIN experience with years of pilot plant research was indispensable
since intensive in-house technological advice and numerous operator advisory meeting sessions had to be
organised, even long after start-up. Although time consuming, they proved to be very useful and even
essential to guarantee a continuous and stable operation of the plant.
It has to be noted that a combination of many factors (two-biology hybrid, MBR as a companies first
research installation) are responsible for the level of operational efforts, and it is expected that operational
personnel costs will decrease along with the increase of an end user’s full-scale MBR experience.
13.11.5 Membrane fouling

As opposed to long-term pilot results, only a few problems with membrane fouling were encountered in
the full-scale plant. Only twice, the membranes were partly fouled. One time fouling occurred as a result
of a decreasing sludge quality (de-flocculation), probably caused by a toxic influent shock, since complete
nitrification inhibition was observed. After several weeks the MBR system managed to recover to its
original membrane permeabilities through normal daily operation, without application of any special
permeability restoring measures, such as chemical cleaning. A second membrane fouling occasion occurred
as a result of iron scaling on the membranes, after black anaerobic primary sludge of the CAS pre-settlement
tanks was drained to the influent (and as a result partly to the MBR) during a maintenance operation.
Afterwards a citric acid cleaning recovered membrane permeability.
13.11.6 Effluent results

The MBR effluent complied with the faecal coliforms WHO guideline limit for using treated water in
agriculture (1989). Evaluation of compliance with the total coliforms State of California Title 22 Water
Recycling Criteria (2000) is somewhat difficult in that sampling is carried out every 2 weeks, while the
Title 22 limit for total coliforms is based on a running 7-day median. Of the 24 effluent samples of the
first year of operation, 18 were < 240/100 mL, 9 were < 23/100 mL and 5 were < 2.2/100 mL.
Removal efficiency for:
• Cu, Zn, faecal coliforms (FC), total coliforms (TC), faecal streptococci (FS) is much better
for MBR than for CAS
• Anionic detergents and herbicides is slightly better for MBR than for CAS
• As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni and Pb is equal in MBR and CAS
332
13.12 CASE STUDY 2 MBR VARSSEVELD

The first Dutch full-scale MBR is operational since the beginning of 2005, at the WWTP of Varsseveld.
Water Board Rijn & IJssel decided to apply MBR technology due to three reasons: the upcoming more
stringent effluent quality requirements, biological capacity had to be enlarged and odour- and sound-
emissions had to be reduced.
Figure 13.16 MBR Varsseveld (Water Board Rijn & IJssel)
The installation is employed as a demonstration project to investigate large scale application of MBR
technology in the Netherlands. The project is funded by Stowa and the LIFE programme of the European
Union. As the MBR has been operational for a relatively short period, data about its functioning is still
limited. The following section will provide a brief overview of the start-up of the MBR in Varsseveld.
Data has been collected from the website of MBR Varsseveld.
13.12.1 Design
The future load of MBR Varsseveld will be 23,150 P.E. and 755 m3/h in 2015. Design is based on the
Dutch Maximum Tolerable Risks (MTR) standards of <5 mg/L nitrogen and <0.15 mg/L phosphorus.
Also, the typical Dutch circumstances with high storm water flows which have to be treated in the WWTP
constitute a main aspect of the design: maximum hydraulic load of the MBR has to be three times higher
than the average influent flow. In addition, the treatment of a specific wastewater from a local cheese
factory forms an important point of attention during the design stage. Major plant characteristics are given
in table 13.19.
333
Table 13.9 Characteristics MBR Varsseveld (DHV Water BV)

Parameter Unit Value
Rain Weather Flow (RWF) m³/h 755
Capacity
Average m³/d 5,000
GROSS
RWF L/(m² h) 37.5
Flux
Membrane surface required m² 20,160
Surface per element m² 31,5
Number of elements per cassette - 40
Surface per cassette m² 1,260
Required number of cassettes - 16
Number of compartments - 4
Number of cassettes per compartment - 4
As mentioned previously, the pre-treatment is one of the most critical factors in properly operating an
MBR. In Varsseveld, the raw wastewater first passes a grid with a bar-width of 6 mm, and through an
aerated sand- and fat-remover. Then, the wastewater is led through a sieve with a perforation of 0.8 mm.
Continuous recirculation of the activated sludge over the sieves takes place in order to keep the sludge in
the system, free from coarse materials (leaves, sludge cake).
13.12.3 Biological treatment

On the basis of the SIMBA model, the following design choices were made with respect to the biological
treatment of the wastewater:
• To comply with the effluent requirements for nitrogen (5 mg Ntot/L), a carrousel (with a high
recirculation factor) with a pre-denitrification tank is preferred.
• Aeration is based on the cascade regulation of oxygen and the ratio between ammonium and nitrate.
• Regulation of the internal recirculation to a pre-denitrification tank is based on the nitrate monitor of
the carrousel.
13.12.4 Risk analysis

MBR Varsseveld is a demonstration project and for this reason it was important to point out critical
factors and to overcome them, if possible. A risk analysis which served as a basis for the design was
performed. The main outcomes of the risk analysis are:
• The fine screens and sieves are employed with a 100% back-up;
• A high risk factor was applied for the design of the aeration; design is based on an α-factor of 0.5;
• A bypass to the old (conventional activated sludge) treatment system can be mobilized, in case of
emergency;
• The capacity of the membrane installation can be extended relatively easy. Each cassette of 40
membrane elements can be increased to 48 elements.
334
13.12.5 Start-up
To enhance the start-up of the full-scale MBR a simulation unit was employed. The design of the
simulation unit was identical with the full-scale unit, but 200 times smaller. The main objectives of the
simulation unit were to train the personnel and to support the research program. Changes in operation and
cleaning could first be tested in the simulation unit before they are applied on the full-scale installation.
Activated sludge from the conventional activated sludge system was used for the biological start-up of the
full-scale installation. This sludge is available to a great extent, has sufficient nitrifying capacity and is
already adapted to the local wastewater characteristics. Pre-treatment of the conventional system was less
thorough than of the new MBR; for this reason all sludge was treated with the new pre-treatment system
to remove hairs, fat, sand and other undesirable substances. However, the high fat-concentrations led to
clogging of the sieves (0.8 mm). From a MLSS concentration of 2.4 g/L the further increase was achieved
by biological growth. After approximately one month MLSS concentration increased to 9 g/L.
13.12.6 Performance
Data about the performance of the biology and the membranes is limited. The first results concerning
nitrification were promising. Denitrification and phosphorus removal results were less promising. The
reason is that due to the low sludge load and MLSS concentrations, there were high dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
First results indicated that the discharge from the local cheese factory had a negative impact on the
membrane performance. For this reason, the cheese factory discharge was uncoupled from the sewer
system; the wastewater was collected separately and transported to another (conventional) treatment plant
in the area. The latest results show good performance of the membranes.
13.13 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Batsch A., Tyszler D., Brügger A., Panglisch S., Melin T. (2004) Foulant Analysis of Modified and Unmodified Membranes for
Water and Wastewater Treatment with LC-OCD. Proceedings of the conference RO, NF and Membrane Filtration Technology
for Potable Water Applications in L’Aquila, Italy
Britz T., Blöcher C. and H. Chmiel (2005) Application of a membrane bioreactor for continuous treatment and regeneration of
degreasing solutions from electroplating operations. 10th Aachen Membrane Colloquium, Aachen 2005.
Cicek, N., Franco J.P., Suidan M.T., Urbain V. and J. Manem (1999) Characterisation and comparison of a membrane bioreactor
and a conventional activated sludge system in the treatment of wastewater containing high molecular compounds. Water
Environment Research 71(1):64-70.
Cicek, N., H. Winnen , M.T. Suidan , B.E. Wrenn , V. Urbain and J. Manem (1998) Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in
the biodegraddation of high molecular weight compounds. Water Research 32: 1553-1563.
Clara M., Kreuzinger N., Strenn B., Gans O. and H. Kroiss (2005) The solids retention time – a suitable design parameter to
evaluate the capacity of wastewater treatment plants to remove micropollutants. Water Research 39: 97-106
Clara M., Strenn B., Gans O., Martinez E., Kreuzinger N. and H. Kroiss (2005a) Removal of selected pharmaceuticals, fragrances
and endocrine disrupting compounds in a membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment plants. Water Research
39: 4797-4807.
Clara M., Strenn B., Saracevic E., und N. Kreuzinger (2004) Adsorption of bisphenol-A, 17β-estradiol and 17α-ethinylestradiol
to sewage sludge. Chemosphere 56: 843-851
335
Cornel, P. and S. Krause (2003) Aufbereitung von Industrie- und Prozessabwasser mit Membranverfahren und
Membranbelebungsverfahren. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik,
Aachen, Germany
Cote P. and N. Adams (2005). An Evaluation of Membrane Integrity Monitoring Methods for Micro- and Ultrafiltration Systems.
10th Aachen Membrane Colloquium, Aachen, Germany.
De Wilde W., C. Thoeye and G. De Gueldre (2005) Operational experiences and optimisations one year after start-up of the first
full-scale MBR for domestic wastewater treatment in the Benelux. Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung
Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
De Wilde W., Thoeye C. and G. De Gueldre (2005) MBR Schilde: anderhalf jaar onderzoek en operationele ervaring. H2O 8.
DHV Water BV, membraanbioreactor website. http://www.membranebioreactor.info
Donn A., Greaves R. and R. Roman (2005) Innovative MBR process for industrial wastewater treatment, 10th Aachen Membrane
Colloquium, Aachen, Germany.
Drensla K., Brepols C., Janot A., Engelhardt N. and H. Heidermann (2004) Optimierung einer Belebungsanlage mit
Membranfiltration. Abschlussbericht für das Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz
(MUNLV) des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Drensla K. and A. Janot (2003) Neue Strategien zur Entfernung von Oberflächenbelegen auf getauchten Hohlfaser-
Kapillarmembranen. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen,
Germany.
DWA-Fachausschuss KA-7 (2005) Membranbelebungsverfahren, 2. Arbeitsbericht Fassung vom 19.01.2005
Engelhardt N. (2003) Membranbelebungsverfahren – eine beherrschbare und erfolgreiche Technik – Erfahrungen nach
vierjährigem Betrieb. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen,
Germany.
Engelhardt N., Brepols C. and A. Janot (2005) Das Gruppenklärwerk Nordkanal nach einem Jahr Betrieb – eine Perspektive für
große Membranbelebungsanlagen. Proceddings of the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik,
Aachen, Germany.
Engelhardt N. and J.-C. Rothe (2001) Sind großtechnische Membrananlagen wirtschaftlich? Erkenntnisse aus Anlagenbetrieb und
Planung. Proceedings of the 4th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Geissler S., Wintgens T., Melin T., Vossenkaul K. and C. Kullmann (2005) Modelling approaches for filtration processes with
novel submerged capillary modules in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Desalination 178(1-3,10): 125-134.
Gnirss, R., Lesjean, B., Buisson, H. (2003) Biologische Phosphorentfernung mit einer nachgeschalteten Denitrifikation im
Membranbelebungsverfahren. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik,
Aachen, Germany.
Günder B. (1999) Das Membranbelebungsverfahren in der kommunalen Abwasserreinigung. Dissertation at University of

Stuttgart. München: Kommissionsverlag R. Oldenbourg.
Hegemann W., Busch K., Spengler P. und J.W. Metzger (2002). Einfluss der Verfahrenstechnik auf die Eliminierung
ausgewählter Estrogene und Xenoestrogene in Kläranlagen – ein BMBF Verbundprojekt. GWF Wasser Abwasser 143(5): 422-
428.
Heinrichmeier J. (2006) Membranfiltration in der kommunalen Abwassertechnik. Band 1 planungsgrundlage_mbr.pdf auf

www.systemtechnik.net (10.04.2006).
Hills S and Malfeito J. (2004) RWE Water Divisional Experience of Reuse: from Pre-coat filters in Spain to MBRs in the USA.
Intl. Workshop on implementation and operation of water reuse schemes; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Holbrook D.R., Novak J.T., Grizzard T.J. and Love N.G. (2002) Estrogen receptor agonist fate during wastewater and biosolids
treatment processes: a mass balance analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 4533-4539.
Holbrook R.D., Love N.G. and Novak J.T. (2004) Sorption of 17β-Estradiol and 17α-Ethinylestradiol by colloidal organic carbon
derived from biological wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 3322-3329.
Howell J.A., Chu H.C. and T.C. Arnot (2004) Insitu manipulation of critical flux in a submerged membrane bioreactor using
variable aeration rates, and effects of membrane history. J. Mem. Sci. 242: 13-19.
336
http://www.sanitaryengineering.tudelft.nl/evenblij.htm
Huber Technology website. http://www.huber.de/
Imhoff K. and K. Imhoff (1993) Taschenbuch der Stadtentwässerung. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH, 28. Auflage, Munich,
Germany.
Jenderek H. and F. Ganster (2005) PAMAS GmbH: Particle counters after membranes.Proceedings ot the 6th Aachener Tagung
Joss A., Andersen H., Ternes T., Richle P.R. und H. Siegrist (2004) Removal of Estrogens in Municipal Wastewater Treatment
under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions: Consequences for Plant Optimization. Environmental Science and Technology 38:
3047-3055.
Joss A. and H. Siegrist (2003) Permeabilität und chemische Reinigung von Membranen: Drei Module im Vergleich. Proceedings
of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Judd S. (2005) Submerged membrane Bioreactores: Flat Plate or Hollow Fibre? Filtration+Separation June 2002: 30-31.
Koch Membrane Systems website. www.puron.de
Krause S. and P. Cornel (2005) Untersuchungen zum Energiebedarf von Membranbelebungsreaktoren unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Belüftungssysteme. Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und
Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Kubota Membrane Europe website. http://www.kubota-mbr.com/index2.html
Lenhardt S. (2005) A growing trend? Growth, regulations and drought drive U.S. interest in membrane bioreactors. Water
Environment & technology June 2005: 43-45.
Lesjean B., Rosenberg S. and J.C. Schrotter (2004) Membrane-aided biological wastewater treatment – an overview of applied
systems. Membrane Technology August 2004: 5-10.
Schröder H.-F., Li H.-Q. and F. Jiku (2000) Assessment of the pollutant elimination efficiency by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and –tandem mass spectrometry - comparsion of conventional and
membrane-assisted biological wastewater treatment processes. Journal of Chromatography A 889: 155-176.
Lyko S., Wintgens T. and T. Melin (2005) Estrogenic trace contaminants in municipal wastewater – possibilities of membrane
bioreactor technology. Desalination 179(1-3): 181-190.
Melin T., Löwenberg J. and T. Wintgens (2005) Institut für Verfahrenstechnik: Perspektiven für den Einsatz der Membrantechnik
in der Aufbereitung und Schließung von Wasserressourcen. Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft
und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Melin T. and R. Rautenbach (2004) Membranverfahren – Grundlagen der Modul- und Anlagenauslegung. Springer-Verlag, 2.
Auflage, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York 2004.
Melin T. and K. Vossenkaul (2001) Perspektiven der Membrantechnik in der Abwasserbehandlung. Proceedings of the 4th
Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Mitsubishi Rayon Engineering website http://www.mrc.co.jp/mre/english/sterapore/index.html
Neerslag magazine (2001/1). Membraanbioreactor technologie: http://www.neerslag-magazine.nl/artikel.asp?key=54
Noronha M., Mavrov V. and H. Chmiel (2001) Möglichkeiten der modellgestützten Betriebsoptimierung von zweistufigen
Membrananlagen. Proceedings of the 8th Aachener Membran Kolloquium, Aachen, Germany.
Ohle P. and M. Brockmann (2003) Reinigung von Abwasser in der Pharma- und Chemieindustrie mit dem ZeeWeed®-MBR-
Verfahren. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Ottoson J., Hansen A., Björlenius B., Norder H. and T.A. Stenström (2006) Removal of viruses, parasitic protozoa and microbial
indicators in conventional and membrane processes in a wastewater pilot plant Water Research 40 (7): 1449-1457
Pampus G. and S. Stein (2005) Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH: Betriebserfahrungen und Optimierungsmaßnahmen in
den Kläranlagen Makranstädt und Knautnaundorf. Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und
Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Pinnekamp J., Friedrich H. and V.Mertsch (2006) Siedlungswasser- und Siedlungaabfallwirtschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen –
Membrantechnik für die Abwasserreinigung. FiW Verlag, 2. Auflage, Aachen, Germany.
337
Rondi S. and T. Montagnoli (2005) Two years of operation of a 42,000 m³/d MBR process: the case of ASM Brescia (Italy).
Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Rosenberger S. and M. Kraume (2002) Filterability of activated sludge in membrane bioreactors. Desalination 151: 195-200.
S. Lyko, Wintgens T. and T. Melin (2005) Estrogenic trace contaminants in municipal wastewater – possibilities of membrane
bioreactor technology. Desalination 179(1-3): 181-190.
Schäfer A.I., Mastrup M. and R. Lund Jensen (2002) Particle interactions and removal of trace contaminants from water and
wastewaters. Desalination 147: 243-250.
Schyns P. and H. van der Roest MBR Varsseveld (2005) Dutch demonstration of innovation, MBR-Symposium Varsselveld in
International Perspective, Varsseveld, The Netherlands.
Stein S. and G. Kerklies (2003) Betriebserfahrungen mit unterschiedlichen Membrantechniken ZeeWeed® und VRM®.
Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Stephenson T., Judd S. J., Jefferson B. and K. Brindle (2000) Membrane Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. IWA Publishing,
London.
Stowa (2004) Van Stonehenge tot MBR, waarin een groot land “klein” kan zijn. Verslag studiereis oktober 2003.
Stowa report 2002-11A (2002) MBR for municipal wastewater treatment. Pilot plant research Beverwijk WWTP.
Stowa website. http://www.stowa-selectedtechnologies.nl/Sheets/index.html
Strugholtz S., Sundaramoorthy K., Lerch A., Gimbel R., Loi-Brügger A. and S. Panglisch (2005) Effektivität verschiedener
Chemikalien zur Entfernung der Foulingmatrix von Membranen aus der Trinkwasseraufbereitung. Proceedings of the 6th
Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Tarnacki K., Lyko S., Wintgens T., Melin T. and F. Natau (2004) Impact of extra-cellular polymeric substances on the
filterability of activated sludge in membrane bioreactors for landfill leachate treatment. Desalination 179: 181-190
TU Delft, Sanitary Engineering website: http://www.gezondheidstechniek.tudelft.nl/
Ueda, T. and N.J. Horan (2000) Fate of indigenous bacteriaphage in a membrane bioreactor. Water Research 34: 2151-2159.
Van der Roest, H.F., Lawrence, D.P. and A.G.N. Van Bentem (2002) Membrane bioreactors for for municipal wastewater
treatment. Stowa report.
Van der Roest H. F., Leenen J., Hofstra M., Boeve J. and J. van der Vlist (2001) The Dutch contribution to the MBR
development in persepective. H2O October 2001.
Wagner J., Brinkmeyer J., Rosenwinkel K.-H. and J. Wienefeld (2001) Einsatz einer Lackabwasserbehandlung in der
Automobilindustrie. Proceedings of the 4th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen,
Germany.
Waterforum. http://www.waterforum.net Dossier membraanbioreactoren.
Website MBR Varsseveld. http://www.mbrvarsseveld.nl
Wedi D., Kexel S. and H. Resch (2003) Betriebsergebnisse der Kläranlage Monheim und Auswirkungen der Reinigungsleistung
auf das Gewässer. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen,
Germany.
Wedi D., Wild W., Resch H. and S. Bleisteiner (2005) Betriebsergebnisse der MBR Monheim – Abwasserreinigung und Erhalt
der Permeabilitäten mittels chlorfreier chemischer Reinigung. Proceedings of the 6th Aachener Tagung
Wett M., Frechen F.-B. and W. Schier (2005) Analyse des Membranfoulings in kommunalen Belebungsanlagen. Proceedings of
the 6th Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Verfahrenstechnik, Aachen, Germany.
Wett M. (2005) Foulingverhalten des Membranbelebungsverfahrens und Auswirkungen auf die Leistungsfähigkeit. Kassel, ISBN
3-89958-160-1.
Wintgens T., Gallenkemper M. and T. Melin (2003) Occurrence and removal of endocrine disrupters in landfill leachate plants.
Water Science and Technology 48(3): 127 – 134.
Wintgens T., Rosen J., Melin T., Brepols C., Drensla K. and N. Engelhardt (2003) Modelling and simulation of a membrane
bioreactor system for municipal wastewater treatment Journal of Membrane Science 216: 55-65.
338
Wintgens T., Jefferson B., Bixio D., Thoeye C., de Wilde W., de Koning J., van der Graaf J. and T. Melin (2006) Membrane
bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and reuse. Desalination 187: 271-282.
Wintgens T. (2005) Modellierung von Membranbioreaktoren für die Abwasserbehandlung unter Berücksichtigung endokrin
wirksamer Substanzen; Dissertation RWTH Aachen, Aachen 2005
Yamamoto H., Liljestrand H.M., Shimizu Y. and M. Morita (2003) Effects of physical-chemical characteristics of selected
endocrine disrupters by dissolved organic matter surrogates. Environmental Science and Technology 37: 2646-2657.
Yang W., Cicek N. and J. Ilg (2006) State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors: Worldwide research and commercial applications
in North America. Journal of Membrane Science 270(1-2): 201-211.
Yoon Y., Westerhoff P., Snyder S.A. and E.C. Wert (2006) Nanofiltration and ultrafiltration of endocrine disrupting compounds,
pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Journal of Membrane Science 270: 88–100.
Zenon website Germany: http://www.zenon.de
Zenon website: http://www.zenon.com/MBR/membrane_bioreactor_overview.shtml
Zühlke S. and U. Dünnbier (2003) Langzeituntersuchungen zur Entfernung organischer Spurenstoffe mit zwei
Membranbelebungsanlagen im Vergleich zu einem konventionellen Klärwerk. Proceedings of the 5th Aachener Tagung
339
340
14 SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT AS

POLISHING
Groundwater recharge can be performed in different ways that are usually corresponding to the local
needs and hydrogeological and hydrological conditions. It usually includes aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR), bank filtration, dune filtration, infiltration ponds, percolation tank, rain harvesting, soil aquifer
treatment (SAT), underground dam, sand dam and recharge releases. Detail information of each method is
given in Chapter 23. This chapter will be specifically focused on soil aquifer treatment (SAT). Other
aforementioned processes will be discussed in Chapter 23.
14.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

SAT is an artificial groundwater recharge process in which sewage effluent, known as reclaimed water, is
first intermittently applied into an infiltration basin and then directed in controlled passage through the
unsaturated zone and part of the aquifer, and subsequently recovered by pumping from production wells
around the recharge area (Figure 14.1). A separate zone is thus created within the regional aquifer beneath
the recharge basins, which is hydrologically separated from the rest of the aquifer by the production wells
surrounding the recharge zone. This zone is dedicated to treatment and seasonal storage of the effluents
(Mekorot, 2004). If the local soil and groundwater conditions are favourable for artificial recharge of
groundwater, a high degree of purification of partially treated sewage effluent (e.g. 20 mg/L BOD, 30
mg/L TSS, no phosphorus and nitrogen removal) can be achieved. The unsaturated or "vadose" zone then
acts as a natural filter and can remove essentially all suspended solids, biodegradable materials, bacteria,
viruses, and other microorganisms. Significant reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals
concentrations can also be achieved.
Figure 14.1 Layout of Soil Aquifer Treatment

Topograhic height
Recovery wells Recovery wells

Observation Infiltration Observation
wells basin wells
+40.0
Sand layer for

+20.0
filtration
Vadose
+8.0
-60.0
Impregnable soil
layer
341
Moreover, SAT can also be performed by well recharge under unfavourable local hydrological conditions
such as a permeable soil surface is not available, vadose zones have restricting layers and/or aquifers are
confined (Bower, 1996).
Surface clogging of infiltration basin appears to be the most limiting technical problem in SAT while for
aquifer and vadose zone wells, the clogging around the well, especially for vadose zone wells, which can
not be pumped, redeveloped or rehabilitated after clogging is very important.
For both SAT and well recharge artificial recharge processes, experience has shown that, within the
limitations of the state-of-the-art toxicological testing, the recovered water does not pose greater health
risks than currently acceptable potable water supplies (Bower, 1996). Additional advantages of SAT
systems are that they are inexpensive, simple to operate, reliable and they provide seasonal storage of
water that can be stored in low-demand-period and be used in periods of high demand.

In an SAT system, dissolved organic matter is removed by combined biological, chemical and physical
processes occurring mainly in the unsaturated zone. After flowing through the unsaturated zone, the
sewage effluent reaches the groundwater and it is usually allowed to flow some distance through the
aquifer before it is collected (Figure 14.1). This additional movement through the aquifer can produce
further purification of the sewage. The primary removal mechanisms in an SAT system for various
pollutants found in secondary effluents can be summarized as follows: suspended solids are filtered out;
biodegradable organic compounds are decomposed; microorganisms are adsorbed, strained out or die
because of competition with other soil microorganisms; nitrogen concentrations are reduced by
denitrification; synthetic organic compounds are adsorbed and/or biodegraded; and phosphate, fluoride
and heavy metals are adsorbed, precipitated or otherwise immobilized. Due to this treatment SAT can be
an effective step in the treatment train for water reuse.
Table 14.1 summarizes the influent water quality, the recovered water quality and the SAT removal
efficiencies for different SAT systems in the US and Israel. These data are originally from the following
recharge sites (NCSWS, 2001):
• Meza Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, Arizona (vadose zone – 1.5 to 6 m)
• Phoenix Tres Rios Cobble Site, Arizona (shallow SAT < 7m)
• Rio Hondo/Montebello Forbay, California (vadose zone - 7 to 17 m)
• San Gabriel/Montebello Forbay, California (shallow SAT < 7 m)
• East Valley Hansen Spreading Grounds, California (deep vadose zone > 30 m)
• Dan Region, Israel (deep vadose zone - 15-30 m)
The consistency and high quality of SAT effluents is a function of the high retention time in the SAT
system (6 to 12 months).
342
Table 14.1 SAT removal efficiencies (Cikurel, 2004; Mekorot 2004)
Influent conc. Effluent quality Removal efficiency

Parameter Unit
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
TSS mg/L 10-80 0 99-100

Turbidity NTU < 10 < 0.5 > 95
CODf mg/L 30-40 4-5 85-88
BOD mg/L 5-40 < 0.5 95-98
DOC mg/L 4-20 1-3 85-90
Ammonia mg/L 1-20 0.02-0.05 > 99
Ntotal mg/L 5-30 2-5 ** 85-93
Ptotal mg/L 1-5 0.02 99
UVabs (254 nm) cm-1x103 200-300 30-40 85-87
4 6
Total Coliforms MPN/100 mL 10 -10 0-2 5 logs
3 5
Fecal Coliforms MPN/100 mL 10 -10 0-2 4 logs
3 5
Strept. Faecalis MPN/100 mL 10 -10 0-2 4 logs
Enteroviruses PFU/100 L 9-15 none > 99.99
* In order to prevent quick clogging of the fields in the recharged influent, Turbidity should be < 8 NTU and TSS < 15 mg/L
(Dan Region experience) ** Mainly nitrates
14.1.2 Operability
Reliability
Based on the successful operational experience of large scale SAT in both the US and Israel, it can be
stated that if operated under favourable hydrogeological conditions, SAT can remove essentially all
suspended solids, biodegradable materials, bacteria, viruses, and other micro-organisms. Significant
reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals concentrations can also be achieved.
Flexibility
The adaptability to upgrade the actual SAT system is not very high. However, some flexibility exists in
terms of the pre-treatment used to improve the incoming water quality for the SAT system. Pretreatment
systems can be added relatively easily without disturbing the system. UF membrane treatment before SAT
can also be used to shorten the retention time of water in the vadose zone. By means of UF membrane
utilisation, the same recovered water quality can be achieved as that in longer retention time SAT
systems. SAT systems can easily adapt to varying flow rates of infiltration, however their ability to adapt
to high fluctuations in the incoming water quality is not very high.
Complexity
The SAT system is a natural treatment system that is not very complicated to operate. The main
operational activity relates to the potential clogging problems and it relies on regular surface cleaning of
infiltration basins.
343
Controllability
Automatic control valves can be used to control the inflow in terms of the infiltration rates, determined by
flow and water level control within the infiltration basins. The information from the automated system can
be reported to a manned central control post, where the operators can decide to change the flooding–
drying cycles according to the field situation. For example, the operators may decide to increase the
infiltration rate and to be able to recharge all the effluents in the actually available fields, which could
result in an improvement of the effluent quality (mainly suspended solids). Table 14.2 summarizes typical
operating conditions for SAT systems
Table 14.2 Operating conditions for SAT systems

Parameter Units Value
Hydraulic loading m/d 0.2-0.6
Wetting cycles days 1-6
Drying cycles days 2-6
Cleaning cycle days 15 - 30
Retention time in ground months 6 - 12
Depth to ground water m 5 - 30 (max. 100)
Recovery* % 115
* This includes 100% recovery of the infiltered quantity and another 15% groundwater

Since there is no use of noxious chemicals, SAT is a relatively safety process to operate. With proper
controls in place, there is no need for intensive human intervention. Proper measures for contact with
effluents still containing pathogenic bacteria have to be taken while entering the recharge basins. The
SAT process cannot be used as a stand-alone process that produces reclaimed water; it has to be preceded
by certain combinations of secondary treatment.
14.1.3 Costs
The following information, which is based on the Dan Region scheme in Israel, can be used for
preliminary capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M), labour, and energy requirement
calculations:
If an area A [m2] is available only for SAT infiltration the total area needed for planning the whole
system, including infrastructure, is about 2A and the hydrological area under the SAT (vadose zone) will
be 10A to a 60 - 100 m depth.
The cost of piping has been estimated at 345 €/m for 900 -1000 mm pipes, and at 862 €/m for 70" cement
coated stainless steel pipes.
The useful life of infrastructure for life-cycle cost calculations of 40 years can be used for piping, concrete
structures and infiltration ponds, and 15 years for pumping stations.
The operational cost for a 20 Mm3/yr infiltration field that was operated in 2003, including excavation
equipment, sand replacement, pipe - lines, electro-mechanical parts, valves, pumps was 0.23 – 0.25 €/m3
effluent treated.
344
The total cost of 0.23 -0.25 €/m3 will be divided 30% investment as well as 70% labour and O&M costs.
Operation and maintenance for infiltration (including treatment for the clogging problem), recovery and
distribution has been estimated to cost 0.10 - 0.15 €/m3.
The labour requirements for the 140 Mm3/yr for Dan Project can be summarised as follows:
- 5 people for the distribution system and in direct contact with the end–users; for the SAT system
one field person,
- 2-3 persons in the controlled room,
- 1-2 persons for field cleaning,
- 2 -3 persons for mechanical and 1-2 persons for electrical;
- 10 persons for different O&M in the distribution system.
All this does not include the administrative staff and engineers that can put the whole project manpower
to almost 70.
Energy consumption of 4 Wh/(m3·m head) has been estimated for pumping. The total energy for
secondary wastewater treatment, SAT, extraction and distribution is approximately 1.42 kWh/m3.
The SAT system does not generate any sludge, so no costs associated with sludge treatment and disposal
can be expected. Also, no chemicals are used.
14.2 BASIC ASPECTS

The soil acts as a barrier retaining contaminants, but it is necessary to have a relatively homogeneous soil,
without great discontinuities. For this reason, the reclaimed water applied to such systems could have
poorer quality than the water directly injected into the aquifer. Most of the treatment processes take place
in the upper part of the vadose zone, where soils are finer than in the aquifer. The flow is unsaturated, and
oxygen levels vary from aerobic to anaerobic. The efficiency of removal of dissolved organics during
SAT does not depend on infiltration rate. The fate of bacterial pathogens and viruses in the unsaturated
zone is determined by survival characteristics and their retention in the soil matrix. This is determined by
Metcalf & Eddy (2003):
1. Nature of the soil

2. Nature of microorganisms
3. Temperature and rainfall (climate conditions)
The nature of the soil can affect the flow velocity and the retention time of water in soil. The moisture
holding capacity, pH value, organic matter content and the redox condition of the soil can also affect the
pathogenic micro-organism survival rate. At high temperatures, inactivation and/or natural die-off is fairly
rapid. For bacteria and viruses, the die-off rate is approximately doubled with each 10°C rise in
temperature between 5-30oC. Rain water, because of its lower pH, can elude adsorbed virus particles,
which may than move with the groundwater.
The main factors in determining recharge guidelines for surface spreading systems (including SAT)
include pre-treatment, retention time, depth to groundwater, horizontal distance between the recharge
wells and recovery wells, maximum percent of reclaimed water and monitoring (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
345
The pre-treatment can include source control of toxic chemicals, primary sedimentation, and secondary
biological treatment, tertiary granular media filtration and ultrafiltration. The retention time, discussed
previously, ranges from 1 to 12 months depending on the pre-treatment, while the depth to groundwater
can range from 3 to 6 m (shallow vadose zone) or 30 m (deep vadose zone). The operating experience in
the Dan Region scheme shows recovery rates of above 100%, of the infiltered water while the US
experience has been in the order of 20-50%. Extensive monitoring of these systems is always
recommended, which includes all drinking water parameters. Table 14.3 shows the criteria for
groundwater recharge for California and Israel.
Table 14.3 Conceptual framework for the California and Israel groundwater
criteria (Adapted from Metcalf& Eddy, 2003; Mekorot, 2004)
Contaminant type Surface spreading
Pathogenic micro-organisms
Secondary treatment TSS 30 mg/L
Filtration 2 NTU *
Disinfection 4 log virus inactivation, 2.2 TC/100 mL **
Retention time underground 6 months if tertiary pre-treated, up to 12 months (Dan Region - Israel)
Horizontal separation 152 m (California)
Regulated contaminants Meet all drinking water standards (California, Dan Region - Israel)
Unregulated contaminants
Secondary treatment BOD 30 mg/L, TOC 16 mg/L (California)
Reverse Osmosis 4 options available depending on meeting 1 mg/L TOC requirement (California)
Mounding monitoring option Demonstrate feasibility of mound compliance point
Reclaim water contribution 50 % (California), 100 % (Dan Region Israel)
* This value is for California regulations while in Israel the guidelines require 5 NTU
** This value is for California, for unrestricted irrigation the Israeli guidelines require 10 FC/100 mL but after
ground infiltration the obtained water quality is almost zero Fecal Coli (FC)/100 mL

The SAT system can be divided into five parts:
1. The pumping system and effluent carrying pipelines to the infiltration fields
2. The infiltration fields and SAT system
3. The recovery system
4. The main distribution and storage system (with all seasonal and daily operative reservoirs)
5. The pumping system after the reservoirs and the distribution system to end – users
Figure 14.3 illustrates the basins, which are separated by sand embankments. The effluent spreading
fountain and a tractor with a device for surface scrapping and cleaning can also bee seen in the same
figure. The infiltration into the groundwater is carried out by alternate flooding and drying, a method
designed to maintain aerobic conditions in the soil aquifer treatment. For observation and monitoring of
the water quality a series of observation wells are constructed.
346
Figure 14.2 Recharge basin (Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005)
In the case of the Dan region, there are approximately 100 recovery wells located 300 to 1,500 m from the
recharge basins, pumping water from a depth of 100 to 200 m. Each well is equipped with pumping
equipment and sand separators. All water collected through individual pipelines is connected by a major
pipeline to a main pumping station, where the water is sent through the distribution system to consumers
who use the reclaimed water for agricultural purposes. In order to regulate the water supply according to
seasonal changes, several local storage reservoirs have been built. Chlorination is used after the open
storage reservoirs. Pumping stations equipped with wire filters pump the water to individual consumers.
Figure 14.4 shows the flow sheet for the Dan Region SAT system and reclamation system. All equipment
like pumps, valves, pipes and flow meters are indicated.
347
Figure 14.3 Flow sheet of the infiltration fields, pumping and distribution
system (Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005)
14.4.1 Good practice

For the purpose of retaining specific types of pollutants and achieving high quality of recovered water,
good practices are essential in SAT operation.
Best practice for good nitrification

For efficient nitrification during SAT, infiltration periods should be short enough (< 7 days) to prevent
ammonium ions from breaking through surface soils. Drying periods should be long enough ( 4 days) to
permit the oxygen to oxidize ammonia. The ammonia in effluents is reduced by nitrification while passing
through the SAT system. A vadose zone of around 3-6 m may be sufficient to cause nitrification. On the
other hand, some horizontal separation is desirable to lower peak nitrite concentrations in periodic spikes.
High concentrations of nitrate can be expected after extended dry periods where the infiltrate can flush the
nitrate from sediment pores. The final concentration of nitrate in the extraction point can be attenuated by
in-well mixing. If anoxic conditions prevail travel times of months to years may enhance the opportunities
for further denitrification (even in DOC and ammonia deficient conditions).
Best practice for effective pathogen removal

Bacterial indicators and coliphages both appear to be good indicators of potential contamination and their
systematic analyses is required. In the case of infiltration of non-disinfected secondary effluents, the 30 m
348
vertical travel distance produces water free of pathogenic bacteria but may not always be enough to
remove all viruses. Whenever effluents were chlorinated before SAT no infective enteric viruses were
detected but in that case disinfection by-products (DBPs) were formed.
Best practice for effective DOC removal

DOC values in the effluents after short term SAT treatment are still high (4.5 - 18 mg/L). Longer
detention times in the SAT (12 months) give much better results, in the order of 2-3 mg/L DOC.
The pretreatment before SAT is very important. Activated sludge treatment including denitrification with
long hydraulic retention times before SAT produced lower DOC residuals than did processes with short
hydraulic retention times.
Removal of the easily biodegradable DOC occurs in the first meters (0–3 m) below the infiltration basins.
For sites where aerobic or anoxic conditions exists (wetting/drying cycles) in the upper vadose zone, the
DOC concentrations decreased to more or less to 3 mg/L, depending on the initial infiltrated water
quality. Under anaerobic conditions the DOC decreased to 4-5 mg/L only. The decrease of the
biodegradable DOC occurs independently of recharge rate, basin age, or wet/dry cycles. The depth to
groundwater is not a critical factor for removal.
Significant loss of trace organics occurs in the remainder of the unsaturated zone and within the saturated
zone. This suggests that long-term horizontal flow may provide conditions beneficial to removal of trace
organics. Infiltration to 30-40 m below land surface reduces estrogenicity by more than 95%.
Best practice for biofilm prevention on infiltration fields

Systematic cleaning of the infiltration fields should be conducted every 15 to 30 days in order to prevent
them from becoming clogged. The cleaning is done by scrapping the upper sand layer of the infiltration
field. UV disinfected effluents can prevent clogging and do not produce THM or NDMA.
14.4.2 Troubleshooting
A major problem in groundwater recharge with basins is the reduction in the infiltration rate caused by
accumulation of sediment and other fines on the bottom and banks of the basin. To minimize clogging,
the sediment or suspended solids content in the inflow must be minimized. The pre-filtration of primary
or advanced primary effluent could help improve the cleaning procedure.
On the other hand, frequent cleaning could completely remove the surface organic layer that, by cake
filtration and bio-treatment, helps reduce the organic matter.
A simplified criteria (not taking into account light, temperature, hydraulic conductivity, recharge regime
and other nutrients) for determination of the clogging potential in surface spreading systems suggested by
Perez-Paricio and Carrera (1998) is as follows:
• Notable clogging occur when recharge water contains 10 mg/L < TSS < 20 mg/L and
10 mg/L < TOC < 25 mg/L.
• Slight clogging occur when the recharge water contains < 10 mg/L TSS, < 5 NTU turbidity and
< 10 mg/L TOC.
349
• Severe clogging occur when recharge water contains TSS > 20 mg/L and TOC > 25 mg/L
In well injection systems (bore hole):
• Slight clogging occur when the recharge water contains < 1 mg/L TSS, < 1 NTU Turbidity and
< 5 mg/L TOC
• Notable clogging occur when recharge water contains 1 mg/L < TSS < 10 mg/L,
1 NTU < Turbidity < 10 NTU and 5 mg/L < TOC < 15 mg/L
• Severe clogging occur when recharge water contains TSS > 10 mg/L, turbidity > 10 NTU and
TOC > 15 mg/L
The preventive actions that could be taken for surface spreading systems are:
• Slight clogging: Natural drying + cracking (the one day flooding – 3 days drying system in the
Dan Region SAT system). The surface of the infiltration field is mechanically scrapped once a
year. In the Dan Region system once a month since the TOC of the infiltrated water is 10-15
mg/L and this can more often cause clogging of the surface.
• Notable clogging: Frequent drying + cracking and twice a year mechanical cleaning.
• Severe clogging: Pre-filtration recommended.
For well injection systems, preventive actions include:
• Slight clogging: Frequent pumping, once a month surging/jetting.
• Notable clogging: Once a day pumping, once a week surging/jetting.
• Severe clogging: Daily pumping and adapted cleaning protocol
Clogging of recharge wells is minimized by removing the suspended solids from the water and by
chlorinating or otherwise disinfecting the water prior to injection. In that case non-disinfected water
would very easily form a biofilm layer that would clog the recharge well.
According to Bouwer (1998) the major problem with recharge wells is clogging of the aquifer around the
well, especially at the edge of the borehole. The best strategy for dealing with clogging of recharge wells
is to prevent it by proper treatment of the water before injection. This means removal of suspended solids,
assimilable organic carbon, nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, and microorganisms. The same author
indicated that chlorine should be added to maintain a residual chlorine level in the well to minimize
microbiological activity. This is much more critical for injection wells and less for surface spreading.
Clogging parameters such as the membrane filtration index, assimilable organic carbon and clogging in
test columns with much higher velocities than the actual recharge well system are important for the
identification of the clogging potential. Other processes that can decrease recharge rates in wells are:
precipitation of calcium carbonate, iron oxides, manganese oxides and other compounds in the aquifer,
and air binding. If the water has a high organic content the oxygen is very easily depleted and anaerobic
conditions prevail in that case.
Where sewage effluent is used for groundwater recharge with wells, it must undergo extensive pre-
treatment including advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) using processes like membrane filtration (MF,
UF or NF) that can help eliminate particulate and colloidal matter, thus considerably reducing the
350
clogging potential of the effluents. Due to previous experience with UF membranes the TOC (or DOC) is
not considerably reduced by only UF filtration or disinfection can help reduce the biofilm formation
extensively. The UV disinfection is very effective but has a short-term disinfection effect with no residual
disinfection. On the other hand, chlorine can produce, with the residual ammonia in effluents, residual
disinfectants like chloramines that can kill microorganisms in the unsaturated zone preventing the soil to
degrade various organic pollutants. In that respect UV could be a preferable disinfectant to prevent bore
clogging and adverse effects on the natural microorganisms in soil.
14.5 MONITORING
For SAT systems a strict monitoring program has to be implemented to be able to ensure:
• the distribution of effluents suitable for unrestricted irrigation that enable the irrigation of all
types of crops, and
• water quality conforming to the drinking water specifications (this is required in case of
accidental drinking of tertiary treated effluents).
As example of how a monitoring is performed, based on the monitoring program for the Dan Region SAT
project, is provided below. The components of the Dan Region SAT project (the WWTP, the infiltration
fields and the recovery wells) are shown in Figure 14.4.
Figure 14.4 Dan Region SAT system and observation wells (Cikurel & Aharoni,
Aquarec, 2005)
The monitoring program is implemented at three control points:
1. Effluents of the Dan Region WWTP
351
2. Effluents after the SAT
3. Effluents along the Distribution line (the third line)
The sampling frequency and the list of parameters that are monitored at a recovery well are shown in
Table 14.4. The best monitoring practice can be summarized as follows:
1. The measurement of the infiltration velocity is best done automatically.
2. The daily monitoring is performed by an operator who manually checks the water height in the
basin, while the automatic height measurement is also recorded.
3. Cleaning routine is decided when the infiltration velocity decreases and also by the decision of the
field operator.
4. A constant cleaning program is applied most of the time (every 15 to 30 days, depending on the
clogging rate).
5. The type of ploughing (by using disc or plough) is decided according to the field situation.
6. Sand removal is seldom practiced.
It is also emphasized that the record keeping of the rainfall and evaporation is very important.
Table 14.4 Water quality monitoring in recovery wells after SAT treatment
(Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005)
Sampling Point Ben Zakai Well No. Yavne Well No.
101, 103, 106, 102, 104, 105,
8 9-10 107,109, 111, 108, 110, 114-
112, 120 119, 121-127
Controlled parameter Analyses per year *
pH 1 2 1 2
Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 2 1 2
COD 1 2 1 2
DOC 1 2 1 2
UV 254 Absorbance 2 2 2 2
Ammonia, as N 1 2 1 2
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1 2 1 2
Nitrate, as N 1 2 1 2
Nitrite, as N 1 2 1 2
Phosphorus 1 2 1 2
Temperature 1 2 1 2
Dissolved solids, 105°C 1 2 1 2
Dissolved solids, 550°C 1 2 1 2
Electrical conductivity 2 2 2 2
Hardness, as CaCo3 1 2 1 2
Calcium 1 2 1 2
Chloride 2 2 2 2
Sulfate 1 2 1 2
Detergents 2 2 2 2
Sodium 1 2 1 2
Boron 1 2 1 2
* The Ben-Zakai and Yavne wells are around the Yavne 1 infiltration basins area.
In 2004, the Ben-Zakai Well No. 8 recovered 1.5 Mm³/yr, Well No. 9 recovered 1.6 Mm³/yr, Well No. 10 recovered 1.55
Mm³/yr. All Yavne 1 wells (101-127) recovered 25 Mm³/yr (Mekorot, 2004).
Comprehensive analyses are performed once a year in Ben Zakai Well No. 9 and Yavne Wells No. 119 and 122. The monitored
parameters are:
Temperature, Fluoride, Phenols, Mineral Oil, Suspended Solids (105o, 550o), mercury, Selenium, Arsenic, Cyanide, Strontium,
Aluminium, Lithium, Cadmium, Chromium, Barium, Silver, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Potassium, Cobalt, Nickel,
Molybdenum, Lead, Tin, Total Bacteria, coliforms, Faecal coliforms, S. Faecalis, Color, D.O., (Mekorot, 2004).
352
14.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Based on the 28 years of experience in operating SAT systems in the Dan Region, the following
conditions have been identified as being the most problematic:
1. Deterioration in recharge capacity.
2. Bio-fouling of effluent pipelines.
3. Clogging as a result of Manganese and Iron oxides.
In order to decrease the deterioration of the recharge capacity, the bio-fouling and to prevent organic
matter and heavy metals accumulation in the soil, advanced pre-treatments like UF might be applied.
Experimentation of such processes will be performed in the future. An advantage of using UF membranes
as pre treatment to SAT can be the removal of suspended and colloidal solids and prevention of clogging.
In cases where dissolved high molecular organic molecules are not effectively removed by SAT, post
treatment with NF membranes can further improve the effluent quality

Artificial recharge of secondary effluent to obtain water for unrestricted irrigation is used primarily in arid
and semi-arid regions in USA, Israel, Australia, (Peters et. al. ed., 1998).
Table 14.5 lists several large/medium scale (> 2000 m³/d) water reuse projects using SAT.
Table 14.5 Large and medium scalewater reuse projects using SAT
Started up
Location Size (m3/d) End-use Comments/references
in
Shafdan,
330,000 Unrestricted irrigation 1977 Retention times 3-12 months
Israel
Mesa, Arizona Retention times several days to 5
12,000 Indirect potable recharge 1990
USA years
West Basin, 28,000 - Ground water recharge
1997 RO pre-filtered
California 30,000 for salt intrusion barrier
14.7.1 Case study: Comparison of long –term performance of

SAT
This section summarizes and compares the results of two studies that looked at the performance of SAT:
1. “Investigation on Soil–Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable water reuse” A research Project

conducted by the National Center for Sustainable Water Supply (NCSWS) at Arizona State
University.
2. “The long-term performance of Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT) for effluent reuse” by Mekorot, the
National Water Company in Israel.
353
1. Investigation on Soil Aquifer Treatment for sustainable water reuse

The NCSWS study evaluated the fate of residual organics (as TOC, DOC and UV absorbance), trace
organics, endocrine disruptors, nitrogen and pathogenic microorganisms. Several wetlands and SAT
systems were included in this study, whose main characteristics are shown in Table 14.6.
Table 14.6 Field sites and their characteristics

Facility Name Key Characteristics
Some recharge basins receive wetland effluent. The
system includes deep vadose zone (> 30 m) and several
Sweetwater Wetlands/Recharge Facility, AZ
shallow groundwater wells, horizontal flow and shallow
(6-5 m) vadose zone monitoring capabilities in wetlands.
Shallow vadose zone (1.5 - 6 m) system, with a range of
Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, AZ shallow groundwater wells located from 150 m to 3000
m from the recharge site.
Majority of flow infiltrates into ground. Horizontal flow
Phoenix Tres Rios Cobble Site, AZ
and shallow (< 7m) saturated zone sampling capabilities.
Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed water and other
Rio Hondo/Montebello Forebay, CA
available water sources. Shallow Vadose zone (3 - 6 m).
Approximately 25% of flow infiltrates into ground.
Riverside Water Quality Control Plant Hidden Valley
Horizontal flow and very shallow (< 1 m) vadose zone
Wetlands, CA
sampling capabilities.
The system includes deep vadose zone (> 30 m.).
East Valley (Hansen Spreading Grounds), Ca
Presently the system does not recharge reclaimed water.
Shallow Vadose zone (< 6 m) system. Drinking water
supply is only based on local groundwater.
Effluent pre-treatment determines the quality of the
effluents that are infiltrated and treated by the SAT
Avra Valley WWTP, AZ
system. DOC in the effluents before infiltration ranged
from 4 - 20 mg/L. Ammonia ranged from less than 1
mg/L to greater than 20 mg/L. The nitrogenous oxygen
demands ranged from 1- 80 mg/L.
The study focused on field sites representing a broad range of engineering factors:
• Different pre-treatment – The effluent pre-treatment ranged from trickling filter/secondary

treatment to advanced bio-treatment combined with filtration and disinfection.
• Different physical characteristics for the SAT systems, like depth to ground water (ranging from
3m. to 30 m.), distance to recovery wells, infiltration rates ranging from less than 0.3 m/d to
greater than 1.8 m/d.
• Different operational schedules of SAT infiltration basins or wet/dry operation times ranging
from 2 days wet/4 days dry to continuous wetting without drying.
A summary of results of this study is presented below (NCSWS, 2001).
354
Fate of available nitrogen forms during SAT
Nitrified effluent could produce undesirable quality characteristics in potable ground waters that are
influenced by recharged effluent. During the SAT process, nitrogen conversions tend to produce oxidized
nitrogen forms (mainly nitrates), that in excess can cause the acquired infantile methemoglobinemia (blue
baby syndrome.) The nitrate levels in this case are higher than the safe 10 mg/L.
The results of the study lead to the conclusion that the complete nitrification is not a beneficial treatment
ahead of SAT. Also, for efficient nitrification during SAT, infiltration periods should be short enough (< 7
days) to prevent ammonium ions from breaking through surface soils. Drying periods should be long
enough (> or equal to 4 days period) to permit the oxygen to oxidize ammonia.
The ammonia in effluents is reduced by denitrification while passing through the SAT system. A vadose
zone of around 3-6 m may be sufficient to cause denitrification. Ground waters consisting mainly of
infiltrated effluents show substantial nitrogen loss and there are almost no ammonia and nitrite
concentrations left in these waters, although there are occasional excursions in nitrate ion in
concentrations more than 10 mg/L. High concentrations of nitrate can be expected after extended dry
periods where the infiltrate can flush the nitrate from sediment pores. The final concentration of nitrate in
the extraction point can be attenuated by in-well mixing.
The fate and transport of nitrogen species offer no specific guidance for selection of (vertical) vadose
zone dimensions or (horizontal) separation between infiltration basins and extraction wells, meaning that
a vadose zone of 3-6 m can be sufficient for denitrification. On the other hand, some horizontal separation
is desirable to lower peak nitrite concentrations in periodic spikes. The same effect can be obtained by in-
well mixing or other engineered steps. If anoxic conditions prevail, travel times of months to years may
enhance the opportunities for further denitrification (even in DOC and ammonia deficient conditions)
(NCSWS, 2001).
Fate of pathogens during SAT
The fate of microorganisms during SAT and the microbial quality obtained after the treatment is critical
for public health when using the recovered water. The microorganisms of primary concern are the viruses,
which can potentially enter the SAT system with poorly treated or non-disinfected effluents. The critical
retention time that viruses can persist in the SAT system is important in planning and designing the
system.
In different SAT systems the soil adsorptive capacity and virus die-off is affected, dependent on the soil
type and composition, pH, moisture content and the specific virus strain. For example, MS2 bacteriophage
adsorb poorly to soil particles and survive relatively well in groundwater compared to enteric viruses. A
mention is also made of the more recent PCR detection methods, such as the Integrated Cell Culture –
PCR (ICC – PCR) methods, which are much more sensitive (Reynolds et al., 1996). Using this method,
non-infective or inactivated viruses are not detected since growth is necessary to produce a sufficient
number of virus particles to permit detection.
Two types of wells were studied: A shallow monitoring well near to a reclaimed water recharge basin and
deeper potable water production wells sampled before disinfection. The infiltration sites that were
compared were located in California (received filtered and disinfected effluents) and Arizona (received
only disinfected secondary effluents).
355
The practical implications of the study for pathogens are that bacterial indicators and coliphages both
appeared to be good indicators of potential contamination. The bacteriophage analysis suggested that a 7
log reduction of viruses can occur in 30 m deep infiltration sites that receive filtered and disinfected
effluents. The suggested removal efficiency is the result of an extrapolation of the 1 m column experiment
to real SAT depth and not actual field work. On the other hand, the study showed that in case of
infiltration of secondary - disinfected effluents the 30 m vertical travel distance may not be enough to
remove all viruses.
Other results showed that the use of high volume testing protocols resulted in an increased detection
probability (for faecal indicator microorganism analysis, 25-100 fold over conventional 100 mL samples).
Also, a microbial presence was detected in a shallow monitoring well of a site where 30% filtered –
disinfected effluent and water run-off and imported water are infiltrated. No effect of effluent infiltration
was detected in deeper potable wells in another site.
No infective enteric viruses with cytopathic effect were detected in sites that received filtered –disinfected
effluents, and no hepatitis A or Adenoviruses were detected. In sites where only secondary –disinfected
effluents were infiltrated some culturable viruses have been detected, however, the presence of viruses has
generally not been confirmed by independent test method (NCSWS, 2001).
Fate, character and reactivity of bulk organics during SAT
Residual organic carbon (TOC) and specifically refractory TOC is of concern in SAT systems because it
is associated with a broad spectrum of potentially hazardous chemicals. State of California Department of
Health Services (DHS) require that the TOC concentration in extracted well water does not exceed
1 mg/L on the average. Different infiltration techniques allow for different pre-infiltration TOC values,
which can result in less than 1 mg/L TOC concentration at extraction.
Three main groups of residual organics were studied:
• Natural organic matter (NOM) present already in potable water.
• Organic compounds added by consumers including DBPs.
• Soluble microbial products (SMP) formed during bio-treatment.
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) after infiltration in effluents, considered as indicative for TOC, is
composed of biodegradable DOC and refractory DOC. The levels of biodegradable carbon can be given
by BOD values as the refractory DOC is composed of NOM, soluble microbial products and synthetic
trace organics. Effluent DOC concentrations after short-term SAT treatment, represented by laboratory
column tests fed with water from different sites, were found to be 4.5 - 18 mg/L. Activated sludge
treatment including denitrification with long hydraulic retention times produced lower DOC residuals
than did processes with short hydraulic retention times.
During field studies, removal of the easily biodegradable DOC occurs in the first few meters (0-3 m)
below the infiltration basins. For sites where aerobic or anoxic conditions existed in the upper vadose
zone, the DOC concentrations decreased to 3 mg/L or less. Under anaerobic conditions the DOC
decreased to 4 - 5 mg/L only. The decrease of the biodegradable DOC occurs independently of recharge
rate, basin age, or wet/dry cycles, and the depth to groundwater did not appear to be a critical factor for
removal.
356
Since the majority of dissolved organic matter (DOM) added during water use is biodegradable, the main
part of the DOC is dominated by drinking water DOC and soluble microbial products. Natural organic
matter (NOM) of drinking water origin persists during wastewater treatment. Levels of NOM in product
water appear to be independent of wastewater treatment efficiency. Bulk characterization of organics in
the water after long-term SAT could not show the difference between organic carbon of wastewater origin
and NOM. As a result DOC and TOC can be used to represent the removal efficiency for the bulk of
organics in wastewater or water treatment (NCSWS, 2001).
Fate of trace organics during SAT
The presence of unidentified and unregulated trace organics in water from SAT treatment is a potential
human health hazard since it can be mixed with the drinking water supply.
The recovered water from the Sweetwater Wetlands/Recharge Facility, AZ and from the Mesa Northwest
Water Reclamation Plant, AZ had been analyzed for the concentrations of seven groups of anthropogenic
trace organic contaminants, Ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA), nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA),
alkylphenolpolyethoxy-carboxylates (APEC), napthalenedicarboxilic acid (NDC), absorbable organic
iodine (AOI), adsorbable organic halides (AOX), and disinfection by products (DBPs). Sweetwater
wetlands/recharge facility employs trickling filters as main SAT process to treat sewage effluent without
nitrification-denitrification. The Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant receives sewage effluent after
activated sludge including nitrification-denitrification and tertiary filtration. At this plant, the SAT facility
includes disinfection and shallow vadose zone (1.5 – 6 m) percolation. Additional information about this
facility and results are also available in the report entitled “Water quality transformations during soil
aquifer treatment at the Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, USA” (Fox et al., 2001).
Concentrations of the above mentioned trace organics began to decrease within the first 3 meters of the
unsaturated zone while significant loss occurred in the remainder of the unsaturated zone and within the
saturated zone. Although the exact mechanism for wastewater indicator removal has not been identified,
bio-degradation was suggested as the main possible mechanism. However, different trace organic
pollutants behaved differently during SAT according to their physical-chemical properties. NTA was
readily removed (100%) while EDTA was the most recalcitrant compound and hardly showed any
removal. APEC and NDC were removed to a relatively lesser extent than NTA. Organic iodine was
present at microgram levels in chlorinated wastewater and persisted during SAT for more than 4 – 6
years. These compounds appear to be more persistent than organo-chlorine and organo-bromine
compounds during long term SAT, because the concentrations of both organo chlorine and organo
bromine compounds were lowered to the background concentrations. It is worth to mention here that the
removal efficiency for trace organics in both sites was similar, indicating that the effect of pre-treatment
before SAT, in these cases, was negligible (NCSWS, 2001).
Fate of endocrine disrupting compounds during SAT
Conventional active sludge treatment process does not manage to completely remove endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs) including natural estrogens, estrogenic pharmaceutical residues, and estrogen mimic
compounds such as bisphenol A and nonyphenol. Since it is suspected that the exposure to ambient
estrogens and estrogenic compounds discharged to potable water resource has been hazardous to human
health, monitoring of these compounds is essential for sustainable reuse.
357
Percolation of secondary effluents through sediments is an effective barrier to prevent contamination of

ground water by EDCs. The mechanism of removal of estrogens during infiltration is not clear yet
(adsorption or biodegradation). Estrogens can also be removed by horizontal transportation through
saturated sediments or by underground storage. But the correlation between depth of infiltration, lateral
transport distances or under ground retention time to estrogen removal is still not clear. However, the
removal efficiency of EDCs largely depends on the local hydro-geological condition of the vadose zone
and the operation method of SAT. In one case study, where the water was applied in a recharge basin at
an initial depth of about 0.5 m with a wet/dry cycle of 1 week/1week, the estrogenicity was recovered
water was decreased by more than 95% after passing through a vadose zone between 30 – 40 m (NCSWS,
2001).
2. Dan Region water reclamation scheme, Israel

The Mekorot study evaluated the fate of organic substances (characterized by COD, filtered COD and
TOC, DOC and UV absorbance), nitrogen and phosphorous, heavy metals and trace elements as well as
microbiological parameters. This study was conducted on the Dan Region water reclamation scheme in
Israel, which is one of the largest water reclamation projects in the world, serving a total population of
about 2 million with an average flow of 330,000 m3/d.
Effluent from the Dan Region WWTP is conveyed to four recharge basins covering a total area of 80 ha,
with the ponds at Yavne shown in Figure 14.6. Hydraulic loading to the basins varies between 80 and 150
m/yr, depending on the infiltration capacity of the basins. The infiltration into the groundwater is carried
out by alternate flooding and drying, a method designed to maintain aerobic conditions in the soil aquifer
treatment. The effluent percolates vertically through 15 to 30 m of the unsaturated zone, and spreads
horizontally (radially) through the saturated zone, outward from the recharge basins to a series of recovery
wells surrounding the recharge area. Passage through the soil aquifer extends the biological treatment
filters the effluent by means of the additional contact with oxygen present in the upper soil layers.
Physical-chemical processes such as adsorption, ion-exchange and sedimentation also take place in the
unsaturated zone. The long retention time in the saturated zone destroys harmful bacteria and viruses.
Figure 14.5 Infiltration ponds at Yavne, Dan Region (Cikurel, 2005)
Approximately 100 recovery wells, located 300 to 1,500 m from the recharge basins, pump the recharged
water from a depth of 100 to 200 m. In addition to the water quality improvement, the SAT system
358
provides seasonal and multi-year water storage. Water recovered from the SAT system is of extremely
high quality and can be used for unrestricted agricultural irrigation.
The removal efficiency of SAT is illustrated in Tables 14.7 and 14.8. The multi annual (27 years) analysis
results for the three control points (the WWTP, the SAT system and distribution system) show that water
quality tends to stabilize after the WWTP. The system is performing with high reliability. The long-term
quality monitoring has shown no significant deviation from the established quality standards. The water
quality in the purified water distribution system is mainly affected by the fluctuations in the water quality
of the Dan Region WWTP and changes in the recovery wells.
Table 14.7 SAT performance at Shafdan – basic wastewater parameters

(Mekorot, 2003)
Parameter Units Before After After After After %

SAT SAT SAT SAT SAT Removal
SOREQ YAVNE 1 YAVNE 2 YAVNE 3
TSS (105°C) mg/L 11 0 0 0 0 100
pH - 7.41 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 268 275 290 300 293
BOD mg/L 12 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 > 95
BODf mg/L 2
COD mg/L 49
CODf mg/L 36 4.5 5 4 4.5-5.0 87.5
DOC mg/L 12 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 90

-1 3
UV254 Absorbance cm x10 223 38 36 42 38 82.7
Ammonia, as N mg/L 6.53 0.2 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 > 99
Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 9.1
Kjeldahl Nitrogenf mg/L 8.2 1.16 0.44 0.33 0.3 93
Nitrate, as N mg/L 1.0 2.64 6 6.5 6.75
Nitrite, as N mg/L 1.237 0.02 0.004 < 0.01 < 0.004 > 99
Phosphorous mg/L 3.0 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 99
Detergents mg/L 0.22 0.12 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 > 55
Phenol ȝg/L <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 > 50
Total Bacteria No./mL 8.0E+05 454 - 455 2 22 7-8 3 log
Coliforms MPN/100 mL 4.1E+05 <2 <2 <2 <2 5 log
Faecal Coliforms MPN/100 mL 2.8E+05 <2 <2 <2 <2 4 log
Strept. Faecalis MPN/100 mL 9.0E+05 <2 <2 <2 <2 3-4 log
Enteroviruses PFU/100 L 6
359
Table 14.8 Comparison of drinking water standards for specific organics and
results obtained in Observation well No. 54* (Mekorot, 2003)
Parameter Units Observation Well 54 (21.7.03) Drinking water standards
Alachlor ȝg/L <0.1 20

Atrazine ȝg/L 0.1 2
Benzene ȝg/L 0.1 10
Benzopyrene ȝg/L <0.1 0.7
1,2 Dichlorobenzene ȝg/L <0.2 1000
1,4 Dichlorobenzene ȝg/L <0.2 300
Carbon tetrachloride ȝg/L <0.2 5
Cis-1,2 Dichloroethylene ȝg/L <0.2 -
Chlordane ȝg/L <0.1 2
Chloroform ȝg/L <1 100
DDT ȝg/L <0.1 2
1,2 Dibromo-3-chloropropane ȝg/L <0.01 1
1,2 Dichloroethane ȝg/L <0.2 5
1,1 Dichloroethylene ȝg/L <0.2 30
Endrin ȝg/L <0.1 2
Ethylene dibromide ȝg/L <0.005 0.03
Heptachlor ȝg/L <0.1 0.4
Lindane ȝg/L <0.1 2
Monochlorobenzene ȝg/L <0.5 300
Methoxychlor ȝg/L <0.1 20
Prometryn ȝg/L <0.1 -
Simazine ȝg/L 0.41 2
Styrene ȝg/L <0.1 50
Tetrachloroethylene ȝg/L <0.2 10
Toluene ȝg/L <0.2 700
Trans -1,2 Dichloroethylene ȝg/L <0.2 100
1,1,1 Trichloroethane ȝg/L <0.2 200
Trichloroethylene ȝg/L <0.2 50
Trifluralin ȝg/L <0.1 -
Xylene ȝg/L <0.1 1000
* The travel time in Well No. 54 is around 12 months
Different operational problems encountered during more than 25 years operation are:
• clogging of the infiltration fields,
• biofilm in the distribution lines,
360
• geo-chemical effects causing precipitates in the purified water distribution system and consumers
irrigation systems.
The operation and maintenance cost on the Yavne 4 site, which is a relatively new, is provided below.
The purpose for constructing this new infiltration field was the inability to treat 122 Mm3/yr of effluents
in the existing infiltration fields due to clogging that slowed down the infiltration rate during the 25 years
operation of the fields. The cost of reclaimed water including infiltration is about 0.21-0.25 €/m³, to which
the cost of storage and conveyance (distribution) to the irrigation points in the south in the case of the
Third Line needs to be added (0.23-0.25 €/m³). Thus the total cost for reclaimed water is about 0.45-
0.50 €/m³. These costs include the following five stages: pumping system and effluent carrying pipelines
to the infiltration fields, infiltration fields and SAT system, recovery system, main distribution and storage
system (with all seasonal and daily operative reservoirs), and pumping system after the reservoirs and the
distribution system to end-users.
1. Some general data for Yavne 4 infiltration fields area is given below (for more details see also
Chapter 14.1.3):
2. Land area requirement for infiltration: 340,000 m². Out of it, 47% or 160,000 m² net area, without
the infrastructure around the fields.
3. SAT system water production capacity: 20 Mm³/yr
4. Single recovery well production capacity: 1.75 Mm³/yr
5. Total pipe line length: (See also detailed length and diameter layout in Fig. 14.3):
From pump station 7 to infiltration fields: Main pipe-line: 3 km of 1100 mm pipe-line to Yavne 2
and 3 infiltration fields junction, and another 4 km of 900 mm pipe-line. Another 3 km pipe-line
is taken for topography and internal lines.
Cost of construction for the pipe-lines (based on 345 €/m): 3.45 M €
Cost of construction for the main pumping station for 20 Mm³/yr: 1.72 M €
The construction cost of the operational reservoirs (150,000 m3) was 1 million € (not including the
land price and indemnities for the growers), although this cost can be 2 - 3 times higher in hilly regions.
Construction in regions based on clay soils is also more expensive than in those with loess soils. The cost
of reclaimed water including infiltration and distribution to the storage reservoirs is about 0.21 - 0.25 €/m³
not including the secondary wastewater treatment.
Energy use: Electrical power consumption is 4 Wh per every m³ of effluent pumped to 1 m (loses not
included).
14.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bower H. (1996) Issues in Artificial Recharge. Wat. Sci. Tech. 33 (10-11), 381-390.
Bouwer H. (1998) Groundwater and recharge principles - Groundwater and aquifers. TISAR’ 98: Course on Artificial Recharge
of Groundwater. 20 Sept. 1998, Amsterdam.
Cikurel H. and A. Aharoni (2005), Aquarec Project (EVK1-CT-2002-00130), communications to WP 6 and 8.
Cikurel H. (2004) Comparison of the long-term performance of SAT leading to potable water quality for reuse in the US and
Israel. Aquarec Project, internal presentation, Delft, the Netherlands.
361
Fox P., Narayanaswamy K., Genz A. and T.E. Drewes (2001) Water quality transformations during soil aquifer treatment at the
Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, USA. Wat. Sci. Techn. 43 (10): 343-350
Mekorot National Water Co. of Israel (2003) Yearly report on Dan Region Reclamation Project, Nelly Icekson Tal et al. Ed.
Mekorot National Water Co. of Israel (2004) Yearly report on Dan Region Reclamation Project, Nelly Icekson Tal et al. Ed.
Metcalf and Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering - Treatment and Reuse. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill International editions.
Peters et al. (1988) Artificial recharge of groundwater. TISAR’ 98: Proc. 3rd. Int. Symp. on Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater, 21-25 Sept. 1998, Amsterdam: 81–103.
Perez-Paricio A. and J. Carrera (1998) Operational guidelines regarding clogging. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Artificial Re-
charge of Groundwater TISAR' 98; Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 21-25 Sept. 1998: 441-446.
National Center for Sustainable Water Supply (NCSWS) (2001) "Investigation on soil aquifer treatment
for sustainable water reuse" A research project conducted by the National Center for sustainable water
supply (NCSWS), Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Reynolds K. A., Gerba C. P. and I.L. Pepper (1996) Detection of infectious enteroviruses by an integrated
cell culture-PCR procedure. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:1424-1427.
362
15 MATURATION PONDS AND EFFLUENT

RESERVOIRS
15.1 DESCRIPTION
Both maturation ponds (MP) and effluent storage reservoirs (ESR) are considered as valuable and simple
polishing options of secondary treatment. They are used primarily for high-level pathogen removal and to
a minor extent, for additional removal of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). Well-designed systems
can produce an effluent quality that complies with the requirements of the WHO guidelines for the safe
use of wastewater, excreta and greywater (cp. chapter 3.2).
A. Maturation ponds (MPs)
MPs are fixed-volume steady-state reactors, which receive inflow all the year around and discharge
effluents by overflow, also all the year around. MPs normally are preceded by a series of anaerobic and
facultative ponds, whereas the anaerobic and facultative ponds primarily serve for BOD removal (cf.
Figure 15.1).
Figure 15.1 Removal of BOD, helminth eggs, bacteria and viruses in WSP systems
with 4 to 5 cells at temperatures above 20 °C (from Juanicó and Dor,
1999)
Maturation ponds can also receive treated water from aerated lagoons or any other secondary treatment,
including high-rate biological treatment such as Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactors (Von
Sperling et al., 2005).
The effluent quality is basically determined by the hydraulic retention time as well as the design of the
maturation ponds in terms of size, number and type of flow. In turn, the size and number of maturation
363
ponds is governed mainly by the required bacteriological quality of the final effluent. For design
considerations please refer to Sections 15.2.3, 15.2.4 and 15.2.5.
B. Wastewater Storage and Treatment Reservoirs (WSTRs) and Effluent Storage Reservoirs
(ESRs)
WSTR, also referred to as ESR, are changing-volume non-steady-state reactors with regular or irregular
inflow and seasonal discharge. With bigger volumes (hydraulic retention time of up to 8 months) and
higher depths (about 5 to 15 m) than MPs, ESRs present another option for simple polishing of secondary
effluent. Their primary purpose is to collect the effluent continuously and discharge the effluent
discontinuously, i.e. during the irrigation season. Figure 15.2 shows the schematic configuration for an
ESR as a tertiary treatment system.
Figure 15.2 Effluent polishing in ESR
The use of waste stabilisation ponds for both treatment and effluent storage for irrigation during arid
season was pioneered in Israel (Abeliovitch, 1982; Dor et al., 1987; Juanicó and Shelef, 1994). The
earliest treatment systems were based on simple 1.5 m deep ponds (i.e. as for MPs), but modern
configurations have much deeper reservoirs, to cover the need for storage capacity and to provide the
operational flexibility required by irrigation (Juanicó and Milstein, 2004).
The design of such systems is more complex than of MPs because the "irregular" operation of the
reservoir leads to changes in hydraulic residence times, surface loading, volumetric loading, etc. Design
guidelines can be found in Juanicó and Dor (1999) and Mara (2003).
Differences between MPs and ESR can be summarised in (Juanicó and Dor, 1999):
• MPs cannot be used for storage because they have very little storage capacity (10 - 20%
of their volume). Deep and extra-deep ponds have a bit more storage capacity, but it is
still very small compared with an effluent storage reservoir (ESR) that can have more
than 90 % of storage volume.
• MPs are designed to have the whole water column aerobic (in order to optimize pathogen
removal), while most ESR have an aerobic epilimnion and an anaerobic hypolimnion
(kinetic rates are different under aerobic and anaerobic conditions).
• MPs should be designed small (5-7 days each) and in series, or larger but approaching
plug-flow e.g. by usage of baffles in order to optimize pathogen removal. Reservoirs are
much bigger with minimal mean residence time (MRT) of 30 - 40 days and maximal
MRT of 80 - 180 days.
364

A. Regulatory water quality requirements specific to lagooning
Some legislation makes distinction between effluent limits for reuse when lagooning is applied. In Italy,
for instance, the requirement for unrestricted irrigation water microbiological quality is in terms of E. Coli
(EC):
• For lagooning < 50 EC/100 mL (80% of the time) and maximum < 200 EC/100 mL.
• For other treatment processes: < 10 EC/100 mL (80% of the time) and max. 100 EC/100 mL.
The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC requires WSPs to comply with the same
absolute limits for BOD5 and COD than for conventional treatment but with the big difference that for
WSP systems filtered samples may be analyzed (EU, 1991):
Filtered BOD5 25 mg/L, filtered COD 125 mg/L
For Suspended Solids (SS) EU pond effluents can contain 150 mg/L, while for other treatment
processes (like AS) it should be (SS) 35 mg/L. This recognizes the distinctions between algal and
sewage BOD (and COD) and algal and sewage SS.
Countries in the Region not within the European Union are urged to take into consideration the inherent
difference between algal and sewage BOD (or COD) and SS, and so allow filtered BOD (and/or COD) to
replace unfiltered BOD (and/or COD) in their requirements for WSP effluents, subject to a maximum
permitted SS concentration (i.e. including the algae in the WSP effluent) of, for example, 150 mg/L (as in
the EU), or some other locally appropriate value.
B. Pathogen removal
In a properly designed series of ponds, the removal of excreted pathogens is extremely efficient. Typical
microbial removal efficiency for various types of ponds and of conventional activated sludge secondary
treatment is reported in Table 15.1.
Table 15.1 Removals of excreted pathogens achieved by various types of ponds

vs. conventional activated sludge process
Waste Removal
Removal in Conventional
stabilisation in batch-fed
PARAMETER UNITS reservoirs secondary
ponds reservoirs
continuous flow treatment
incl. MP 30-60 days
Bacteria Log units Up to 6 1-2 (Faecal) 4 to total 1-2
Total
Viruses Log units Up to 4 - 1-2
(polio virus 1)
Protozoan cysts Log units Total - 4 1-2
Helminth eggs Log units Total - Total 1-2
Adapted from Juanicó and Milstein (2004) and Mara et al. (1992)
365
Generally speaking, if only a single pond is used, the effluent quality complies with the WHO guideline
for restricted irrigation. For the usage in unrestricted irrigation three or four of sequential batch-fed ESR
in parallel, operated sequentially on a cycle of fill-rest-use, is required as they can guarantee the necessary
retention time with sufficient faecal coliform (FC) die-off to below 1000 per 100 mL (Mara 1996; Mara,
2003) which occurs rapidly during the fill and rest phase.
In cases where the standards require a faecal coliform concentration of not more than 10 FC per 100 mL
in effluents, these standards can be reached if the secondary effluent has been stored in a “continuous
flow” reservoir with inflow and outflow of effluents for at least a MRT of 60 days (Shelef and Halperin,
2002). If the reservoir is “closed” and it is batch-fed and no water is withdrawn for a certain period, this
standard can be reached if the MRT is at least 30 days (Shelef and Halperin, 2002). Furthermore in both
cases a chlorination is required before entering and after leaving the reservoir to reach very low FC
concentrations.
C. Nutrient removal
Maturation ponds can contribute significantly to nutrient removal. Typical removal efficiency of nitrogen
and phosphorus for various types of ponds is given in Table 15.2. The nutrient removal performance is
highly climate dependant. The numbers given in Table 15.2 are related to Mediterranean climates.
Table 15.2 Removals of nutrients achieved by various types of ponds vs.

conventional activated sludge process
Batch-fed Conventional
WSP Reservoirs -
PARAMETER UNITS reservoirs secondary
incl. MP continuous flow
30-60 days treatment
70 - 80%
70% - 80% (Juanico and
Total Nitrogen % - 50-60%
(Mara, 1998) Milstein,
2004)
< 30% (Juanico 60 - 85%

45 - 50%
Phosphorus % and Milstein, (Juanico and 30-35%
(Mara, 1998)
2004) Milstein, 2004)
15.1.3 Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages and disadvantages for MPs and WSTR compared to more intensive secondary effluent
polishing options are summarised in Table 15.3.
Table 15.3 Advantages and disadvantages of MP and ESR compared to more

intensive polishing systems
Simplicity and robustness Large land requirements

No demand for electromechanical equipment Dependence on temperature and intensity of sunlight:
seasonal changes of effluent quality
366
Easy to operate High evaporation losses (MP), esp. in dry and windy
zones
Low capital costs
Larger sizes in colder climates
Low operation, maintenance and replacement costs
Hazard of nuisance (odour, insects), if not properly
High efficiency in removal of bacteria and helminths
designed or operated
(esp. MP)
Hazard of groundwater contamination in case of high
Flexibility in construction phasing
soil permeability and insufficient pond lining
Storage capacity and thus possibility of discontinuous
Irrigation water losses in case of continuous discharge
discharge of effluent (ESR)
of effluent (MP)
Reduced evaporation losses (ESR compared to MP)
Adapted from IRC (2004); US EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse (2004); Mara and Pearson (1998) and Lazarova and Bahri
(2004)
15.1.4 Costs
The cost advantages of waste stabilisation ponds (WSP) including MPs were already analysed in detail by
Arthur (1983) in a World Bank Technical Paper. Arthur’s economic methodology, which includes both
capital and O&M costs, is still strongly recommended for use at the feasibility study stage of all
wastewater treatment projects in which a choice between different treatment processes has to be made.
This should include, if necessary, the extra cost of conveying the wastewater to an area of low-cost land.
Provided the cost of land is low, MPs and WSTR are normally less expensive than other polishing
processes because there is no need for high-cost, electromechanical equipment, and for a high annual
consumption of electrical energy. The latter point is well illustrated, in Table 15.4, by the following data
from the United States for a flow of 10 million US gallons per day (37,800 m³/d).
Table 15.4 Consumption of electrical energy for WSPs and other conventional
treatment processes (Mara and Pearson, 1998)
Treatment process Energy consumption (kWh/yr)

Activated sludge 10,000,000
Aerated lagoons 8,000,000
Biodiscs 1,200,000
Waste Stabilisation Ponds Nil *
* Energy consumption might be higher in case of pumping and pre-treatment.
A direct cost comparison of different treatment technologies including disinfection is also given in the US
EPA guidelines for water reuse (Table 8.5, p. 254, USEPA, 2004).
In France the mean capital costs of WSP systems serving populations up to 1000 P.E. are 120 € per capita
with a range of 90 - 450 €/P.E. (converted into € based on the 1997 FF/ECU exchange rate). Burka (1996)
estimated the costs of various methods of wastewater treatment for a population of 500 P.E. in rural
Germany (Table 15.5). Although cost levels in Central Europe are much higher than in Mediterranean
countries, WSP can still be competitive, costing for the investigated case around one-third the expenses of
activated sludge and about half that of reed-beds. Nevertheless the competitiveness of WSP systems
367
largely depends on the cost for the acquisition of the land. Therefore WSP can only be economically
feasible in rural areas where land prices are relatively low.
Table 15.5 Cost and land requirements for various methods of wastewater
treatment for a rural community of 500 inhabitants in Germany
Treatment process Capital costs* (€/P.E.) O and M costs (€/P.E.) Land area (m2/P.E.)
Activated sludge 1040 1.04 0.3-1 (+ 500 % **)
Trickling filter 780 0.88 0.4-1 (+ 500 % **)
Aerated lagoon 620 0.88 4-10 (+ 100 % **)
Vertical-flow reed bed 620 0.78 1.5-4 (+ 100 % **)
Horizontal-flow reed bed 780 0.68 6-8 (+ 100 % **)
WSP 364 0.62 10-15 (+ 50 % **)
Mara and Pearson (1998) * Calculated as € from original DM **Additional working area
15.2 BASIC ASPECTS
15.2.1 Removal mechanism

Pathogen removal
WSP treatment is based on 'natural' disinfection ruled by a large number of factors, like temperature,
hydraulic retention time, algal toxins, sedimentation, protozoan grazing and sunlight, whereas there is still
a considerable controversy about the exact underlying mechanisms (Davies-Colley, 2006). Within WSP,
MPs are designed to promote zooplankton grazing of remaining algal solids, and further disinfection via
exposure to solar radiation, sedimentation and protozoan grazing. More details on these removal
mechanisms in maturation ponds can be found in Curtis et al. (1994). Corresponding to their
investigations, the die-off of faecal coliforms in the presence of light was highly sensitive to and
completely dependent on oxygen.
According to Davies-Colley (2006) the primary factor seems to be sunlight while water temperature as
well as other factors like HRT and algal toxins should be regarded as secondary factors influencing the
rate of action of the primary factors. The sunlight driven photo-oxidative disinfection relies on the
presence of dissolved oxygen.
Intensity of sunlight
Faecal coliforms (including E. coli) and other indicator organisms exposed to sunlight are simultaneously
damaged by three mechanisms:
1. Direct photo-biological damage to DNA (which is efficiently repaired by enzymatic processes),
2. Photo-oxidative damage by endogenous photosensitizers (mostly to DNA, but also to other

targets including DNA repair mechanisms);
3. Photo-oxidative damage by exogenous photosensitizers (mainly to the cell membrane).
368
The relative importance of these “sunlight” mechanisms depends on physico-chemical conditions, notably
pH/salinity, but also oxygen which, together with solar irradiance, determines the concentration of
transient photo-oxidizing species. Davies-Colley et al. (2000) mentioned that different faecal indicators
are inactivated by different components of the solar spectrum and the rates of sunlight inactivation have
differing dependencies on physico-chemical conditions. For example, F-specific DNA phage was
inactivated only by solar UV-B (300–320 nm) at a rate unaffected by other factors, whereas Enterococci
and F-specific RNA phage were inactivated by a wide range of wavelengths (300–550 nm) and by (DO-
dependent) photo-oxidation. Sunlight inactivation of faecal coliforms was particularly complicated: at pH
values < 8.5 only solar UV-B (300–320 nm) caused (slow) inactivation, but at higher pH values, the
inactivation rate increased and a wider range of wavelengths (300–550 nm) contributed, suggesting
photo-oxidative damage to membranes which sensitizes faecal coliforms to high external pH.
The diversity of influence of environmental factors on sunlight inactivation has implications for
modelling of disinfection in WSPs. To be physically meaningful and yield robust, accurate, predictions of
disinfection efficiency, such modelling should take explicit account of pH, DO, mixing depth and the
optical characteristics of the effluent with regard to light penetration.
Other indicator organisms besides the faecal coliform group, and the pathogens with which we are
ultimately concerned, may respond differently to sunlight exposure as it interacts with the physico-
chemical factors. Davies-Colley et al. (2000) showed that Enterococci and two different F-specific
phages have different “kinetics” of sunlight inactivation than E. coli, and are affected differently by the
physico-chemical factors.
This finding rather weakens the use of a single indicator organism to measure efficiency of pond
disinfection. Different microorganisms, including pathogens that may be present in WSPs, will be
inactivated at different rates dependent on (time varying) physico-chemical conditions as they interact
with sunlight exposure.
Increasing sunlight exposure may enhance pond disinfection. This can be achieved in principle with
shallower ponds or longer residence times. Increased sunlight exposure implies greater algal biomass that
tends to reduce pond water clarity and therefore the exposure of micro-biota to inactivating wavelengths.
However, as pointed out by Curtis (1994) the metabolism of algae greatly increases DO (and pH) levels,
thereby promoting photo-oxidative damage that probably dominates the inactivation of most pathogens of
concern in WSPs.
Water temperature
Faecal bacterial die-off in ponds increases with water temperature (Feachem et al., 1983). Temperature
probably has only a second order influence in as much as it affects rate of DNA repair. Meanwhile, still
other processes of removal (i.e., dark processes) occur irrespective of sunlight exposure, and are
potentially dependent on temperature, including protozoan ingestion, and adsorption-sedimentation.
Together with time (cfr Figure 15.1), temperature is the principal parameter used in maturation pond
design (cfr Chapter 15.2.3).
Other important secondary factors are (Mara and Pearson, 1998):
1. Dissolved oxygen concentration: Photo-oxidative damage to DNA and to external

structures like cell membranes is a reaction relying on the presence of dissolved oxygen
369
while in the absence of oxygen only photo-biological damage to DNA occurs. High
oxygen concentration, in their own right, is not toxic to pathogens (Curtis et al., 1992).
Toxicity results only from the interaction of sunlight and oxygen (Davies-Colley, 2005)
2. A high pH above 9 is the main factors influencing the treatment efficiency. High pH
values above 9 occur in ponds due to rapid photosynthesis of the pond-algae that
consume CO2 faster than it can be replaced by bacterial respiration; as a result carbonate
and bicarbonate ions dissociate. The algae fix the resulting carbon dioxide and the
hydroxyl ions accumulate so raising the pH, often to above 10. Faecal bacteria (with the
notable exception of Vibrio cholerae) die very quickly (within minutes) at pH > 9
(Pearson et al., 1987).
The past findings that algal biomass has an important influence in pathogen removal can be explained by
considering the in-phase diurnal variation of certain variables (like dissolved oxygen and pH) in surface
waters of WSPs resulting from algal metabolism, together with the interaction of these variables with
sunlight (Davies-Colley et al., 2005).
Box 15.1: Algal population of MPs vs. that of facultative ponds

The algal population of MP is more diverse than that of facultative ponds with non-motile genera
tending to be more common. Table 15.6 shows some examples of the wide variety of algal species
present in ponds. The algal diversity increases from pond to pond along the series (Mara and Pearson,
1998).
Table 15.6 Examples of algal genera present in Maturation Ponds as

compared to Facultative Ponds (Mara and Pearson, 1998)
Algae Facultative ponds Maturation Ponds

Euglenophyta
Euglena + +
Phacus + +
Chlorophyta
Chlamydomonas + +
Chlorogonium + +
Eudorina + +
Pandorina + +
Pyrobotrys + +
Ankistrodesmus - +
Chlorella + +
Micractinium - +
Scenedesmus - +
Selenastrum - +
Carteria + +
370
Algae Facultative ponds Maturation Ponds

Coelastrum - +
Dictyosphaerium - +
Oocystis - +
Rhodomonas - +
Volvox + +
Chrysophyta
Navicula + +
Cyclotella - +
Cyanophyta
Oscillatoria + +
Anabaena + +
(+) Present (-) Absent
Although little is known on the virus removal mechanisms in ponds, it is recognized that it occurs in
part by adsorption on the settleable solids (including pond algae) that settle in the ponds as sediments.
Reviews of research on viruses by Chaudhiri (1973) and Maynard et al. (1999) concluded that exposure
to sunlight is the other major removal factor for viruses.
Protozoan cysts and helminth eggs are also removed by sedimentation. Due to their high settling
velocity (3.4 10-4 m/s for Ascaris lumbricoides) most removal takes place in the facultative ponds (Figure
15.1).
The size and number of MPs determine the degree of faecal coliform removal. In a series MP
arrangement, each stage decreases the coliform concentration relatively which increases the retention time
and thus augments the effect of the UV light disinfection. The size and form of the MP determines also
the retention time which furthermore depends on the flow and wind.
BOD and nutrient removal

MPs have a small contribution to BOD removal, usually around 10-25 % in each pond (Figure 15.1). Due
to the reduced supply with nutrients and due to the predation by protozoa and micro-invertebrates or fish
if present, the algal concentrations are much lower than in the anaerobic and facultative ponds. The
effluent BOD of the MP mainly results from algae (around 70 – 90%). Thus a significant reduction of
BOD, SS and nutrients in the effluent can be achieved by rock filters although algal removal is not
necessary if the effluent is used for agriculture and aquaculture (Mara and Pearson, 1998).
Maturation ponds' contribution to nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal can be significant. In
facultative and maturation ponds, ammonia is removed by assimilation into new algal biomass. As the
algae die and settle to the bottom of the ponds, the non-biodegradable algal cell mass (20 % of the total)
and the nitrogen associated with it, remains in the pond sediment. The biodegradable part eventually
diffuses back to the pond liquid and is assimilated into algal cells to start the process again. At high pH
some of the ammonia can leave the ponds by volatilization. There is little evidence for nitrification. The
371
nitrifying bacteria population is low, possibly due to the absence of physical attachment sites in the
aerobic zone. Also inhibition by pond algae may occur (Mara and Pearson, 1998).
Total nitrogen removal in WSP is also dependent on the local climate conditions. Hot summer conditions
favours better nitrogen removal by better biomass assimilation when water temperature is sufficiently
high, and light allows algal photosynthesis and then better ammonia removal by volatilization when pH
increases to about 9.
Removal of > 70 % as N by WSP at low temperatures (< 20°C) is difficult to obtain. Nevertheless in
Mediterranean climate, depending on climate conditions, hydraulic retention time, maturation ponds
configuration and good operational practice, up to 80% removal of total nitrogen and up to 95% of
ammonia can be obtained (Mara et al., 1992).
The efficiency of total phosphorous removal in WSP is low (45-50%). It depends on the rate of
precipitation in the pond sediments and sedimentation of organic P. The organic P originates from the
algal biomass while inorganic P is precipitated, mainly as hydroxyl apatite at pHs above 9.5. As it was
explained for nitrogen, the phosphorous associated with non-biodegradable fraction of the algal cells
remains in the sediments. By increasing the number of maturation ponds more and more phosphorous
becomes immobilized in the sediments and more phosphate is removed from the effluents (Mara and
Pearson, 1998).
Shilton et al. (2005) tried to upgrade the phosphorous removal from pond systems by using limestone and
an iron slag filter polishing step. Filter performance was improved at high temperatures by the presence of
higher quantities of algae, presumably because of its tendency to elevate pH and improve precipitation
reactions.
15.2.2 Operation mode of maturation ponds and wastewater

treatment and storage reservoirs
15.2.2.1 Maturation ponds
WSP systems include either a single series of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds or several such
series in parallel (see Figure 15.3) (Mara and Pearson, 1998; Juanicó and Dor, 1999).
Figure 15.3 WSP in series and in parallel (Adapted from a presentation by Mara,
1998)
372
Shallow maturation ponds usually show less vertical biological and physicochemical stratification and are
well oxygenated throughout the day.
15.2.2.2 Wastewater Treatment and Storage Reservoirs

Effluent storage reservoirs receive partially treated wastewater effluents from several types of treatment
units such as anaerobic/facultative ponds, aerated lagoons or trickling filters for storage and controlled
release (Juanicó, 2006) whereas not all the BOD, nutrients and bacteria has been removed and it is still far
from the required specifications, say for unrestricted irrigation quality. In Israel, they are used for two
purposes (Juanicó, 1996):
1. To upgrade the quality of the effluents during the long residence time within the reservoirs
2. To store the effluents during the rainy winter in order to use them in agricultural irrigation during
the dry summer
The improvement obtained in the quality of the effluents depends on the operational regime of the
reservoirs as reactors (Juanicó, 1996; Mara and Pearson, 1998): Batch, sequential batch in series or in
parallel or hybrid WSP-WSTR are used. See Figure 15.4 for: (a) Single WSTR system for restricted
irrigation, (b) Sequential batch fed WSTRs in parallel for unrestricted irrigation and (c) Hybrid WSP -
WSTR system for both restricted and unrestricted irrigation. In (c), a maturation pond may be necessary
after the facultative pond.
Figure 15.4 Different WSTR configurations (Mara and Pearson, 1998)

A = anaerobic pond, F = facultative pond
The most common WSTR method is the one performed in single deep Waste Storage Treatment
Reservoirs (WSTR). The depth of these reservoirs could be 5 – 20 m (6 – 8 m average) (Juanicó and Dor,
1999).
In a single semi-continuous wastewater storage reservoir, the treated water resides in the reservoir during
the storage period (low irrigation water demand period) and is mixed with influent wastewater refilling
the reservoir as it is emptied during the irrigation period. This results in a steady reduction in the
373
irrigation water quality during the crop-growing season so that the crops receive the poorest effluent
quality closest to their harvest time. Nevertheless, these reservoirs can be effective systems that combine
treatment and distribution of effluents for non-edible crop irrigation during the summer months (in
Mediterranean countries it can be 6 to 8 months irrigation per year).
Figure 15.5 shows a schematic representation of a conventional continuous-flow reservoir (Juanicó and
Dor, 1999). The active volume of the reservoir is computed by mass balancing inflow and rain flowing
into the reservoir as well as the losses (evaporation and seepage) during the non-irrigation season. A dead
volume of about 1 m depth must be added to account for the effluents remaining in the reservoir at the
end of the irrigation season due to impossibility of pumping without dragging the bottom solids (which
will increase the turbidity and TSS in the irrigation water).
Figure 15.5 Division of the total volume of a WSTR (Juanicó and Dor, 1999)
total volume = active volume + dead volume + dry volume
maximum
water level freeboard
dry volume
active volume
dead volume
Deep reservoirs with a small area/volume ratio are recommended in semi-arid regions where evaporation
losses may account for more than 15% of inputs to the reservoir and increase the salinity in the remaining
effluents (Juanicó and Dor, 1999).
Effluent storage and stabilization reservoirs when properly designed and operated as batch reactors are
able to remove COD, BOD5, TSS and detergents by up to one order of magnitude and up to 5 orders of
faecal coliforms (before chlorination). A significant removal of heavy metals, bacteriophages and other
pollutants is obtained (Juanicó, 1996).
In 1991, Mara and Pearson proposed treating the deep effluent reservoirs as batch loaded reactors by
using parallel reservoirs operating on a “Fill, Rest, Use” regime so that effluents with relatively long
MRT will be used for irrigation (Pearson et al., 1996). In that case if the MRT is more than 50 - 60 days
the water can be used for unrestricted irrigation even in countries with more stringent guidelines than
those from WHO (1989).
Sequential batch reservoirs, either in parallel or in series have the best performance as treatment units.
The input of wastewater to the reservoir is closed before the outlet is opened. Sequential batch reservoirs
in series are a more economic than sequential batch in parallel when discharge is seasonal.
When the release of effluents is almost homogeneous all year around a plug-flow maturation pond may be
the more economically feasible solution to obtain a good outflow effluent quality (Juanicó, 1996).
Juanicó and Milstein (2004) lately proposed semi-intensive systems that combine anaerobic–aerated
ponds with deep effluent reservoirs or UASB reactors with deep ESR. They mention that the anaerobic–
374
aerobic ponds remove about 75-80% of the BOD5 and are followed by ESR for storage and
complementary treatment. These systems can remove as much BOD5 as other intensive systems and as
much refractory pollutants as the extensive systems. They release no or negligible amounts of sludge and
the effluents obtained from these systems can comply with different quality requirements in a reliable
way.
15.2.3 Design parameters

The most important design parameters are temperature, net evaporation, flow and BOD as well as faecal
coliforms and helminth egg numbers.
The usual design temperature can be derived from the mean air temperature in the coolest month or
quarter which provides a certain safety as water temperatures are 2 - 3°C warmer than air temperatures
(Mara and Pearson, 1998).
The mean daily flow should either be measured or estimated on the basis of the daily water consumption
per capita taking into account the distribution losses which depend on the quality of the supply and sewer
nets.
Faecal coliforms numbers in the influent vary usually between 107 and 108 FC/100 mL. Helminth egg
numbers should be measured; the typical range might reach 500 eggs/L.
15.2.4 Process design

The process design of storage and maturation ponds is based on hydraulic retention time, climatic
conditions and the frequency of discharge. As mentioned before the actual pond dimensions of WSTR
and WSP with maturation ponds will be derived from hydraulic balance and the retention time in ponds
determined by the die-off kinetics of the pathogens taking into account environmental conditions of the
available site (sunlight intensity, temperature).
Faecal coliform removal in WSP

In the investigation of the inactivation mechanisms in stabilization ponds and maturation ponds the most
widely used microorganism indicators have been, up to now, E. coli and faecal coliforms (FC) (Mara and
Pearson, 1998).
Coliform decay is usually considered to follow first order kinetics:
dN/dt = -kN (15.1)
Usually the method of Marais (1974) is used to design a pond series for faecal coliform removal. This
assumes that faecal coliform removal can be modelled by first order kinetics in a completely mixed
reactor. The resulting equation for a single pond is:
Ne=Ni / (1+kTș) (15.2)
Where:
Ne = Number of FC/100 mL of effluent from the maturation pond
Ni = Number of FC 100 mL of influent to the maturation pond
375
kT = First order rate constant for FC removal, (d-1)
ș = Retention time (d)
For a series of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds, equation 15.2 becomes:
Ne = Ni/[(1+kTșa) (1+kTșf) (1+kTșm)n] (15.3)
Where Ne and Ni refer to the numbers of FC/100 mL of the final effluent and raw wastewater
respectively; the sub-scripts a, f and m refer to the anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds; and n is
the number of maturation ponds. It is assumed in equation 15.3 that all the maturation ponds are equally
sized. More details can be found in Mara and Pearson, 1998, Chapter 4, Process design of WSP.
The value of kT is highly temperature dependent. Marais (1974) found that the relation is:
kT = 2.6 (1.19)T-20 (15.4)
So that kT changes by 19% for every change in temperature of 1°C.
This fact can be advantageously used to get a cheap disinfection in hot and sunny countries in the
Mediterranean, Australia, Africa, Asia and South America.
15.2.5 Physical design

The physical design of WSP with maturation ponds or WSTR must be carefully done since it affects the
treatment efficiency. To be able to design the ponds volume a hydraulic balance has to be performed
To maintain the water level in the ponds, the inflow must be at least greater than net evaporation and
seepage at all times. Thus:
Qi 0.001A (e + s) (15.5)
Where Qi = inflow to first pond, m³/d
A = total area of pond series, m²
e = net evaporation (i.e. evaporation less rainfall), mm/d
s = seepage, mm/d
The maximum permissible permeability of the soil layer making up the pond base can be determined from
Darcy’s law:
k = [Qs/(86,400 A)][¨l/¨h] (15.6)

Where k = maximum permissible permeability, m/s
Qs = maximum permissible seepage flow (= Qi – 0.001Ae) m³/d
A = base area of pond, m²
¨l = depth of soil layer below pond base to aquifer or more permeable stratum, (m)
¨h =hydraulic head (= pond depth + ¨l), (m)
If the permeability of the soil is more than the maximum permissible, the pond must be lined (See also
15.3 Process Equipment). As a general guide, the following interpretations may be placed on values
obtained for the in situ coefficient of permeability (Mara and Pearson, 1998):
k > 10-6 m/s: The soil is too permeable and the ponds must be lined
k > 10-7 m/s: Some seepage may occur but not sufficiently to prevent the ponds from filling
k < 10-8 m/s: The ponds will seal naturally
376
k < 10-9 m/s: There is no risk of groundwater contamination

If k > 10-9 m/s and the groundwater is used for potable supplies, further detailed hydro-
geological studies may be required.
15.3 EQUIPMENT
Equipment for ponds consists of preliminary treatment, inlet and outlet structures, embankment protection
and, depending on the permeability of the soil, lining.
Furthermore by-pass pipes, security fencing and proper notices are required. Operator facilities must also
be provided.
15.3.1 Location and geotechnical considerations for

construction of ponds
Pond location is important to avoid people to enter the treatment area which should be at least 200 m
(preferably 500 m) downwind from populated places although in well operated systems no odour
nuisances are expected. They should not be located near airports (within 2 km) since birds attracted to the
ponds can constitute a risk to air navigation. There should be vehicular access to the ponds and, to
minimize earthworks, the chosen site should be flat or gently sloping (Mara and Pearson, 1998).
The geotechnical investigation focuses on the principal objectives of providing a sound design basis to
ensure correct embankment design and to determine the soil permeability with regard to the requirement
of lining. The maximum height of the groundwater table is also of high importance and the properties of
the soil must be determined (Particle size distribution, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content, Atterberg limits, organic content, coefficient of permeability)
The minimum amount of samples should be four soil samples per hectare representing the soil profile and
with a depth of 1 m greater than the envisaged pond depth.
15.3.2 Embankments
Ponds or reservoirs are earth impoundments which are excavated with embankments. Organic soil (peaty
and plastic soils) and medium to coarse sands are not suitable for embankment construction (Mara and
Pearson, 1998).
Ideally, embankments should be constructed from the soil excavated from the site and there should be a
balance between cut and fill, although it is worth noting that ponds constructed completely in cut may be
a cheaper alternative, especially if embankment construction costs are high.
The soil for embankment construction should be compacted in 150-250 mm layers to 90% of the
maximum dry density (Proctor test). During compaction the soil shrinkage amounts to 10-30 % and
excavation estimates must take this into account. The compacted soil should have a coefficient of
permeability of <10-7 m/s. Especially at large pond installations the embankment should be designed for
vehicle access to facilitate maintenance.
The local soil should allow at least the formation of a stable and impermeable embankment core. If
adequate soil is not available on site, the transport to the site produces cost and can be reduced by using
377
the local soil for the embankment slopes. The internal slopes are usually 1 to 3, the external slopes 1 to
1.5-2. Steeper slopes are possible in case of suitable soil.
Grass using a slow-growing rhizomatous species should be planted to increase the embankment stability.
Adequate drainage of the external embankments should be provided to protect them against storm-water
erosion. Protection against erosion by wave action should be foreseen for the internal embankments. This
is best achieved at top water level by:
• Stone rip -rap (Figure 15.6 a) or
• Pre-cast concrete slabs (Figure 15.6.b).
This protection measure also inhibits vegetation at the water contact zone and thus it prevents the
development of a suitable habitat for mosquito or snail breeding.
Figure 15.6 Embankment protection - a. Stone “rip-rap” b. Pre-cast concrete

slabs (Mara and Pearson, 1998)
a b
15.3.3 Inlet and outlet structures

There is a wide variety of designs for inlet and outlet structures but the following points should be
basically considered (Mara and Pearson, 1998):
1. The structures should be simple and inexpensive.
2. They should permit samples of the pond effluent to be taken with ease.
3. Inlets to secondary facultative and maturation ponds should discharge below the liquid
level, preferably at mid-depth in order to reduce the possibility of short-circuiting.
4. The outlet of all ponds should be protected against the discharge of scum by a scum guard.
In maturation ponds, where algal banding is irrelevant, the take-off should be close to the surface
at the level that gives the best possible microbiological quality. According to Mara and Pearson
(1998) the recommended take-off level for maturation ponds is 50 mm below the water level.
A simple flow-measuring device such as a triangular or rectangular notch should be installed at the outlet
from the final pond in a series. Since the influent flow after or before the pre-treatment is also measured,
378
this permits to calculate the rate of evaporation and seepage or the rate of seepage, if evaporation is
measured separately.
15.3.4 Tree-belt
Tree-belts may be desired for aesthetic reasons, if the treatment site is close to human habitation. In desert
areas a tree-belt should be provided to prevent windblown sand from being deposited in the ponds (Mara
and Pearson, 1998). The trees should be planted upwind of the WSP and comprise up to five rows of
different, locally suitable type of trees.
15.3.5 Security fence, gates and notices

Ponds near populated areas should be surrounded by a chain-link fence and gates with padlocks. Warning
notices (in local language and also in an international language) should be mounted at the fence and
advising that, being apart of a waste treatment facility, the ponds are potentially hazardous to health
15.3.6 Operator facilities

The operator facilities depend on the size of the staff. It should generally include a first-aid kit,
strategically placed lifebuoys, sanitation (at least a wash-basin and toilet) and storage space for the
equipment and tools (e.g. protective clothing, grass-cutting and scum-removal equipment, screen rakes,
sampling boat and life-jackets).
With the exception of the lifebuoys, these can be accommodated in a simple building. This can also
house, if required, sample bottles and a refrigerator for sample storage.
Laboratory facilities, offices and a telephone may also be provided at large installations. Adequate space
for car parking should be provided. At very large WSP sites consideration should also be given to
providing housing for the relatively large number of operators employed (Mara and Pearson, 1998).
15.4 APPLICATION
In many arid/semi-arid and warm as well as temperate climate regions, waste stabilization ponds (WSP)
that include maturation ponds (MP) and effluent storage reservoirs are extensively used as disinfection,
polishing and balancing stage for wastewater reuse in agriculture, aquaculture and for environmental
purposes.
Maturation ponds and effluent storage reservoirs are common treatment methods for the reclamation of
effluent to be used in agriculture. They are also applied for reclamation of water to be used in the
environment.
Properly designed and operated ponds can meet the standards according to the WHO reuse guidelines for
irrigation. These measures can be regarded as preferential solution for irrigation with effluent. Plants at all
scales are in operation. They are applied especially in Israel and Mediterranean countries as well as in
Latin America, South Africa and many developing countries owing to their low costs and simplicity. In
379
northern climates their design has to be adapted: application is known in many cold to moderate climate
countries, for example in the UK and New Zealand.
15.5.1 Start–up procedure

Initially, maturation ponds should be filled with freshwater from a river, lake or well, or with good quality
effluents so as to permit the gradual development of the algal and heterotrophic bacterial population. The
commissioning of the pond should be carried out at the beginning of summer to accelerate the
development of algae.
15.5.2 Routine maintenance

Once the maturation ponds have started to operate, it is necessary to carry out regular routine maintenance
tasks. Properly conducted routine maintenance will prevent serious odour, fly and mosquito nuisance.
Maintenance requirements and responsibilities must therefore be clearly defined at the design stage so as
to avoid problems later. Routine maintenance tasks comprise the following (Mara and Pearson, 1998):
• Cutting the grass on the embankments
• Removal of floating scum and floating macrophytes, e.g. Lemna
• Spraying the scum with clean water, pond effluent or a suitable biodegradable larvaecide
• Keeping the inlets and outlets clear
• Repairing damages to the embankments caused by rodents, rabbits or other animals
• Repairing damages to the fences and gates
The operators must be provided with precise instructions on the frequency at which these tasks should be
done, and their work must be constantly supervised by a supervisor/foreman who should complete at
weekly intervals a pond maintenance record sheet. The operating staff might also be required for
sampling and routine measurements.
Table 15.7 lists the strategies for solving problems involved with maturation ponds or WSTR.
380
Table 15.7 Strategies for solving problems involved with maturation ponds or
WSTR (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003)
Management Strategies Comments
Open Storage Reservoirs
Installation of aeration facilities (submerged or
aspirating mixers) can be used to maintain aerobic
Aeration/destratification (including recirculation) conditions and eliminate thermal stratification.
Recirculation pumps can also be used. May result in
release of phosphorous from bottom sediments
Alum precipitation has been used to remove suspended
Alum precipitation solids and phosphorous. Can be used to stop release of
phosphorous from sediments
Control of micro-organism growth rates (The application
Bio-manipulation of chlorine involves the hazard of forming odour causing
compounds)
It is applied to control the growth of algae. The use of
Copper sulphate addition copper may be eliminated due to toxicity concerns over
accumulation of copper
The reservoir water can be mixed with water from other
Dilution
sources in order to manage the reservoir water quality
Accumulated sediment can be removed every year or
Dredging every two years to limit the formation of deposits and
the generation of H2S
Water from the storage reservoir can be filtered through
Filtration either a disk-type filter, rock filter or slow sand filter to
remove algae and to improve the clarity of the water
The effectiveness of natural decay will depend on the
Natural micro-organism decay
operation of the reservoir and the detention time
With proper mixing, advantage can be taken of the
Photo-oxidation
beneficial effects of exposing the water to sunlight
Water from the storage reservoir can be passed through
Wetlands treatment a constructed wetland to improve the clarity of the
effluent and to remove algae
Varying water quality can be obtained by drawing off
Withdrawal from selected depths
water at selected depths within the reservoir
381
15.6 MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL
15.6.1 Effluent quality monitoring in a WSTR

In WSTR the quality of the different limnological layers in the reservoirs is different. An evaluation of
the quality of water in the whole reservoir requires sampling at different depths (Juanicó and Dor, 1999).
Depending on the operation mode it might be satisfactory to analyse only the upper layer for
determination of the water quality which is released for irrigation (if the outlet is designed to take only
water from the upper layer). In most deep reservoirs the quality of the shallow coastal water and the
distant deep-water area is different.
In the shallow coastal water the pH is higher due to increased photosynthesis. There is also re-suspension
of sediments by waves, long-shore and rip currents and water temperatures as well as evaporation rates
are higher than in the deeper parts of the reservoir.
Due to these differences between the middle of the reservoir and the coastal parts it is better to take
samples at least 4 m from the coast, with the help of a small boat or a fishing rod. The sampling must not
be performed on the leeward side of the reservoir.
For an effective management of the reservoirs a monitoring program that takes into account the main
control parameters is essential (Juanicó and Dor, 1999). These include: BOD5, COD, TSS, TS, nutrients
(N, P) and other chemical elements (like: Sodium, Potassium, Chloride and Boron), bacteriological and
limnological analyses. For a proper investigation of the water quality it should be distinguished between
filtered and homogenised samples enabling to discuss the influence of algal BOD and nutrient content.
15.6.2 Effluent quality monitoring in ponds

Routine monitoring of the final effluent quality of a pond system permits a regular assessment to be made
of whether the effluent is complying with the local discharge or reuse standards. Moreover, should a pond
system suddenly fail or its effluent start to deteriorate, the results of such a monitoring program often give
some insight into the cause of the problem and generally indicate what remedial action is required (Mara
and Pearson, 1998).
Effluent quality monitoring programs should be simple, though they should provide reliable data. Mara
and Pearson (1998, Chapter 9) recommend two levels of effluent monitoring:
Level 1: Representative samples of the final effluent should be taken regularly and analyzed for those
parameters for which effluent discharge or reuse requirements exist.
For example the EU Directive on urban wastewater treatment (Council of the European Communities,
1991) requires samples to be taken as follows, depending on the size of the treatment plant (in
population equivalents):
1. For 2,000 - 49,999 P.E. 12 samples per year
2. For 50,000 P.E. 24 samples per year
(For plants 9,999 P.E. the number of samples can be reduced to 4 per year if the 12 collected samples
from the previous year are satisfactory.)
382
Level 2: when level 1 monitoring shows that a pond effluent is failing to meet its discharge or reuse
quality, a more detailed study is necessary.
Table 15.8 gives a list of parameters whose values are required, together with directions on how they
should be obtained.
Table 15.8 List of parameters to be monitored in WSP (Mara and Pearson, 1998)
Sample
Parameter Remarks
type (a)
Flow - Measure both wastewater and final effluent flows
BOD5 C Unfiltered samples (b)
COD C Unfiltered samples (b)
Suspended solids C
Ammonia C
pH G Take 2 samples. One at 8:00 –10:00 h, the other at 14:00 –16:00 h
Temperature G Take 2 samples. One at 8:00 –10:00 h, the other at 14:00 –16:00 h
Faecal coliform or E. coli G Take 1 sample between 8:00 –10:00 h
Total nitrogen C
Total phosphorous C Only when effluent being used (or being assessed for use) for crop
irrigation Ca, Mg and Na are required to calculate the sodium absorption
Chloride C ratio (d)
Electrical conductivity C
Ca, Mg, Na C
Boron C
(c)
Helminth eggs C
C = 24h flow-weighted composite sample G = Grab sample

b
Also on filtered samples if the discharge requirements are so expressed.
c
Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus.
d
SAR = (0.044 Na)/[0.5 (0.050 Ca + 0.082 Mg)] 0.5 where Na, Ca and Mg are the concentrations in mg/L.
Since pond effluent quality shows a significant diurnal variation (although this is less pronounced in
maturation ponds than in facultative ponds), 24-hour flow-weighted composite samples are preferable for
most parameters, although grab samples are necessary for some (pH, temperature and faecal coliforms or
E. coli).
Composite samples should be collected in one of the following ways:
a) In an automatic sampler, which takes grab samples every one or two hours, with subsequent manual
flow-weighting if this is not done automatically by the sampler.
b) By taking grab samples every one to three hours with subsequent manual flow-weighting.
c) By taking a column sample near the outlet of the final pond. This can be done at any time of day and
gives a good approximation to the mean daily effluent quality.
383
15.6.3 Data storage and analysis

All data should be stored in a microcomputer using a spreadsheet, so that simple data manipulation can be
performed. For data collected in each sampling season (or month if sampling is done throughout the
year), mean values should be calculated for each parameter (Mara and Pearson, 1998). If a
microcomputer is not available, all data should be recorded manually in appropriate lists and analysed
accordingly.
Values, based on these means, can then be calculated for:
(a) Hydraulic retention times (= volume/flow) in each pond.
(b) Percentage removals of BOD, COD, suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen, total phosphorus, faecal
coliforms and helminth eggs in each pond and in each series of ponds.
All collected data should be recorded and stored by a responsible local or central governmental agency,
together with an adequate description of precisely how they were obtained, in such a way that design
engineers and research workers can have ready access to them.
15.7 EMERGING TECHNIQUES

During recent years wetlands have been widely adopted as option for further polishing the effluent of the
conventional wastewater stabilization ponds as it is for maturation ponds (Kadlec, 2003; Tanner and
Sukias, 2003).
On the other hand maturation ponds promote zooplankton grazing of remaining algal solids and further
disinfection via exposure to solar radiation, sedimentation and protozoan grazing (Tanner et al., 2005).
According to Tanner et al., (2005) surface-flow constructed wetlands (CW) are a possible alternative to
maturation ponds (MP) in Advanced Pond Systems (APS).
Emergent wetland plants in CW, disperse flow, and shade and shelter the water column, limiting algal
growth and promoting particulate settling. Tanner et al. (2005) claim that MPs and CWs both have
potential as final polishing stages. The advantages of each of them are:
• The MP provide excellent final disinfection due to high exposure to sunlight and produce an
aerobic effluent due to the maintenance of low levels of photosynthetic algae biomass.
• The shading and enhanced settling action of plants in the CW can reduce algal levels and
associated TSS, and produce effluents with stable pH.
The disadvantages are:
• The CW achieves poorer disinfection and has lower DO levels as well as slightly higher NH4-N
concentrations.
• The MP is polluted by algae and outside animal excretions.
Addition of a final rock filter can improve both CW and MP effluents and provide a consistent low TSS
final effluent. The rock filter pond plays an efficient role in diminishing the pathogen indicators content.
The reduced land requirements for the rocky pond help to offset the disadvantage of classical WSP
systems
384
A hybrid between MP and CWs with alternating zones of open-water (for enhanced disinfection and
zooplankton grazing of algal solids) and wetland vegetation (promoting sedimentation and denitrification,
and providing refuge for zooplankton) may provide more consistent effluent quality than either
Maturation Pond or Constructed Wetland stage alone. A recent example of a variety of MP and CW
systems has been completed in the North of Berlin/Germany (www.u-bb.de).
15.8 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Although pond technology is widely used and successfully in operation since many decades, there are still
new aspects of the treatment which demand further investigation:
1. Development of semi-intensive technologies as reported by Juanicó and Milstein (2004) that

constitute an intermediate step between extensive and intensive technologies.
2. Optical characteristics of WSPs are under-studied and comparatively poorly understood (Davies-
Colley et al., 2005). The authors mention that optical variables should be more widely studied as
part of research on WSPs in order to improve understanding of these systems. Furthermore they
mentioned that certain simple optical variables may provide an indication of WSP “condition” or
”health”; in that way they can supplement more common and expensive variables routinely
monitored (like BOD and TSS).
3. Tanner et al. (2005) mention that MPs and CWs both have potential as polishing stages within
Advanced Ponds Systems (APS). They mention that the MP provided excellent final disinfection
due to high exposure to sunlight and produced an aerobic effluent due to the maintenance of low
levels of photosynthetic algae biomass. The shading and enhanced settling action of plants in the
CW reduced algal levels and associated TSS, and produced effluents with stable pH, but achieved
poorer disinfection and had lower DO levels and slightly higher NH4-N concentrations. Addition
of a final rock filter stage provided a consistent low TSS final effluent from both MPs and CWs.
These processes can be further developed.
4. Introduction of molecular microbiology methods to better understand the microbial mechanisms

that help remove nutrients. A pioneering work was lately performed by Shipin et al. (2004). The
microbial mechanisms were elucidated with a view to understanding high N-removing efficiency
of the integrated natural treatment systems (NTS). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was
used as a tool. Though employed extensively in the activated sludge and anaerobic digestion
research, this tool is still new in the field of NTS. In this paper for the first time also the
significant though seasonally fluctuating presence of the ANAMMOX bacteria in NTS was
reported. These finding still need further research.
385
15.9 FULL-SCALE REFERENCES
15.9.1 Hakishon maturation ponds, Israel

The Hakishon Project is mainly based on treated effluents from the Greater Haifa WWTP. The
municipalities that form the Greater Haifa Association of Towns include besides the municipalities, major
industrial plants that send their wastewaters after treatment in their pre-treatment systems. Besides the
industrial plants some farming wastewaters are also treated in the Haifa WWTP after preliminary
treatment in farms (based on Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004).
The wastewater treatment plant treats an equivalent of 700,000 P.E. a day in an area of 100 km2. About
36.9 Mm³/yr of wastewater was treated in 2001/2002 and out of it 23.8 Mm³/yr effluents were sent to the
Hakishon unrestricted reuse project. Out of those quantities 12 Mm³/yr are reused directly by farmers near
the WWTP for restricted irrigation. 1.1 Mm³/yr effluents were sent to the Kishon River after nitrogen
removal and proper disinfection.
The Afula WWTP contributed 1.7 Mm³/yr (2001/2002) to the Hakishon irrigation project. Another 3.8
Mm³/yr of storm water or run-off was received in the project. On the total, 29.3 Mm³/yr effluents were
treated in the Hakishon unrestricted irrigation project during 2001/2002.
The main reservoir (the Upper Kishon reservoir which has a retention time of more than 60 days)
received 25.5 Mm³/yr and 22.1 Mm³/yr were pumped out of it.
The four peripheral reservoirs received 8.3 Mm³/yr in 2001/2002 and 4.9 Mm³/yr were pumped out of
them (Figure 15.7)
Figure 15.7 Hakishon maturation ponds and reuse project (Aharoni and Cikurel,
2004)
386
15.10.1.1 General treatment train

Haifa WWTP: (37 Mm³/yr)
The system is built to perform nitrification – denitrification together with organic removal.
Afula WWTP: (3 Mm³/yr)
This WWTP is much smaller and relatively new. It operates on the extended aeration principle. The plant
is situated in the South of the Upper Kishon effluent treatment reservoir and sends its effluents after
chlorination to further treatment. This WWTP is also equipped with mechanical screening equipment, grit
and sand removal and a channel system with disk aerators at suitable distance so that anaerobic and
aerobic zones are formed that help the nitrification- denitrification.
15.9.1.2 The Hakishon maturation ponds

The Hakishon unrestricted irrigation effluent recovery system is based mainly on receiving effluents from
the above mentioned Haifa (23.8 Mm³/yr) and Afula (1.7 Mm³/yr) WWTP and some flood water (3.8
Mm³/yr), long – term water storage, and supplementary treatment of the effluent (by surface straining
filtration and chlorination).
The project provides an ideal solution for effluent disposal from both WWTPs, since those plants do not
have any other way of effluent disposal.
The chlorinated effluents from the two WWTP are further purified in a 12 Mm³ reservoir with a retention
time of at least 60 days. The Upper Kishon reservoir collects up to 4 Mm³/yr storm-water. From the
reservoir, water is filtered and chlorinated and either sent to irrigation or to peripheral reservoirs (four
reservoirs with a total capacity of 8.6 Mm³).
Figure 15.8 Upper Hakishon maturation ponds (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004)
Effluent exit
After treatment (wire straining
and chlorine disinfection)
The Upper Kishon

reservoir
(Southern and
Northern reservoirs)
Afula WWTP
387
The Upper Kishon reservoir (see Figure 15.8) consists of two 6 Mm³ reservoirs (Northern and Southern
Hakishon reservoirs) and is located in the centre of the Jeezrael Valley, Northern Israel. The reservoir has
a maximum depth of 10.4 m. The reservoirs are connected by pipes located at the bottom level at the
eastern side but they can be disconnected by closing the passage. Inflows to, and outflows from the
reservoirs are measured by continuously recording flow meters. Water level is also recorded and the
effluent volume in the reservoirs is calculated from a volume/depth curve.
The principles of treatment in the Hakishon project are:
• The effluents of the two WWTP should have no more 20 mg BOD /L and 30 mg TSS /L quality.
• The effluents should have a retention time of not less than 60 days in the Maaleh Hakishon
reservoir.
• The effluents before use are chlorinated so that, a minimum of 1 mg/L total residual chlorine after
30 min. contact time is obtained.
• The effluents shall not contain more than 10 FC/100 mL.
• Constant monitoring of the system is required.
15.9.1. 3 O & M of the reservoirs and distribution lines

The clogging capacity of the effluents from reclaimed effluent reservoirs like the Upper Kishon reservoir
can be effectively reduced by:
1. Biological control (bio-manipulation): Filter feeding fish (silver carp, big-head carp or their hybrids)
2. Chemical treatment: Chlorine (liquid or gas), CuSO4 (See Figure 15.9)
3. Proper reservoir management practices: Proper scheduling of the addition of effluents to reservoirs and
retention time, proper management of water level.
Figure 15.9 Chemicals (CuSO4 or a natural product Degilin) are used against algae
and zooplankton in blooming seasons (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004)
388
15.9.1.4 Water quality monitoring

Water quality has been monitored through 2000 - 2002. The results of this monitoring show that the
storage duration of the effluent in the Upper Kishon Reservoir exceeded the 60 days, even towards the
end of the irrigation period (which occurs at the end of the summer season).
Effluents flowing out of the Upper Reservoir were disinfected by liquid hypochlorite and gaseous
chlorine at the pumping station adjacent to the reservoir and the ½ hour contact time of the effluents with
chlorine was obtained in the distribution pipeline from the reservoir to the nearest end-user.
The laboratory analyses verify the compliance to the Health Ministry regulations both for residual
chlorine concentration and microbial quality after disinfection.
Chemical quality of Hakishon Project effluents (in all examined parameters) shows that the water is
suitable for unrestricted agricultural irrigation.
The 2001/2002 monitoring results showed an increase in the concentration of several metals during
storage period in the Upper Kishon Reservoir. These metals include aluminium, barium, copper, iron,
molybdenum, tin and zinc.
It is believed that the increase of these metals (which are positively charged) is due to bio-concentration
within specific algae (which are negatively charged). This can be seen by the high correlation between the
metal concentration in the effluent and the algae concentration. Although fish is used to decrease the
algae concentration some times it is not enough. Data on suspended solids and algae concentrations in the
Upper Kishon reservoir shows a similarity with other big effluent reservoirs found in Israel.
Analyses performed in the reuse system: Faecal coliforms and chlorine residual were the main
investigated parameters. Twice a year, metal analyses are performed on the reused water. N, P, sulphates
and chlorides, detergents, bicarbonates, hardness, conductivity, COD, BOD are also checked once a
month in the Upper Kishon reservoir and once every irrigation season in the peripheral reservoirs. Algae
and zooplankton are checked once a month and also when clogging problems are encountered.
Total combined chlorine is continuously monitored at the exit of the Haifa and Afula WWTP and the
Upper Kishon reservoir. At the end-users points the chlorine is also checked periodically. Chlorine
content is analysed continuously. Faecal coliforms are analysed by grab sampling. The treatment is
considered not efficient if:
1. BOD exceeds 20 mg/L or TSS exceeds 30 mg/L at the WWTP.
2. Retention time in the reservoir is less than 60 days.
3. Faecal coliforms exceed 10/100 mL and chlorine residual is lower than 1 mg/L after ½ hour
contact time at the chlorination points.
The quality of the obtained water is given in Table 15.9.
389
Table 15.9 Quality of water for reuse obtained in the Kishon Project (Aharoni
and Cikurel, 2004)
Activated sludge Upper Kishon End users (unrestricted

Parameter Unit
effluent Haifa WWTP Reservoir irrigation)
TSS mg/L 15.8 23.6 15

BOD mg/L 6.8 6.7 1
COD mg/L 76 52
Total N mg/L 6.4 7.1
Chlorides mg/L 375 375 391
Boron mg/L 0.47 0.51
6
Coliforms MPN/100 mL 1.5 10 3047 2
Faecal coliforms MPN/100 mL 4 105 910 1
15.9.2 Noirmoutier island Tertiary Lagoon-storage System,

France
One of the typical storage and polishing lagoons case study is the Noirmoutier Integrated Water
Resources management Project (IWRM) located off the French Atlantic coast in the Baie de Bourgneuf
(Fazio et al., 2001; Brissaud, 2004) (see Figure 15.12).
There are no potable water resources on the island and the brackish groundwater cannot be used for
potable water supply as it is preserved for fish farming.
Drinking water is conveyed from the mainland and sold at a high price. So that as a source for agricultural
irrigation the treated wastewater from Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) on the island is further
polished in maturation ponds and reused for potatoes growing. There are two WWTPs in Noirmoutier
where the main one is the “La Salaisière” WWTP.
“La Salaisière” receives the effluents of three municipalities that are subject to major seasonal variations
of population. The capacity (as of 1997) of the WWTP that is composed of activated sludge systems and
aerated lagoon systems is for 55,000 P.E. The hydraulic load is 8100 m³/d and the organic load 2970 kg/d
BOD.
The treated effluents from the WWTP flow into a lagoon-storage system, four lagoons in series with a
total volume of 196,300 m³, which is used as a tertiary treatment and storage facility before irrigation.
These tertiary lagoons are lagoons 5-8 in Figure 15.10 and 15.11.
390
Figure 15.10 Layout of the La Salaisière WWTP and tertiary lagoons (Brissaud,
2004)
Figure 15.11 Layout of the tertiary lagoons (5-8) (Brissaud, 2004)
Treated wastewater enters into the lagoons continuously. The inflow and outflow of Lagoon 5 are
continuous over the whole year, so that minimum removal efficiency for pathogens is ensured. The other
three lagoons are operated in a non-steady state regime according to irrigation needs.
The hydraulic retention time of each pond is calculated from the water volume inflow rate.
The shortest retention time occurs in summer due to agricultural irrigation (see Figure 15.12).
391
Figure 15.12 HRT in La Salaisière tertiary lagoons (Brissaud, 2004)
400
350
Total
H yd rau lic retentio n tim e (d ay)
300
250
200
Lagoon 8
150
100 Lagoon 6
Lagoon 7
50
Lagoon 5
0
31/05/95 20/07/95 08/09/95 28/10/95 17/12/95 05/02/96 26/03/96 15/05/96 04/07/96 23/08/96 12/10/96 01/12/96
Date
15.10.2.1 Water quality in the maturation ponds

The average quality of the treated effluent before admission to the MP is given in Table 15.10
Table 15.10 Quality of the treated effluent from La Salaisière WWTP (Fazio et
al., 2001)
Parameter BOD COD TSS TKN NH4-N NO2-N NO3-N PT

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Summer 17 75 12 5.6 1.2 3.5 0.2 1.3
Winter 10 52 12 4.2 1.2 2.2 0.0 1.5
Average 12 58 12 4.6 1.2 2.6 0.1 1.5
The quality of water after the maturation ponds used for irrigation or disposed off in the environment was
monthly monitored. The following parameters were analysed: Ammonia-nitrogen, faecal coliform,
helminth eggs and Streptococcus faecalis. Table 15.11 shows the water quality after the maturation ponds
used for irrigation (1998).
Table 15.11 Quality of Maturation ponds' effluent in 1998 (Fazio et al., 2001)
Parameter Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec.
FC /100 mL 110 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 93 30
S. faecalis
15 15 15 15 <15 30 <15 15 15 15 94 77
/100 mL
NH4-N
0.43 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.2
(mg/L)
Helminth
- - - - None None None None None None - -
eggs/L
Irrigation
0 0 0 0 104648 40567 13818 13712 2156 0 0 0
(m³/month)
392
15.9.3 Caltagirone (Eastern Sicily) WWTP effluent maturation

in a reservoir, Italy
Sicily is the most populated Mediterranean island and suffers of acute water scarcity.
To increase present irrigation water supply it is indispensable to transfer the available wastewater
produced in the wet season to the irrigation season (generally March to October) by storing effluents in
reservoirs. As mentioned before, these effluent storage reservoirs serve on one side to regulate the
irrigation water supply and on the other side to disinfect the effluents and bring them to a quality suitable
for agricultural irrigation.
This case study is on experimental activities that were carried out in a small storage reservoir (earth, no
lining) with a maximum capacity of about 25,000 m³ and a maximum depth of about 5 m. Wastewater
discharged from the Caltagirone treatment plant (activated sludge) after secondary treatment (before
disinfection) was stored in the reservoir from March 6 to October 30, 2000. At the beginning of the study
residual treated wastewater (about 11,000 m³) from the previous year storage operation was present in the
reservoir. From May 2, stored wastewater began to be withdrawn from the reservoir for irrigation of
selected fields; the outlet device was placed at a depth of about 20 cm from the water surface at the
opposite side of the input point. Physical-chemical and microbiological characteristics of the wastewater
were monitored through laboratory analysis of samples for the entire duration of the study (Barbagallo et
al., 2003).
There were two phases of the study:
1. Fill up (March 4 to May 1): In this phase approximately 7,000 m³ of wastewater were stored
(after evaporation and infiltration losses). Average daily inflow was between 440 m³ and 2,600
m³. The reservoir functioned as a non-steady-state reactor as water volume and level increased
constantly during this phase.
2. Irrigation (May 2 to October 30): wastewater continued to be stored in the reservoir, with an
average daily input of 300 m³ to 4,000 m³. At the same time there was a continuous discharge for
irrigation (daily volume between 330 m³ and 3,000 m³). Between March 20 and May 1 steady
state conditions were achieved, as evaporation and infiltration losses equalled reservoir inflow;
starting at the beginning of June there was a steady decline in stored water (with a minimum
storage of 12,000 m³ at the end of October). On some occasions wastewater input was higher than
output.
Sample analysis of physical-chemical and microbiological parameters started a few days before storage
began, and continued until the end of the irrigation season.
15.9.3.1 Water quality in the maturation ponds

Wastewater stored initially (March to April) in the reservoir was characterized by a BOD5 and COD of
500 - 600 mg/L and 1,200 - 1,400 mg/L respectively; organic concentration decrease at the inlet was over
50%, and decreased progressively as wastewater quality from the treatment plant improved.
At the end of the study period BOD5 and COD values were below 20 mg/L and 40 mg/L respectively.
393
Nutrient concentration (P and N) varied both in the influent and in the stored water during detention
(Table 15.12). In particular P reduction was about 30 % in samples taken near the surface, but much less
in samples taken near the bottom. Nitrogen reduction was about 50% for the ammonia and nitrate forms, a
bit less for the organic form, especially during the irrigation phase. Inlet water had a faecal coliforms and
Escherichia coli count of about 105 - 106 CFU/100 mL. During the entire study period a reduction in the
concentration of microorganisms of about 2 - 3 log units was observed already after a few days, with a
further decrease of about 2 log after about 30 days of detention starting from the month of April. During
the irrigation stage concentration of microorganisms increased (2 - 3 log units) as a result of a greater
input flow. The maximum number of Salmonella detected in the influent was 1,100 MPN/100 mL, with a
mean value of about 200 MPN/100 mL; the absence of Salmonella in the stored wastewater confirms the
great efficiency of storage in removing bacterial pathogens.
The study pointed out that continuous-flow storage of wastewater is less efficient than batch storage. The
non-steady-state conditions have reduced the efficiency of removal processes, in particular for micro-
organisms.
Bacteriological characteristics of wastewater were highly influenced by the input of even very small
volumes of fresh effluent (less than 5 %).
The experiments have pointed out that when the treatment plant efficiency is low, the storage reservoir
acts as buffer, avoiding the inflow of wastewater of poor quality in the irrigation system. Therefore
placing a storage reservoir in a reuse system even when a traditional treatment plant is present can reduce
the sanitary risk in case of plant malfunctioning.
Table 15.12 Maturation ponds effluent quality – Caltagirone, Sicily (Barbagallo et

al., 2003)
Period Fill up Irrigation

Parameter Units Influent* 6-Mar 20-Mar 17-Apr 2-May 13-Jun 25-Jul 25-Sep
BODt mg/L 178 24 202 196 160 38 26 26
BODf mg/L 123 18 112 120 138 21 20 16
TSS mg/L 115 14 38 110 84 10 14 39
CODt mg/L 326 90 330 287 210 52 48 48
TKN mg/L 2.9 1.8 3.3 2.5 3.7 1.1 1.0 1.8
NH4-N mg/L 18.4 4.9 12.3 9.5 6.9 1.1 2.7 2.3
NO2-N mg/L 0.35 <0.02 <0.02 0.06 0.02 0.85 1.30 0.30
NO3-N mg/L 6.8 3 3.5 1.9 0.9 7.1 0.9 5.1
TP mg/L 5.4 3.4 4.1 4.7 5.6 5.2 2.9 4.2
5 3 3
Faecal Coli. CFU/100 mL 5.8 10 - 1.6 10 6.7 10 232 224 4200 310
2
Salmonella MPN/100 mL 1.9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Helminth eggs Units/L 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
* Average influent wastewater characteristics
394
15.10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abeliovich A. (1982) Biological equilibrium in a wastewater reservoir. Wat. Res. 16: 1135-1138.
Aharoni A., H. Cikurel (2004) Treatment and Distribution of effluents for unrestricted irrigation: The Israeli experience related to
O & M. A presentation in the workshop on Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants (www.aquarec.org), conducted
in Thessaloniki, Greece (11-12 March 2004).
Arthur J.P. (1983) Notes on design and operation of WSP in warm Climates of Developing Countries. Technical Paper No. 7.
Washington DC. The World Bank.
Barbagallo S., Cirelli L.G., Consoli S., Somma F. (2003) Wastewater quality improvement through storage: A case study in
Sicily. Wat. Sci. Tech. 47 (7-8): 169-176.
Brissaud F. (2004) Stabilization ponds: O and M and effluent quality control. A presentation in the workshop on Operation of
Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants (www.aquarec.org), conducted in Thessaloniki, Greece (11-12 March 2004).
Burka U. (1996) Personal Communications. Planungsbuero Burka, Hauteroda, Germany.
Chaudhuri M. (1973) Virus removal in waste stabilisation ponds. Indian Journal of Environmental Health 16: 171-177.
Curtis T.P. (1994) The effect of sunlight on mechanisms for the die-off of faecal coliform bacteria in waste stabilization ponds.
Ph.D. thesis. School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds. Leeds, UK. URL abstract:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/civil/ceri/water/tphe/publicat/monog/Res-mon1.doc
Davies-Colley R.J., Donnison A.M. and D.J. Speed (2000) Towards a mechanistic understanding of pond disinfection. Wat. Sci.
Tech. 42 (10-11): 149-158.
Davies-Colley R.J., Craggs R.J., Park J. and J.W. Nagels (2005) Optical characteristics of waste stabilization ponds:
recommendations for monitoring. Wat. Sci. Tech. 51 (12): 153-162.
Davies-Colley R.J. (2006) “Pond disinfection”. in "Pond Treatment Technology", Ed. A. Shilton, IWA Publishing, Ch. 6: 100-
136.
Dor I., Kalinsky I. and J. Eren (1987) Deep wastewater reservoirs in Israel: Limnological changes following self-purification.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 19: 317-322.
European Union (1991) Council Directive concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European
Communities, L135/40 (30 May).
Fazio A., Xu P. and F. Brissaud (2001) Integrated Resource Management with Water Reuse: The Noirmoutier Experience. Role
of Water Reuse for Enhancing Integrated Water Management in Europe, Final report of the “CATCHWATER” Project, ENV4-
CT98-0790: 165-239.
Feachem R.G., Bradley D.J., Garelick H. and D.D. Mara (1983). Sanitation and Disease: Health Aspects of Excreta and
Wastewater Management. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
IRC, International Water and Sanitation Centre, Internet Documents, (2004) Papers “Maturation Ponds and Reservoirs” and
“Pros and Cons of WSPs” available at URL: http://www.irc.nl/page/8237 and http://www.irc.nl/page/14624
Juanicó M. and G. Shelef (1994) Design, Operation and Performance of Stabilization Reservoirs for Wastewater Irrigation in
Israe. Wat. Res. 28 (1): 175-186.
Juanicó M. (1996) The Performance of Batch Stabilization Reservoirs for Wastewater Treatment, Storage and Reuse in Israel.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 33 (10-11): 149-159.
Juanicó M. and I. Dor (1999) Reservoir for Wastewater Storage and Reuse. Juanicó and Dor (Eds.) Springer-Verlag.
Juanicó M. and A. Milstein (2004) Semi-intensive treatment plants for wastewater reuse in irrigation. Wat. Sci. Tech. 50 (2): 55-
60.
Juanicó M. (2006) Wastewater reservoirs. In: Pond Treatment Technology, Ed. A. Shilton, IWA Publishing, Ch. 17: 357-380.
395
Lazarova V. and A. Bahri (2004) Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture, Landscapes and Turf Grass. Chapter 5, Code of
Successful Agronomic Practices: 104 –150.
Kadlec R. H. (2003) Pond and wetland treatment. Wat. Sci. Tech. 48 (8): 1–8.
Mara D. D., Alabaster G. P., Pearson H. W. and S.W. Mills (1992) Waste Stabilization Ponds: A Design Manual for Eastern
Africa. Lagoon Technology International, Leeds, England.
Mara D. D. and H. W. Pearson (1998) Design Manual for Waste Stabilization Ponds in Mediterranean Countries. Lagoon
Technology International, Leeds, England.
Mara D. D. (2003) Design Manual for Waste Stabilization Ponds in the United Kingdom. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Marais G.V.R. (1974) Faecal bacterial kinetics in waste stabilization ponds. Env. Eng. Div. J., ASCE. 100: 119-139.
Maynard H.E., Ouki, S.K. and S.C. Williams (1999) Tertiary lagoons: A review of removal mechanisms and performance. Wat.
Res. 33 (1): 1-13.
Metcalf and Eddy, 4th ed. (2003) Wastewater Engineering - Treatment and Reuse. Chapter 13-5, Storage of Reclaimed Water.
Pearson H. W., Mara D.D., Smallman D.J. and S. Mills (1987) Physicochemical parameters influencing faecal coliform survival
in waste stabilization ponds. Wat. Sci. Tech. 19 (12): 145-152.
Pearson H. W., Mara D.D., Cawley L.R., Oragui J.I., Silva S.A. (1996) Pathogen Removal in Experimental Deep Effluent
Storage Reservoirs. Wat. Sci. Tech. 33 (7): 251-260.
Shelef G. and R. Halperin (2002) The Development of Wastewater Effluent Quality Requirements for Reuse in Agricultural
Irrigation in Israel. IWA Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, Iraklio, Greece: 443-449.
Shilton A., Pratt S., Drizo A., Mahmood B., Banker S., Billings L., Glenny S. and D. Luo (2005) ’Active’ filters for upgrading
phosphorous removal from pond systems. Wat. Sci. Tech. 51 (12): 111-116.
Shipin O., Koottatep T., Tran T., Khanh N., and C. Polprasert (2004) Integrated Natural Treatment Systems for developing
communities: Low-tech N-removal through the fluctuating microbial pathways. 6th IWA Int. Conf. On Waste Stabilization Ponds.
Tanner C.C. and J.P.S. Sukias (2003) Linking pond and wetland treatment: performance of domestic and farm systems in New
Zealand. Wat. Sci. Tech.. 48 (2): 331–339.
Tanner C.C., Craggs R.J., Sukias J.P.S. and J.B.K. Park (2005) Comparison of maturation ponds and constructed wetlands as the
final stage of an advanced pond system. Wat. Sci. Tech. 51 (12): 307-314.
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for water reuse. EPA/625/R-04/108
Von Sperling M. and L.C.A.M. Mascarenhas (2005) Performance of very shallow ponds treating effluents from UASB reactors.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 51 (12): 83-90.
Mara D. (1996) Low cost urban sanitation. Wiley, Chichester, UK. (to be confirmed by Haim or Christian)
396
16 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR

POLISHING SECONDARY WASTEWATER
16.1 DESCRIPTION
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are man-made copies of natural wetlands that optimally exploit the processes
that normally occur in these systems for the purpose of (waste) water treatment. This chapter considers all
the macrophyte-planted variants of the technology, as opposed to waste stabilization ponds which make
use of microphytes or algae. Since both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, many scientists
promote combined or integrated systems as the optimal solution.
Different types of CWs can be distinguished, based on water flow and plant species characteristics (Fig.
16.1). The following classification is derived from the widely accepted International Water Associations’
Scientific and Technical Report on Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control (Chapter 2 in Kadlec et
al., 2000).
Above-ground water: free-water-surface (FWS) treatment wetlands
• With emergent macrophytes or helophytes, e.g. Scirpus lacustris (common clubrush, Fig. Ia),
Phragmites australis (common reed, Fig. Ib), Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail, Fig. Ic)
• With floating-leaved, bottom-rooted macrophytes, e.g. Nymphaea alba (white waterlily, Fig.
IId), Potamogeton gramineus (variable pondweed, Fig. IIe), Hydrocotyle vulgaris (marsh
pennywort, Fig. IIf)
• With free-floating macrophytes, e.g. Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth, Fig. IIg), Lemna
minor (lesser duckweed, Fig. IIh)
• With submerged macrophytes, e.g. Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed, Fig. IIIi),
Littorella uniflora (shoreweed, Fig. IIIj)
• With floating mats, with emergent macrophytes as mentioned above (Fig. IV)
Below-ground water: subsurface-flow (SSF) treatment wetlands
• Horizontal-flow systems (HSSF), planted with emergent macrophytes or helophytes (Fig. Va)
• Vertical-flow systems (VSSF), planted with emergent macrophytes or helophytes (Fig. Vb)
Obviously, these different types do not necessarily function as stand-alone treatment plants but can be
combined with each other or with other low-tech or high-tech waste water treatment units in order to
exploit the specific advantages of the different systems. Some elementary economical, technical and
environmental facts about constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment have been summarized in Table
16.1. These and others will be further elaborated in the following sections.
397
Figure 16.1 Different types of constructed wetlands

(I to III from Vymazal et al. (1998), reproduced with permission from Backhuys
Publishers; IV and V courtesy of Aquafin NV)
IV. Floating mats
V. Subsurface-flow
(a) (b)
Table 16.1 Advantages and disadvantages of constructed treatment wetlands as

compared to conventional treatment technologies
(adapted from Merz, 2000).
Operational costs are lower. Capital costs are only slightly lower or similar.
Energy and material inputs are lower. Land requirements are higher.
Wetlands support a wide range of treatment processes. Operational control over treatment processes is limited.
Wetlands can tolerate a wide range of pollutants and Wetlands can accumulate toxic substances in the
toxicants. sediments and may become contaminated sites.
Wetlands are natural ecosystems and typically have
Wetlands are a natural and sustainable approach to
seasonal activity patterns which may result in seasonal
wastewater treatment.
variations in performance.
Attracting some wildlife to treatment wetlands may
Wetlands can have multiple beneficial uses. Under some
result in decreased treatment performance through
circumstances constructed treatment wetlands may act
secondary contamination of water or through physical
as useful wildlife habitats.
damage of wetland vegetation by wildlife.
398

Constructed wetlands are known to have a high buffering capacity. Effluent quality is therefore normally
quite stable. On the other hand, adverse effects may be expected from low temperatures (especially
inhibition of N-removal), peak flows (wash out of solids from the previous treatment step) and clogging
of subsurface flow systems. Removal percentages are mainly dependent on temperature, hydraulic
residence time and loading rate c.q. pre-treatment and are highly variable between systems.
Ghermandi et al. (submitted) reviewed BOD and TSS data from 28 respectively 25 tertiary treatment
FWS wetlands. In 19 cases, effluent concentrations were below 10 mg BOD L-1 whereas in 3 cases
effluent concentrations exceeded 30 mg BOD L-1 (of which 2 are caused by higher-than-normal influent
BOD concentrations). Concerning TSS, the majority of tested FWS wetlands (23 out of 25) were found to
yield effluent concentrations below 30 mg L-1.
Bavor et al. (1995) in their review on advanced constructed wetlands technology, indicate CWs as most
promising for removing residual phosphorus from wastewater with already reduced P concentrations, with
typical removal efficiencies of 60 - < 90% and P effluent concentrations of 1.0 mg L-1 or lower. Effluent
polishing studies from the USA are reported where influent P of 1-2 mg L-1 was reduced to output P of
0.005 to 0.3 mg L-1 at mass loading rates of 3 to 4 g P m-2 yr-1 and mean hydraulic loading rates of 190 m3
ha-1 d-1. Australian experience shows sustained P removal in a free-water-surface constructed wetland of
over 60% for more than 3.5 years at loading rates between 3-5 g P m-2 d-1. A 1.3 ha FWS wetland in The
Netherlands aimed at further polishing tertiary treated domestic wastewater on the contrary only removes
7.2% of the total P on a mass basis and yields average TP effluent concentrations of 0.78 mg L-1 (Toet et
al., 2005).
As for nitrogen removal, Bavor et al. (1995) report TN removals in general up to 79% at loading rates up
to 1600 g N m-2 year-1. For effluent polishing purposes, effluent N of 3 mg L-1 or less seems achievable
with free-water-surface CW at influent nitrogen concentrations up to 16 mg L-1 and hydraulic loading
rates up to 300 m3 ha-1 d-1. Toet et al. (2005) found a TN mass removal of 26% in a polishing FWS CW in
The Netherlands yielding effluent concentrations of 4.14 mg N L-1.
García et al. (2003) evaluated the role of hydraulic retention time and type of matrix material in HSSF
constructed wetlands treating secondary domestic wastewater. They found maximum inactivation ratios of
3.4 log-units for faecal coliforms and 2.6 log-units for somatic coliphages at higher hydraulic residences
and for the finer gravel (2 – 13 mm), yielding average effluent concentrations of ~ 100 faecal coliforms
per 100 mL. Decamp and Warren (2001) compared reductions of total bacterial concentrations in one
secondary and three tertiary HSSF wetlands in the UK and found a higher efficiency in the secondary
treatment one (67%) compared to the tertiary treatment ones (15 – 39%). Differences were explained by
the different bacterial community structures in the influents and the higher number of damaged cells in the
primary treated wastewater. Toet et al. (2005) noted a removal of 94% of faecal coliforms in a FWS CW
in The Netherlands with a hydraulic retention time of 2.4 days, yielding average effluent concentrations of
2,800 FC per 100 mL. Under similar climatic conditions, Perkins and Hunter (2000) found FC removal
efficiencies of 85 – 94%. For HRTs of 7 days or more and a warmer climate, Greenway (2005) reports FC
removal efficiencies in FWS wetlands of 99.6% to effluent levels of 100 – 700 FC per 100 mL.
Ghermandi et al. (submitted) summarise data from 15 FWS tertiary treatment wetlands from various
climatic regions and found that only in 8 cases the effluent concentrations were lower than 100 FC per
399
100 mL. A recent review by Kamizoulis (2005) summarizes treatment performances of various wetlands
as follows: 0.5 to 3 log units for bacteria removal, 3 log units for helminths, 0.5 to 2 log units for protozoa
and 1.5 to 2 log units for viruses.
16.1.2 Operability
Flexibility is medium and depends strongly on the system lay-out: beds in parallel and/or series and
therefore with different waste water routes are more flexible. The controllability is rather low since no
actuators except sometimes pumps are used in constructed wetlands. Reliability is medium: peak
discharges, toxic discharges, low temperatures and clogging can adversely affect system performance.
The lack of moving equipment, below-ground water flow in SSF wetlands and shallow water depths in
the FWS and floating macrophyte systems make constructed wetlands relatively safe places for the
operators to work. Of course, standard precautions have to be taken to avoid adverse health effects. The
complexity of constructed wetlands is quite low and maintenance therefore requires few specialised skills.
16.1.3 Costs
Major costs usually are land acquisition, earth moving, plastic liners to prevent groundwater
contamination or infiltration and the matrix material in case of subsurface flow systems. However, after
its functional life, the land can be readily made available for other purposes and therefore certain authors
exclude this cost from the balance.
Economic analyses of CW specifically applied for reuse purposes are rather rare but there seems to be no
reason why unit investment costs (per ha or per m3 of treated waste water) would diverge significantly
from those of secondary treatment wetlands. Of course, total costs could be lower because the lower
loading rates can be treated with smaller systems.
O&M costs of tertiary treatment wetlands with reuse purposes can be expected to be lower than those of
secondary treatment wetlands, not only because of the lower intensity of processes (lower loading rates)
but also because of the possibility of certain investment returns (i.e. plant harvesting, aquaculture etc.).
All costs, as summarized in Table 16.2 and as discussed below, should be interpreted with caution, due to
a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not always clear from the original sources which components are
included, i.e. the wetlands costs sensu stricto or also the costs for sewer construction, fencing, buildings
etc. Secondly, many authors do not mention if taxes/VAT are included and at what rate. Finally, inflation
and fluctuating exchange rates can give a wrong idea about current costs.
Table 16.2 Investment and operating costs, indifferent of treatment level or

wastewater type, after Kadlec and Knight (1996). Reproduced with
permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Capital cost
Area Capital cost O&M cost O&M cost
(1000 US$ ha-
(ha 1000 m-3 d-1) 1 (US$ m-3 d-1) (US$ m-3) (US$ ha-1 yr-1)
)
Floating aquatic
0.7 – 5 270 500 – 1,000 0.12 – 0.14 9,490 – 67,786
macrophytes
Wetlands 0.5 - 20 25 - 250 500 – 1,000 0.03 – 0.09 1,095 – 43,800
400
Capital costs in Table 16.2 excludes however the more extreme cases, e.g. 4,741 US$ ha-1 for the Mt.
View Marsh FWS wetland, CA or 1,731,936 US$ ha-1 for the Mandeville HSSF constructed wetland, LA
(Kadlec and Knight, 1996, chapter 26). Indeed, capital costs are highly dependent on the local situation,
i.e. soil type, ground water table height, terrain slope, distance from settlement, discharge criteria, climate
etc. Another important factor usually is the economy of scale: larger wetlands tend to be relatively
cheaper per P.E. or per m3 of waste water treated.
One uncertain cost is the ‘removal’ cost of the system after its functional life, now estimated at around 20
years. Especially dumping or cleaning of saturated filter materials of SSF wetlands could result in a
significant extra cost.
The life expectancy of constructed wetlands is defined by Bavor et al. (1995) as the period of time over
which sustained pollutant removal can be achieved at the mean loading rate. For SSF systems it seems to
be mainly limited by accumulation of solids in the pore space, mainly near the bottom of the gravel bed.
Hydraulic conductivity is therefore less impacted than in the case of uniform pore blockage (Kadlec et al.,
2000). For SF systems, no clear indications are yet available about their life expectancy.
O&M costs are rarely given in literature, but Kadlec and Knight (1996) mention median O&M costs for
FWS wetlands of about 1,000 US$ ha-1 year-1 whereas O&M costs for HSSF wetlands are estimated
between 2,500 and 5,000 US$ ha-1 year-1. Merz (2000) also reveals a scale advantage for larger wetlands:
O&M costs of Australian wetlands of > 5 ha are estimated around 1,500 US$ ha-1 year-1 whereas for
wetlands < 5 ha costs can be up to a factor 10 higher.
Energy consumption, if any, is usually limited to pumping and represents only a minor cost since most
wetlands are designed to function gravitationally. Sludge production and thus removal is minimal in
tertiary systems.
Maintenance costs are therefore mainly labour costs: site inspection, effluent sampling and control,
cleaning of distribution systems and pumps, weed control, plant harvesting etc.
A pond-wetland system in Thailand is reported to have a unit cost (per m3 day-1) for its operation of 12
US$ per year compared to 33-98 US$ per year for conventional systems (Shipin et al., 2004). Extra
benefits include selling of ornamental plants (golden torch and bird of paradise - Heliconia spp.) at about
0.2 US$ per flower. El Hafiane et al. (2004) describes the use of Arundo donax for tomato crop
production and for artisan objects, generating an annual income of 1750 - 2900 US$ per ha per year (price
of one plant about 0.007 US$). Calla lilly (Zantedeschia aethiopica) was demonstrated to grow well on
wastewater and seems to have a high market value in Mexico (Bachand and Horne, 2000).
Another integrated pond-wetland system in China yearly yields between 20000 – 30000 kg fish and large
quantities of commercializable plants like duckweed and reed with significantly lower operational costs as
a result. The effluent of this system is used for irrigation during dry periods (Peng et al., 2004).
Additional benefits such as nature education, walking, bird watching etc. have seldom been economically
valued. Knight et al. (2000a) only mentions for a number of wetlands the ‘human use days’, expressing
the total amount of time spent by humans for the above-mentioned activities. The 150 ac large Arcata
wetland facility in California has 5 miles of foot trails and attracts more than 130,000 visitors each year
(Gearheart and Higley, 1993). Carlsson et al. (2003) conducted a choice experiment among citizens of
401
Southern Sweden and found that biodiversity and walking facilities are the two greatest contributors to
welfare, while a fenced waterline and introduction of crayfish decrease welfare.
Tsihrintzis et al. (2004) compared capital and O&M costs of an FWS and a HSSF constructed wetland for
secondary treatment. The FWS treats waste water of 1,200 P.E. by means of a septic tank and 2 wetland
basins with a total area of 6,500 m2. The HSSF wetland treats 1,000 P.E. by means of a settling tank and 3
wetlands with a total area of 1,800 m2 and also comprises a sludge drying bed. Annotated capital costs
(excluding land cost; economical life of 30 years and opportunity cost of 2%) were 12.82 resp. 16.34 € per
P.E. and per year. Costs for access roads, buildings, sewers, fencing etc. accounted for 25 – 33 % of the
total investment cost. Annual average O&M costs were 1.20 resp. 6.96 € per P.E. or 0.32 resp. 0.39 € per
m3 per year, of which at least 77% were labour costs.
Platzer et al. (2002) describe a waste water treatment system in Nicaragua of 1,000 PE, consisting of
screens, an Imhoff tank and 4 parallel horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands with a total area of
1,300 m2. Total investment costs were 43,000 US$ or 43 US$ per P.E. Similar systems in other Central
American countries are reported to have investment costs ranging between 34 and 275 US$ per P.E.,
again very much dependent on the scale. Annual O&M costs of the above-mentioned system amount to
4,769 US$ of which an estimated 1950 US$ are labour costs. Since the effluent does not comply with
international reuse standards, it is reused for gravity irrigation which avoids direct contact between the
effluent and the crops. This causes however major losses by infiltration and evaporation. Yields from this
plot seemed not very different from an adjacent plot where chemical fertiliser was applied.
16.2 BASIC ASPECTS
16.2.1 Processes
Constructed wetlands are capable of removing and/or converting a range of pollutants such as organic
matter (BOD, COD), suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, trace metals, pesticides and pathogens. This
is accomplished by a vast array of processes that are complex physical, chemical and biological
interactions between substrate, filter material, macrophytes and micro-organisms. A summary is given
below, for a comprehensive overview one is referred to Kadlec et al. (2000), Chapter 5.
Suspended solids are mainly removed by physical processes such as sedimentation and filtration.
Filtration occurs by impaction of particles onto the roots and stems of the macrophytes or onto the
soil/gravel particles in subsurface flow systems. Most of the SS removal occurs within the first meters,
giving rise to a ‘bank’ of sludge that can hinder the water flow in the case of FWS wetlands, or which can
lead to clogging in SSF wetlands when too many pores become filled with particles.
Dissolved organic matter first diffuses into the biofilms that colonise plant stems and roots, filter
particles and basin walls. Depending on the available oxygen, it is then degraded in an aerobic, anoxic or
anaerobic way. Particulate organic matter, when biodegradable, is normally mineralised into dissolved
components after sedimentation or filtration.
Nitrogen removal is mainly accomplished by the successive microbial pathways ammonification,

nitrification and denitrification. Plant uptake and consequent harvesting is only important in low-loaded
systems. Some nitrogen can be permanently stored in the recalcitrant fraction of the detritus layer. NH3
volatilisation can occur in FWS systems but is only significant at high pH.
402
Phosphorus is biologically removed by plant uptake. Again, the amount that can be removed through
harvesting of the above-ground plant parts is only significant in low-loaded systems. Periphyton and
micro-organisms also take up P but most of it is released again after cell death. The main removal
mechanisms are adsorption to the filter and/or soil particles, adsorption to the detritus layer and
precipitation with certain metals such as Fe, Al, Ca and Mg.
Viruses seem to be effectively removed by adsorption onto the soil or detritus. Possibly the time spent
outside the host organism also plays a major role. Bacteria are reduced by sedimentation, chemical
reactions, natural die-off, predation by zooplankton, nematodes and lytic bacteria and attacks by
bacteriophages. Certain wetland plants and micro-organisms are also known to synthesize antibiotics that
are released into the root zone. Parasites such as helminth eggs etc. can also effectively be removed
through sedimentation and adsorption.
Trace metals associated with particulate matter are removed by sedimentation and filtration. Adsorption
onto the matrix surface and organic material is considered the main removal mechanism for dissolved
trace metals. Cation exchange with carboxyl functional groups in dead or live plant tissue is a second
important removal mechanism. Another removal mechanism of trace metals being largely dependent on
redox conditions, is precipitation as insoluble salts, mainly sulphides and (oxy)hydroxides. Although trace
metals are mainly removed by physico-chemical removal mechanisms, uptake of trace metals by plants
and bacteria can play a role. Most helophyte plant species accumulate trace metals in their root system
whereas some floating and submerged species have been described to accumulate metals to a greater
extent in their harvestable plant tissue.
16.2.2 Influencing design parameters

Probably the most important design parameter is the hydraulic retention time. Constructed wetlands are
extensive systems that entirely depend on natural energy inputs such as sunlight and wind. They therefore
require a large surface area to absorb these energy fluxes and a sufficient hydraulic residence time for the
processes to take place.
García et al. (2004) elaborates on the importance of depth in HSSF systems for pollutant removal.
Shallow HSSF systems seem more effective to remove COD, BOD, anionic surfactants, volatile fatty
acids and nutrients because of their more oxidised conditions. Deep HSSF on the contrary are more
effective to remove faecal coliforms due to their longer HRT.
Isolation from the groundwater by means of a plastic liner or clay layer is absolutely necessary to prevent
groundwater contamination on the one hand, and to avoid groundwater infiltration on the other. Both
fluxes can substantially influence the hydraulic residence time and therefore the treatment performance.
The plant species choice is based on a range of criteria. They should firstly be able to flourish under the
local climatic conditions. A high biomass production is preferable when one intends to export nutrients
from the system by harvesting. The more extensive the root system, the better the filtrative capacities and
the more surface is available for biofilm development. Finally, they should be able to withstand shock
loads, hydraulic ones as well as pollutant ones.
For HSSF systems, an appropriate choice of the filter material is extremely important to avoid clogging
and to ensure a sufficient hydraulic conductivity. In most cases fine gravel is a suitable medium (5-10
mm).
403
16.2.3 Influencing external parameters

Temperature has a major impact on microbiological process rates and obviously on plant growth as well.
Especially nitrogen removal seems to be almost completely inhibited at temperatures below 4 °C. Kadlec
and Knight (1996, p. 638/642) use an Arrhenius equation to express temperature dependency.
Temperature factors (θ) for BOD, SS, TP and FC are given as 1.0, meaning removal of these variables is
not temperature dependent. This can be partly explained by the fact that several related processes are
physical/chemical in nature. Secondly, it has been suggested that lower bacterial activities are
compensated by higher numbers. TN on the contrary has a temperature factor of 1.05, meaning that the
removal efficiency is lowered by 39% when the temperature decreases from 20 °C to 10 °C.
Another important factor that affects the microbiological processes is the pH. The optimal range fluctuates
somewhat for the different processes but in general varies between 7.0 and 8.5.
Removal efficiencies seem in most cases to be positively correlated with the mass loading rates, i.e.
higher influent loads result in better treatment performance, up to a certain ceiling of course. It is clear
that tertiary treatment wetlands will therefore have lower removal efficiencies than secondary ones.
Since the main characteristic of wetlands is the water-logged condition of the soil, it is clear that an
adequate water supply should be available at all times to support plant growth and the typical
biogeochemical cycles. Even short periods of water shortage can have large detrimental effect on
treatment wetlands.

Generally speaking, most systems with above-ground water flow consist of a relatively shallow basin
(depth between 0.3 and 1.8 meters), isolated from the groundwater by means of a plastic liner or by a
local clay layer. Length-width ratios ≥ 2 are to be preferred in order to obtain near plug-flow conditions.
The inlet distribution and effluent abstraction system should run along the entire width of the basin to
avoid short-circuiting and the existence of dead volumes. When using free-floating macrophytes, floating
barriers are often used to avoid the piling up of plants in one corner due to wind action.
Treatment wetlands with horizontal below-ground flow also consist of a shallow (0.5 – 0.8 m deep) basin,
isolated from the groundwater and usually filled with fine gravel. For the inlet and outlet zone, coarser
gravel is usually applied to allow a better spreading respectively collection of wastewater. The treated
wastewater is evacuated by means of a drainage tube at the bottom of the wetland. An appropriate choice
of filter material (and thus hydraulic conductivity) and a correct length-width ratio are indispensable to
avoid above-ground water flow, which has a detrimental effect on treatment performance and can cause
odour and insect nuisances.
Finally, vertical below-ground flow systems usually consist of one or more filter layers of coarse sand
and/or gravel with a total depth between 0.6 and 1.0 meter. Wastewater is preferably spread equally over
the top surface, then drains through the filter layers and is collected at the bottom by means of drainage
tubes. Loading often happens intermittently, i.e. batch-wise. Choosing the right filter material is a trade-
off between high respectively low hydraulic conductivities, i.e. less prone to clogging versus a longer
hydraulic retention time.
Some basic design features for tertiary treatment wetlands are summarized in Table 16.3.
404
Table 16.3 Design features for tertiary treatment with aquatic treatment units
(based on Vymazal et al., 1998)
Organic Hydraulic
HRT Depth
Climate needs loading rate loading rate
(d) (m)
(kg ha-1 d-1) (cm d-1)
Water hyacinth Warm 6 << 0.9 < 50 <8
30 (summer)
Duckweed None n.g. n.g. n.g.
> 60 (winter)
FWS CW None 5 – 15 0.2 – 0.4 << 112 1.9 – 9.4
HSSF CW None >5 0.6 – 0.8 < 80 < 20
16.4.1 Standard O&M tasks and their frequency

Maintenance and operation of constructed treatment wetlands are fairly easy due to the virtual absence of
mechanical and/or electrical parts (Vymazal, 1998). It is nevertheless being recommended to check
systems serving more than 500 P.E. on a daily basis. During this routine maintenance, attention should be
focused on pre-treatment units as well as inlet and outlet structures. In practice however, insufficient
maintenance is often observed, resulting in uneven flow distribution and consequently local overloading.
Initially, treatment efficiency seems to be unaffected, but progressive deterioration of the system can
irreversibly reduce the performance in the long term.
Kadlec and Knight (1996) more or less concur and indicate that monitoring and adjustment of flows,
water levels, water quality and biological parameters are the only day-to-day activities required to achieve
successful performance in treatment wetlands. Other operations and maintenance activities in treatment
wetlands such as repair of pumps, dikes and control structures; vegetation management; and removal of
accumulated solids must be carried out at much less frequent intervals. Kadlec et al. (2000) also
recommend including cover estimates and observations concerning plant health as a routine part of
operational monitoring. Because plants grow slowly and are important for maintaining the performance of
wetland treatment systems, problems must be anticipated or prevented before they have caused
irreversible damage.
One of the continuing debates in constructed wetlands management is whether or not the plants should be
harvested. Main advantages of harvesting are: (i) nutrient export, (ii) prevention of thick layers of dead
material with stagnant water which are ideal pest breeding places (Greenway et al., 2002). Main
advantages of leaving the plants on the wetlands are: (i) creation of an isolating layer of dead plant
material, (ii) provision of a detritus layer that can adsorb trace metals, (iii) provision of a carbon source
for denitrification. Kadlec and Knight (1996, p. 707) advise against harvesting as it may alter the
ecological functioning of wetlands.
A list of needed maintenance operations on VSSF wetlands is given by Liénard et al. (2004), cf. Table
16.4. The reported time consumption is valid for a 1,000 P.E. system and should be seen as an upper limit
since they are based on logs of secondary treatment systems and tertiary treatment systems most likely
need less maintenance. For comparison: a 1,000 P.E. waste stabilization ponds only requires 100 hours of
405
maintenance per year, mainly because reed cutting is unnecessary; a 400 P.E. VSSF reed bed system
requires 103 maintenance hours per year. Especially when topography allows gravity feeding and there
are no electromechanical parts, all these tasks can be carried out by unskilled operators.
Table 16.4 Essential maintenance tasks for a standard VSSF constructed

wetland serving 1000 P.E. (from Liénard et al., 2004)
Task Frequency Duration Total (h year-1)
Gate operation, control of siphons 2 / week 5 min 9
Preliminary treatment: bar screen 1 / week 10 min 9
General inspection of filters and weed control 1 / week 15 min 13
On-going operational records 1 / week 20 min 18
Vegetation cutting on dikes and surroundings 6 / year 8 hours 48
Check-up and cleaning of the distribution system 2 / year 3 hours 6
Cleaning of the manholes 2 / year 1.5 hours 3
Cutting and disposal of reeds 1 / year 80 hours 80
Extraction of sludge 1 / 10 years 60 hours 6
TOTAL 192
Table 16.5 summaries an operation and maintenance schedule for free-water-surface wetlands as
exemplified by Merz (2000). The same author also gives a similar schedule for associated facilities, cf.
Table 16.6.
Table 16.5 Maintenance of FWS treatment wetlands (after Merz, 2000)
Macrophyte zone
Outlet structure
Inlet structure
embankments
Rock work
O&M activity
Inlet zone
Solids removed over 75 mm depth. Determined by Wetland

Solids regular inspections and depth measurement. Do not
E,M
accumulation damage margin vegetation during removal. Dispose
solids in approved location.
Remove from inlet zone, macrophyte zone and
Debris ensure outlet weirs are clear. Dispose debris in E,M E,M E,M E
approved location.
Undertake inspections following events. Report and
undertake remedial work to structures, earthforms
Scour damage E,M E,M E,B E,M E,M
and vegetated areas. Repair any bank erosion.
Minimise disturbance to vegetation.
Identify invasive and noxious weeds and remove by
physical means preferably. Wetland level may be
Noxious plants M M
temporarily lowered to help identify nuisance weeds.
Dispose weeds in an approved location.
Floating plants should be drawn off if very dense.
Emergent plants can be cut or control burned after
Harvesting need lowering the water level. Burning should be M
restricted to early spring and be of low intensity.
Dispose of surplus plants in an approved location.
Structure check Inspect, report, undertake repairs E,M E,M E,M E,M
Mosquito Regular inspections to identify problems. Report M W
406
checks complaints. Regular changes in water level, native

fish stocking, check on vegetation densities, avoid
stagnant zones, and/or seek specialist advice from
Department of Health.
Replace dead wetland plants with approved species.
Control water depth during replanting establishment
Replanting need
period. Check areas tending to canalise and short- M
circuit and replant accordingly. Ensure minimal
disturbance to existing plants during replanting.
Take particular care during plant establishment
phase. Make adjustments at the outlet weir structure.
Water level
Assess wetland ability to cope with variations of W E,W
adjustment inflow. Lower water levels prior to a forecasted wet
event.
W=weekly M=monthly E=after event (breakdown of pre-treatment, storm flow) B=bi-annually
Table 16.6 Maintenance of FWS wetland-associated facilities (from Merz, 2000)
Riparian vegetation
Pipework/valves
Walkway/paths
Flow recording
W=weekly
O&M activity
Grassed areas
Access road
M=monthly
E=after event
Carpark
station
B=bi-annually
Functional mode Inspect and ensure functional E,W E,W W W W

Fully accessible Inspect and ensure accessible W W W
Debris Remove and dispose E
accumulation Inspect, report and repair or M M
Healthy state replace
Scour damage Inspect, report and make repairs E E E
Noxious weeds Remove and dispose M M M
Structure check Inspect, report, undertake repairs M E
Replace as needed with selected B B
Replanting need
species
Servicing check
Inspect, report, replace or repair W W W M
16.4.2 Particular O&M problems and troubleshooting

Vymazal (1998) separates operational problems into two categories: those resulting from poor
maintenance and those associated with parts of the system that were not properly designed or built.
Billeter et al. (1998) add that problems can also result from faulty instructions by the owners, their
forgetfulness or the erroneous view that low technology wastewater treatment plants do not need
maintenance. Indeed natural treatment systems are frequently considered to be a ‘build-and-forget’
solution not needing any attention at all. When denied the minimal amount of maintenance even natural
systems need, failing treatment systems are often reported (e.g. Rousseau et al., 2004)
Severn Trent Water Ltd, one of the larger water utilities in the UK, operates more than 300 constructed
wetlands for tertiary treatment. They are most often horizontal subsurface flow ones preceded by a
rotating biological contactor, a trickling filter, a small activated sludge plant or a submerged aerated filter.
None of these sites has any intentional reuse purposes (Griffin, 2005, personal communication) but some
407
important lessons can nevertheless be learnt from their experience. Cooper et al. (2004) surveyed more
than 120 of these tertiary treatment wetlands and noted in many cases problems with sludge deposition,
inlet flow distributor problems, outlet collector problems, weed infestation, tree growth and above-ground
flow. Especially sludge deposition is important for reuse wetlands, since in most cases it seemed to be
caused by wash-out of solids from the preceding secondary treatment step. Despite these problems, all
effluents were still compliant with the regulatory consents. The authors therefore call constructed
wetlands “very forgiving and abuse tolerant”. As a conclusions, they suggest that beds should be
inspected at least once per month and more frequent if there are known problems. Weeds should be
removed at 6-month intervals, as is the case with saplings in order to avoid tree roots puncturing through
the plastic liner. All in all, tertiary treatment systems of this scale (< 2,000 P.E.) require only a few days
maintenance per year.
Rousseau et al. (2005) surveyed in a similar way 12 HSSF storm water treatment wetlands and concluded
that quick on-site surveys with a number of very simple methods provide valuable information on a range
of factors that can influence the design life of reed beds. Measuring sludge layer thicknesses allows to
assess solids accumulation and can act as an early warning sign for clogging. Plant heights and weed
proliferation are a good visual sign of otherwise hidden water level problems. Weed control, a thorough
maintenance of the inlet distribution system and a correct setting of the outlet level were identified as
crucial factors contributing to the performance and the longevity of the beds.
Constructed wetlands are possible breeding spots for mosquitoes. Greenway et al. (2002) states that a
wetland with a high biodiversity (no monospecific stands) and an extensive food web will cause low
mosquito nuisance. Knight et al. (2000b) elaborates on a number of design strategies and management
procedures to counteract mosquito proliferation and potentially related diseases. These strategies are
especially important when the wetlands are constructed close to human settlements or in arid areas where
formerly no stagnant water was present. As for many environmental problems, source reduction is the first
and most important measure. Mosquitoes preferably deposit in their eggs in stagnant waters containing
relatively high amounts of organic matter and nutrients. It is clear that source reduction is therefore
contradictory to many design principles of above-ground flow constructed wetlands and leaves little or no
options at all. Whilst total prevention is not possible, adequate pre-treatment and the resulting lower
organic loading rate can substantially lower the numbers of mosquitoes, which is a positive argument for
tertiary treatment wetlands. Subsurface flow wetlands are obviously less favourable breeding grounds
unless surface flow occurs due to clogging. When the design incorporates multiple basins and associated
flow paths, it is possible to periodically bypass one or more basins and empty them. Present mosquito
larvae will be largely eradicated. Lower water depths will result in higher flow velocities and therefore
less suitable conditions for mosquito breeding. Intermediate open water areas support the growth of
predatory invertebrates and fish and therefore reduce the number of mosquito larvae. Finally, a careful
bottom grading during the construction phase is absolutely necessary to prevent the occurrence of
stagnant zones. Next to the above-mentioned design principles, a number of operational control measures
are available to reduce mosquito nuisance. The most radical solution is chemical treatment with
insecticides. This is not only an unsustainable solution, it is also a very expensive one: spraying a
moderately big wetland of 10 ha by helicopter can cost up to US$ 4,000. Some biological control agents
are also available: microbial ones (bacteria, viruses, protozoans and fungi) and multicellular ones
(nematodes, cyclopoid copepods, predaceous aquatic insects and larvivorous fish). Bacillus thuringiensis
and B. sphaericus have been successfully used on a number of wetlands systems (Reed et al., 1988, p.
408
281). Greenway (2002) studied four tertiary FWS wetlands and hypothesized that macro-invertebrates
probably are crucial for control of mosquito larvae. Macroinvertebrate densities were found to be
dependent on plant species, water quality, water depth and diel dissolved oxygen concentrations. The use
of Gambusia sp., a larvivorous fish, which is proposed by many authors, is strongly discouraged by
Greenway (2002) since mosquito larvae only form a minor part of its diet and it feeds on other useful
macro-invertebrates.
Another major threat to the wetland as a whole and the vegetation in particular are muskrats. Especially
systems planted with Scirpus or Typha are vulnerable since the animals use the plants both as a food
source and for nesting material (Reed et al., 1988, p. 280). Phragmites does not seem to serve as a food
source and is therefore less vulnerable.
Kadlec and Knight (1996, p. 695) listed the most common physical, chemical and biological factors that
can lead to poor plant growth and some corrective measures (Table 16.7).
Table 16.7 Summary of potential factors resulting in wetland vegetation

maintenance problems (from Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Reproduced
with permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Problem Corrective measures
Raise outlet weirs, add more water, or provide supplemental
Water stress (levels too low)
irrigation to maintain adequate soil moisture
Flood stress (levels too high) Lower outlet weirs or reduce flow to lower water levels
Macronutrient stress (N, P, K) Fertilize when really required to promote healthy plant growth
Micronutrient stress (Fe, Mg, …) Add micronutrients as required to promote healthy plant growth
Dissolved oxygen stress (organic
Reduce the input of oxygen demanding substances (BOD and NH4);
loading, ammonia loading,
lower water levels; reduce the input of solids
clogging)
Tolerate without chemical controls as much as possible. Burn
Pathogens/herbivory (insects, biomass away from the wetland during winter months to reduce
plant diseases, mammals) insect and pathogen resting stages; trap and remove mammals as
necessary
Weather/physical (frost, heat, Maintain flooded conditions to regulate favourable root
wind, excessive ETP) temperatures; use suitable topsoil to provide plant stability
Odour nuisance can occur in some cases, certainly in water hyacinth and duckweed ponds where the thick
floating mat of plants limits oxygen input into the system. Anaerobic conditions are therefore quite likely
to occur and could produce objectionable hydrogen sulphide odours when the waste water contains high
amounts of sulphates. Reed et al. (1988, p. 154, 164) suggest the following measures for floating plant
systems: (i) provide supplemental aeration if necessary, (ii) harvest at most 20% of the plants at each time
to keep the lagoon fully covered and (iii) locate the ponds at least 0.4 km from any habitation. Kadlec and
Knight (1996, p. 711) reach similar conclusions for wetland treatment systems and suggest: (i) to reduce
the loading rates of BOD and ammonium if needed and (ii) to create aerobic environments by means of
shallow basins or by implementation of cascading outfall structures.
409
Clogging of subsurface flow systems is a tangible risk and is principally influenced by loading rates of
BOD and/or SS, the hydraulic loading rate and the particle size and distribution of the matrix material as
well as the waste water particles. Blazejewski and Murat-Blazejewska (1997) and Kadlec and Watson
(1993) also identified the following processes as important factors: (i) biofilm development, especially at
higher ambient temperatures; (ii) development of an inorganic gel of Ca compounds and (iii) peptisation
of soil colloids and collapsing macropores between aggregates. In the case of tertiary treatment wetlands,
one could expect a significantly lower risk of clogging, although Cooper et al. (2004) identified many
problems due to sludge wash-out from the preceding treatment step. Clogging can be counteracted by
lowering loading rates, by changing the pumping frequency (e.g. longer resting intervals in between
loading) or by leaving one or more beds to rest. During this resting period, organic material that blocks
the pores can be composted and the hydraulic conductivity thus restored. When most pores are filled with
inorganic material and the hydraulic conductivity is too low, the only solution is to excavate the bed and
either refill it wit new matrix material or refill it with the same matrix material after rinsing.
Table 16.8 finally summarizes some additional hazards associated with constructed wetlands that are not
related tied to their performance.
Table 16.8 Additional potential hazards and design/management actions that

can be taken to prevent them (after Merz, 2000)
Hazard Design and Management Actions
Install warning signs.
Install fences or other barriers such as vegetation to prevent
access.
Gentle edge slopes around deep water where public access is
Drowning, especially as
easily gained.
ponded water bodies are
Boardwalks to direct people away from danger zones.
attractive to small children
(Boardwalks also allow safe walking through a wetland and
provide access for sampling without disturbing the wetland).
Avoid creating `safety traps’ such as sudden drops into deep
water, high velocity flows, rapid water level increases, raised
structures that children can fall off.
Some hardy spike-rush species have very strong pointed stems
which may cause eye injury. These plants should be used away
Wetland Plants from access areas.
The flower parts of some plants (e.g. Typha spp) are easily
dispersed and can cause some allergic reactions in people.
Pathogens in wastewater, such Wetland operators to be trained and made aware of potential
as bacteria, viruses and exposure to pathogens. Use precautionary measures such as
parasites protective clothing and vaccinations (e.g. for hepatitis A).
Warning signs and fences to restrict public access.
410
16.4.3 Record keeping

A list of typical minimum monitoring requirements for successful operation of constructed wetlands is
given by Kadlec and Knight (1996, p. 702), cf. Table 16.9. They stress that monitoring is one of the most
important aspects of treatment wetlands operation and provides a “system-level barometer” of wetland
health and performance. One has to be aware however that in most European countries, local authorities
do not have such strict standards and only require monthly or even quarterly analyses of a limited number
of pollutant concentrations in the effluent.
Table 16.9 Minimal monitoring requirements (from Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Recommended parameters Recommended sample locations Minimum sample frequency
Inflow and outflow water quality
a. temperature, DO, pH, EC, BOD5, TSS, a. Weekly

Cl- and SO42- (every system)
Inflow(s) and outflow(s)
b. NOx, NH4+, TKN, TP (as required by b. Monthly
permits)
c. metals, organics, toxicity (as required c. Quarterly
by permits)
Flow Inflow(s) and outflow(s) Daily
Rainfall Adjacent to wetland Daily
Water stage Within wetland Daily
Near inflow, near wetland

Plant cover for dominant species Annually
centre, near outflow
16.4.4 Failure and failure management

This section only considers failure of the effluent to comply with the relevant standards and hands some
solutions to enhance treatment performance.
Effluent containing too high BOD concentrations can be solved in a number of ways:
• reduce the organic loading rate by (i) upgrading the previous treatment steps, (ii) increasing
the wetland area or hydraulic retention time;
• reduce the ammonium loading rate and hence the oxygen demand by (i) upgrading the
previous treatment steps, (ii) increasing the wetland area or hydraulic retention time;
• improve the hydraulic conditions by equally spreading the waste water over the entire width
and avoiding preferential flow, for SSF systems avoid clogging and associated overland flow
or ponding;
• provide more oxygen via open water areas, cascades or aerators.
Excessive suspended solids concentrations can be reduced as follows:
411
• reduce the particulates loading rate by (i) upgrading the previous treatment steps, (ii)
increasing the wetland area or hydraulic retention time;
• use SSF wetlands or well-covered FWS wetlands to avoid algal growth;
• improve the hydraulic conditions by equally spreading the waste water over the entire width
and avoiding preferential flow, for subsurface flow systems avoid clogging and associated
overland flow or ponding.
Elevated nitrogen concentrations can be counteracted in a number of ways:
• Enhance nitrification in the preceding treatment steps since since this is usually the rate
limiting step in wetlands;
• Provide extra organic material or do not harvest the plants to fuel the denitrification reaction;
• Reduce BOD load as discussed above or provide extra oxygen to balance the oxygen demand
and supply;
• Increase the area of the wetland to enhance microbial conversion and to increase the
importance of plant uptake;
• Provide extra wetlands with typically opposite redox conditions to stimulate both nitrification
and denitrification.
• Recycle the effluent to promote denitrification.
Phosphorus concentrations can be reduced as follows:
• Apply physical-chemical P removal before the wetlands and use the wetlands mainly to
backup and polish the effluent from the clarifier;
• Replace the saturated filter material;
• Substantially increase the area of the wetland and optimise harvest regime to increase the
importance of plant uptake;
Pathogen standard failures finally can possibly be solved as follows:
• Provide more open spaces where the sunlight and UV radiation can reach the water column;
• Increase the area of the wetland or the hydraulic retention time;
16.5 MONITORING
Basic monitoring requirements were summarised before in Table 16.9. In short, influent and effluent
concentrations of target compounds should be monitored as required by the issued permits, as should be
their respective flow rates. Water level monitoring and adjustment is normally only required during
periods of excessive rainfall, in hot climates when evapotranspiration rates are high or in cold climates
when there is a risk of freezing. A regular check of the influent distribution system is absolutely necessary
to prevent uneven loading rates due to for instance clogged pipes. In FWS systems one should regularly
monitor the accumulation of solids and debris, especially in the inlet zone, and make sure that the water
flow is not hindered. Solids accumulation and therefore the risk of clogging in SSF systems needs to be
412
assessed by regular observations of the water table. Aboveground water flow or surface impoundments
point to a seriously reduced hydraulic conductivity and may be early warning signs for reduced treatment
performance. Finally, infrequent observations of plant growth and plant condition are needed to assess the
general condition of the system, as was discussed before in Table 16.8.
16.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND CONSTRAINTS

Cadelli et al. (2004) investigated the suitability of their ‘Mosaïque Hiérarchisée d’Ecosystèmes
Artificiels’ (MHEA®) system under the Mediterranean conditions of Morocco. MHEA® combines
different artificial ecosystems that can typically be found along a land-water gradient, i.e. from drier to
wetter conditions, and is used for secondary and tertiary treatment. The MHEA® provides very efficient
removal rates for SS, COD, BOD5 and disinfection. Introduction of certain plant species also allowed high
N and P removal. However, volumes of evapotranspiration were extremely large and zero outflow
occured in summer which makes these treatment systems less adapted for water reuse purposes in hot
climates. Green et al. (2004) have additional concerns that extensive evapotranspiration could cause too
high salinities and therefore render the effluent unsuitable for irrigation. They provided advanced
secondary treatment in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor and passively aerated vertical beds
while HSSF reed beds were only used as a polishing step. This reduced land requirement and ETP losses,
but logically increased O&M costs. El Hafiane et al. (2004) similarly report lower evapotranspiration
losses between 20 – 40% for a wastewater treatment plant comprising an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor, a high rate algal pond, a maturation pond and a SSF wetland. Bachand and Horne (2000) also
mention the possibility that high ETP rates in hot, dry climates like (south)western USA can lead to
elevated levels of total dissolved solids and dissolved organic carbon potentially exceeding regulatory
levels.
Kadlec and Knight (1996), Rousseau et al. (2004) and many others have reviewed model-based design of
treatment wetlands. State-of-the-art nowadays is still a first-order plug-flow model that assumes an
exponential decrease of pollutant concentrations and pathogens to a background value. However, this
black-box model is based on only two parameters, the first-order decay rate k and the background
concentration C*, which is an obvious oversimplification of the complex wetland processes. Moreover,
this model can only be used to predict average behaviour over at least several hydraulic residence times.
Predictive models of hourly or even daily variations are still in a premature stage. Bachand and Horne
(2000) conclude that CW are therefore frequently oversized to ensure regulatory compliance.
Clogging of subsurface flow systems has been extensively discussed before. However, it is repeated here
as it has a major impact on the lifespan of a CW but up-to-date there exist no reliable methods to predict
clogging rates on the one hand, and to evaluate remediation measures on the other hand.
Trace metals are mainly removed in constructed wetlands by adsorption onto organic matter and
precipitation as sulphides or (oxy)hydroxides, thereby creating a problem of trace metal accumulation and
having an impact on long-term treatment efficiency. The storage capacity of constructed wetlands is
thought to be limited and can eventually be exceeded. At this time it is difficult to estimate how long a
constructed wetland can work efficiently before this storage capacity is exceeded and before the wetland
itself becomes a “black point”, a site contaminated with trace metals, requiring clean out of the filter
medium and sediment. Clearly the lifespan of constructed wetlands is strongly dependent on the influent
413
loading and type of wastewater. In the current case of tertiary treatment wetlands for domestic waste
water, few adverse effects can be expected.
Once trace elements are accumulated in a plant tissue, metals can be returned to the sediments bound to
shoot fragments or released to the surrounding water during senescence. Besides, also aquatic fauna can
take up heavy metals from the water column. The process whereby organisms retain and concentrate a
toxic material within their body is poorly quantified (Jackson, 1998). However, a number of studies
demonstrated that feeding behaviour of benthic invertebrates influences metal burdens. Taxa such as
grazer-scrapers consuming periphyton will carry higher levels of Cd, Cu and Zn than animals primarily
consuming sediment (Quinn et al., 2003). For some heavy metals an increase within each trophic level of
a food chain, known as biomagnification, is suspected. Quinn et al. (2003) report inconsistent results for
different studies with Zn, whereas Cu does not shows up a trend in increasing trophic levels. Fe seems to
decrease with increasing trophic level, a process known as biodilution. (Winterbourn et al., 2000; Quinn
et al., 2003). In considering all these aspects, the importance of the origin of the waste water in
influencing the macrophyte-toxic compound cycle has to be emphasized.
Finally, little information is available on removal efficiencies and especially removal mechanisms of trace
organics such as personal care products and endocrine disruptors, although these compounds may have a
crucial role in deciding whether or not an effluent is suitable for reuse. Masi et al. (2004) studied
endocrine disruptor removal in a hybrid secondary treatment wetland and observed that steroid estrogens
dropped to below detection level in the effluent. Most of these compounds were found to be associated
with particles, so the high removal efficiency might be partly explained by the high filtration capacity of
the applied subsurface wetlands. Another recent study by Matamoros et al. (2005) investigated the
removal of clofibric acid (lipid regulator), ibuprofen (anti-inflammatory) and carbamazepine
(antiepileptic) in pilot-scale HSSF wetlands. They found that clofibric acid was not removed at all, that
carbamazepine was removed by sorption (16-26 %) and that ibuprofen was degraded 48-81%). The
removal efficiencies of ibuprofen seemed to be related to the bed depth, with the highest removal
observed in the shallow bed (30 cm deep). It was speculated that more aerobic conditions in the shallow
HSSF CW could stimulate ibuprofen degradation.

A literature search through the extensive amount of data available on constructed wetlands yielded a
number of preliminary conclusions with regard to their use for reuse purposes:
• Reuse sensu stricto of the effluent of constructed wetlands is more popular with small
systems than with larger ones, especially in the European context. Examples are legio of
single-household systems where the effluent is reused for flushing the toilet, watering the
garden etc. Large scale applications are uncommon in Europe (or not well documented) but
are more widely used in the USA and Australia.
• No clear differentiation can be made between reuse possibilities of different types of waste
water. A more or less equal amount of cases can be found on domestic, agricultural and
industrial waste waters. This review however focuses on domestic wastewater.
414
• Although the term reuse is often mentioned in title or abstract, most authors only consider this
possibility by comparing the effluent concentrations of the investigated constructed wetland
with national or international reuse standards. Actual cases are rather rare.
• Reuse by larger constructed wetlands is most often considered in the broadest sense: creation
of extra habitat for wildlife, recreation, education etc.
Many authors promote combined systems, i.e. wetlands and ponds, for reuse purposes. Not only do they
supplement each other and therefore often yield higher removal efficiencies, but the ponds can be easily
applied for aquacultural purposes.
16.7.1 Reuse options

Treated effluent can be reused for restricted or unrestricted irrigation of agricultural crops, depending on
its quality. Other applications are watering of gardens, golf courses, public parks, etc. Merz (2000) for
instance states that irrigation reuse is practised at about 30% of Australian constructed wetlands. Effluent
can also be reused for flushing toilets, for cleaning purposes, as cooling water after desalination (Peng et
al., 2004) and as a reliable water supply for natural wetlands or nature reserve areas (Worrall et al., 1997;
Sala et al., 2004). A last option is to use the effluent for aquacultural purposes, with fish production for
food or feed or even duck culture (Polprasert et al., 2004).
Certain plant species have commercial value, some as ornamental plants (Bachand and Horne, 2000;
Shipin et al., 2004), others as raw material. Mulching and composting of harvested plants can for instance
yield soil additives, pulping of plants provides fibers and silaging produces livestock fodder (Polprasert et
al., 2004).
Cicek et al. (2004) investigated the possibility of using harvested biomass from a natural wetland to
generate power. Different technologies were evaluated and yielded between 1.75 – 4.71 MW.
Cogeneration of heat is one possible additional benefit, greenhouse gas credits (carbon sequestration,
renewable energy sources) a second one. Bolton et al. (2004) also mention this possibility of obtaining
carbon credits from biomass and peat formation in a constructed Melaleuca wetland.
Another benefit includes the creation of a new habitat for flora and fauna. Knight et al. (2000a)
summarize data from the North American treatment wetlands DataBase concerning sightings of
mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and invertebrates and vegetation mapping surveys. Initial
concern about bioaccumulation of certain pollutants and spreading of diseases via visiting fauna seemed
in most cases premature.
Few treatment wetlands have been specifically designed to contribute to wildlife conservation. According
to Connor et al. (2002) there are indeed many obstacles like a lack of understanding of conservational
needs and ecological principles among engineers, the additional costs entailed, lack of comprehensive
design manuals and a lack of obviously tangible benefits to local communities. Worrall et al. (1997)
conclude likewise that treatment wetlands can be specifically designed and managed to optimize wildlife
potential if approached from an ecological point of view as opposed to a strictly engineering perspective.
Constraining factors for wildlife development are mainly (i) the wetland size, (ii) the structural diversity
of the wetland as habitat, (iii) biological stresses imposed by the nature of the influent and (iv) design
features such as subsurface of surface flow. Several positive examples are summed up by Connor et al.
(2002) as counter arguments. The Western Treatment Plant of Melbourne for example (10850 ha with
415
lagoons, land infiltration and grass filtration) has been included in the Ramsar convention as a wetland of
international importance for bird conservation. Other examples from the ornithological literature include
the Aisleby sewage farm in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe; the Phakalane Sewage Ponds in Gabarone, Botswana;
the Arcata wetlands, California and the Al-Ansab sewage treatment plant in Muscat, Oman.
Constructed wetlands can specifically be applied to protect certain endangered species. The already
mentioned Melaleuca quinquenervia wetland covers 24 ha and is irrigated with up to 2 ML per day of
tertiary treated effluent (Bolton, 2004). Careful management of the irrigation rate and associated
groundwater levels allows to control pyrite formation or degradation in an underlying acid sulphate soil
layer and as a consequence to control pH levels. Typical pH values between 3 and 5.5 are conform with
the breeding range of an endangered acid tolerant frog (Crinia tinnula).
Knight et al. (2000a) finally mention education (nature study), exercise activities (walking, jogging) and
recreational harvest (hunting, trapping) as other positive contributions of constructed wetlands. Gearheart
and Higley (1993) add picnicing, relaxing and art (photography, painting) to this list.
16.7.2 Water reclamation scheme ARCATA, USA

The first treatment steps at the Arcata WWTP (California, USA) consist of bar screens, a grit chamber and
2 settling tanks for primary treatment. Secondary and partial tertiary treatment is accomplished by 2
oxidation ponds (total area 21 ha) followed by 3 parallell FWS wetlands (total area 3.2 ha). After
chlorination and dechlorination, part of the wastewater is released into the Humboldt Bay while another
part flows into three so-called ‘enhancement FWS wetlands’ (total area 13.3 ha), which were constructed
in 1985. Effluent of these wetlands is recycled to the chlorination facility and then also discharged. The
facility treats an average of 9.850 m3 day-1. The ‘enhancement wetlands’ together with some additional
landscape features, are referred to as the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary and cover a total of 85 ha
(Gearheart and Finney, 2000).
A summary of 15 years of measurements, presented by Gearheart and Finney (2000), shows that median
monthly BOD and SS concentrations were reduced from 34 to 3.2 mg BOD L-1 and 17 to 2.3 mg SS L-1
respectively in the ‘enhancement wetland’. The 99-percentiles of the monthly effluent concentrations
were 10 mg BOD L-1 and 11 mg SS L-1. Since there are no effluent discharge requirements for nitrogen
compounds, only few data were collected, but these seem to indicate that inorganic nitrogen levels in the
effluent of the enhancement wetland never exceed 10 mg N L-1. Faecal coliform levels increase from 2
MPN 100 mL-1 to a median level of 57 MPN 100 mL-1 and a 90 percentile of 1,000 MPN 100 mL-1. As
the influent is chlorinated, the higher number of pathogens in the effluent is attributed to warmblooded
animals visiting the wetlands. Indeed, higher effluent levels of faecal coliforms during December and
January coincide with high numbers of migrating water fowl.
Public involvement plays a major role in this facility and resulted in the establishment of the non-profit
organisation FOAM (Friends of the Arcata Marsh) by volunteers from the Arcata Community. In their
Arcata Marsh Interpretive Center, they provide among others specific literature, maps and pictures and
they host a collection of artwork with ties to the marsh. They furthermore organise guided tours with
information on the treatment processes and on the flora and fauna
(http://www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dept/marsh/). As a result, over 130,000 people per year visit the
facility (Gearheart and Higley, 1993).
416
This public involvement has led to a growing environmental awareness and was expressed in the motto of
FOAM: “Arcata Residents Flush with Pride”.
A non-limitative list of ancillary benefits of the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary includes
(http://www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dept/marsh/):
• A rich faunal and floral diversity with over 300 species of birds and mammals, more than 100
plant species and 6 species of fish;
• Recreation possibilities such as nature hikes, jogging, bicycling, picnicking, bird-watching,

fishing;
• A wide range of academic research facilities and education possibilities;
• Tourism which significantly enhances the revenues of the Arcata Community.
This extensive usage as recreational site requires several management and mitigation interventions. Some
examples are (summarised from Gearheart and Higley, 1993): (i) traffic control, (ii) parking allocation,
(iii) placement of picnic tables and dust bins, (iv) integrated mosquito control programme, (v)
construction of trails, (vi) construction of bird blinds etc.
16.7.3 Water reclamation scheme ELS AIGUAMOLLS DE

L’EMPORDÀ, SPAIN (redrafted from Sala et al.,
2004)
The 35,000 P.E. Empuriabrava WWTP (Costa Brava, Girona, Spain) is of the extended aeration type and
consists in its current form of a mechanical pretreatment step and then two parallel treatment lines each
comprising a biological reactor, a clarifier and three effluent polishing ponds. A chemical treatment for
phosphorus removal has recently been added. At its maximum capacity of 8,750 m3 day-1, the hydraulic
retention time is in the order of 4 days. Further treatment is then achieved by means of a wetland system
that started operation in 1998 and which aims primarily at denitrifying the secondary effluent. Loading of
the wetlands only occurs if ammonium concentrations are below 5 mg N L-1. This system consists of 3
parallel cells (each 8,000 m2 and 0.5 meter average depth) that were planted with Phragmites sp. and
Typha sp., followed by one shallow lagoon (4.5 ha and 0.2 meter average depth) in which emergent,
submerged as well as floating macrophytes developed. The capital costs of this wetland project were
1,382 million euros (1996 value). These costs also include pumping facilities to transport the reclaimed
wastewater, some landscape features such as trails and a wooden bridge for pedestrians and a visitor
centre.
The reuse goals of this project are multiple:
• To feed water of sufficient quality to the Cortalet lagoon, especially during dry periods. This
Cortalet lagoon is located inside the Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural Reserve, which aims
at preserving and restoring a coastal wetland ecosystem;
• To reduce secondary effluent discharges to the nearby Muga river and as a consequence
increase the bathing water quality of the beach at the mouth of this river;
• To stimulate the recovery and establishment of local flora and fauna, in the treatment
wetlands as well as at the point of use.
417
Data from 2000 – 2003 indicate that between 70 and 80% of the secondary effluent has been treated in the
wetland system and thus been reclaimed. Total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) reduction in 2003 was estimated
at 74% on a mass basis with average TIN concentrations being reduced from 7.6 to 1.9 mg N L-1. Faecal
coliform (FC) removal in the wetlands was very low and sometimes even negative. Sala et al. (2004)
attribute this to the high FC removal in the polishing ponds of the WWTP (log 3 on average) such that the
secondary effluent contains usually less than 200 FC 100 mL-1, a value which is only slightly higher than
the background concentration. Since the application of the ammonium-controlled loading, Sala et al.
(2004) also report the near-complete disappearance of avian botulism.
Maintenance of the wetland system consists firstly of manually removing duckweed. Sala et al. (2004)
recommend to start this removal as soon as duckweed appears. If not, due to its rapid growth rate, it can
cover large areas and therefore lead to anoxic conditions which stimulate avian botulism. Secondly,
aquatic macrophytes are removed from the shallow lagoon in order to create different habitats for water
fowl and to maintain visibility from the bird blinds. Finally, the lanes and paths of the facility require
occasional maintenance.
16.7.4 Water reclamation scheme LIEDEKERKE, BELGIUM

The activated sludge WWTP of Liedekerke was built in 1998 by Aquafin NV and has a capacity of
70,000 PE. From 2002 to 2004 the average daily flow was 27,000 m³ day-1.
Because of flooding problems, extra water storage capacity was needed for this WWTP. An FWS design
was chosen as such a system can also provide tertiary treatment and be a valuable habitat for wildlife.
After conventional treatment the secondary effluent of the WWTP is guided into a 1.66 km long, 2.5 m
wide FWS wetland followed by a lagoon. The water level in this lagoon can be manually adjusted in order
to adapt the retention capacity. As such an average additional retention volume of 40,000 m³ is created.
Finally the effluent is discharged in the River Dender. If necessary the operator can decide to discharge
the WWTP effluent directly in the river Dender using a bypass. The total investment cost of the green
tertiary treatment systems was € 1,000,000.
The FWS was planted with (and is mainly dominated by) Phragmites australis. In January 2005 the
wetland was aggressively mowed and most of the Phragmites roots were damaged. After this operation a
3 months biweekly monitoring showed that there were no significant trends in COD or total N
concentrations: from the inlet of the FWS to the lagoon, concentrations varied from 33 ± 12 to 36.9 ± 6.8
mg COD L-1 and from 7.6 ± 2.7 to 7.0 ± 1.9 mg TN L-1. Suspended solids even seemed to increase
through the wetland from 8 ± 9 to 22.5 ± 22.6 mg SS L-1. In the lagoon the concentration decreased
however again to 13.6 ± 5.4 mg SS L-1. Given the winter temperatures and the bad condition of the reed
plants, these values probably represent a worst case scenario.
In spring 2005 benthic macro-invertebrates were collected to assess the ecological quality. Using the
Belgian Biotic Index (BBI) for evaluation (De Pauw and Vanhooren, 1983), an increasing water quality
from the inlet (BBI 3) to the outlet (BBI 5) of the FWS was found. In contrast to the chemical
measurements, these observations seem to indicate that there is a marginal water quality improvement.
During this same period, traps were also installed to capture spiders. Three out of the 28 captured spider
genera are appearing on the Red List for spiders (Belgium/Flanders) (Maelfait et al., 1998). Birds have
also been monitored on an irregular base during the last 4 years by Natuurpunt Denderstreek, a national
418
nature conservation society. A significant number of endangered species were observed. This is merely
due to the fact that this wetland covers a significant area in comparison with the little natural areas of the
nature reserves in the surroundings. All these observations seem to confirm the capability of constructed
wetlands to support wildlife.
Due to the green area a lot of hikers are enjoying the path next to the FWS. In order to protect the wetland
species against the hikers’ dogs a hawthorn hedge was planted.
Figure 16.2 Overview of the LIEDEKERKE wetland system.
HIKING PATH
LAGOON
WWTP
* The arrows indicate the flow direction through the wetland into the lagoon, the observation point is marked with a pentagon.
(photo courtesy Aquafin NV).
16.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. N. De Pauw, Dr. F. Tack and Dr. P. Vanrolleghem for their useful
comments on earlier versions of this chapter.
16.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bachand P.A.M. and A.J. Horne (2000) Denitrification in constructed free-water surface wetlands: II. Effects of vegetation and
temperature. Ecological Engineering 14: 17-32.
Bavor H.J., Roser D.J. and P.W. Adcock (1995) Challenges for the development of advanced constructed wetlands technology.
Water Science and Technology 32 (3): 13-20.
Billeter R.C., Züst B. and A. Schönborn (1998) Switzerland. Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P.F., Green M.B. and Haberl R. (Eds)
Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in Europe. Backhuys Publishers Leiden The Netherlands. ISBN 9073348722.
Blazejewski R. and S. Murat-Blazejewska (1997) Soil clogging phenomena in constructed wetlands with subsurface flow. Water
Science and Technology 35 (5): 183-188.
419
Bolton K.G.E. (2004) A 24 hectare constructed Melaleuca wetland for effluent reuse, acid sulfate soil management and carbon
credits in Byron Bay, Australia. Proc. 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,
Volume 2. Avignon, France; 27-30 September 2004.
Cadelli D., Nemcova M., Ezzahri J., Ennabili A., Ater M. and M. Radoux (2004) Influence of evapotranspiration on the design of
extensive wastewater treatment systems under Mediterranean conditions at the MHEA© Experimental Centre of M’Diq (Tetouan,
Morocco). Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control and 6th International
Conference on Waste Stabilization Ponds. Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October 2006.
Carlsson F., Frykblom P. and C. Liljenstolpe (2004) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological
Economics 47: 95-103.
Cicek N., Lambert S., Venema H.D., Snelgrove K.R. and E.L. Bibeau (2004) Evaluation of a wetland-biopower concept for
nutrient removal and value recovery from the Netley-Libeau marsh at Lake Winnipeg. Proc. joint 9th IWA International
Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control and 6th International Conference on Waste Stabilization Ponds.
Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October 2006.
Connor M.A. and A. Luczak (2002) Designing wetland treatment systems that contribute to wildlife conservation. Proc. 8th IWA
International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 2. Arusha, Tanzania; 16-19 September 2002.
Cooper D., Griffin P. and P. Cooper (2004) Factors affecting the longevity of sub-surface horizontal flow systems operating as
tertiary treatment for sewage effluent. Water Science and Technology 51 (9): 127-135.
El Hafiane F. and B. El Hamouri (2004) Subsurface-horizontal flow constructed wetland for polishing high rate ponds effluent.
Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control and 6th International Conference
on Waste Stabilization Ponds. Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October 2006.
De Pauw N and G. Vanhooren (1983) Method for biological assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia 100: 153-
168.
García J., Vivar J., Aromir M. and R. Mujeriego (2003) Role of hydraulic retention time and granular medium in microbial
removal in tertiary treatment reed beds. Water Research 37: 2645-2653.
García J., Morato J., Bayona, J.M. and P. Aguire (2004) Performance of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands with
different depth. Proc. 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control. Avignon, France; 27-
30 September 2004.
Gearheart R. and B. Finney (2000) Fifteen years of performance and utilization of a free surface constructed wetland, Arcata,
California, USA. Proc. 7th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 3. Orlando,
Florida; 13-16 November 2000.
Gearheart R.A. and M. Higley (1993) Chapter 62 Constructed open surface wetlands: the water quality benefits and wildlife
benefits – City of Arcata, California. Moshiri G.A. (Ed) Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Publishers
Boca Raton USA. ISBN 0873715500.
Ghermandi A., Bixio D. and C. Thoeye (submitted) The role of constructed wetlands in municipal wastewater reclamation and
reuse. The Science of the Total Environment.
Green M., Shaul N., Beliavski M. and S. Tarre (2004) Minimizing land requirement and evaporation in extensive wastewater
treatment systems. Proc. 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 2. Avignon,
France; 27-30 September 2004.
Greenway M., Dale P. and H. Chapman (2002) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment – macrophytes,
macroinvertebrates and mosquitoes. Proc. 8th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,
Volume 2. Arusha, Tanzania; 16-19 September 2002.
Griffin P. (2005) Personal communication. Technology and Development, Severn Trent Water Ltd, Avon House, St Martin’s
Road, CV3 6PR, Coventry, UK.
Gross A., Shmueli O., Oron G., Ronen Z. and E. Raveh (2004). Recycled vertical flow constructed wetland (RVFCW) – a novel
method of recycling greywater for landscape irrigation in small communities and households. Proc. 9th IWA International
Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 1. Avignon, France; 27-30 September 2004.
420
Jackson L.J. (1998) Paradigms of metal accumulation in rooted aquatic vascular plants. The Science of the total Environment 219:
223-231.
Kadlec R.H. and J.T. Watson (1993) Chapter 23 Hydraulics and Solids Accumulation in a gravel bed treatment wetland. Moshiri
G.A. (Ed) Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton USA. ISBN 0873715500.
Kadlec R.H. (2004) Wetland to Pond Treatment Gradients. Water Science and Technology 51 (9): 291-298.
Kadlec R.H. and R.L. Knight (1996) Treatment wetlands. CRC Press Boca Raton USA. ISBN 0873719301.
Kadlec R.H., Knight R.L., Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P. and R. Haberl (2000) Constructed wetlands for pollution control:
processes, performance, design and operation. IWA Publishing London UK. ISBN 1900222051.
Kamizoulis G. (2005) The new draft WHO guidelines for water reuse in agriculture. Proc. Technical workshop on the integration
of reclaimed water in water resource management. Lloret de Mar, Spain; October 2005.
Knight R.L., Clarke, R.A. and R.K. Bastian (2000a) Treatment wetlands as habitat for wildlife and humans. Proc. 7th IWA
International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 1. Orlando, USA; 13-16 November 2000.
Knight R.L., Walton W.E., O’Meara G., Reisen W.K. and R. Wass (2000b) Design strategies for effective mosquito control in
constructed treatment wetlands. Proc. 7th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,
Volume 1. Orlando, USA; 13-16 November 2000.
Liénard A., Boutin C., Molle P., Racault Y., Brissaud F. and B. Picot (2004) Constructed wetlands and waste stabilization ponds
for municipal wastewater treatment in France: comparison of performance and maintenance operations in terms of durability and
reliability. Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control and 6th International
Conference on Waste Stabilization Ponds. Avignon, France, 27 September – 1 October 2006.
Maelfait J.-P., Baert L., Janssen M. and M. Alderweireldt (1998) A Red list for the spiders of Flanders. Bulletin van het
Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Entomologie 68: 131-142.
Matamoros V., García J. and J.M. Bayona (2005) Behavior of selected pharmaceuticals in subsurface flow constructed wetlands:
a pilot-scale study. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 5449-5454.
Merz S.K. (2000) Guidelines for using free water surface constructed wetlands to treat municipal sewage. Queensland
Department of Natural Resources Brisbane Australia. ISBN 0734516614.
Peng J., Wang, B., Wang L. and R. Cao (2004) Performance of a Combined System of Ponds and Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution
Control and 6th International Conference on Waste Stabilization Ponds. Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October 2006.
Perkins J. and C. Hunter (2000) Removal of enteric bacteria in a surface flow constructed wetland in Yorkshire, England. Water
Research 34: 1941-1947.
Platzer M., Caceresy V., Fong N. and R. Haberl (2002) Investigations and experiences with subsurface flow constructed wetlands
in Nicaragua, Central America. Proc. 8th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,
Volume 1. Arusha, Tanzania; 16-19 September 2002.
Polprasert C. and T. Koottatep (2004) Integrated pond and constructed wetland systems for sustainable wastewater management.
Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control and 6th International Conference
on Waste Stabilization Ponds. Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October 2006.
Quinn M.R., Feng X., Folt C.L. and C.P. Chamberlain (2003) Analyzing trophic transfer of metals in stream food webs using
nitrogen isotopes. The Science of The Total Environment 317 (1-3): 73-89.
Reed S. C., Middlebrooks E. J. and R. W. Crites (1988). Wetland systems - Natural systems for waste management and treatment.
McGraw-Hill Book Company New York USA. ISBN 0070515212.
Rousseau D.P.L., Vanrolleghem P.A. and N. De Pauw (2004) Model-based design of horizontal subsurface flow constructed
treatment wetlands: a review. Water Research 38 (6): 1484-1493.
Rousseau D.P.L., Vanrolleghem P.A. and N. De Pauw (2004). Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis.
Ecological Engineering 23 (3): 151-163.
421
Rousseau D.P.L., Horton D., Griffin P., Vanrolleghem P.A. and N. De Pauw (2005) Impact of operational maintenance on the
asset life of storm reed beds. Water Science and Technology 51 (9): 243-250.
Sala L., Serra M., Huguet A., Colom J., Carré M., Romero de Tejada S. and E. Marquès (2004) Multiple benefits of the
environmental reuse project at the Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural Reserve (Costa Brava, Girona, Spain). Proc. 9th IWA
International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Volume 2. Avignon, France, 27-30 September 2006.
Shipin O., Koottatep T., Khanh N.T.T. and C. Polprasert (2004) Integrated natural treatment systems for developing
communities: low-tech N-removal through the fluctuating microbial pathways. Water Science and Technology 51 (12): 299-306.
Toet S., Van Logtestijn R.S.P., Schreijer M., Kampf R. and J.T.A. Verhoeven (2005) The functioning of wetland system used for
polishing effluent from a sewage treatment plant. Ecological Engineering 25: 101-124.
Tsihrintzis V.A., Karamouzis D., Akratos C. and A.N. Angelakis (2004) Comparison of a free-water surface and a vertical
subsurface flow constructed wetland system. Proc. joint 9th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water
Pollution Control and 6th International Conference on Waste Stabilization Ponds, Avignon, France; 27 September – 1 October
2006.
Vymazal J. (1998) Czech Republic. Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P.F., Green M.B. and R. Haberl (Eds) Constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment in Europe. Backhuys Publishers Leiden The Netherlands. ISBN 9073348722.
Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P.F., Haberl R., Perfler R. and J. Laber (1998) Removal mechanisms and types of constructed
wetlands. Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P.F., Green M.B. and Haberl R. (Eds) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in
Europe. Backhuys Publishers Leiden The Netherlands. ISBN 9073348722.
Winterbourn M.J., McDiffett W.F. and S.J. Eppley (2000) Aluminium and iron burdens of aquatic biota in New Zealand streams
contaminated by acid mine drainage: effects of trophic level. The Science of the Total Environment 254: 45-54.
Worrall P., Peberdy K.J. and M.C. Millet (1997) Constructed wetlands and nature conservation. Water Science and Technology
35 (5): 205-213.
422
17 RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEMS
Practices in operating and maintaining of reclaimed water distribution systems (RWDS) strongly
influence the final water quality delivered to the end user. A sub-optimally operated RWDS system can
lead to a substantial increase of microbial activity in pipelines, and expose both the reclaimed water
purveyor and the user to unacceptable risks. In addition to contributing to deterioration of reclaimed water
quality, the increased microbial activity result in high biofilm growth that can lead to an increase in head
losses during pumping, and thus to an increase of operational costs.
This chapter aims at documenting the factors that contribute to unacceptable risks and good practices in
management, maintenance and monitoring of RWDS. This chapter specifically looks at the issues related
to the piped networks, while considerations about service reservoirs are addressed in Chapter 15.
In many aspects, the management of RWDS is similar to the drinking water system. Only factors that
distinguish RWDS from drinking water distribution systems are developed here.
17.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RWDS

Each water reuse application has specific issues regarding the storage and conveyance of reclaimed water
to the end use:
In agricultural reuse, priority is given to the prevention of the build-up of biofilm in piped network and
the build-up of hydrogen sulphide. The reclaimed water is usually pumped from water reclamation plants
through long pipes and stored in intermediate reservoirs. The reclaimed water usually spends long periods
in the distribution system; when the reclaimed water still has a high organic load, problems such as
enhanced biofilm growth and, under certain circumstances, build-up of hydrogen sulphide can be very
severe. Biofouling presents a serious environmental nuisance, particularly to the application of reclaimed
water in irrigation systems. Besides the fouling of water distribution systems, clogging of drip irrigation
and possibly changes in water flow in the soil can also occur.
In non-potable urban applications, there is the need to introduce a dual system for separate non-potable
water distribution in parallel with the potable water distribution. Although the quality of the water can be
in some schemes as high as that of drinking water, concerns about cross-connections are all in all a major
attention point (see Chapter 19). Moreover, as the requested reclaimed water quality standards are usually
very high (see Chapter 21), small deterioration of the water quality in the distribution systems raises
additional concerns about regulatory compliance. The cost of piping, challenges and difficulties in fitting
additional buried utilities into crowded utility corridors is often a deciding factor in assessing the project
feasibility.
The distribution of industrial water reuse can be considered as less problematic than that of agricultural
irrigation and urban applications: industrial reuse projects are generally characterised by a more limited
number of off-takers, and the distances between reclaimed water facilities and the industrial areas are
generally more limited (wastewater treatment plants are often located nearby industrial estates).
423
17.2 BASIC ASPECTS
17.2.1 Water quality deterioration in RWDS

Figure 17.1 illustrates the major risk factors that can be encountered in operating a RWDS.
Figure 17.1 Risk factors in RWDS (adapted from Sadiq et al., 2004) a
It is obvious that the changes in the physical, chemical and microbiological quality of reclaimed water
along a RWDS depend on the quality of the reclaimed water at the WWTP exit. Table 17.1 shows the
parameters that influence the microbial proliferation in the RWDS.
Table 17.1 Parameters that can influence microbial growth in RWDS

Parameters
The retention time in the DS, the hydraulic conditions
The reclaimed water temperature
The pH of the reclaimed water
The concentration of nutrients
The aeration conditions in the system
The initial physical, chemical and microbial characteristics of the treated water
The RWDS construction material (roughness)
The RWDS condition (the biofilm attachment possibilities are higher in older and rougher systems)
Source: Levi (2004)
Results of two recent studies that dealt with the water quality deterioration in RWDS are summarized in
BOX 17.1. The first is a study on physico-chemical changes of reclaimed water in RWDS in Crete
(Manios et al., 2006), and the second is a literature review on microbial characterization of water quality
in RWDS that was conducted by AWWA Research Foundation (2005).
a
Although these considerations were written mainly for drinking water distribution systems, they are true for effluent distribution
pipe-lines too.
424
BOX 17.1: water quality deterioration in RWDS: two assessments
STUDY 1 - Reclaimed water quality changes in the RWDS at Hersonissos, Crete

(Manios et al., 2006)
At the Hersonissos water reclamation scheme (50,000 PE), located 20 km west of Heraklion, reclaimed
water is being used in olive tree irrigation. Secondary treated effluent is filtrated and chlorinated (5-8
mg/L chlorine) to obtain an effluent with COD and TSS concentrations of respectively 80 mg/L and 5-25
mg/L. In 3 out of 10 samples (mainly during the summer season where the plant receives 200% excess
wastewater flow) the COD was higher than 80 mg/L. The TSS was mostly around 5 mg/L with some
values around 30 mg/L. These effluents are distributed into two irrigation zones (low and high irrigation
zones – LIZ and HIZ) from a 300 m3 storage tank and a pumping station. The main pipe is 3.2 km long
and is made of PVC, and the secondary pipeline network supplying effluents to the fields is 15 km. long
(also made PVC). The secondary distribution in the two zones is done through two other storage tanks
(LIZ -800 m3, HIZ – 220 m3). There are 45 irrigation outlets and 32 fire hydrants along the two
distribution networks. Sampling was performed in 18 outlets and the three tanks.
The COD, E. Coli and pH values did not change drastically along the distribution system during the
monitoring period. The TSS was the only factor that substantially increased (possibly caused by corrosion
by-products and biofilm growth, but this was not quantified).
STUDY 2 - Microbial characterization of water quality in RWDS at seven water

reclamation schemes (AWWARF, 2005)
A 12-month field monitoring program on seven RWDS indicated that the quality of the reclaimed water
deteriorated due either to the treatment effectiveness, disinfection effectiveness or fouling by extraneous
material of partly open reservoirs where the sampling was performed (bird droppings, dust, etc.). In two
of these systems, the free residual chlorine concentration was insufficient. In those cases where ammonia
was not removed during the activated sludge process, the obtained disinfectant was mainly chloramine
which is a relatively weak disinfectant and thus higher doses should be needed (see. Chapter 8).
Moreover, the measurements at the end point of the distribution systems confirmed that the organic matter
and nutrients caused biofilm growth (the free chlorine was depleted in some cases). Low residual chlorine
levels reflected higher cell counts and total coliform levels than in the samples collected at the treatment
plant, where the chlorine (total and/or free) levels were higher. Heterotrophic plate counts higher than
1,000 CFU / 100 mL were found to be as indicators of poor quality water.
A survey of 85 reclaimed water utilities was also conducted as part of the project. Most utilities
participating to the survey used filtration of secondary wastewater effluents, followed by disinfection. The
most common problem encountered was loss of disinfectant residual in the distribution system. The
maintenance of a minimum concentration of 0.2 mg/L chlorine throughout the distribution system, or
greater depending on site specific problems (the amount of biofilm), was suggested to maintain a good
bacterial quality. Most utilities did not report any microbial problems, but approximately 25% had
problems such as clogging of sprinkler heads and odours. Similar problems are emphasized with
another case study in section 17.8 (Dan Region reclamation project). Cryptosporidium and Giardia were
detected in both plant effluent (prior to distribution) and at sampling points in the distribution systems.
Cryptosporidium was found more often in plant effluent while Giardia in the distribution system.
425
Biofilm formation in RWDS

Biofilm is an organic polymer gel composed of microbiologically produced exopolysaccharides (EPS),
with living micro and macro-organisms trapped in it (Characklis et al., 1981). Biofilm forms when
bacteria adhere to surface in aqueous environments and begin to excrete a slimy glue-like substance that
can anchor them to all kinds of material (metals, plastics, soil particle). Biofilm growing in drinking water
or reclaimed water distribution systems can harbour pathogenic organisms, corrosive organisms or
bacteria that degrade the aesthetic quality of the water (Payment et al., 2004; Levi, 2004). Also, it
hampers the performance and the longevity of the equipments in which they occur, reduces heat transfer
or hydraulic pressure and causes increased friction or complete blockage of pipes.
Figure 17.2 shows a conceptual flow sheet for biofilm formation and the consequences of biofilms in pipe
- lines. The case study in Section 17.7 illustrates this concept.
Figure 17.2 Conceptual flow sheet for biofilm formation (Aharoni and Cikurel,
2004)
Effluent
Hot wheather
composition
Microbial growth
in inner pipe walls
Reduced
conveyance
capacity and
Higher pumping system reliability
costs
Factors that contribute to the biofilm formation are the presence of microbial nutrients in the reclaimed
water, the characteristics of pipe wall such as roughness, the presence of microbial and physico-chemical
quality of the reclaimed water entering the system, including water temperature and pH, low chlorine
level in water and the velocity of the water.
The rate of biofilm formation depends upon the chemical – thermodynamic properties of the interface, the
physical roughness of the surface and the physiological characteristics of the attached microorganisms.
Biofilm structure – the biofilm structure is often imagined as a coating of a single bacterial species with
its biopolymer, but in reality it is much more complex because it is highly channelized, formed by many
species of bacteria, as well as fungi, algae, protozoa, insects, molluscs, debris and corrosion products
(Levi, 2004). The major biofilm organic mass could come from macro invertebrates that can cause,
together with the excreted EPS, a voluminous biofilm and cause an increase in the frictional resistance to
flow (see case study Dan Region in Section 17.7).
426
Biofilm stability - Biofilm is most stable when conditions in the ambient water are stable. Changes in
ionic strength, pH or temperature will all destabilize biofilm. The biofilm allows enzymes to accumulate
and act on food substrates without being washed away as they would be in the bulk water. When one
species can use the metabolic products of another, their colonies will often be found adjacent to one
another within the biofilm (Flemming et al., 1991). An example of this type of cooperation occurs in
Microbiological Induced Corrosion (MIC) where one can find Desulfovibrio, Thiobacillus and Gallionella
forming a miniature ecosystem within a corrosion pit.
Clogging capacity - In section 17.8 a case study illustrates the study of clogging capacity of effluents.
Also, attachment of algae or invertebrate pest such as midge larvae on biofilm matrix, influences the
water flow rates and accelerates the fouling. Midge larvae (Chironomus spp.) build habitat tubes that
result in significant increase in friction.
Biofilm-induced corrosion - In addition to affecting the heat transfer efficiency or fouling, it had been
related that the growth of bacteria and formation of biofilms induce corrosion also called MIC
(Microbiologically Induced or Influenced Corrosion). Microorganism corrosion is an electro-chemical
corrosion, where the presence of microorganisms influences the process in its creation (exchange of
electrons from the metal surface for example by an oxidizing - bacteria to a cathode) or its acceleration
(accumulation of acidic metabolic products near the metal surface) (Flemming et al., 1991).
As part of the RWDS, effluent reservoirs provide a special aquatic environment in which physical and
biological processes affect water quality and influence the reservoir effluent characteristics (see Chapter
15). These characteristics, especially algae, can lead to clogging problems. Irrigation uses can suffer very
much of it.
Biofilm dynamics - Monitoring of biofilm development has revealed two distinct periods, namely a
biofilm formation period (young biofilm) and a mature biofilm stage period (Cikurel et al., 2002). In each
growth stage, there is a domination of either the attachment effect or the detachment effect. The net
balance determines the accumulation rate in different seasons (see Figure 17.3).
Figure 17.3 Attachment, detachment and accumulation of Biofilm (adapted from

Flemming, 1991)
Time
Initial Primary Climax

Attachment Colonization Community
Flow velocity
Sloughing
Biocicle
Temperature
Attachment
Detachment Succession
Competition
Active Growth
Grazing
Biofilm
Substrate (Pipe wall)
427
H2S and the presence of NO3 in long effluent carrying pipe -lines
Sulphide production does not take place if dissolved oxygen (DO) or another more thermodynamically
favoured electron acceptor (e.g. nitrate), are present in the water. The occurrence of a nitrification in the
pipe could inhibit the generation of sulphide. Ammonia nitrogen is considered as a pollutant, and
normally a reduction in concentration is attempted before its release into the environment. However, when
wastewater is destined for agricultural reuse, the nitrogen content can be useful as a nutrient for crops.
From the point of view of disinfection, the ammonia nitrogen increases the chlorine requirements for
disinfection (formation of chloramine, see Chapter 8). Hence, the knowledge of nitrogen removal kinetics
during wastewater transportation is in this case very important, since nitrification/denitrification processes
may produce gas (N2) that may affect the hydrodynamics of the pipe.
Introduction of fresh water saturated with oxygen can help produce more nitrates and inhibit H2S.
17.2.2 Head losses

The head-loss as a function of flow rate in a given pipe with known length and diameter can be evaluated
by the Hazen-Williams coefficient. Note that this coefficient is not a physical value. The correlation is:
C = {1.131109 * L * Q1.852 * D-4.87 / H * 100}1 / 1.852
Where:
L = Pipe length (m)
Q = Water flow rate (m3/hr)
D = Pipe diameter (mm)
H = Head –loss (cm)
Examples:
Example 1 - For a given length (7000 m) and pipe diameter (1331 mm), at the same flow rate (13,200
m³/h), a dynamic head-loss of 21.3 m is obtained for a clean pipe (Hazen–Williams Coefficient C = 142)
as compared to 41 m for a fouled pipe (C = 100). Taking into account the static head-loss, an excess of
32% of energy is required.
Example 2 - For a given head-loss (21.3 m), with the same diameter and length of pipe, the flow obtained
in a clean pipe (C = 142) is about 13,200 m³/h as compared to only 9,350 m³/h in a fouled pipe (C = 100).
This means a 29% decrease in flow rate at same applied energy level.
17.3 PLANNING ASPECTS RELATED TO RWDS

RWDS networks, as any other piped network, are designed to meet peak demands; in parts of the network
this creates low-flow conditions that can contribute to the deterioration of microbial and chemical water
quality. While unrestricted non-potable uses require high-quality reclaimed water and the design and
operation of piped networks for RWDS in those cases are similar in many aspects to drinking water
distribution systems, restricted reclaimed water uses raise particular concerns about the RWDS, which is
more prone to microbial proliferation. Consequently case-specific infrastructural, non-structural and
managerial requirements for the RWDS should be developed.
428
Bulk water decay characteristics and the interactions between pipe walls and bulk water increase with
detention time. On the other hand, rapid or extreme fluctuations in flow velocities should be avoided, as
surges can loosen pipe-wall deposits. Sudden valve closures can create rapid changes in water velocity
that result in pressure transients that can travel throughout a distribution system and cause low or negative
pressures, leading to possible contamination of distribution system waters. Pressure transients may be
initiated by regular water distribution system operations. Guidelines for assessing system susceptibility
and developing a Surge Control Program are given in (Ainsworth, 2004). Good practices in designing and
operating of piped networks are provided in Chambers et al. (2004). An overview of some global issues
for designing and operating a distribution network - that are common to drinking water distribution
systems and RWDS - are given in Table 17.2.
Table 17.2 Issues for designing and operating a distribution network

Issues (Chambers et al., 2004) Water reclamation-specific considerations
Minimise transit times and minimise/avoid low flows and pressures. This
Design and operation of piped may require pressure boosting at strategic locations in the network. Avoid
networks as much as possible intermittent supply and minimize the associated health
risks.
In order to regulate the supply and demand of the reclaimed water,
operational reservoirs and seasonal reservoirs (open or closed) have to be
Design and operation of service
planned. In open reservoirs, supply some filtration and chlorination at the
reservoirs
exit of the reservoir to maintain good water quality. Fully-mixed flow
should be used if possible.
Perform risk assessments of all operational activities that may affect water
Risk assessment of operational
quality and ensure that documented procedures are used by all those that
activities
are involved.
At the start of the irrigation (Spring) season booster chlorination (50 mg/L)
Controlling disinfectant residuals by
applied as plug flow to clean the long standing lines and the lines are
booster (relay) dosing
flushed with effluents
In dual systems for urban reuse and in agricultural irrigation where
drinking water is still used for different irrigation purposes, design and
Cross-connections and backflow
implement means to avoid cross connections and backflow prevention
devices should be operated.
Adapted from Chambers et al. (2004)
17.3.1 Planning of Dual distribution systems

During the design phase, impact on existing and adjacent pipelines may not be given sufficient weight.
However, the design of the needs during maintenance repairs, where most common pipeline failures
occur, will emphasize the need to look for the pipeline separation aspect more deeply. Contamination of
pipeline contents can result in unacceptable risk to public health and safety. While complete rupture or
collapse of the dual system is not necessary to cause concern, the process of excavating one pipeline to
repair a leak creates the risk of complete failure of adjacent pipelines (Riley, 2005).
Most urbanized areas do not provide sufficient space in buried pipeline corridors to provide the standard
separation distances, special construction methods can be used to assure equivalent levels of protection
and safety. The special construction methods are necessary whenever the standard horizontal and vertical
separations cannot be maintained along the pipeline route. There are many common methods in use today,
which are summarised in Riley (2005).
429
A number of dual pipe reticulation systems have been operating in Australia for some time including the
Rouse Hill Scheme in Sydney and the Sydney Olympic Park scheme with planning under way for a
number of schemes in different states of Australia. A case study of the Rouse Hill Scheme is given in
Chapter 19 and failures of the distribution system through cross connection are reported in De Rooy and
Engelbrecht (2003) and Fairbairn (2005). Listowski in Muston (2004) outlined the management and
comprehensive inspection regime that was used to mange the risk of cross connection at Sydney Olympic
Park. In spite of the extensive inspection regime and public information programs undertaken there have
been instances of cross connection leading to reclaimed water being supplied from the potable system in
both these schemes and the practice of maintaining reclaimed water quality at a sufficient standard to
prevent any acute disease or other health impact is essential to management of the risks posed by potential
cross connection. This approach is reflected in the NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential Use of
Reclaimed Water and the draft National Guidelines for Water Recycling Australian Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council and Environment Protection and Heritage Council (2005), which take a
risk management approach to the determining of water quality and management of barriers in reuse
schemes.
Design and installation reference guide for pipeline separation

Even when best design practices are applied, pipelines will eventually corrode, leak and fail. The
guidelines for adequate separation between pipelines offer additional protection from both from incidental
damages that may occur during repairs and the leakage cross-contamination. Table 17.3 summarizes the
pipeline separation standards in effect in several States in the US.
Table 17.3 Pipe- line separation standards in the US (Adapted from Riley, 2005)
Drinking water/ Drinking water/ Reclaimed water/
STATE Notes
Sanitary sewer Reclaimed water Sanitary sewer
10 ft horizontal or 3 ft If reclaimed water is below
Utah 10 ft horizontal 10 ft horizontal
horizontal or above sewer
Sewer and water line cannot
Oklahoma 10 ft horizontal 5 ft horizontal Not addressed
occupy same trench
Refer to Cal –Nevada Refer to Cal –Nevada
If unable to meet separation;
10 ft horizontal AWWA Guidelines AWWA Guidelines for
California separation as far as possible
& 1 ft vertical for Distribution of Distribution of Non –
in separate trenches
Non –Potable Water Potable Water
10 ft horizontal
3 ft outside to outside Maximum obtainable
Not is same
of pipe, 18 inches 3 ft outside to outside separation possible water
Georgia trench with
from bottom of water of pipe sewer separations less than
sewer
and top of reuse 10 ft – case by case review
430
Drinking water/ Drinking water/ Reclaimed water/

STATE Notes
Sanitary sewer Reclaimed water Sanitary sewer
9 ft outside to
Not specifically Not specifically Parallel installations require
Texasb outside in all
addressed addressed separate trenches
directions
In order to cross under a stream or railroad and highway, Riley (2005) recommends utility channels where
all utilities (electrical cable, telecommunications cable, natural gas pipeline, sanitary sewer, storm water,
potable water and reclaimed water pipes are separately placed (see Figure 17.4).
Figure 17.4 Underground utility tunnel for adequate separation of dual systems
(redrawn from Riley, 2005)
6” Natural Gas Pipeline

Casing with Electical and
Telecommunications Cable
16” Potable water pipe

in welde steel casing 12” Reclaimed water line
Tunnel or boring casing

filled with lean concred
CDF, grout or bentonite
Potable and reclaimed water
welded steel casing
8” Sanitary sewer
12” Storm sewer
Underground Utility Tunnel
17.3.2 RWDS costs

Generally speaking, RWDS are the most capital-intensive unit of water reclamation schemes. It is not
exceptional that they account for 70% or more of the initial capital investment (AQUAREC, 2004).
Beside the fact that a duplication of the distribution networks is required for a number of reuse
applications, corrosion-resistant materials is usually needed in order to counter the corrosive effects of
brackish water. Such materials are generally more expensive than conventional materials (except for some
items, common to both conventional and reclaimed water applications, such as PVC or polyethylene pipes
and fittings).
b
Texas special conditions Non-pressure sewers: PE determination of no leaks; water 2 ft above, minimum 4 ft horizontal. New
waterline: minimum 150 psi pressure rated pipe; water 2 ft above, minimum 4 ft horizontal. Crossings: water 2 ft above sewer; if
sewer leaking – replace 9 ft either side of water (18’ total) with 150 psi rates pipe; New water line installation above sewer –
segment centred over sewer 9 ft to joint both directions; New water over existing non pressure sewer – water centred over sewer,
sewer to have minimum pipe stiffness of 150 psi at 5% deflection, sewer embedded in cement stabilized sand [2½ bags cementer
per cubic yard of mixture] 6 inches above and 4 inches below sewer
431
BOX 17.2: Costs of the distribution system of the Dan Region Water Reclamation
Project, Israel
The RWDS of the Dan Region Water Reclamation Scheme, Israel (the project is introduced in Chapter
14) is composed of a distribution line of 87 km and several seasonal and operative reservoirs, as well as a
pumping system after operational reservoirs and distribution system to end – users. The costs for storage
and conveyance to the irrigation points are in the same range than those for wastewater treatment and
reclamation, i.e. in the range of 0.21-0.25 €/m3, the total cost for water reclamation and conveyance being
about 0.45-0.50 €/m3. The capital investment is responsible of 30% of the costs while 70% is related to
labour and maintenance:
• Capital costs for piping and pumping stations:
• piping for 36 – 44” SS pipes: 345 €/m
• Piping for 70” cement coated SS pipes: 862 €/m
• Energy for the distribution system: ± 1.42 kWh/m3
• Labour costs for the O&M of the distribution system: ± 10 full-time equivalents only for the
workers, i.e. not including the administrative staff and engineers.
Open reservoir for unrestricted irrigation water storage: as an example, a 150,000 m3 cost 1 Million € (not
including the land price and indemnities for the growers). N.B. In hilly regions the cost is 2 –3 times higher.
Construction in regions based on clay soils is more expensive than loess soils.
For further details regarding the Dan Region Scheme please refer to Chapter 14 for the water reclamation
technology, Chapter 18 for the monitoring programme and to Chapter 20 for the end-use specifications.
The development or retrofit costs inside the end use property in many cases are also far from negligible.
The costs for dual plumbing for reuse purposes in two high rise buildings are given in Table 17.4.
Table 17.4 Cost of dual plumbing systems in RWDS (Asano, 1998)

COSTS ($) Building A Building B
Total cost of building 14,091,000 28,240,000
Total costs of plumbing systems 358,000 717,470
Incremental costs for dual plumbing 32,000 64,130
Percentage increase in total building cost for dual plumbing 0.23%
Percentage increase in total plumbing system cost for dual plumbing 8.94%
High volume water use surcharge fee deferred because of dual plumbing 35,110

The different elements that form RWDS are similar to the drinking water system and include pumps,
pipes, valves, intermediate storage reservoirs, equipment for chemical or physical zooplankton and algal
growth prevention methods in reservoirs, monitors for emitters or drippers clogging, sand detectors, sand
traps (hydro-cyclones) at the pumping stations, and control filters used in parallel to monitor irrigation
systems clogging.
432
There is however a certain number of items that differentiates them. These items are mostly related to the
requirements for physical separation, identification, and the limitations applied on its use near drinking
water sources to prevent leaks to be mixed with drinking water. Major differences include (Chambers et
al., 2004):
Pipes and pipe construction material

The pipelines in RWDS are similar to drinking water pipelines, with adjustments to accommodate
differences in water quality, the need to protect public health, and differences in demand patterns for
reclaimed water.
One important aspect is the colour coding for easy identification of the pipes carrying reclaimed effluents
and proper signs indicating the presence of such pipe lines. In Australia all pipes and taps must be colour
coded and/or signs marked ‘EFFLUENT - NOT FOR DRINKING’ plus international diagram signs for
non-English speakers may be necessary. Taps should be childproof to prevent children from drinking non-
potable water and signs should be visible from the main point of access advising the type of reuse and any
relevant restrictions to the public (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2004).
Moreover, treated water conveyed through a piped network is exposed to numerous surfaces. It is
important that no construction materials placed in contact with the RWDS promote microbial growth or
affect the chemical quality of the reclaimed water.
Backflow prevention devices

The most common backflow prevention devices used in RWDS are.
• Air gap - suitable for use in high, medium or low-hazard conditions.
• Break tank - suitable for use in high, medium or low-hazard conditions.
• Mechanical control valves - are subject to wear and eventual failure. An inspection and
maintenance program is usually required. The following are types of mechanical backflow
prevention devices that are typically installed downstream of the meter or stop valve at the
property boundary:
1. The dual check valve - designed for use in low hazard conditions. The device is non testable
and typically installed in domestic or residential water services or for dual systems in houses.
2. The double check valve - designed for use in medium-hazard conditions. This is a testable
device and is typically used in smaller industrial or commercial water services.
3. The double check detector assembly - also designed for use in medium-hazard conditions.
This is a testable device intended for use with fire services; it allows monitoring or metering
of small draw-off of water for general use within the property.
4. The reduced pressure zone assembly (RPZA) - designed for use in high-hazard conditions.
This is a testable device and is typically used in industrial water services.
433
Reclaimed water storage reservoirs

The design of reclaimed water storage reservoirs, both open and closed, is based on the same hydraulic
principles and structural calculations as the drinking water reservoirs. The differences are primarily in
seasonal or daily use schedule calculations, water quality, frequency of cleaning and monitoring
requirements. For details about the construction and operational requirements of reclaimed water
reservoirs see Chapter 15 on Operation, maintenance and quality control of Reclaimed Water Storage
Reservoirs (RWSR).
Some equipment used in chemical control methods (copper sulphate spraying on the reservoirs surface)
and physical control methods (ultrasonic methods) for prevention of zooplankton and algal growth are
given in Figure 17.5.
Figure 17.5 Equipment used in chemical or physical methods for Zooplankton and
algal removal (Mekorot, 2005)
The requirement to maintain a chlorine residual in most urban reuse applications, primarily for
management of the risk of pathogen regrowth, has the added benefit of reducing the potential for biofilm
growth in the distribution system. Water quality requirements normally result in lower levels of nutrients
in the reclaimed water for urban uses and this reduces the potential for biofilm growth. Biofilms are
however a potential problem in any potable or non-potable urban distribution system and may require
continual maintenance such as regular flushing and where necessary pigging or air scouring of pipes and
cleaning of storage reservoirs that have excessive biofilm build up.

The O&M of the water distribution system includes maintenance of pipes, storage tanks and pumps that
convey water from the treatment location to customers. Activities that are part of the O&M include:
• Cross connection control and backflow prevention
• Water pipe flushing
• Water main repair/replacement
434
• Storage tank maintenance
• Pump maintenance
Four major aspects to be considered for operating the distribution system to preserve water quality include
(see Section 17.2 for explanation):
1. Minimizing detention time.
2. Maintaining positive pressure
3. Controlling the direction and velocity of bulk water.
4. Choice and O&M of the disinfection method (see Chapter 7)
BOX 17.3: Good practices in RWDS

Good practice #1 Injection of fresh water saturated in dissolved oxygen (DO)
Good practice#2 – careful site-specific planning considerations
Good practice #3 - To maintain distribution lines free of biofouling it is advised to maintain distribution
system residual through booster chlorination
Good practice #4 - The clogging capacity of the effluents from reclaimed effluent reservoirs can be
effectively reduced by biological control, chemical treatment and physical methods
Good practice #5 - proper scheduling of the addition of effluents to reservoirs and retention time, proper
management of water level.
Good practice #1 Injection of fresh water saturated in dissolved oxygen (DO) to improve reclaimed
wastewater quality during transportation (reduction in salinity and organic matter content). The DO
injected with the fresh water provokes a nitrification/denitrification process. The appearance of oxidized
nitrogen compounds inhibits the generation of sulphide, and the reduction in ammonia nitrogen content
results in a less chemical products requirement for disinfection.
Good practice#2 - Before starting to construct reclaimed water pipeline it is advised:
• To check the location of non-potable reclaimed water pipelines relative to existing potable
pipelines.
• To map the existing water distribution systems and isolate non-potable and potable uses in each of
the potential customers to be connected to the reclaimed water network.
• To ensure that the customer has enough storage capacity, in case of seasonal agricultural
irrigation of sensitive crops, at least for 24 hours in case of discontinuation of the distribution.
• To obtain the necessary approval for the design from the local and state agencies.
• To check for cross connections in a regular basis.
Good practice #3 - To maintain distribution lines free of biofouling it is advised to maintain distribution
system residual through booster chlorination (Uber, 2003). Disinfectants are used to prevent waterborne
diseases caused by different pathogenic organisms that could be present in reclaimed effluent sometimes
due to re-growth and day- light or dark reactivation of the already disinfected microorganisms.
435
Until recently a constant dose of strong disinfectant like chlorine was kept for this purpose and also for
the purpose of preventing biofilm formation along the pipelines. The recent knowledge on disinfection
by–products (DBPs), lead to discontinuation of this practice and to the use of booster chlorination.
New regulatory frameworks require a disinfection residual in the RWDS. For instance, in Israel the
Halperin Committee guidelines (1999) require 1 mg/l of chlorine or another method which gives the same
disinfection effect. Adequate disinfection is to be provided at the WWTP and the lines are chlorinated by
relatively high doses of chlorine at given intervals (more frequently in the summer) to keep them free of
biofilm. During this booster chlorination the lines are isolated and after the treatment well flushed before
restarting the distribution system. This way, high doses are prevented to reach the irrigation systems and
prevent damage to the crops or plants.
Free chlorine in DOC containing effluents may be used up by forming organic chloro-compounds so in
cases where the denitrification was complete to maintain a stable chloramine residual along the lines (like
it is practiced in drinking water), an ammonium residual can be maintained that will ensure formation of
chloramine. In partially denitrified reclaimed water the residual is formed in-situ.
Systematic cleaning of biofilm in pipes can be performed by filling the pipeline with a suitable biocide
(chlorine, chloramine) at high concentrations (100-200 mg/L) and letting it stand for 8-24 hours. The line
is then washed at high velocity for a certain time (0.5 –1 hr.) to clean the remaining loose biofilm from the
system. Regular preventive maintenance is performed by injecting lower concentrations (10-15 mg/L) of
the same biocides for 2-3 hrs a day 5-7 times a week in the hot summer season, and 1-2 times a week in
the cold season.
Good practice #4 - The clogging capacity of the effluents from reclaimed effluent reservoirs can be
effectively reduced by (see also Chapter 17):
• Biological control (bio-manipulation): Filter feeding fish (silver carp, big-head carp or their
hybrids)
• Chemical treatment: Chlorine (liquid or gas), CuSO4 (see also Figure 17.6 for the nozzles
used in air-planes that spread the chemicals).
• Physical methods: Ultrasonic equipment used on the surface of the reservoirs algae and
zooplankton growth.
17.5.1 Non aggressive pipe cleaning methods

The most commonly used cleaning methods for routine maintenance are flushing, air scouring and
swabbing (Chambers et al., 2004). Other, more abrasive, methods are available for cleaning pipes before
the renovation of water mains by coating with spray-on protective linings such as cement mortar or epoxy
resin, or before the insertion of pipe liners such as polyethylene. Examples are high-pressure water jetting,
power boring with metal flails, and abrasive pigging devices (Chambers et al., 2004). The characteristics
of these non-aggressive cleaning methods are summarized in Table 17.5.
436
Table 17.5 Characteristics of the non-aggressive pipe cleaning methods.

(Vitanage et al., 2004)
Flushing Air scouring Swabbing
Up to 150 mm in high
Pipe sizes Up to 200 mm Normally up to 1000 mm
pressure areas
Plant and materials Hoses for disposal of large Air scouring rig and Swabs, swab locators
water volumes compressor
Existing hydrants usually Additional hydrants, Insertion points on larger
System modifications employed valves and injection pipes
points may be needed
Of limited use in low More effective than Blockages may occur if swab
pressure areas, potential to flushing and can be used lost
Comments create extensive disturbance in low-pressure areas
that may not be removed via
flushing hydrant
Air scouring involves the controlled injection of filtered, compressed air into pipes, usually via a hydrant.
Given a continuous supply of water and air in the right proportions, discrete “slugs” of water are formed
in the main and driven along by the compressed air at high velocity. There is no need to turn the water or
air on and off to achieve this effect. This is illustrated in Figure 17.6. The high velocity slugs tend to lift
up silt and sediment from the base of the pipe. Air-scouring companies do not claim that the process
removes much, if any, biofilm from the walls of the pipe. Achieving the right conditions whereby high
velocity ‘slugs’ are propelled through the pipe-work is a skilled task, and normally undertaken by a
specialist team. Alternate slugs of air and water, along with loose sediments, are ejected from the hydrant
(or other fixture) at the end of the pipe being cleaned. It is very important to get all the compressed air out
of the pipe before it is returned to service, to avoid unstable flows and cloudy water.
Figure 17.6 Achieving slug flow during air scoring (Vitanage et al., 2004)
Boomen et al. (2004) proposes guidelines for the implementation of self-cleaning distribution networks
for drinking water in the Netherlands. Boomen et al. (2004) found out that the self-cleaning minimum
velocity should be 0.4 m/sec.
437
Figure 17.7 Sand trap for DS lines clogging prevention (Mekorot, 2005)
17.5.2 Drip irrigation systems

The reclaimed water that is used for park irrigation and agricultural irrigation is often applied through drip
irrigation systems. Due to their small diameters, drippers and emitters are vulnerable to clogging by
effluent constituents and specially, by algae from reservoirs. Proper filtration and chemical oxidation
methods are used to prevent such clogging (Rav-Acha et al., 1995).
17.5.3 Options for controlling regrowth

Options for controlling regrowth including regulating detention time, flushing, and optimization of
disinfectants are discussed in AWWARF (2005). Table 17.6 summarizes the recommendations to mitigate
different microbial and other problems encountered during the survey of 7 utilities for reclaimed water
production.
Table 17.6 Summary of case studies for microbial problems and mitigation
techniques (AWWARF, 2005)
Utility Microbial or other concerns Potential mitigation
Disinfection optimization in the exit of the

Increasing microbial levels in RWDS
plant and distribution systems
Post –distribution treatment for THM to be
Trihalomethane (THM) concentrations
I considered
Sprinkler head clogging Shock chlorination or intermittent chloramine
(in-situ if ammonia in effluents present)
Over-sized distribution pipes
disinfection
Unstable DS water quality and poorer quality when non-
nitrified water supplied (weak chloramine instead Consider single nitrified/denitrified source
chlorine as disinfectant)
II
Algicide application or nutrient optimization
Algal growth in open reservoirs
in WWTP
Sediment accumulation in distribution lines Flushing of the lines
438
Utility Microbial or other concerns Potential mitigation
Loss of chlorine residual and increase in total coliforms

III Booster chlorination
in RWDS
Free chlorine residuals decreased significantly while
HPC increases significantly in DS. Also significant
IV Biofilm control, flushing of lines.
decreases in TOC, orthophosphates between the WWTP
exit and 2 terminal ends
Optimization of disinfection and residual
V High HPC and total coliform in the RWDS
chlorine
HPC increase in each of the system reservoirs
Implement non-routine monitoring program to
downstream of the plant. Although a 1 mg/L residual
evaluate residuals between the predetermined
chlorine was maintained in predetermined sampling
VI sampling points
points
Higher zinc concentrations measured at the furthest Implement biofilm control program and start
reservoir as compared to WWTP exit to use corrosion inhibitors
Fluctuations in biofilm mass not correlated with the
residual chlorine concentration. Likely the result of Flush the distribution system
biofilm mass sloughing from the pipe walls
VII Optimize tertiary treatment (improve filtration
Giardia detected in 4 of 6 samples from the plant and in efficiency, check Particle Size and Number
3 DS samples from the filter exit and correlate particle
breakthrough to filter run length
17.5.4 Monitoring and control

In Israel, it is a common practice in distribution lines and reservoirs to conduct the sampling and control
monthly, with sampling and analysis of the disinfectant content daily. An evaluation of the quality of
water in the whole reservoir requires sampling at different depths. The laboratory analyses verify the
compliance to the local Health Ministry regulations both for residual chlorine concentration and microbial
quality after disinfection of the distributed reclaimed water.
Analyses performed are mainly faecal coli and chlorine residual. Twice a year, metal analyses are
performed on the reclaimed water. in addition, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphates and chlorides, detergents,
bicarbonates, hardness, conductivity, COD, BOD are checked once a month in the reservoir and once
every irrigation season in the peripheral reservoirs. Algae, zooplankton are checked once a month and also
when clogging problems are encountered (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004). The reader is also referred to
Chapter 14 for SAT treated effluent distribution system monitoring and control and Chapter 18 for
Monitoring and Control methods.
Figure 17.8 shows monitoring equipment for the biofilm formation in irrigation lines. The headloss
measured for a pipe with specific diameter and length can represent a certain clogging level. Figure 17.9
shows a detector of sand in distribution lines. Figure 17.10 shows a wire filter installed in parallel to a
main irrigation pipeline using reclaimed water to monitor the degree of possible clogging in minor
irrigation lines.
439
Figure 17.8 Monitoring of clogging of irrigation systems by headloss

measurement for a determined time (Mekorot, 2005)
Figure 17.9 Sand- detectors (Mekorot, 2005)
Figure 17.10 Control filter used as biofilm monitor (Mekorot, 2005)
440
17.6 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Most of the maintenance program in RWDS to keep biofilm-free lines is based on chlorination. Due to
latest objection to chlorination new methods for biofilm removal will have to be investigated. Special
attention can be given to pipe construction materials that do not allow biofilm formation.
Managing water age is another important operational aspect that ensures the delivery of odour-free
reclaimed water that meets the required quality standards. In addition to implementing a flushing and
superchlorination strategy, a number of different options are available to address this issue, including
(Jew, 2005):
• Strategic placement of re-chlorination stations within the system
• System Looping
• Decreasing pipe diameter size
• Combination Solution
• Switchover of a customer back to the potable system.
The selection between these options has to be made on a case-by-case basis, and will depend on available
resources and other policy considerations. A methodology is needed that integrates the evaluation of these
management options both in design of new RWDS and rehabilitation of existing systems. Furthermore,
since the combination solution has the potential to achieve the desired objectives at a least cost,
optimisation is also needed due to the large number of management alternatives.
Also, limited literature is available that focus specifically on RWDS. More evaluation of reclaimed water
quality in RWDS should be performed and documented. There are specific needs for more
microbiological identification. Also the role of biofilm formed on the pipe surfaces to the pathogenic
bacteria regrowth in RWDS should be further investigated.
17.7.1 Biofilm cleaning and prevention in effluent

distribution lines at the Dan Region Scheme
The Dan Region Reclamation Project is the largest wastewater treatment and reclamation project in Israel
and the reclamation step produces an almost drinking water quality (see Chapter 15). The water produced
is pumped through an 87 km. long pipeline to the Southern arid part of the country where it is used for
unrestricted irrigation.
Operation and maintenance issues in distribution lines for the Dan Region project include the bio -fouling
of the effluent carrying pipelines and treatment by intermittent chlorination and mechanical cleaning
Biofilm formation in the effluent carrying pipeline to the SAT system

The secondary effluents from the WWTP are sent to the infiltration fields via industrial sized pipes. The
monitored flow and head loss, calculated as Hazen Williams Coefficient for a 1331 mm and 7 km long
effluent pipe, changed from 142 (clean pipe) to 90 (fouled pipe) in 10 years of operation of the pipe.
441
This caused a reduction in the flow of about 28 -30% (as assessed by Mekorot engineers), or the need for
30-32% of excess energy. Excess use of energy caused an increase of operational costs, and it was
estimated that effective antifouling treatment may save 10-20% of these costs.
Biofilm Removal: Pilot Trials

In a pilot plant based on five parallel 4” cement coated steel pipes (Figure 17.11), it was tested the use and
optimization of a chemical disinfectants (liquid chlorine) to prevent bio-fouling.
Figure 17.11 Pilot for biofilm in RWDS study (Cikurel et al., 2002)
The Hazen-Williams coefficient was used to evaluate the headloss as a function of flow rate in a given
pipe. To calculate the Hazen-Williams coefficient, the headloss and the flow rates at the first 9 m were
monitored and recorded in each pipe. The daily flow rate fluctuations in the 54” pipe - line were adjusted
to the pilot plants’ 4” pipes using the equal shear stress principle (Schlichting, 1968). Although the flow
velocity for the 4” pipe was calculated to be 1.4 m/sec, for economical reasons a flow of 0.5 m/sec was
used. The pilot plant was operated in two modes:
1. Removal of grown biofilm.
2. Prevention of biofilm growth.
Initially the pilot plant was run without any treatment, in order to form the biofilm. Then, different
chemical and physical treatments were applied. During the colonization period, a new phenomenon was
observed in the different transparent parts at the end of each pipe, used as observation sections. The
Chironomidae (non-biting midge), was found in the inner surface of the reclaimed water pipes, causing an
acceleration in the biofilm build upc. At first sight, mounds of biofilm were noticed in the half pipes and
strips. A closer look revealed Chironomidae in the biofilm, the mounds being caused by the thickness of
their habitat (tubes). Figure 17.12 shows the presence of Chironomidae on half-pipes and plates.
c
The high growth season of Chironomidae in Israel, as measured by outside monitoring, was reported to be May – September
and October – December (Broza et al., 2000).
442
Figure 17.12 Chironomus larvae in biofilm on half – pipe and plates (Cikurel et
al., 2002)
In a preliminary running period, the effect of mainly 10mg/L and 20mg/L mono-chloramine (in-situ by
chlorination) on the destruction of biofilm was investigated. Before the chemical treatment all pipes were
allowed to grow biofilm for a period of 15 days to get an equal starting point for the second period. The
biofilm formation rate in the pipes that received different in-situ mono-chloramine doses were compared
to the biofilm formation rate in the untreated pipe. In a third stage, the same dosages were applied for the
prevention of biofilm formation.
The headloss measurement results and other analyses results showed the following for the untreated pipe:
In a relatively cold and free of chironomidea (non-biting midges) period, the biofilm growth is slower and
is differently characterized. Filamentous type organisms develop in the absence of chironomidea and
lower macro organisms like Oligochaeta were observed. As a result, lower head loss increase was
observed (Hazen – Williams’ coefficient of 140 going down to 85 in 45 days).
In the summer (May-September) season Chironomidea was very dominant. In this season, the rate of
biofilm formation is very high. This can be illustrated by the fact that the head-loss increase resulted in a
decrease in the Hazen-Williams coefficient from 140 to 70 in fifteen days' period in the untreated pipe.
The attachment of chironomidea houses strongly affected the Hazen Williams Coefficient.
The results for the treated pipes indicated that a 10 mg/L dose of liquid chlorine at addition mode of 7
times a week 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon was able to maintain the pipe receiving
the chlorine, clean even at the hottest season (110 Hazen Williams - HzW). The chironomidea tubes that
can serve as a basis for more bacterial attachment were prevented from attaching to the pipes. The
cleanliness of the pipe was also approved by the relatively low polysaccharides and protein mass (as
mg/mm2 of pipe wall) compared to the untreated pipe.
This systematic study of the efficiency of chemical / mechanical treatments in the pilot resulted in real
scale (54” pipe) treatment of the effluent carrying pipelines.
Large - scale biofilm removal (24", 28", 40", 54” pipes)

In order to check the effectiveness of intermittent chlorine treatment to clean deposited biofilm in full
scale, new trials have been started. A general flow sheet for the different field treatments is shown in
Figure 17.13.
443
Cleaning of 24” pipe - When one of the pipelines connecting the treatment plant to the recharge basins
(24” pipeline to the old Soreq infiltration fields) was not treated to control the growth of biofilm,
biofouling created an energy loss of about 30%. After 10 years of operation, analysis of an untreated
section of 24” cement–steel effluent pipe revealed a 1 cm deep slimy biofilm, shown in Figure 17.14.
Figure 17.13 24” Diameter Cement-Steel Effluent Pipe with 10 Year Old Biofilm
Dan WWTP (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003)
The 24" pipe takes part of the Dan Region WWTP effluents through pumping unit 7 (UNIT 7 in Figure
17.15) and more effluents are pumped, to this 24” pipe, from Pump Station 6 (PS6) through valve 625.
The effluents are pumped to the Soreq infiltration fields (not directly).
The effluents flow to a pond (Pond 18) and are pumped to Soreq infiltration fields through pumping
station 5 (PS5). Usually, around 2000 – 2600 m3/h of effluents flow through this 24”pipe. The conducted
field experiment was intended for the chemical cleaning of the pipe (although actually mechanical pigging
is also applied from time to time in the 54” pipe).
444
Figure 17.14 Large –scale biofilm cleaning and prevention experiments (Cikurel
et al, 2002)
445
In this experiment, 150 -200 mg/L chlorine was used and after filling the 700m pipe with chlorine, the
pipe was closed for 24 hrs. The pipe was then, washed by 2000 m3/hr effluents for 0.5 hrs.
In a few places flow meters that can measure the effluent flow were installed. From (PU7) and from (PS6)
through valve 625. There was actually only one head-loss measurement point near (PU7). These two flow
meters and the only pressure gauge were used to calculate the HzW coefficient. Static head was measured
in all conditions and the difference gave the HzW coefficient measurement. The 24” pipe had at the start
of the trials a HzW coefficient of 75. After 6 such treatments the HzW coefficient was 86.
Chlorination of 40” pipe - A new 40” pipe has been constructed to be able to transfer excess effluents
from Yavne infiltration fields to older Sorek fields (see Figure 17.15). This pipe was not yet equipped
either by a flow meter or a pressure gauge. Therefore, only the stability of chlorine through this 1100 m
long pipe was checked at this stage.
Two major conclusions were obtained.
1. At the addition point (chlorine is added at three places by 9 different injection points) the
correlation between injected chlorine concentration and the total chlorine obtained after dilution
in pipe was:
a. Where the turbidity in the effluents was around 3. 5 NTU and the ammonia concentration was 4.1
mg/L, the correlation between injected chlorine to total chlorine was 1.8.
b. Where the turbidity in the effluents was around 2.5 NTU and the ammonia concentration was 3.5 mg/L,
the correlation between injected chlorine to total chlorine was 1.2.
2. At the injection point chlorine concentration was 13.2 mg/L and at the extremity of the 40” pipe
(1100 m), the chlorine concentration was 11.4 mg/L (total chlorine concentration), showing a
very good stability along the line for the in-situ produced mono-chloramine. The chloramine
concentration was stable (only a decrease of around 15%) due to relatively clean and new pipe
before the beginning of the trial. The treatment in that case was applied using 600m3/hr water for
1.5 hours to fill the pipe and closing the pipe for three hours. By this experiment the best
conditions for chlorine injection on a large- scale pipe were obtained.
Chlorination of 28” (old pipe, mature biofilm) - The chlorination of the old 28” pipe (see, Figure
17.15) was performed several times again to see the chlorine stability through an old and fouled pipe. A
13.8 mg/L total chlorine concentration dropped down to 7.2 mg/L in two hours, probably as a result of
reaction with the fouled pipe. Although the flow improvement was not quantified in this experiment, the
plant engineer noticed an improvement in the HzW coefficient given by increased flow capacity in a
period of few days.
In cases where the water is nutrient-rich and the biofilm has developed into a plaque-like coating, the
system often has to be flushed with both increased chlorine levels and large amounts of water to flush
away the biofilm. In extreme situations, more costly scouring programs are applied, which use mechanical
devices, often referred to as "pigging" to remove biofilm growth.
Chlorination of 54” (old pipe, mature biofilm) - In the Dan Region Reclamation Project, the Hazen
Williams coefficient of the 10 km long, 54” diameter effluent pipes changed from 140 (clean pipe) to 100
(fouled pipe) after a few weeks of operation (high fouling). A biofilm control program successfully
decreased the system head losses by about 30%. This maintenance program consisted of two stages. In the
446
first stage, the larger pipes with biofilm build-up are mechanically cleaned by pigging or chemically
cleaned by applying a high concentration of chlorine for a few hours. After the preliminary cleaning,
biofilm growth is controlled by intermittently applying chlorine-based compounds at a 10 mg/L dosage for
a few hours once or twice a week, according to the biofilm build-up rate.
Figure 17.15 shows a graph for the change in the Hazen Williams coefficient of one of the 54” pipes for
the last three years. A preliminary mechanical pigging increased the Hazen Williams coefficient from 100
to 140. Subsequently, regular dosing of a chlorine - based compound was successful in maintaining the
Hazen Williams coefficient at around 125 -130. The chemical dose and dosing frequency required to
maintain this coefficient was based on the results of a cost-benefit analysis (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003).
Figure 17.15 Effect of mechanical cleaning on the head-loss in 54” Diameter

Cement-Steel Effluent Pipe, Dan WWTP (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003)
160
150
140
130
HV coef
120
110
100
90
80
09/02/99 28/08/99 15/03/00 01/10/00 19/04/01 05/11/01 24/05/02 10/12/02
17.7.2 Water quality in park irrigation with reclaimed

water: La China WWTP, Madrid, Spain (Navarotto
et al., 2005)
In 2005 a study was carried out to evaluate the risk of using reclaimed water in public park irrigation, in
collaboration with CESPA (company responsible for urban services in Madrid) and the Med-Reunet
project.
Madrid experiences continental weather with season temperature ranging from –5ºC to 40 ºC. Madrid
City (3.7 million inhabitants) is part of the Great Madrid area (5 million inhabitants). More than 550
million m3 of wastewater are treated every year in 7 plants distributed around the city. One of the seven
wastewater treatment plants named “la China” provides reclaimed water for the irrigation of some parks
in Madrid, two of which were the object of the study, namely: “Parque del Oeste” and “Parque Tierno
Galvan”.
The secondary effluent is reclaimed in a tertiary treatment that includes sand filtration and UV
disinfection. The water transmittance of the filtered effluent is 65-70 with an average concentration of
447
suspended solids of 5 mg/L and the average BOD concentration 5 mg/L. After the UV disinfection, the
reclaimed water is sent to the main reservoirs and then delivered by for park irrigation by means of a
distribution system. The main reservoir receives chlorination. Chlorine Dioxide is used as the secondary
disinfectant (the normal doses used are 5-6 mg/L).
From the WWTP the water is pumped in the two main pipelines that deliver the reclaimed water to 8
public parks in Madrid City (see Figure 17.16).
Figure 17.16 La china WWTP and the tertiary treatment system (redrawn from
Navarotto et al., 2005)
Parque
Oeste
Parque
Galvan
Reservoir
Parks irrigated with

reclaimed water
WWTP “la China”
Studied parks
RWDS
Every park is provided with an alternative line of potable water disconnected from the main distribution
system in case of maintenance or emergency situation. Parque Tierno Galvan and Parque Oeste, the only
two with a functional automatic irrigation system are run by CESPA, and receive the recycled water from
two reservoirs situated adjacent to the “Parque Galvan” and at 3 Km from “Parque Oeste”. The storage
tanks have been designed to contain a day irrigation water volume and are provided with a chlorination
system to secure a post-disinfection if needed.
The park irrigation frequency may vary from season to season, in the summer period parks are irrigated
every day and during winter it may happen that a full month passes without the need of irrigation.
Reclaimed water irrigation is normally carried out during the night (from 12.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m.) to
minimize human contact with reclaimed water during the day.
In order to investigate the effectiveness of the disinfection system it was very important to select a list of
microorganisms that could be used as indicator of bacterial pollution of the reclaimed water. Water
samples were collected directly from sprinklers while the irrigation system was functioning. In adition to
the water sampling, soil samples of the irrigated lots were analyzed for microbial contaminant
accumulation. Soil samples were collected very close to the sprinklers. Also, aerosols from the sprinklers
448
were analyzed for bacterial contamination. Finally, the City of Madrid performs water sampling and
analysis on a daily and weekly basis at three locations:
The exit of the tertiary treatment
The inlet of the Oeste Park
3. The exit of the East reservoir for the reclaimed water, which provides water to Tierno Galvan
Park
Data comparison from tertiary wastewater treatment to the East reservoir

No important differences were detected between the two sets of data on BOD5, Turbidity, Conductivity,
SS and Total Coliform. The results of the measurements at the inlet of theOeste Park and at the reservoir
Tierno park during the period May 2004 - August 2004 is reported in Table 17.7. The values measured at
the tertiary treatment exit were consistent with the one measured in the reservoir situated beside the
Galvan Park. During the sampling period there was no chlorination in the East reservoir, and no
significant variation in the microbiological quality of the reservoir water was detected.
Table 17.7 Physico-chemical and microbiological analyses in La China park

irrigation project (Navarotto et al., 2005)
Turbidity BOD5 pH Conductivity SS T. Coli E.Coli
NTU mg/L Unit ȝS/cm mg/L FC/ 100ml FC/ 100ml
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
IN 3 <1 16 <2 8.9 6.4 885 617 6 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1
R1 6 1 24 2 7.4 6.7 826 594 17 <2 2 <1 2 <1

IN: Inlet Oeste Park; R1: Reservoir Tierno Park
Data comparison from Tertiary wastewater treatment to Oeste park irrigation system
No important differences were detected referring to BOD5, Turbidity, Conductivity, SS and Total
Coliform. A discrepancy was observed between the pH value of the plant tertiary treatment outlet and the
Oeste Park inlet (see also Manios et al., 2006). Variation from +1 to +3 pH units has been detected in the
park’s inlet compared to the plant’s outlet.
This water basification take place in the 3.5 km pipeline that divide the West Reservoir from the Oeste
Park irrigation system, the last section of the pipeline (over 2 km long, heading downward) run
underground without interruption until it reaches the Oeste Park Inlet. The pH variation can be attributed
to a salt accumulation and microorganisms aerobic re-growth (see also Manios et al., 2006).
Oeste Park is the last park that benefits from the reclaimed water from the West section of the RWDS,
when water is not used for irrigation it accumulates in the pipeline and is stagnant. The accumulation
period may vary seasonally depending from the park’s water need. This period can vary from one day to
several weeks, during which time the biofilm growth can occur due to the re-growth of bacteria enhanced
449
by the organic matter and some nutrients in the water. This possibility was shown by the high numbers of
Coliform bacteria that were obtained in the periodic analyses. Sections of the irrigation distribution
systems used sporadically, like the Drop irrigation section (denominated Zone C), exhibited higher value
of Enterobacteria. This could only be explained by the enhanced growth due to high temperatures, and
low flow in the pipelines.
Readings of HPC at 22º and 37º higher than 100000 units were observed in almost all samples of
reclaimed water collected in this section of the pipe, indicating that the microbial activity was high. The
average values for HPC at 22º were 100-200 units per ml. E.Coli values that varied from 2 to 500 units
per 100ml were detected in three samples, indicating a small faecal contamination. High concentration of
Total Coliform ranging form 20 to 100000 units per 100ml were found in six water samples out of the
eight collected, especially in the area where drop irrigation was applied in Oeste Park, showing a possible
bacterial re-growth that due to the long stagnant water in the pipeline.
O & M measures recommended

• The lines have to be flushed periodically.
• Chlorine or chlorine dioxide residual of 0.2 – 0.5 mg/L has to be maintained in the problematic
parts of the irrigation system.
• The parts were the flow is relatively continuous and the reservoirs have to be flushed from time to
time, booster chlorination of these pipelines and reservoirs can be sufficient since the regrowth in
that case was not high.
17.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aharoni A. and H. Cikurel (2004) Treatment and Distribution of effluents for unrestricted irrigation: The Israeli experience
related to O and M. A presentation in the workshop on Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants (www.aquarec.org),
conducted in Thessaloniki, Greece (11-12 March 2004).
Ainsworth R. ed. (2004) Safe Piped Water. WHO Drinking–water Quality Series.
AQUAREC (2004) Deliverable D10 Water reuse management review report. Unpublished report. Bixio D. and Thoeye C. (eds.);
Aartselaar, Belgium.
Asano T., Ed. (1998) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, wastewater reuse for irrigation, 30-47.
AWWA Research Foundation, Water Reuse Foundation (2005) Characterizing Microbial Water Quality in RWDS. Published by
AWWARF, Denver, Colorado.
Boomen M, Mazijk A. and R. H. S Beuken (2004) First evaluation of new design concepts for self-cleaning distribution
networks. AQUA 1: 43-50.
Broza M., Halpern M. and M. Inbar (2000) Non-biting midges (Diptera; chironomidae) in waste stabilization ponds: an
intensifying nuisance in Israel. Wat. Sci. Techn. 42: 71–74.
Chambers K., Creasey J. and L. Forbes (2004) Design and Operation of Distribution Networks. In Safe Piped Water, WHO –
Drinking water Quality Series. R. Ainsworth (Ed.): 38-68.
Characklis W.G., Nimmons M and J. B.F. Picologlou (1981) Influence of fouling biofilms on heat transfer. J. Heat Transfer Eng.
3: 23-37.
450
Cikurel H., Sack J., Icekson -Tal N., Danon M., Harmant P., Teltsch B., Limoni B. Zuckerman U., Halpern M., Broza M. and Y.
Cohen (2002) Monitoring and Treatment of Biofouling in Effluent Carrying Pipe-Lines in Dan Region WWTP , Biofilm
Monitoring Conference, Porto, Portugal.
Department of Environment and Conservation (2004) Environmental Guidelines - Use of Effluent by Irrigation. NSW
Department of Environment and Conservation October 2004.
De Rooy E. and E. Engelbrecht (2003) Experience With Residential Water Recycling at Rouse Hill. Proceedings Water
Recycling Australia, Brisbane September 2003, Australian Water Association, Sydney Australia.
Fairbairn I. (2005) Operation of an STP for Recycled Water Production, Proc. Liquid Trade Waste & Operators Joint Conference,
Tamworth NSW; September 2005.
Flemming H.C. and G.G. Geesey (Ed, 1991), Biofouling and Biocorrosion in Industrial Water Systems in Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Industrial Biofouling and Biocorrosion, Stuttgart, Springer –Verlag (Berlin, Heidelberg), 13-14
September 1991.
Icekson -Tal N., Avraham O., Sack J. and H. Cikurel (2003) Water Reuse in Israel – The Dan Region Project: Evaluation of water
quality and reliability of plant’s operation. Wat. Sci. Techn. Water Supply. 3(4): 231–237.
Jew V.M. (2005) Reducing and Minimizing Odor within the Recycled Water System. Water Reuse and desalination – Mile High
Opportunities 20th, Annual Water Reuse Symposium; Denver, Colorado; 18 – 21 September 2005.
Levi Y. (2004) Minimizing potential for changes in microbial quality of treated water in Safe Piped Water, WHO – Drinking
water Quality Series, Richard Ainsworth (Ed.): 18-37.
Manios T., Gaki E., Banou S., Ntigakis D. and A. Andreadakis (2006) Qualitative monitoring of treated wastewater reuse
extensive distribution system: COD, TSS, EC and pH. Water SA. 32 1.
Mekorot, Israel National Water Co. (2005), Internal reports.
Muston M. (2004) Outcomes Report - International Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse
Plants Thessaloniki, Greece 11 - 12th March 2004, Report to the European Union from AQUAREC project. August 2004.
Navarotto P, Jimenez H., and H. Cikurel (2005) Risk Assessment on use of Recycled Wastewater in Public Park Irrigation. Med-
Reunet II (INCO - CT- 2003 – 502453) added value knowledge report AVKR 1.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and Environment Protection and Heritage Council (2005) National Guidelines
for Water Recycling - Managing Health and Environmental Risks, Draft for public consultation, October 2005.
NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee (1993) NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential Use of Reclaimed Water.
NSW Government 1993.
Payment P. and W. Robertson (2004) The microbiology of piped distribution systems and public health in Safe Piped Water,
WHO – Drinking water Quality Series, R. Ainsworth (Ed.): 1-18.
Rav-Acha H., Kummel M., Salamon I. and A. Adin (1995) The effect of chemical oxidants on effluent constituents for drip
irrigation. Water Research 29(1): 119-129.
Riley R. (2005) Pipeline separation: Design and installation reference guide Washington State Water Reuse Workgroup. Water
Reuse and desalination – Mile High Opportunities 20th, Annual Water Reuse Symposium; Denver, Colorado; 18 – 21 Sept. 2005.
Sadiq K., Kleiner Y. and B. Rajani (2004) Aggregative risk analysis for water quality failure in distribution networks. AQUA 5:
241-261.
Schlichting H. (1968) Boundary – Layer Theory. Mc. Graw – Hill Inc.: 560-561.
Uber J.G. (2003) Maintaining distribution system residuals through booster chlorination. AWWA Research Foundation report.
Vitanage D., Pamminger F. and T. Vourtsanis (2004) Maintenance and Survey of Distribution Systems in Safe Piped Water,
WHO – Drinking water Quality Series, R. Ainsworth Ed.: 69-85.
451
452
18 MONITORING TECHNIQUES
To make sure that the quality of reclaimed water is enhanced and guaranteed in an economically efficient
way water reuse schemes need carefully designed monitoring programmes. In fact, it is impossible to
monitor every potential impurity in reclaimed water, and therefore a rational approach is needed.
The process of selecting the appropriate monitoring strategy should address aspects such as parameters to
be measured, sample point locations, frequency of reporting, sensing techniques, future requirements,
availability of trained staff, frequency of maintenance, availability of spare parts and reliability of the
analytical procedures and monitoring devises (WPCF, 1989).
Main determinants in setting up the appropriate monitoring strategy are:
1. The quality required of the final product: monitoring needs are very diverse because, contrarily
to drinking water production, the water quality requirement changes with the type of end uses.
These aspects are addressed in Chapter 20 to 23 End-use Specifications.
2. The treatment technology involved: i.e. the capability of the technology to remove the required
set of parameters. The technological possibilities and Quality Assurance/Quality Control practices
to assure that the system is functioning as designed of the most common unit processes are
handled in Chapter 8 to 17.
3. Analytical procedures, response time and their cost: aspects addressed in this Chapter.
Monitoring activities are carried out for different reasons: compliance to legislation, improved plant
design and operation, research and development. While aspects related to compliance to legislation are
reported in Chapter 2 and 20 to 23 - and research and development activities are out of the scope of this
manual - this chapter highlights aspects related to improved (design and) operation.
The description is broken down into three parts:
1. Section 18.1 provides an overview of reference procedures and associated analytical sensitivity,
response time and costs to assess process-effluent quality and to enable process control.
2. Section 18.2 reports on the status of monitoring and quality control practices, based on the results
of a survey carried out to compile this manual.
3. Section 18.3 discusses trends in analytical procedures and monitoring techniques.
18.1 REFERENCE PROCEDURES AND ASSOCIATED

ANALYTICAL SENSITIVITY, RESPONSE TIME AND COSTS
During wastewater treatment, a group of bulk parameters is usually monitored with respect to plant
operations control and effluent discharge limits. This group includes so-called physical-chemical
parameters (e.g.: pH, EC, Turbidity, TSS, O2), organic sum parameters (COD, BOD, TOC), and
nutrients (Total-N, Kjedhal-N, NH4+, Ptot).
Reuse projects demand for additional monitoring practice, as effluent quality is fundamental with respect
to customer needs and public health. Furthermore, reclaimed water often requires more stringent limits
453
when compared to wastewater treatment and discharge. Table 18.1 reports the limits of the water quality
parameters most commonly monitored in wastewater treatment plant effluent and compares them with
typical treatment goals in reclaimed water applications.
Table 18.1 Summary of water quality parameters relevant to water reclamation

and reuse (adapted from Asano and Levine, 2004)
Range in treated Treatment goal
Parameter Significance in wastewater reclamation wastewater in reclaimed
[#] water
Organic indicators Organic substrate for microbial or algal
25 mg/L <1–10 mg/L
BOD5 growth
Not required <1-10 mg/L
Total Organic Carbon Measure of organic carbon
Measure of particles in wastewater can be
Total suspended
related to microbial contamination, turbidity; 35-60 mg/L <1-10 mg/L
Solids (TSS)
can interfere with disinfection effectiveness
Measure of particles in wastewater; can be
Turbidity Not required <1-30 NTU
correlated to TSS
N: Not required
<1-30 mg/L
Nitrogen and Nutrients source for irrigation; can also 10-15 mg/L
Phosphorus contribute to algal growth P: Not required
<1-20 mg/L
1-2 mg/L
Microbial Indicators
(total or faecal Measure of risk of microbial infection - <1-1,000/mL
coliforms, E. Coli),
[#] Limits set in the Urban Waste Water Directive EEC/271/91
Measurements can be accomplished manually or with automatic devices (sensors) capable of transmitting
analogue/digital signals that can be stored and analysed. The nature of the signal can either be a value or
an on-off signal in respect to a given threshold, as mostly used in warning and alarm systems.
On-line / Off-line measurements - Manual measurements, such as laboratory analytical or

bacteriological tests, take up much time. Furthermore, they provide discrete information that requires
additional time to be processed. On the other hand, sensors like analysers, ISE (ion selective electrodes),
turbidity-meters and so on, can be operated on-line and provide data for real-time process monitoring and
control. It must be remarked that on-line measurement is not synonymous of continuous measurement, as
some analysers may require a non-negligible interval between following measurement, with regards to
sampling preparation (e.g. settling of suspended solids that may interfere with the reaction) and reaction
time (for instance NH3 measurement with on-line analyser may take globally 15-30 minutes). However,
this time lapse can often be considered “little” with respect to plant operations.
Reliability - Another issue concerning automatic analysers and electrodes is their reliability. This is found
to be a function of the precision of each instrument as well as of the installation conditions and the degree
of maintenance. Infrequent calibration, fouling, low maintenance and installation conditions may account
for systematic errors or drift. Disturbance phenomenon may cause accidental errors. Lack in maintenance
(e.g. in the cleaning of small sampling tubes and pumps, fouling of optical surfaces etc.) results in
454
unreliable measurements. It is therefore good practice to maintain regular laboratory analyses on the
major parameters, in order to check the validity of on-line measurements through data crossing.
Finally, for the same parameter, different techniques can be used. The choice of the technique is very
important as it affects not only the type of equipment and cost that is required but also the ease of
maintenance, and the data frequency and reliability. For water reuse, because of the possible
consequences of system failure, reliable, simple and low maintenance techniques are preferred. However,
for some parameters, affordable and reliable tests are not fully developed yet and reference to the most
updated literature is recommended.
In the following paragraphs an overview of the devices and techniques that may be appropriate during
monitoring of wastewater treatment plant effluent is given.
18.1.1 Microbiological analyses

In wastewater, a great number of pathogenic organisms can be found, both of human and not-human
origins. Usually, they are classified in four main categories: bacteria, protozoa, helminths and viruses.
Obviously, it is not possible to test the effluent for every possible organism, and the routinely monitoring
must be based on appropriate indicators.
For years, wastewater professionals and regulators have relied on traditional faecal indicators (especially
on bacteria from the coliform group) to predict potentially high pathogen levels. Therefore, the
significance of tests and the interpretation of results for faecal indicators are well authenticated. However,
most microbial pathogens are more resistant to conventional wastewater treatment (cfr. Chapter 7 to 10
Disinfection techniques) than pathogen indicators, which demand different analyses (Salgot, 2001).
An overview of techniques for pathogens and indicators is provided below.
Bacteria
Identification of bacteria and calculation of bacterial density in the wastewater samples can be conducted
with different methods:
- Direct Counts: typically using a Petroff –Hauser chamber and a Microscope (cells are previously
coloured), but also with a particle counter (not recommended, as it gives clogging problems and cannot
differentiate bacteria and inert particles) (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). Direct total cell count precludes errors
caused by viability-related phenomena, such as the selectivity of growth media, cell aggregation, and
growth rate. However, it is hard to differentiate living and dead organisms. As a result, the count usually
exceeds counts from HPC or MPN methods (see following). Not usual, it is described in Standard
Methods 9216.
- Heterotrophic Plate Counts (HPC): formerly known as standard plate count, this method recognises
colonies, i.e. living organisms. Three methods are distinguished:
1. Pour Plate method (sample ranges from 0.1 to 2.0 mL): A water sample is added to a culture-
substrate which is incubated before bacteria are enumerated. Typical counts are 1-1000 CFU/mL.
2. Spread Plate method (0.1 to 0.5 mL)
455
3. Membrane Filter method (choice for low turbidity – low count waters, interesting for in-plant
measurement). A larger sample is filtrated on a membrane (typically 0.45μm) to retain bacteria
and get rid of excess water. Subsequently, the membrane filter (and the deposed material) is put in
contact with a culture-substrate and incubated as during the Pour and Spread Plate method.
Typical counts are in the range 1-10 CFU/mL (St.M.9215 A).
Results are given in Colony Forming Units CFU/mL. A colony can be a bacterial chain, a cluster, a pair or
single cell. Dilution and Duplications of the original wastewater sample are necessary, as valid
measurements require a limited number of colonies per plate (3-30-300).
- Multiple tube fermentation: this method is based on the concept of dilution of the sample until the
disappearance of positive results. Based on the assumption of a Poissonian distribution for extreme
values, the sample is diluted in geometric series and the organisms mean density is estimated from the
combination of positive and negative results. Typically, a test may include an up to 3 steps sequence, a
presumptive positive result triggering a successive incubation of the sample for confirmation and
complete test (eventually executed on a fraction of the positive results only). Improper handling of the
samples/dilution may lead to underestimation of bacterial density.
Values are given as Most Probable Number (MPN)/100mL. The number of tubes determines the precision
of the test and multiple dilutions help to estimate this value properly (standard Method 9221 C). Thanks to
the dilution, MPNs up to 1010/100mL can be estimated.
- Presence-Absence test - In case of a highly treated sample, a Presence-Absence test can also be used, in
order to obtain merely qualitative information about bacterial presence. In this case a single large sample
(100 mL) is used in a way similar to the multiple-tube fermentation technique. The result can be used for
further microbial analyses.
Staining methods and enzymatic assays, also available in commercial kits, allow detecting particular
bacterial groups. In this case, colour change of bacterial colonies or fluorescence to long-wave UV light is
induced by specific salts/substrate addition. Tests can be either performed with the multiple-tubes or
filtration methods.
Specific Bacteria and Protozoa

For specific bacteria and protozoa, growth-dependent methods (Culture Purification and Identification,
Standard Method 9225), tagging fluorescent antibodies and nucleic acid probes have been developed.
Fluorescently tagged antibodies attach to the surface of the target organisms, as for instance in the case of
E. Coli and the protozoa Cryptosporidium Parvum and Giardia Lamblia.
Nucleic acid probes include the synthesis and labelling of nucleic acid probe complementary to particular
DNA or RNA sequence. Bacterial cells are lysed and their DNA (RNA) isolated, before being added with
the labelled nucleic acid probe. The labelling may include enzymes, fluorescent dyes or radioactive
compounds. Two main kinds of process are distinguished, Dot Blot hybridization and Fluorescent In Situ
Hybridization (FISH), which involve different final detection methods (on a sensitive film the first and
with fluorescent microscopy the second) (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003; Standard Methods, 1998).
456
Viruses (from Standard Methods, 1998 and Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Viruses can be detected by transmission electric microscope, but the technology is economically and
practically unsuitable to wastewater treatment. Therefore, other techniques are used.
- Tissue culture for enteric viruses: with this method, viruses are concentrated and subsequently
inoculated on mono-layers of cultured cells. The presence of viruses is finally detected from the visible
effect on the tissue of culture cells after 10-14 days. Typical targets are enteroviruses, which are present in
small quantity in wastewater samples (units per litre).
A common method is the plaque assay, where cultured cells inoculated with viruses are grown on agar
substrate. During incubation viruses, eventually present, infect the cultured cells resulting in a “hole” or
“plaque” of the cell monolayer. The count of Plaque-Forming Unit PFU/(volume of inoculum) is then
reported to the volume of water sampled.
Another method employs a MPN approach, and is practiced in the absence of a culture substrate.
Dilutions of the wastewater sample are inoculated into separate cell culture flasks and incubated. The
destruction of the tissue culture cells results in the so-called CytoPathic Effect (CPE) which can be
recalculated into the most likely virus concentration in the sample based on the distribution of positive
and negative results.
- E. Coli culture for Bacteriophages: viruses capable of infecting prokaryote single-cells (bacteria) are
called bacteriophages. When they can infect bacteria of the subspecies E. Coli, they are named
Coliphages. The group is currently believed to be a suitable indicator for human and animal faecal
contamination. Two groups are usually assayed: male specific (F+) and somatic coliphages. Male-specific
coliphages resemble human (enteric) viruses for the characteristics of replication and have resistance in
the environment. Furthermore, the ones with RNA genome are also similar to human enteroviruses in size
and structure. The somatic coliphages less resemble human viruses, but are frequently found in greater
abundance than male-specific RNA coliphages.
Coliphages are usually detected with similar methods as described for the viruses on tissue culture, i.e.
with PFU and MPN methods. The main differences are a) that the initial concentration procedure is not
required, as the Coliphages are more abundant in wastewater than enteric viruses; b) that E. Coli substrate
is easier and less costly to use c) that results are available within 16 to 48 hours.
Typically samples between 10mL -1L are tested. Lower coliphages density in the sample requires
concentration and elution whilst higher concentration requires dilution.
- Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): this technique allows the rapid detection of potential
microorganisms within few hours. The trick is the amplification of the DNA of the tested microorganism
by a complementary cell fragment (“primer”) used as a trigger.
In case of a RNA-virus, the technique is still applicable with the use of a Reverse Transcriptase enzyme,
thus being called RT-PCR.
The technique is rapidly developing but still has severe limitations: a) it cannot distinguish between viable
and inactivated microorganisms; b) it is mostly qualitative (even though detection limit around 20 MIP-
copies/L is reported for Legionella); c) only small samples can be tested; d) constituents in the sample
may interfere and inhibit the method.
457
Reference procedures applicable to pathogens and indicators applicable to wastewaters, effluents and
receiving water bodies are given in Table 18.2.
Table 18.2 Tests and reference procedures for indicators and pathogens in
water
Indicator Reference procedure a) b) Indicative Response time Cost (€)
measurable technique d) outsource
minimumc) (weeks)
Bacteria
Total coliforms MF (standard) St.M. 9222 B; 1 CFU/100mL 24 + 4/48 h 1 40-50
NEN-EN-ISO
9308-1
Spread-plate NEN-EN-ISO 1 CFU/10mL 24 h 1 40-50

9308-1
MTF (standard) St.M. 9221 B 1 MPN/mL 48 + 48 + 24
h
Presence- St.M. 9221D qualitative 24 h
Absence
Enzymatic St.M. 9223 B; 24 + 24/48 h
substrate EPA 1604
(simultaneous
detection TC
and E. Coli), as
MTF, MF or
Pres-Absence
Faecal coliforms MF (standard) St.M. 9222 D; 1CFU/500mL 24 h 1 40-50
EPA 1103.1
MF (modified) EPA 1603 1CFU/500mL 24 h
MF (rapid) St.M. 9211 B 1CFU /500mL 7h
MTF St.M. 9221 E (48) + 24 h
(distinguishing
fecal from total)
MTF (single- St.M. 9221 E 24 h
step)
MTF (partition St.M. 9222 G (24) + 24 h
from MF total
coliforms)
Escherichia Coli MTF St.M. 9221 F (48) + 24 h
(on presumptive MF St.M. 9222 G (24) + 2/24 h
positive Enzymatic St.M. 9223 B 24+24/48 h
total/faecal substrate
coliforms) (simultaneous
detection with
Total
Coliforms) as
MTF or Pres-
Absence
HPC (MF or NEN-EN-ISO 1 CFU/100mL 19 h 1 40-50
spread plate) 9308-1
458

minimumc) (weeks)
Thermo tolerant MF NEN 6552,
Coliforms 6553, 6570,
6571
TVC 22° HPC NEN-EN-ISO 1 CFU/mL > 3 days 2 25
6222
TVC 37° HPC NEN-EN-ISO 1 CFU/mL > 2 days 1 25
6222
Streptococcus MTF St.M. 9230 B 24/48 + 24 h
and Enterococcus MF (standard) St.M. 9230 C; 1 CFU/100mL 48 + 1/48 h 1 25-45
faecalis NEN-EN-ISO
7899; NEN-
6274; EPA
1106.1
MF (modified) EPA 1600 1 CFU/100mL 24 h
Individual St.M. 9230 C Additional
species time to St.M.
identified by 9230 C
key bio-chem.
reactions
HPC (Pour NEN-EN-ISO 1 CFU/100mL 44 + 2 h 1 25-45
plate) 7899 ; NEN-
6274
Staphylococcus MPN
aureus
Clostridium Pasteurisation 1 CFU/100mL 24 h 2 50
perfringens + MF
Clostridia Pasteurisation NEN 6567 1 CFU/100mL 48 h 1 30
(spores) + MF
Pseudomonas Multiple-tube St.M. 9213 E 1 MPN 72 + 24h
aeruginosa /100mL
(bathing waters) Membrane St.M. 9213 F <1-10-6 48 + 36 h
Filter NEN 6573 /100mL
Salmonella Qualitative St.M. 9260 B Various
Isolation and
Identification
FA St.M. 9260 C More likely 24 + 3h +
presence/abse confirmation
nce only
MTF St.M. 9260 D MPN 24 + 24h
Legionella FA (FISH) St.M. 9260 J Can be 2h + 600
quantitative confirmation
(min.48h)
PRC (L. St.M. 9260 J Semi- Few hours 1 day 400 + 30
Pneumophila quantitative per
only) addition
al
samples
HPC NEN- 6265 50 CFU/L > 7d 2 90-100
459

minimumc) (weeks)
Viruses
Enterovirus MPN, 50% St.M. 9510 G Also Up to 15 days
endpoint, quantitative for virus
plaque counts, assay
microtiter plate
Coliphages (F+) HPC NEN-ISO 0.1 PFU/mL 18 h 2 180
10705-1
Coliphages HPC NEN-ISO 0.1 PFU/mL 18h 2 250
(Somatic) 10705-2
Coliphages (F+ HPC (2-steps EPA 1601 0.1 PFU/mL 16-24 h
and Somatic) enrichment)
Coliphages (F+ HPC (single- EPA 1602 0.1 PFU/mL 16-24 h
and Somatic) agar layer)
Total Culturable CPE (MPN) EPA 600/4- 7+7 days
Viruses 84/013
Helminth
Nematode eggs
Ascaris Egg counts
Trichuris Egg counts
Ancylostoma Egg counts
Giardia FA ISO/CD 15553 8 1500
Cryptosporidium FA ISO/CD 15553 8 1500
MF+IM+F EPA M. 1622 2
Cryptosporidium MF+IM+FA EPA M. 1623 2
+ Giardia
a) MF = Membrane Filtration; MTF = Multiple Tube Fermentation; FA = Fluorescence Antibody; TCV = Total Culturable
Viruses; IM = Immuno-Magnetic separation (can be replaced with FILTRATION ON SUCROSE COLUMN, EPA/814-B-95-
003) b) Information from procedures collected from different laboratories with indications such as “conforming to”, ”according
to” and “derived from” has been grouped for the sake of shortness. This means that grouped reference procedures are not
supposed to be equivalent but are, to a certain extent, similar. The list must be intended as a starting point for the selection of the
appropriate method, which cannot be independent from considerations upon the matrix-water quality. c) Often the application
range can be extended using dilution or concentration methods; here a typical indicative minimum as reasonably applicable is
reported d) Working time. Additional elapse times indicate a multi-step procedure, which can include up to 3 steps: presumptive
positive response “+” confirmation “+” completion. When alternative methods are possible, indicated elapse time are separated
by slash “/”. When the determination of a given indicator is a partition on a previously executed test, the preceding test is
indicated between brackets ( )
Remarks Table 18.2

Faecal coliforms: the MF method for chlorinated effluent is recommended to be verified by comparability of results with
multiple-tube tests (St. Methods, 1998)]
Streptococcus and enterococcus faecalis, and especially their ratio in wastewater, were believed to be a good indicator to
distinguish between human and animal faecal contamination. Due to different survival rates in the environment, this belief is now
abandoned, but enterococci are rewarded as valuable indicators of faecal contamination of bathing waters. The test tube method
is recommended for highly turbid, raw and chlorinated water, and sediments. Both MF and test tube can be used for either fresh
or marine water (Standard Method 9230 A).
460
Salmonella: all accepted methods for isolation and detection of Salmonella present limitations in selectivity and sensitivity, thus
negative results do not imply a complete absence of Salmonellae. Fluorescent Antibody (FA) is rapid and effective but needs
confirmation with other methods because of potential cross-reactivity of antibodies (thus it is suggested for screening purposes).
Procedures for concentration – enrichment – selective growth – biochemical reactions and serological techniques, often require
confirmation. Concentration methods include swab techniques, membrane filtration and diatomaceous earth filtration.
Legionella: FA technique can give cross-reactivity with other microorganisms and lacks of viability assessment.
Enteroviruses: Given the small amount of enteroviruses in the environment, concentration is necessary prior to determination.
Various methods are proposed: adsorption to and elution from microporous filters, aluminium-hydroxide adsorption-
precipitation, hydroextraction-dialysis with polyethylene glycol (Standard Methods 9150 B-C-D-E). The procedures are labour
intense and may require the actual virus assay to be done on the following working day. Quantification procedures and
identification assay are executed on mice or primate culture cells and may require up to 15 days. Such analyses are typically
beyond the possibility of a wastewater microbiology laboratory and should be executed by expert virologists (Standard Methods
9150 G).
Giardia and Cryptosporidium: usual antibody-based immunofluorescence methods have shown deficiencies, and therefore
should be performed by qualified staff according to the most recent literature (Standard Method 9711 B). Concentration of large
samples is required (results in number/100L) and turbidity and chlorination may affect results.
18.1.2 Physical-Chemical Analyses: monitoring needs

and techniques
Laboratory techniques for wastewater analysis (Hunt and Wilson, 1986; Standard
Methods, 1998)
The laboratory of a wastewater treatment plant is usually simply equipped. Universally available
equipment ranges from ovens, filtration units to titration equipment and probes for pH and conductivity.
Very common is also the presence of spectrophotometers, conductivity meters and turbidity-meters,
which are cheap and easy to use. Only some analyses are executed on site while many are outsourced.
This is mostly the case when the complexity of the procedures increases or the monitoring frequency
decreases. There is indeed a trade off among the costs of the single analyses, the equipment and the
required working hours.
As a general rule, at a treatment plant several physical-chemical parameters such as TSS, TDS, alkalinity,
hardness etc. can be determined to concentration levels around or somewhat below milligrams per litre.
The same can be said for COD, TOC, nutrients, and several heavy metals and non-metallic compounds
measured by spectrophotometry. In principle, the detection limits can in some cases extend to little over
micrograms per litre, but in case wastewater extensive pre-treatments are required, and practical limits,
due to interferences, are in the order of milligrams per litre (only sometimes 0.05 mg/L). To determine
compounds present in concentrations lower than that, one of the techniques/instruments listed in
following is required:
• Ion Selective Electrodes (ISE) - measure the electric potential across a membrane, which is
dependent on the thermodynamic activity (and therefore at constant ionic strength on the
concentration) of the ion to which the electrode responds. A number of electrodes is available, the
most commonly used being for pH, ammonia, bromide, fluoride, hardness, iodide, nitrate, sodium,
calcium, chloride, cyanide, sulphide, etc. During application, the interferences of species active on
the same type of electrode in use must be considered. The lower limit of determination range is
between 10-5 to 10-7 Mol/L.
461
• Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) - is especially used for the determination of metal
concentrations. Requirements may vary with the metal and the concentration to be determined, and
therefore different generation methods are used. Accuracy may vary from nanograms per litre
(graphite furnace) to micrograms per litre (flame), 0.1-1 μg/L (hydride for As and Se), 1-10 ng/L
(cold Vvpour for Hg). During Direct Aspiration the instrumental detection limit can be within 10-4
and 10 -1 mg/L. In combination with Inductively-Coupled Plasma (ICP) it is particularly interesting
as it allows multi-component analyses
• Mass Spectrometry (MS) - is a costly and complex technique but it is of great importance for the
detection of either organic or inorganic compounds. In combination with Gas Chromatography (GC)
it is the reference method for “priority substances” and disinfection by-products. In this case, MS is
used to identify and quantify the compounds separated by GC. The entire mass range can be scanned
to characterise a large number of unknown compounds; alternatively single ions or multiple-ions
(usually up to 20) can be monitored, improving the sensibility of results. During survey work GC-MS
detection limits are typically in the sub-μg/L range, whilst single-ion monitoring can attain pg/L.
Inorganic determinants, especially metals, can be better dealt with when a plasma ion source (ICP) is
used. Instrumental detection limits are below 10-2 μg/L. However, a complex matrix as wastewater
generates interferences and requires suitable digestion and clean-up, reducing the overall method
detection limit. Very interestingly, it is possible to execute multi-component analyses resulting in
time savings.
• Infrared Spectrometry (IS) - finds its primary application in water analyses in the determination of
hydrocarbons and oil in water, as particular chemical groups (e.g. -CO2H, -NH2, -CH3, -OH) absorb
certain infrared wave-lengths. It can be employed as a detector for GC and HPLC. Special application
is in the determination of CO2 eventually exploited for the determination of TOC and total oxygen
demand. The attained detection limit depends on the system employed but is definitively above the
microgram per litre for TOC and above some milligrams per litre for the total oxygen demand.
• Gas Chromatography (GC) - is especially applied for organic compounds, even if its use is limited to
volatile substances. Its accuracy is definitively in the sub-μg/L range, depending upon the subsequent
detection method. The most commonly applied are FID (flame ionisation detection) and ECD
(electron capture detection), which has been used for halogen and chlorinated compounds, pesticides
of any sort (eventually separated on capillary columns for species determination), PCB’s, EDTA,
nitrosamines and surfactants. Coupling with MS has already been discussed.
• High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) - is particularly interesting for the separation
and determination of non-volatile organics not amenable to GC. The interest is either in organic or
inorganic compounds (e.g. CrIII and CrVI) with complete-method detection limits again below one
microgram per litre. For organic compounds, common uses are reported for aromatic hydrocarbons,
phenols, herbicides, pesticides, quaternary ammonium compounds, organochlorine compounds,
EDTA, surfactants, etc.
• Ion Chromatography (IC) - applications to wastewater analysis are essentially limited to treated
water, because of possible interferences with different species, co-eluted during the separation.
Again, detection limits vary according to the chromatographic conditions applied, but a sample of a
few mL is sufficient to determine concentrations in the range 1-100 μg/L. A positive feature is the
462
possibility to execute a sequential multiple determination of species, each of which may take a few
minutes if not very high performance is needed. Common targets are inorganic species such as F-, Cl-,
NO3-, SO2-, PO43-, but also to Na+, K+, NH4+, Ca2+ and Mg2+. For organic species HPLC and GC are
preferred. Common applications are for industrial process water and boiler feed.
Except the use of ISE, all the techniques listed above require skilful staff and expensive
equipment, and therefore they are more often delegated to external laboratories. The same
analyses may considerably vary in cost according to the accuracy required, as this implies
different pre-treatment techniques. Also delivering times may largely vary from lab to lab.
Detailed description of these techniques and applications can be found in Hunt and Wilson (1986), or
similar manuals on water analyses. The most updated references and trends can be found in the electronic
journal Analytical Chemistry, starting from the bi-annual reviews.
On-line analysers
On-line analyser are available for the following parameters: turbidity, TSS, COD, O2, ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite, phosphate, chlorine, hardness, aluminium, iron, copper, calcium, nickel, cyanide, phenol, etc...
18.1.3 Physical-Chemical Analyses: reference

procedures
In the following, results from a survey on applicable measuring techniques for reclaimed water are
presented. The list is not exhaustive but includes the most common methods.
Table 18.3 includes physical-chemical parameters, organic sum parameters, nutrients, heavy metals and a
few other parameters relevant for reuse applications. Applicable measuring techniques are presented
together with the related detection limit, response time, reference procedure and cost:
• Reference procedures are mainly suggested to stimulate further reading: when dealing with reclaimed
effluent, different water contamination levels are possible and the most suitable technique can differ
from case to case, according to the concentration of the target compounds in the water and the
presence of interfering substances. Analytical techniques applied in water reclamation, are usually
withdrawn from both the areas of wastewater analyses and drinking water analyses;
• The indicated prices have been collected in western-Europe and mostly at certified laboratories. Both
the factors may lead to an overestimation of the prices that can be experienced elsewhere;
• The required accuracy of the measurement will determine the possible technique and consequently
whether the analyses will be executed at the treatment plant or at an external laboratory;
• External laboratories usually provide results of the analyses within a fixed time schedule, such as 3
days, 1 or 2 weeks. However, it is always possible to ask for an urgent procedure. Results will be
ready within a shorter time, even 1 day, but the price may be double.
• A fundamental issue with regard to the cost of analyses at external laboratories is the possibility of
multiple simultaneous measurements. For instance, numerous heavy metals can be determined
simultaneously using ICP- AAS (Inductive Coupled Plasma Atomic Absorption Spectrometry). In
this case, the price for each metal will be much lower than when a single analysis is performed
(around 15-20 euros per metal, plus eventual sample pre-treatment).The rule does not apply to some
463
metals particularly those who are difficult to (pre-)treat, and whose price may rise to 60 euro per
measurement.
• The same concept applies to “standard packages”. Set of n parameters, which usually suit the local
legislation, result in a discounted price.
Table 18.3 Tests and reference procedures for physical-chemical indicators

Parameter Method Range Response Time Cost References
at WWTP Outsourced
1-100 g/L
>0.1 mg/L
< g/L
< 15d
<½d
<3d
days
< 1d
< 7d
TSS (Total Gravimetric,
NEN-EN 872; NEN
Suspended residual at 105°C 3 3 €
484
Solids) after filtration
€€/ NEN-EN 1899-1 and 2;
BOD Oxidimetric 3
€€€ NEN 6634
Closed bottle test 3 €€ EN ISO 10701
Electrochemical NEN-EN-1899
Photometric 3 €€€
EN ISO 8467; NEN
COD Titration 3 3 €
6633
EPA 410.4; St.M 5220
Photometric 3 3 €
s; ISO 15705
TOC IR NEN-EN 1484
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €
Total Nitrogen Spectrophotometric 3 3 € EN 150 11905 – 1
Total EN 25663; NEN-ISO
Titration 3 3 €€
Kjeldahl N 5663;
NEN-EN-ISO 11732
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €€
EN 6646
EN-ISO 11732; EPA
Ammonium - 350.1; St.M. 4500d;
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €/€€
N ISO7150/1; NEN 6655;
NEN 6472
ISE 3
NEN-EN-ISO 13395;
Nitrate Spectrophotometric 3 3 €/€€
NEN 6440
ISE 3
LC EN ISO 10304-2:1996
EPA 300.0; NEN-EN-
IC 3 3 €€
ISO 10304-1
464

At WWTP Outsourced
1-100 g/L
>0.1 mg/L
< g/L
< 15d
<½d
<3d
days
< 1d
< 7d
NEN-ISO 6777; NEN-
Nitrite Spectrophotometric 3 3 3 €/€€€ EN-ISO 13395; NEN
6653; NEN 6474
IC NEN-EN-ISO 10304-1
Total P Spectrophotometric 3 3 €/€€ EN 1189; NEN 6663
EN ISO 11885;
ICP-AAS 3
NEN 6426
Dissolved
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €€
Phosphates
Orthophosphat
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €€ NEN 6663
es
Active Titration (Free and NEN -EN ISO 7393-1
3 3 €
Chlorine Total) and 2
Spectrophotometric 3 €
Iodometric EN ISO 7393-3
Chloride Titration 3 NEN 6480
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €€€ NEN 6655
EN ISO 10304-1and 2;
IC 3 3 €€
EPA 300.0
ISE 3
EN ISO 15586;
AOX Spectrophotometric 3 €€ ISO/DIS 17294-2;
ISO/DIS 15586;
Mineral Oil IR Spectrometry
GC-FID €€€
Oily Matter IR-
3 NEN 6675
Total Spectrophotometry
Oily Matter
GC, GC-MS 3
(fractions)
Direct extraction +
NEN 6672
Total Oil, Fat Gravimetric
and Grease Extraction with
NEN 6671
petroleum ether
Methylene blue
active substances, DEV H 23; Am.
Surfactants- Standards 5-36; EN
GC + ECD
Anionic
(different extraction 903
methods)
Commercial, Non
Spectrophotometric 3 3
standard
Disulphide blue
active substances
Surfactants-
after sample
Cationic
preparation (blow-
off, Ion Exchanger)
465

At WWTP Outsourced
1-100 g/L
>0.1 mg/L
< g/L
< 15d
<½d
<3d
days
< 1d
< 7d
Na Spectrophotometric 3 €
EN ISO 11885;
AAS (flame/ICP) 3 3 €/€€
St.M.3111
ICP-MS 3 3 €€€
IC EN ISO 14911:1999
ISE 3 NEN 6426
Mg Spectrophotometric 3 €
ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€ NEN 6426
ICP-MS 3 3 €€€
Ca Titration 3 3 €
Spectrophotometric 3 3 €
ISE 3
ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€
ICP-MS 3 3 €€
As Spectrophotometric 3 €
EN ISO 11885; NEN
ICP-AAS 3 3 3 €/€€€
6426
AAS-Hydride 3
ICP-MS 3 3 €€€ NEN 6427; ISO 17294
B Spectrophotometric 3 €
EN ISO 11885; NEN
ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€
6426
ICP-MS 3 3 €€€
Cd Spectrophotometric 3
AAS EN ISO 5961
€€/€€ EN ISO 11885; NEN
ICP-AAS 3 3 3
€ 6426
3 3 ISO 17294; NEN 6427;
ICP-MS
St.M. 3125
Cr (total) Spectrophotometric 3 € S.M. 3500B;
3 EN 1233; EN ISO
AAS
11885;
Electro thermal 3 S.M. 3113B
AAS
Flame AAS 3 S.M. 3111 B, C
ISO 17294; NEN 6427;
ICP-MS 3 3 €€€ S.M. 3125B; St.M.
3125
EN ISO 11885; NEN
ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€€
6426
NEN 6485; S.M.
Cr VI Spectrophotometric 3 3500B;
(dissolved) IC S.M. 3500C;

Co 3 3 3 €€
ICP-MS 3 St.M. 3125
Cu ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€ NEN-118885-7
ICP-MS 3 St.M. 3125
466
At WWTP Outsourced
1-100 g/L
>0.1 mg/L
< g/L
< 15d
<½d
<3d
days
< 1d
< 7d
Fe ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€ NEN-118885-7
Ni ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€ NEN-118885-7
Flame AAS 3 St.M.3111
ICP-MS 3 St.M. 3125
Zn ICP-AAS 3 3 €/€€ NEN-118885-7
Flame AAS 3 St.M.3111
ICP-MS 3 St.M. 3125
Hg AAS 3 3 3 €€€ EN 12338
Cold vapour AAS
ICP-AAS 3 3 €€
AFS EN 13506
Amalgamation EN 12338
Pb Spectrophotometric 3 €
€€/€€ EN ISO 11885; NEN
ICP-AAS 3 3 3 3
€ 6426
ICP - MS 3 3 €€€ ISO 17294; NEN 6427
Sulphate Spectrophotometric 3 €
NEN-EN-ISO 10304-
IC 3 3 €€€
1and 2; EPA 300.0
Sulphide Spectrophotometric 3 €
ISE 3
F (total) LC EN ISO 10304-2
ISE 3 3 €€
NEN-EN-ISO 10304-
Fluoride IC 3
1/2
Potentiometric NEN 6483
ISE 3
Costs per analysis: €€€€€ = > 200 €; €€€€ =60 - 200 €; €€€ = 20 - 60 €; €€ = 6 - 20 €; € = < 6 €
Abbreviations used in Table 18.3

Atomic Absorption Spectrometry: AAS; Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (Hydride generation): AAS-Hydride; Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (Cold Vapour): AAS-Cold Vapour (Hg, see text); Diode Array Detection: DAD; Flame Ionization
Detection: FID; Gas Chromatography: GC; High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: HPLC; Ion Selective Electrodes; ISE;
Mass Spectrometry: MS; Induced Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry: ICP-MS; Atomic-Fluorescence Spectrometry: AFS;
Infrared Red: IR; Ion Chromatography: IC
NB: names can be composed, when two techniques in row are applied; e.g. Inductive Coupled Plasma Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry: ICP-AAS
467
Low-frequency parameters
Additional to the parameters listed in Table 18.3, other heavy metals, trace organics, disinfection by-
products, endocrine active substances and pharmaceuticals etc. may appear in the legislations for water
reuse. These compounds usually have a monitoring frequency higher than once a year, or are intensively
investigated during the evaluation studies that precede the implementation of a reuse project. A synthetic
classification has been done within the Aquarec WP2 and is reported in Table 18.4 (see also Chapter 2).
Table 18.4 parameters with very low monitoring frequency (from AQUAREC
WP2)
Parameter Example / indicators Frequency Costs
(Heavy) metals Al, Ba, Be, Co, Cu, Fe, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Sn, Th, V, Zn Ƒ (=low) €€€
Organic micropollutants Aldehyde, phenols Ƒ €€€
Pesticides Diuron; 2,4-D Ƒ €€€€

Complex-forming Ƒ €€€€
EDTA
substances
Chloride solvents if AOX > limit, e.g. TCE Ƒ €€€€
Aromatic organic Ƒ €€€€
Benzene
solvents
PAHs Benzo(a)pyrene Ƒ €€€€
Pharmaceuticals Carbamazepine, X-ray contrast media, Sulfamethoxazole Ƒ €€€€€
Endocrine disrupters E-Screen, estradiol, estrone Ƒ €€€€€

Disinfection Ƒ €€€€€
NDMA
(by)products
Costs per analysis: €€€€€ = > 200 €; €€€€ =60 - 200 €; €€€ = 20 - 60 €; €€ = 6 - 20 €; € = < 6 €
• These emerging compounds are related to health and environmental concerns. Limiting
concentrations are in the order of milligrams-nanograms per litre, which mostly imply that the
analyses are outsourced. The list of parameters is very long and susceptible to change within short
time. In Europe, beside the existing regulations (European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC,
the Black and Grey Lists 76/646/EEG, the New Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEG Com
2002/581), and several related legislations and guidelines are under development, review or
implementation. At the same time, studies are conducted to assess the relevance of each specific
parameter, with respect to wastewater treatment plant operations, as not all are present in hazardous
concentrations in the effluent.
• A special remark is made for pesticides (including metabolites and phenols). While cheap
spectrophotometric analyses are available for total pesticides, they do not correspond to the Standard
Methods and detection limits are often too high. Using GC and MS, LC and HPLC, the detection
limits can be reduced to 0.05-1 μg/L and compounds can be measured as sub-categories (e.g. polar
pesticides, organo-Nitro/ Organ-Phosphate/ Organo Chlorate pesticides, PCB’s, phenols) or single
compounds. Multi-component analyses are possible. The identification of 10-20 compounds by an
analytical laboratory may take two weeks and costs some hundred euros. However the offer of the
analytical laboratories is still not homogeneous, probably because a defined set of parameters is not
468
yet requested by common law. It is to be expected that the adoption of a definitive (European) law
will generate a standard demand and laboratories will offer cheaper, standard packages (as it is for
drinking water). A shift in this direction is expected from the monitoring of Priority Compounds as
defined in Annex 10 of the Water Framework Directive.
More information about emerging trace pollutants, pharmaceuticals and EDC’s is available in Section
18.3.1.
18.1.4 Monitoring points and frequency

The definition of monitoring points and frequencies is another very important aspect of each water
reclamation and reuse scheme.
Monitoring points
According to many guidelines and legislations monitoring should be done performed at the point of entry
to the reclaimed water reticulation system (point of supply) rather than at the treatment plant (NWQMS,
2000a).
On the other hand, In Australia (http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/gccm/Water.pdf) as well as in

many other regions of the world there does not appear to be a clear consensus on the description of
monitoring sites.
Monitoring frequency
It is clear that the frequency should be dependent on the type of end-use and on the size of the installation.
Section 18.2 provides the frequencies proposed by WP2 of the Aquarec project.
Monitoring requirements should not be expected to remain the same over the treatment facility’s life
cycle. Start-up concerns are expected to be different from the long-term system treatment performance
considerations. A good practice is to require ongoing monitoring until sufficient data and experience is
acquired to sensibly decrease the effort. Good practice is that frequencies should be defined for the
maximum regimes which can be reduced by demonstration of appropriate effluent quality. This is the case
for a number of legislations (e.g.: ACT, NSW 1993, NSW 2003).
18.2 STATUS OF MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL

PRACTICES
The next section will provide an overview of the status of monitoring and quality control practices based
on the Aquarec questionnaire on management practices (Section 18.3.1) and examples representing
applications requiring a different extent of monitoring in the context of water reuse
• Case study on limited (industrial cooling): class 7 (out of 7) of Figure 18.1 (Section 18.3.2);
• Case study on moderate (unrestricted irrigation): class 4 of Figure 18.1 (Section 18.3.3);
• Case study on extensive (unrestricted irrigation): class 3 of Figure 18.1 (Section 18.3.4);
• Case study on Full-fledged (aquifer recharge for indirect drinking water supply): class 1 of Figure
18.1 (Section 18.3.5).
469
18.2.1 Aquarec questionnaire results

Respondents of the Aquarec questionnaire indicate that extensive monitoring of the water quality is a
priority in water reclamation and reuse schemes and in fact, it is a standard component of almost all water
reclamation schemes. Utility managers were asked about the monitoring of their schemes and in particular
if monitoring was on-line and if the purpose of the monitoring was for plant performance and/or for health
risk limitation or safety purposes. For example, Table 18.5 summarises the results received by the
Australian respondents (Muston and Wille, 2006).
Table 18.5 Monitoring of schemes in Australia: results from the Aquarec

questionnaire
Monitoring on- Monitoring for Monitoring for Health
Parameter No.
line performance risk / safety
pH 4 3 4
Turbidity 4 4 5 3
TSS 1 1
Conductivity 2 1 3
Total Coli 5 4 3
Fecal Coli 2 1 2
Nematodes
Streptococcus
Micro pollutants
Total residual chlorine 3 5 4 4
Energy 4 2
chemical use 4 2
flow 5 3
temperature 1 1
odour 1 1
oil and greease 1 1 1
nitrogen 3 3 1
ammonia 1 1
phosphorous 3 1 3 1
BOD 3 3 1
MLSS 1 1
DO 1 1
NFR 1
TDS 1 1
pump run time 1 1
The monitoring for both health and safety requirements and plant performance includes parameters such
as turbidity, total coliforms and chlorine residual. Plant performance is primarily monitored using pH,
turbidity, conductivity, BOD and various nutrients.
Eight of the ten schemes that were reviewed are subject to a regular environmental audit and have in place
a risk management plan. Nine of the schemes have a maintenance management plan.
Control strategies that are in place for potential risks from micropollutants such as pesticides, radioactive
materials, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors were mainly limited to source control, with a number
470
of scheme operators undertaking research and developing risk management or contingency strategies
including multiple barrier control. The schemes surveyed were not continuously staffed but most had
SCADA systems or similar to monitor the process and key process parameters including an alarm system
that reported remotely to a personal computer or phone (Muston and Wille, 2006).
While it is standard practice to set up the required water quality based on the intended use, no consensus
exists yet at Community level on the classification of the water reuse applications, nor on their water
quality indicators. Moreover, within corresponding classes and parameters, absolute values can vary
sometimes even of an order of magnitude.
Figure 18.1 shows the water use classification recommended by the AQUAREC project for harmonising
the various Member States’ approaches. The water quality hierarchy is represented by a pyramid, with
increasing water quality requirements when stepping up the pyramid.
Figure 18.1 Hierarchy of water reuse classification (derived from Salgot et al.,
2006) and the related monitoring programme requirements
Residential uses, Extensive

Aquifer recharge
by direct injection.
Bathing water.
Bathing water.
Urban uses,
Unrestricted irrigation.
IrrigationIrrigation
of pasture,
of pasture,
of industrial crops
and crops not raw consumed, -
Impoundments,
impoundments,water waterbodies
bodiesand
andstreams
streamswith
with
unrestricted recreational access (except bathing). Moderate
-Irrigation of forested areas,
-landscape areas and restricted access areas,
-Aquaculture (plant or animal biomass).
-Aquifer recharge by localised percolation through the soil.
Surface water quality,
Surface water quality, impoundments, water bodies and streams
impoundments, water bodies and streams
for recreational use, in which the publics contact with the water
for recreational use,
in which the public ’s is not permitted
contact with the water is not permitted
Industrial cooling,
except for the food industry Limited
Because of the lack of uniformity in regulatory water quality requirements, management practices of
quality control obviously vary from region to region and in some regions even from project to project.
Nonetheless, the surveyed projects indicate that there are also several common traits:
• The schemes developed extensive quality control practices. In particular, the continuous monitoring
of operating parameters is a standard component of all water reclamation schemes investigated.
Minimum instrumentation consists of alarms at critical treatment units to alert an operator of a
malfunction. Sensors that are available in almost all the water reclamation schemes in order to
identify and halt the use of unacceptable reclaimed water quality are conductance meters and
471
turbidometers (as we have seen in Chapter 7, high levels of turbidity can protect micro-organisms
from the effects of disinfection, stimulate the growth of bacteria, and exert a higher chlorine demand
for disinfection);
• The checking of disinfection systems is carried out daily, and in most of the cases the disinfectant
residuals are measured continuously and the signal is used in automatic control systems;
• Barrier failures are detected based on simple and reliable on-line sensors (which are dependent on the
specific technology in use). Note that the consequences of barrier failure were not considered by the
operators to be of significance, either because there were multiple barriers in the schemes or because
the end-user can tolerate some water quality that is below normal standards (Muston and Wille,
2006);
• For each of the treatment steps, there are typically well-defined standard Quality Assurance/Quality
Control practices to assure that the system is functioning as designed. While their description goes
beyond the scope of this document, it is worth mentioning here that on-line, real-time water quality
monitoring is typically used for this purpose;
• Many respondents attributed particular importance to the control of reticulation systems especially
where reclaimed water is reticulated in close proximity to potable supplies (e.g., Muston and Wille,
2006). Several types of contractual agreements were identified to limit the liability of the water
supplier on the one hand, and to insure that operation and maintenance is practised in a safe and
responsible manner, on the other. The experience in Australia, at Sydney Olympic Park (Listowski,
2004) and at Rouse Hill in Sydney (De Rooy and Engelbrecht, 2003) is to manage the system with
comprehensive inspection during construction and with follow up inspections and certification. In
Israel, in case of a pipe leakage the farmer is immediately notified and the water utility will have to
repair the leakage within a time delay of 24 hrs. Water supply interruptions of 24 hrs are already
sufficient for some crops to deteriorate.
• Despite the fact that the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) concept is
increasingly used to direct efforts in process control and monitoring to guarantee hygienically safe
reclaimed water, very few surveyed projects have used them. Two examples in the surveyed projects
are the Wulpen Water reclamation scheme and the Singapore NEWater scheme (Ch. 12).
• Another interesting point is that very few projects seem concerned about emerging issues such as
trace organic contamination (cfr. Section 18.4).
18.2.2 Limited monitoring program requirements
Monitoring strategy to deliver cooling water make-up in Tienen, Belgium

The Tienen (Belgium) water reuse scheme reclaims 2,000,000 m³ per year in order to reduce the
extraction of natural groundwater for close-circuit cooling water make-up at a nearby chemical company.
The requirements for this application are stable quality and quantity, low turbidity, conductivity,
suspended solids and temperature.
The wastewater treatment plant consists of a low loaded activated sludge system (oxidation ditch) with
enhanced biological phosphorus removal and complies with the European Urban Wastewater Treatment
472
Directive for Sensitive Areas (91/271/EEC). To prevent microbiological growth in the ducts, the effluent
is disinfected with ozone, to obtain an ozone concentration of 3-4 mg/L at the entry of the cooling water
makeup storage facility. Since the start-up of the use of reclaimed water in 2003, no problems occurred
regarding regrowth in the cooling circuit, with the reclaimed water having a total cell count of 100 – 200
CFU/mL.
To detect and retain reclaimed water of unacceptable quality, conductivity and turbidity are measured on-
line. Should the conductivity exceed 1,700 μS/cm or the turbidity be higher than 3 NTU, the reclaimed
water will be diverted to the surface water body and the system will be provided with an alternative water
supply (groundwater). Temperature is also measured continuously. Seasonal evolution of temperature
implies that the reclaimed water cannot be used during summer months (Thoeye et al., in publication).
18.2.3 Moderate monitoring program
Control of the effluent quality for landscape irrigation at Lloret de Mar, Spain
(excerpt from Humbert et al., 1998)
Table 18.6 shows the effluent analysis made for the quality control of water used for irrigation.
Table 18.6 Maximum permissible values and effluent quality at the water
reclamation scheme of Lloret de Mar, Spain.
Parameters Maximum admissible Reclaimed water
F. Coliforms, CFU/100 mL < 10 <1
F. Streptococci, CFU/100 mL <10 <1
Residual Chlorine, mg/L - 0.9
Temperature, °C - 21
E. Conductivity, μS/cm < 3000 1249
TSS, mg/L 9
Na, mg/L 900 139
K, mg/L - 17.8
Cl, mg/L - 184
Ca, mg/L 400 66
Mg, mg/L 60 9.6
Bicarbonate, mg /L - 266
SAR - 5
Ammonia, mg/L <40 7
Nitrites, mg N/L - 0.25
Nitrates, mg N/L - 2.2
Organic N, mg N/L - 12
Ortho-P, mg P/L 15 4
Total phosphorus, mg P/L - 7
Boron, mg/L 3 0.8
pH 6-9 7.53
Fe, mg/L 5 0,07
Mn, mg/L 0,2 <0.1
Cd, mg/L <0.01
Cr, mg/L 0.1 < 0.1
473
Parameters Maximum admissible Reclaimed water

Cu, mg/L 0.2 <0.2
Ni, mg/L 0.2 <0.2
Pb, mg/L 5 <0.2
Zn, mg/L 2 <0.2
* From February 28 to March 18, the WWTP stopped working because some reparations had to be done.
The periodicity by which these analyses are made is described next:
Physical and nutrients analysis: As these parameters are necessary for the control of the WWTP
process, they are carried out once per week. These parameters are also necessary for the farmers and for
the people responsible for the grass on the golf course. The nutrients present in the irrigation water have to
be taken into account for the calculation of quantities of amendment needed.
Salt and heavy metal analysis: They are carried out once per month between April and October, months
in which the reuse water demand is higher.
Microbiological analysis: They are generally carried out once per month between April and October, and
once every 2 weeks between May and September. The frequency of these analyses is proportional with
the reuse water demand.
The monthly report of the water system operator (Consortia Costa Brava, CCB) provides all the
information about: the disinfection of the reuse water, the influent flow data of the WWTP, the results of
the reuse water analysis, the contribution of fertilising substances and its economical valorisation, as well
as some general information. Every month, the CCB informs the user about the quality of the available
reuse water.
Maintenance work:
Reading and maintenance of counters: 2 to 3 hours each month from May to September, and 1 or 2 hours
for the other months. The reading of all the installed counters has to be done. Analysis and control of
Chlorine doses: 3 to 4 hours each month from May to September, and 1 or 2 hours for the other months.
As a general rule, the chlorine dosing check up has to be done once per week in order to have a good
operation of the installation, even if the chlorine analysis shows the right dosing. The free residual and
combined chlorine analysis are carried out every day during summer period.
18.2.4 Extensive monitoring program requirements
Agricultural irrigation: monitoring strategy to provide agricultural irrigation in the Dan

Region, Israel
The Dan region water reclamation scheme, described in Chapter 14, has an extensive water quality
monitoring to keep an efficient and safe wastewater reuse system. Separate monitoring systems and
reliability criteria exist for all three parts of the Scheme, namely: the WWTP, the SAT system (for
specific monitoring requirements, see Chapter 14) and the distribution system including the operational
and seasonal reservoirs (for specific monitoring requirements, see Chapter 17).
Besides sampling in different points, there is 24 hour monitoring of the WWTP and SAT operation in a
manned control room in the WWTP and also visual inspections are performed along the distribution line
474
up to the end -user. The water quality criteria for the recovered water should ensure the distribution of
effluents suitable for unrestricted irrigation that enable the irrigation of all kinds of crops and a water
quality suitable to the drinking water specifications (accidental drinking).
To ensure this water quality, the project operation is followed up by a very comprehensive water quality-
monitoring program, which includes analyses of physical, chemical and biological parameters, at various
sampling points and time intervals. Table 18.7 reports the microbiological indicators monitored at
different stages in the Dan Region Project.
Table 18.7 Microbiological quality of the water at different stages in the Dan
Region Project (5 years average)
Raw WWTP Operational Seasonal Distribution

Parameter from SAT#
sewage effluent reservoirs * reservoirs** lines ***
Total Bacteria
1.77E+07 5.58E+05 100-1000 40,722 10,681 3,956
(No./1 mL)
Coliforms (MPN/100
1.5E+08 4.12E+05 0-2 427 318 1,2
mL)
FC
2E+07 3.82E+04 0 221 146 2-3
(MPN/100 mL)
Strept. Faecalis
3.58E+06 9E+03 0-1 129 165 1-2
(MPN/100 mL)
Enteroviruses
2-3 0
(PFU/400 L)
removed at each stage
TB
TC - 2-3 log - 1-2 log 0-0.5 log 1 log
FC - 1-2 log 5 log -2 log 0 1 log
Enterovirus - 2-3 log 4 log -2 log 0 2log
- 2-3 log 0-1 log
5 YEARS AVERAGE 2000 -2004. # The values are average of a series of analysis (for total bacteria only 2003-2004 and the
maximum for each year was 1 out of 20 analyses 1000-2000 /1 ml Total bacteria .** Average of all reservoirs. The pathogenic
bacteria in the reservoirs are not from human origin since the SAT cleaned all bacteria from human origin. *** After
chlorination of the water.
18.3 TRENDS
18.3.1 A more varied list of reclaimed water quality

indicators
The state of science is not yet reflected in water reuse guidelines or regulation and there is an open debate
about the relevance of several additional water quality indicators for water reuse applications.
In the first place, the debate is on the microbiological indicators. Besides the traditionally established
indicator organisms for the potential occurrence of pathogenic organisms such as Faecal coliforms or
Escherichia coli, a range of emerging pathogens has been discussed and investigated as well as new
detection methods such as Fluorescence In-situ Hybridisation (FISH) and Polymerase Chain Reaction
(PCR). Some pathogens are already included in guidelines and legislation. Florida for instance recognizes
475
that Giardia spp. and Cryptosporidium spp. are pathogens of increasing importance to water reclamation
and now requires monitoring for these pathogens. Another increasing concern is caused by the still
growing multiple antibiotic resistances of human pathogens (Martínez and Baquero, 2002).
Second, an increasingly documented class of organic trace contaminants in wastewater is that of the
“endocrine disrupting chemicals”. Much attention has been devoted to natural and synthetic steroidal
hormones, which are shown to induce biological effects on some organisms at part per trillion
concentrations. Some steroidal hormones are poorly removed in conventional wastewater treatment
processes (Purdom et al., 1994). Other chemicals exhibiting similar effects at higher concentrations that
are known to be present in sewages include some plasticizers, pesticides and degradation products of some
detergents (Körner et al., 2000).
There is also a broad range of pharmaceutically active compounds which have been detected in
municipal wastewaters in many parts of the world (Heberer, 2002). At this point there are no indications
for limitations to water reuse caused by these compounds, although their effect is largely unknown.
There are currently no analytical standard procedures for a range of emerging pollutants such as endocrine
disrupters and pharmaceuticals.
There has been an extensive effort to investigate emerging organic trace contaminants in wastewater
streams and to assess the removal capacity of both conventional and advanced wastewater treatment
options (Poseidon, 2004). It is very obvious that sophisticated analytical techniques are required to
measure most of the trace organic contaminants in realistic concentrations as found in wastewater
treatment plant effluents (Kuch et al., 2000). Some core components of these methods are described in
chapter 18.1.
Apart from chemical analysis approaches to monitor emerging trace pollutants there have been many
approaches to establish and apply biological effect assays, which do not look at the identification of single
compounds but of cumulative effects of a water sample on a test cell line (in-vitro assay) or on complex
organisms (in vivo tests) (Segner et al., 2003). Besides acute toxicity, chronic and sublethal aspects such
as genotoxicity and mutagenicity are of increasing importance as well as endocrine disruption and
immunotoxicity (Perez et al., 2003). Bioassays can prove to be very effective in the monitoring of both
reclaimed water quality and water reuse impact (Valat et al., 2004).
As part of the ongoing investigation of the behaviour of emerging contaminants in wastewater reclamation
and reuse the research project RECLAIM WATER on Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe artificial
Groundwater Recharge (Specific Targeted Research Project in the 6th Framework Programme of the
European Union) applies a comprehensive analytical package for the monitoring of a number of water
reuse case studies (www.reclaim-water.org). Within the project, beside standard analytical parameters
emerging microbial and chemical contaminants are considered in combination with biological effect
assays (Table 18.8).
In some advanced wastewater reclamation schemes, particularly for indirect potable reuse, already very
comprehensive monitoring campaigns are carried out. The example of the Singaporean NeWater Project
given in Table 18.9 shows the intensive monitoring efforts that have been made in the early phase of the
project to confirm that there is no concern with respect to residual levels of trace contaminants. Currently,
for the routine operation an extensive Sampling and Monitoring Programme, which includes 278
parameters, is in place (Leong Yin Hou, 2006).
476
Table 18.8 Intensified analysis program for water reuse sites which is being
carried out in the RECLAIM WATER project (www.reclaim-water.org)
Specific Microbial Contamination and Antibiotic Organic Contaminants
Resistance Gene
Bacteria
Salmonella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, Yersinia Antibiotics
enterocolitica, Francisella tularensis, Helicobacter pilori, e.g. sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline
Mycobacterium avium
Organic tracer compounds and endocrine disruptors

Protozoa
e.g. iodated contrast media, adsorbable organic iodine,
Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp.
carbamazepine, benzotriazole, diclofenac
Viruses Dissolved organic matter characterization

Enterovirus (Poliovirus, Echovirus, Coxsackievirus), e.g. natural organic matter and effluent organic matter
Hepatitis A virus, Rotavirus fractions
Helminth eggs
Disinfection byproducts
Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichurus trichiura, Anclylostoma
e.g. N-nitrosamines,. Trihalomethanes
duodenale
Antibiotic Resistance Genes
Table 18.9 Number and nature of monitored parameters per sampling location
at the NeWater reclamation facility, Singapore
Water Quality
Sample Location/Number of parameters
parameter
PUB
WWTP MF RO UV PUB Raw
NEWater Drinking
effluent Filtrate Permeate Effluent Water
Water
Physical 9 3 3 2 8 8 7
Organic Inorganic
Disinfection
6 1 2 1 6 6 6
By-products
Other 39 2 32 39 38 39
Disinfection
22 22 22 22 22
By-products
Other 42 41 41 37
Pesticides/ Herbicides 50 50 50 50
Radionuclides 6 6 6 6
Wastewater Signature
4 4 4 4
Compounds
Synthetic & Natural
3 3 3 3 3 3
Hormones
Microbiological 10 9 7 10 9 3
Totals 191 18 69 3 189 187 177
Adapted from PUB (2002)
477
In summary, it can be noted that there is a clear trend for more comprehensive monitoring which is based
on more powerful analytical techniques both in the microbiological and chemical sector.
A key recommendation for operators is to make use of specialised laboratories for a baseline assessment
of emerging parameters without the necessity to include them in routine analysis at this stage.
It is a research task to assess both the relevance and most efficient removal techniques for a wider range of
emerging contaminants. Instead of widely enlarged parameter catalogues an opportunity would be to
establish advanced treatment standards which provide some safeguard for the mitigation of emerging
contaminants below effect levels. The monitoring effort can then focus on the integrity control of those
barriers for classes of compounds.
18.3.2 Finding key parameters for the aggregate

evaluation of the water quality
The definition of easy-to-monitor and “fit-for-all-purposes” parameters is certainly highly desirable from
an operator’s point of view. Nevertheless the different constraints imposed by regulations and case-by-
case permits cannot be overcome with respect to the demanded water quality parameters and sampling
frequencies. Water quality control might be appropriate on shorter intervals to improve process reliability,
end-user satisfaction and simply to avoid technical problems in the longer run. A pre-supposition for a key
parameter and the respective way to monitor it (measurement point in the process, frequency, sample
processing, reporting, feed-back possibilities) is that the parameter should be suitable as an early-warning-
indicator which shows that the process performance is about to fluctuate either on the basis of input
variations or technical malfunctions. Hence, it is required to set up a system of control points which are
able to observe input, functionality of the treatment process as well as product quality.
18.3.3 The time-scale of the measurement

While analyses are becoming more complex, market pressures are also dictating that the results are
available more quickly.
There are a number of new emerging instruments and techniques, such as particle counters and gene probe
technologies, which hold considerable promise as monitoring tools. It is expected that these technologies
may provide reliable and inexpensive methods to conduct parameter testing. Future research and lower
instrument costs will be required before such technologies become widely available.
Promising results are also coming from latest development of early warning systems for microbiological
contamination. Two examples are the development of protocols for the examination of E. Coli that allow
to obtain results in the range of measurement 10-50 CFU/100mL within 1 hour (Morikawa et al., 2005)
and in the range 50-400 CFU / 100mL within 10 hours (Braathen et al., 2005)

Each water reclamation plant is unique, with its own requirements for an integrated monitoring and
control instrumentation system. However some common traits can be defined, especially considering the
monitoring of the hygienic quality.
478
Because of the multiple barriers that are generally in place to prevent unsuitable reclaimed water reaching
the customer, the regulatory monitoring of delivered water quality is often simply a verification that the
preventative measures are effective, and often variables that can be monitored instantaneously can give a
higher level of confidence in safety of supply and at less cost than analyzing for an expanding number of
chemicals.
Two opposite trends are in place in the monitoring of water reuse schemes: on one hand, the need to
follow up a more varied list of reclaimed water indicators and on the other, the development of easy-to-
monitor and fit-for-all-purposes sensors that can provide an overall indication of the suitability of the
reclaimed water for a range of intended uses.
18.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
APHA-AWWA-WEF (1998) Standard Methods for the examination of Water and Wastewater (20th Edition) Edited by
Clesceri.L.S., Grenberg A.E., Eaton A.D.ISBN 0-87553-235-7.
Asano T. and A. D. Levine (2004) Recovering sustainable water from wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology, June,
201–208.
Braathen H., Ranneklev S., Rydbert H. and H. Sagstad (2005) Fully automated monitor reduces intake of E.Coli-contaminated
raw water. Water and Wastewater International 20 (2): 35.
Heberer T. (2002) Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent
research data. T. Toxicol. Lett. 131 (1-2): 5-17.
Humbert F., Marín M. and A. Torra (1998) Water reuse from the point of view of the wastewater utility operator. Proceedings
Technical workshop: reclaimed water management: 43-54; Palamós, Spain; June 1998 (in Spanish).
Hunt D.T.E. and A.L. Wilson (1986) The Chemical Analysis of Water, General Principles and Techniques, Second Edition The
Royal Society of Chemistry Burlington House, London ISBN 0-85186-797-9.
Körner W., Bolz U., Süßmuth W., Hiller G., Schuller W., Hanf V. and H. Hagenmaier (2000) Chemosphere 40: 1131-1142.
Kuch H. M. and K. Ballschmiter (2000) Determination of endogenous and exogenous estrogens in effluents from sewage treatment
plants at the ng/l - level. J Anal. Chem. 366 (4): 392-395.
Leong Y. H. (2006) personal communication. Senior Chemist PUB, Singapore.
Listowski A. (2004) Proceedings Aquarec Workshop; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004 [CD-ROM].
Martínez J.L. and F. Baquero (2002) Interactions among Strategies Associated with Bacterial Infection: Pathogenicity, Epidemicity,
and Antibiotic Resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 15 (4): 647-679.
Metcalf&Eddy (2003) Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill.
Morikawa A., Hirashiki I. and S. Furukawa (2005) Development of a coliform monitoring system using an enzymatic
fluorescence method. 2nd IWA Conf. on Instrumentation, Control and Automation; Busan, Korea; 29 May – 2 June 2005.
Muston M.H. and A. Wille (2006) Operators experience with recycling in Australia. Desalination 188: 43-50.
Pérez S., Reifferscheid G. and D. Barcelò (2003) Environ Toxicol Chem. 22 (11): 2576-2584.
Poseidon Research Project - Assessment of technologies for the removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in
sewage and drinking water facilities to improve the indirect potable water reuse, 2004. www.poseidon-eu.org .
Public Utilities Board (2002) Singapore water reclamation study expert panel review and findings:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater_files/download/review.PDF
479
Purdom C.E., Hardiman P.A., Bye V.J., Eno N.C., Tyler C. R. and J.P. Sumpter (1994) Estrogenic effects of the effluent from
sewage treatment works. Chemistry and Ecology 8: :275-285.
Salgot M., Campos C., Galofre’ B. and J.C. Tapias (2001) Biological control tools for wastewater reclamation and reuse.
A critical review. Wat Sci. Tech. 43 10: 195-201.
Salgot M., Huertas E., Weber S., Dott W. and J. Hollender (2006). Wastewater reuse and risk: definition of key objectives.
Segner H., Navas J. M., Schäfers C. and A. Wenzel (2003) Potencies of estrogenic compounds in in vitro screening assays and
in life cycle tests with zebrafish in vivo.Ecotoxicol Environ. Saf. 54 (3): 315-22.
Thoeye C., Wintgens T., Van Houtte E., Bixio D., De Gueldre G. and B. Van De Steene (in publication) Wastewater Reclamation
and Reuse in Belgium. In: Wastewater management in regions under water scarcity: The State-of the-Art in the Beginning of
XXIst Century. Springer Publishing.
Valat C., Champiat D., Degorce-Dumas J. R. and O. Thomas (2004) Using bioluminescent biosensors for hazard analysis and critical
control point (HACCP) in wastewater control.Wat. Sci. Tech. 49 (1): 131-138.
WPCF (1989) Water reuse manual of practice- second edition. Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, USA.
480
19 FAILURE AND FAILURE MANAGEMENT

19.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is intended to provide operators with a framework for best management practice in the
avoidance and management of failures in the scheme. The experience in operating reuse schemes,
particularly in regard to scheme failures, is not as extensive as that gained from operating water and
sewerage systems and therefore the relevant lessons in relation to failures from water and sewerage
systems will be included where these lessons are relevant to the operation of a reuse scheme.
The operation and maintenance of discrete elements of the reuse scheme such as the treatment facilities
and the storage and distribution systems has been well documented in the operations and maintenance
section (Chapters 8 to 17) and it is beyond the scope of this chapter of the guidelines to document all
aspects of the reliable operation of these individual treatment and distribution facilities other than those
that relate specifically to the overall reuse scheme operation.
The scope of this section is therefore focussed on the management of failure potential that is specifically
related to the operation of reuse schemes and the key elements of these schemes that are likely to result in
overall scheme failure or adverse outcomes for those exposed to reuse water from the scheme or products
produced using the reuse water.
The guidelines are based on a literature review of failure mechanisms together with the relevant outputs of
the AQUAREC International Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater
Reuse Plants that was held in Thessaloniki, Greece in March 2004 (reported in Muston, 2004) and from a
confidential questionnaire completed by selected scheme operators (Muston and Wille, 2005).
19.2 FAILURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Good practice recommendations
• An appropriate risk management process should be documented and implemented for each reuse
scheme. The process should be consistent with published guidelines (such as the AS/NZS 4360
Standard on Risk Management) and Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points (HACCP)
published by the US Food and Drug Administration,
• Monitoring and analysis of monitoring data from critical control points throughout the scheme,
including end user quality monitoring, are important to ensure scheme reliability.
Failure mechanisms need to differentiate between failure of a critical component and overall failure of the
system and this distinction is discussed by Eisenberg et al. (2001). While system reliability has been
defined by the American Water works Association in terms of the probability of being on line and the
number of parallel components or treatment units, reliability can be defined in terms of the quality of
product coming out of the unit. A number of approaches are available for analysing the mechanical
reliability of a treatment plant including Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree analysis, etc. Failure modes and
effects analysis, and Critical components analysis to determine which mechanical components in the
481
treatment plant would have the most immediate impact on effluent quality should failure occur. Data on
plant maintenance is important in assessment of reliability for each plant component.
Case Study Aqua III AWT Demonstration facility San Diego California as reported in
Eisenberg et al. (1998)
Both critical component analysis and product quality analysis were applied to the San Diego Aqua III
advanced reuse facility. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the mechanical reliability and
identify the key pieces of equipment where failure may be related to effluent quality. The USEPA ‘s
Critical Component Analysis methodology was used to evaluate the reliability of mechanical systems.
The inherent availability is a measure of the fraction of time that the component or process can be
expected to be operational excluding preventative maintenance downtime. Operating availability is a
measure of the fraction of the time which the component or unit was operating. A statistical analysis
was undertaken on the 11 treatment units and 295 plant components in the Aqua III facility and the
analysis of the mechanical reliability showed that individual mechanical failures in the Aqua III
facility did not significantly affect the overall mechanical reliability of the treatment units. To
investigate the correlation between plant failure s in the Aqua III facility and effluent quality,
bacteriological indicator organisms monitoring results were correlated to plant component failures.
These results indicated no correlation between plant mechanical failures and effluent quality
(Eisenberg et al., 1998).
19.2.1 Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points

There is a growing recognition of the need to be systematic in the assessment of failure mechanisms and
the associated risks. Techniques such as ‘Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points’ (HACCP) and
standards for risk assessment are used to systematically assess the processes including both treatment
processes and the distribution and use of reclaimed water.
HACCP is a preventive system used in the food industry to manage the manufacture process and ensure
the absence of biological, chemical or physical danger from the product (Salgot et al. 2002). The National
Aeronautical and Space Administration originally developed the methodology in the 1960’s to prevent
astronauts from getting ill from contaminated food. The identification of critical control points is an
important issue in HACCP because the major efforts in process control and monitoring will be directed
towards these steps (Dewettinck et al., 2001; Salgot et al., 2002; Nadebaum, 2003). The HACCP
methodology involves the following steps:
• Assess the process and at each control point or barrier identification of significant hazards;
• Assess the risks that the hazards pose to product safety;
• Establish control measures to prevent or minimise the risks; and
• A system of monitoring to ensure that the control measures are always effective.
The systems are designed to ensure, wherever possible, if failures occur that they will be detected before
supply to consumers (Cunliffe and Stevens, 2003).
482
Case study The Virginia Pipeline South Australia - reproduced from Cunliff and
Stephens 2003
The Virginia Pipeline scheme is an irrigation scheme with tertiary treated effluent from a STP being piped
to an area of intensive horticulture to the North East of Adelaide South Australia for unrestricted irrigation
of food crops. The treatment process consists of primary treatment, secondary treatment, lagoons, tertiary
treatment and disinfection. The following table illustrates how the 12 steps in the HACCP were
implemented for the scheme.
HACCP Step Activity
Assemble team • DHS Public Health Scientists
• EPA
• SA Water Engineers and Scientists
• United Water (Operators of Plant)
• Water Reticulation Systems (Virginia)–operators of distribution

system. WRS (V)
Describe product • Metropolitan WWTP taking largely domestic waste with some
commercial and light industrial waste. No pharmaceutical
wastes.
• Secondary treatment plant (with trickling filters)
• Lagoon Storage (16 days minimum detention)
• Dissolved Air Flotation and Filtration Plant
• Chlorination and chlorine contact tank
• Distribution system including open storage, pipeline and on-site

storages
• Spray irrigation
Identify intended use • Unrestricted irrigation of food crops including salad vegetables
Construct flow diagram • Detailed plans of the treatment plant, the distribution system
and the on-site irrigation management plans provided by SA
Water and WRS (V)
Confirm flow diagram • Field surveys undertaken by approving authorities
483
Conduct a hazard analysis • Human wastewater contains high numbers of enteric bacteria,
(and risk assessment) viruses and protozoa.
(Principle 1) High risk
• Inputs to plant examined for chemical inputs. Over 200 priority

chemicals investigated for health and aesthetic impacts.
Chemicals included potential endocrine disruptors,
cyanobacterial toxins, chlorination by-products
Low-moderate risk. Highest risk from unlicensed/illegal

discharges
Determine critical control points • Trade waste program

(Principle 2)
• Lagoon storage
• DAFF treatment plant
• Chlorination
• On-site controls
Establish critical limits • Lagoon storage - minimum storage 16 days

(Principle 3) • DAFF treatment plant – turbidity limits on individual filters and
total effluent
• Chlorination – constant dosing, minimum residual,
• Signage, colour coding of pipework, air gaps
Monitoring (Principle 4) • Flow measurements (continuous)
• Turbidity – continuous turbidity monitoring with 24hr alarm

system
• Chlorinator – continuous monitoring of operation and minimum

residual monitoring with 24hr alarm system
• Regular inspections by WRS (V) and independent audit
Establish corrective actions • If failure of storage time occurs supply of reclaimed water
(Principle 5) stopped or treatment enhanced. If filtration or chlorination fails
supply of reclaimed water stops automatically.
484
Establish validation/verification • Validation was undertaken during precommissioning and

procedures (Principle 6) commissioning to demonstrate that the critical control points
were effective in ensuring that health-based performance targets
were met. In terms of microbiological quality this meant (<1
virus, Giardia, Cryptosporidium per 50 L and < 10 E.coli per
100 mL)
• Verification includes routine analysis for microbiological and

chemical quality of reclaimed water. Regular review of records.
Annual review/audit of all records
• Crop testing
Establish Documentation • Records of all monitoring must be retained and be available for
(Principle 7) inspection at any time. Results reported on a monthly/quarterly
basis to DHS
19.2.2 Quantitative Risk Assessment

Anderson et al. (2001) distinguish between the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) which gives a high
technology/high cost/low risk approach and the real or Attributable Risk (AR) approach with low
technology/low cost/controlled risk approach. QRA involves the four steps of:
• Hazard Identification identifying the specific pathogens likely to be of concern;
• Exposure Assessment measuring the number of organisms present and number transmitted by a
particular exposure activity;
• Dose-Response Assessment using data on particular organisms to assess the probability of infection;
and
• Risk Characterisation calculating the theoretical risk based on exposure and dose-response
assumptions.
The application of the QRA approach is more common in countries where this approach is affordable
while the AR approach is common where there are scarce resources available. The development of
universal guidelines with a stepped risk assessment approach while balancing risks and costs is suggested
as a way to overcome the discrepancy between technology and financial capacity of different countries,
that are party to the guidelines (Anderson et al., 2001). Generally accepted QRA methodologies for water
reuse are outlined in (Thoeye et al., 2003).
19.2.3 Product quality monitoring

Variation of product quality is a function of various factors associated with the incoming stream or the
treatment process operation. The measurement of variation of what is coming out of the system is an
alternative means of assessing reliability. A methodology to assess treatment plant reliability using both
probability that the plant is operating properly and if so what is the probability that the effluent will meet
or exceed a given set of criteria is discussed in detail by Eisenberg et al. (2001) and by Bixio et al. (2005).
485
19.2.4 End use risk management

Risk assessed using epidemiological studies supplemented by microbiological studies on the transmission
of pathogens in conjunction with a model-based quantitative risk assessment for selected pathogens
produces a powerful tool for assessing scheme reliability. Blumenthal et al. (2000) discussed in more
detail the epidemiological approach to risk assessment.
The risks to populations where reclaimed water is used for irrigation are dependent on the irrigation
method used. Health risks from irrigated crops are greatest when spray or sprinkler irrigation is used, and
the risk to field workers is greatest when flood or furrow irrigation is used.
19.2.5 Operators experience

Australian reuse schemes operators were asked to identify barriers and time delays to prevent the impact
of contaminants from reaching the end user (Muston and Wille, 2005). Most schemes that responded
included membrane treatment processes as the primary barrier with disinfection as the primary backup.
Other schemes use lagoons as a final barrier prior to distribution to the end user. In the schemes surveyed
the consequences of failure of an individual barrier was reported as being of low significance as generally
there were multiple barriers in the scheme maintain the quality of the final product or the end-users can
tolerate some water quality that is below normal standards without major health or environmental
consequences. The consequences of barrier failure was not considered by the operators to be of
significance to the life of the plant indicating a distinction between the short term product quality
management and the longer term plant asset management issues.
19.3 TREATMENT PROCESS FAILURE
Good practice recommendation
Reuse schemes and in particular the treatment processes should be designed and operated to allow for
natural and man made disasters that might occur and have in place contingency plans to prevent the
impact of these disasters from causing adverse health impacts to end users or to others.
These guidelines do not attempt to detail the steps needed for best practice management of the sewerage
treatment plant that is an element in a reuse scheme but rather assumes that these plants will be operated
consistent with the best practice for such plants. It is important however to consider any risks associated
with the treatment plant that will impact on the overall reliability of the reuse scheme and to adopt best
practice to manage these risks to a level that gives an overall risk that is acceptable to the local
community and to key stakeholders. The following are the general threats to the treatment process that
represent potential causes or mechanisms of system failure:
• Power failure;
• Critical system failure such as controlling computer inlet pumps;
• Equipment failure where extensive replacement delays occur (due to supplier problems etc);
• Fire or explosion;
• Spillage of corrosive or dangerous chemicals (& storage thereof);
486
• Gas leakage;
• Structural failure of tanks, pipelines or buildings;
• Natural disaster such as flood, earthquake, landslide, forest fire etc;
• External impacts from vehicles, aircraft etc;
• Sabotage, war or terrorist activity;
• Strikes and other workforce issues; and
• Trade waste discharges.
Each of these general threats can be relevant to any sewage or industrial wastewater treatment plant or
pollution control system and will not be limited to such failures in recycling plants and is therefore
beyond the scope of these guidelines. It is important that they are considered within the context of the
design and management of the treatment systems and that best practice relevant to managing of these
threats is applied to the reuse scheme.
The management of these failure modes and the impacts that might result can take two forms:
1. The design and operation of the schemes to incorporate sufficient redundancy to reduce the risk of
a particular event to a level that is acceptable to the end use and the exposure risks associated with
the scheme. This can include the provision of:
• Duplicate power supplies from independent and/or on site back up power supply sources,;
• Duplication of critical components of the scheme such as control and monitoring systems,
pumps, valves and blowers, disinfection systems, filters etc;
• Risks associated with natural disasters such as flood or fire can be managed by risk
assessment and appropriate plant location and design as well as internal design features to
ensure drainage and ventilation that reduces the risk of damage from accident or
misadventure; and
• Security and access control and protective measures to prevent damage as a result of
accidental external impact, sabotage or terrorist activity.
2. The provision of buffer storage or alternative supply sources to reduce the risk of an adverse
treatment event from impacting on the end users and to ensure an acceptable risk of adverse
outcomes associated with the of the quality of water supplied for reuse.
In each case the risk must be assessed and the scheme design and operation must be planned in a manner
that reduces these risks to an acceptable level and based on local knowledge and experience.
487
19.4 BARRIER FAILURE
• Barriers in the source controls, treatment, storage and distribution system must be truly
independent if they are to be considered as reliable barriers in a water reuse system.
• Monitoring of the scheme should be planned to detect barrier failures using simple and reliable
instruments that continuously measure key parameters that give a quick response to the failure of a
barrier.
• Increased risk of infection will result if there is an outbreak of disease in the population from
which the water is sourced in spite of the barriers in place.
• As water-related outbreaks of enteric protozoan disease are associated with ingestion of

contaminated drinking-water, immersion in recreational waters and consumption of contaminated
foods the choice of crop, method of irrigation and other exposure paths needs to be carefully
managed as barriers to prevent risks from these exposures from water reuse.
• Exposure to reclaimed water should be managed by choice of irrigation type, worker clothing and
hygiene precautions that are appropriate to the quality of reclaimed water.
The following are likely specific barriers or control points in a treatment plant within a reuse scheme that
need to be considered in managing of potential failure points:
• Secondary treatment process
• Filtration
• Microfiltration (MF) / Ultrafiltration (UF) membrane
• Nanofiltration (NF) / Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane
• Disinfection
• Lagoon
Two methodologies to develop criteria for water reclamation system design considering issues of
reliability were detailed by Haas and Trussell (1998). The first approach is one of independent barriers
and a methodology for assessing reliability of the overall treatment train and building in a level of
redundancy assuming that one barrier fails. The known or assumed log removal of each type of
contaminant by each treatment process or barrier is estimated using maximum input levels with
appropriate factor of safety applied. These log removal rates are summed and then an estimate of log
removal is made assuming the most efficient (i.e. greatest log removal) process is out of service. The
resultant log removal is compared to the required criteria.
488
Case study
The following table is an extract from Haas and Trussell (1998) that illustrates the methodology
described above. Computation of reliability of treatment process using redundant process approach
Virus Giardia Crypto.
Secondary effluent (#/L) 10 100 10
Treatment goal (#/L) 4.50E-07 1.40E-05 6.50E-05
Safety factor 10 10 100
Required logs removal 8.35 7.85 7.19
SEQUENCE 1
Lime treatment 1 2 0
Recarbonation 0 0 0
Sedimentation – filtration 1 1.5 1
Granular activated carbon 1 0/3 0.3
Advanced chemical oxidation 6 3 1.5
UV disinfection 3 1 1
Chlorination 5 2 0.2
Logs removed - total 17 9.8 4
Logs removed with failure of most efficient process 11 6.8 2.5
SEQUENCE 2
Microfiltration 0.5 5 5
Reverse osmosis 4 5 5
Advanced chemical oxidation 6 3 1.5
UV disinfection 3 1 1
Chlorination 5 2 0.2
Logs removed - total 18.5 16 12.7
Logs removed with failure of most efficient process 12.5 11 7.7
489
The treatment goals and the removals achieved by each process are estimated by Haas and Trussell
(1998). In the case study illustrated they have concluded that both treatment sequences have the ability
to achieve sufficient removal of virus and Giardia and only the second sequence has the ability to
remove Cryptosporidium. Once the reliability of the barriers are considered then only the second
process train is reliable for the removal of both protozoa.
The second approach uses a probabilistic analysis to the performance of several treatment barriers and
how this applies to the performance of the whole. This approach considers the variability of performance
of each treatment process and the cumulative impact of these variances. This requires either the analysis
of complex algebraic calculations to compute the overall mean and variance of concentrations of various
pollutants or the use of Monte Carlo simulation methods to develop these (Haas and Trussell, 1998).
In either method the independence of multiple barriers is a key aspect to understand and the greater the
independence of the barriers the greater the certainty that they will backup each other in the removal of
pathogens. If barriers depend on the same treatment step (such as reliance on good coagulation for
sedimentation and filtration performance in some plants) then they should not be considered as
independent. Failure of this nature may be a contributing factor in the 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in
Milwaukee (MacKenzie et al., 1994 in Haas and Trussell, 1998).
The World Health Organisation has concluded (Blumenthal et al., 2000) that most of the evidence
indicates that water-related outbreaks of enteric protozoan disease are associated with ingestion of
contaminated drinking-water, immersion in recreational waters and consumption of contaminated foods.
Little data is available on the importance of wastewater reuse in agriculture -- particularly the use of
treated wastewater -- in the transmission of parasitic protozoan infection, and these other routes of
transmission and poor domestic hygiene are probably more important, especially in developing countries.
Even though (oo)cysts of both Cryptosporidium parvum and Cyclospora cayetanensis have been detected
on vegetables in markets in an endemic area, there is no epidemiological evidence to directly implicate the
wastewater used for irrigation as a risk factor for either pathogen. Exposed communities in Israel to spray
irrigation showed similar enteric disease to communities not exposed. In Lubbock, Texas, USA, where a
rural community was exposed to sprinkler application of partially treated wastewater there was no
evidence of increase in disease although some evidence of increased exposure to viral infection however
eating at local restaurants was an alternative explanation in this case (Blumenthal et al., 2000).
Shuval et al. (1997) have developed a preliminary risk assessment model for infection and disease from
consumption of vegetables irrigated with wastewater complying with different well recognised
international standards. These models were validated using data from the cholera epidemic in Jerusalem
caused by ingestion of vegetables irrigated with wastewater. The conclusion of this risk assessment was
that irrigation with effluent meeting WHO guidelines (1,000 FC/100mL) indicates the annual risk of
contracting disease is about 10-5 to 10-7 providing a factor of safety of 1-2 orders of magnitude from the
generally accepted USEPA risk standard of 10-4. The costs of meeting more stringent standards are very
significant (Shuval et al., 1997).
Studies in Mexico indicate that there was a small increase in parasitic protozoa and viral disease,
particularly in children exposed to flood or furrow irrigation and the implementation of basic hygiene
precautions such as avoiding contact with wastewater, washing hands and wearing footwear is
490
recommended. Where two storage reservoirs were used in series there were no detectable nematode eggs
and is therefore adequate to protect children of farmworkers from Ascaris infection (Blumenthal et al.,
2000). Similar conclusions are reported by Shuval (1997) although the potential for transmission of
disease such as cholera and typhoid is greater when there are outbreaks in the associated urban
population.
The risks to populations are dependent on the irrigation method used. Health risks from irrigated crops are
greatest when spray or sprinkler irrigation is used, and the risk to field workers is greatest when flood or
furrow irrigation is used (Blumenthal et al., 2000; Shuval, 2003).
While the above studies focussed on risk assessment related to the application or use of the reclaimed
water another group of studies focus on the reliability of the process used to produce the reclaimed water.
Asano and Levine (1996) reviewed a number of studies undertaken to determine the reliability of reuse
schemes. Among the conclusions was that virus removal results verified that secondary treatment by
either direct filtration or activated carbon followed by disinfection for more than 95% of the time can
meet the USEPA disease risk criteria of 10–4 for golf course irrigation, food crop irrigation and for
groundwater recharge.
19.4.1 Operator experience

In a detailed questionnaire of scheme operators in Australia (Muston and Wile, 2005) respondents were
asked to identify barriers and time delays that are incorporated in the scheme to prevent or buffer the
impact of contaminants from reaching the end user.
Of the eight scheme operators that responded most of those schemes that included membrane treatment
processes depended primarily on the membranes as a barrier with disinfection the main backup. Other
treatment processes included some form of storage in the treatment train that provided a barrier prior to
distribution to the end user. The consequences of failure of individual barriers was reported as being of
low significance as generally multiple barriers will maintain the quality of final product water or the end
use can tolerate some water that is below quality targets for a limited time without major health or
environmental impacts (such as with some irrigation systems).
The consequence of individual barrier failure on the life of the plant was not considered to be of
consequence by all of the respondents, with minor problems such as algal build up being the main
problems reported.
Six of the surveyed scheme operators reported failures that had occurred, mostly due to equipment
malfunction or breakdown including pumps and chemical dosing equipment. In some cases the “failure”
was an anomaly in monitoring results due to monitoring equipment malfunction. One failure was a result
of algal build up in the distribution system. Failure was mainly detected by monitoring of chlorine
residual, turbidity and conductivity with a result outside the normal guidelines for the parameter being
measured considered as a failure. None of the failures reported resulted in the supply of water that caused
any health or environmental problems in any of the reported cases.
491
19.5 INFLUENT PROBLEMS
• The inflow to a reuse scheme must be monitored and managed to prevent contaminants in the
influent that either exceed the capacity of the treatment process, are not capable of removal by the
treatment process or are toxic to the biological processes or corrosive or reactive with the physical
and chemical processes thus risking failure of the barriers within the reuse scheme.
The failure of a reuse scheme may result from the inability of the treatment processes to remove chemical
contaminants or excessive pathogens that are either not removed by the treatment processes or are in
concentrations that overwhelm the treatment processes. Other failures may occur if there are corrosive or
toxic chemicals or organisms that will damage the treatment physical infrastructure or process and thus
result in the barriers in the treatment and supply system for reclaimed water failing.
It is essential to maintain both effective trade waste management policies and maintain a good knowledge
of the catchment and the potential sources of industrial wastes within the catchments and to develop a risk
based monitoring program that will provide early warning of a change in the influent quality. A response
plan for managing of an event where influent is likely to cause an impact on reuse water quality needs to
ensure that the end users are not exposed to associated impacts or adverse risk.
Fairbairn (2005) outlined a number of system management options used at the Rouse Hill scheme in
Sydney Australia to minimise the impact of the diurnal variation in inflow volume and quality
(particularly DO variation) including the optimising of pumping station storage to maintain a relatively
constant inflow. The management of the risk of overdose of chemicals used in the treatment process
which impact on reuse water quality is also discussed in relation the experiences at Rouse Hill where
alarms detect abnormal variations.
Fane et al. (2002) identified an economic trend in favour of small-scale decentralised systems in the order
of 1000 connections if effluent is to be reused in urban areas. While little is gained in terms of life cycle
cost per household above 1000 connections, larger populations are shown to increase the risk of disease in
the reuse water. A precautionary approach to pathogen risk can be achieved by favouring decentralised
reuse systems due to the relationship of risk to scale (Fane et al., 2002).
19.6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAILURE
Incorporate into a risk management plan the management of cross connections to potable or higher
quality water distributions systems during scheme construction and subsequently. This plan must include
management of risks of cross connections that result from:
• inexperienced or poorly regulated plumbing or pipeline contractors;
• unauthorised connection or modification work by individuals;
492
• maintaining reuse water quality to a standard that will prevent acute health impacts, environmental
damage or impact on processes or equipment using reuse water where there is assessed to be a
significant risk of cross connection;
• operate the reuse distribution scheme at pressures that are less than the potable or higher quality reuse
distribution system wherever practical;
• a monitoring plan that is designed to detect any variation in flows, consumption of chemicals or
energy and that provides for trend analysis as well as alarms for events out of the specified range; and
• a robust community education program targeting the users, visitors and contractors and other workers
is important to ensure an understanding of the risks and their role in management of these risks.
• A program of regular monitoring and sampling of reuse water at the end user connection and within
the users network where appropriate should be undertaken to ensure that water quality is met at the
point of use. This program should complement the monitoring of treatment systems and associated
barriers.
• Maintenance plans should include regular flushing, mechanical cleaning or “pigging", chemical
cleaning (using high concentration “slug-doses” of chlorine, copper sulphate or other chemicals) of
distribution pipe and storage systems and the use of natural agents such as fish or microbial
organisms. The maintenance plans should also include analysis of the impact of these maintenance
activities in relation to water quality to optimise operations and maintenance outcomes and reduce
risks from poor water quality.
Specific information about failure and failure management of distribution systems is provided in the
O&M and quality control chapter concerning distribution system (Chapter 17). It is however important to
integrate the management of the distribution system within the overall context of scheme failure
management. It is clearly important that the large effort invested in the treatment process is not lost by
poor management of storage and distribution systems. Conversely the level of treatment and the
associated monitoring and control needs to take into consideration the beneficial impacts of the storage
and distribution system and the associated barriers or control points.
Any scheme risk analysis must include consideration of the storage and distribution systems, the physical
and bio-chemical processes that occur in them and the barriers or control points that are inherent in the
system. The analysis must recognise the need to manage the associated risks to ensure their effectiveness
as barriers or control points within the overall scheme.
Equally important is the matching of the treatment process to the consequent risks and barriers within
distribution, storage and end use application to avoid unnecessary or over engineered treatment which
may be redundant in its quality and/or reliability criteria within the overall scheme with consequent
unnecessary higher scheme cost.
493
19.6.1 Cross connections

Problems within the distribution system are a potential mechanism for failure that will impact adversely
on the end user or on third parties that would not otherwise be part of the reuse scheme (see Chapter 17
Distribution systems). It can not be assumed that the quality of water from a treatment plant or other
source will be consistent throughout the distribution system and at the point where the end user sources
reuse water. Also the risks that storage and distribution systems will in some way contaminate the
environment in an uncontrolled way or will become connected to potable water or other higher quality
water supplies must be identified and managed.
To prevent the risk of cross connection the distribution system should incorporate the following:
• An air gap (minimum 150 mm) to prevent back flow from any stored recycled water to potable supply
systems;
• No direct connection of pipes or other fittings carrying reuse water to potable water supply systems;
• Colour coding and signage to clearly identify reuse water pipework and to prevent reuse water being
used for purposes with quality requirements that are not planned for in the scheme design and
operation;
• Reuse water supply systems operated at lower pressures than potable supply systems in the vicinity;
and
• Distinct plumbing and connection systems that are not interchangeable with potable supply pipe
fittings and fixtures.
A monitoring plan that includes both long term trend analysis of data collected and alarms that will detect
parameters that are outside the normal or specified range. The monitoring should include flow and
pressure measurement, consumption of chemicals and energy as well as key water quality parameters.
The monitoring plan should incorporate real time monitoring where possible with manual confirmation
and calibration checks undertaken on a regular basis consistent with a scheme risk analysis.
Case study - Rouse Hill Sydney Australia reported by De Rooy and Engelbrecht (2003).
The Rouse Hill scheme is a two pipe reticulation scheme supplying recycled water to 100 000 properties
in the north western suburbs of Sydney Australia. The recycled water is used for external non-potable
use and for toilet flushing.
The potential risks assessed for the higher-level risks being managed in the duel reticulation Rouse Hill
scheme in Sydney NSW Australia were outlined by De Rooy and Engelbrecht (2003) as:
• Water quality meeting the Guidelines on a continual basis;
• Cross-connection between potable and recycled water systems leading to inadvertent consumption;
• Suitability of recycled water for long term application to gardens and for discharge into the
environment;
494
• Ramifications of biofilm growth in the pipelines;
• Cost and delay implications due to re-work for treatment and network infrastructure;
• Uncertainty of product liability issues in a partially regulated context;
• Community acceptance of recycled water;
• Inappropriate uses of recycled water by customers; and
• Unlicensed plumbing work by customers.
The risks associated with cross connection primarily managed at Rouse Hill by providing high quality
recycled water that is unlikely to cause harm even if it is inadvertently consumed. A systematic approach
to verify main to meter, meter to house and internal house plumbing for every property prior to
commissioning the scheme was undertaken by Sydney Water Corporation. Despite a large effort in this
area there has been a small number of post commissioning incidents of an unacceptable cross-connection
to the potable supply system however no health impacts sere reported. In one recent case the cross
connection was detected through a complaint about a salty taste in the water.
The potential for cross connection and misuse of reclaimed water, have been applied to risk assessment in
the planning off the Aurora reuse scheme in an 8500 lot residential development in suburban Melbourne
Australia. In this risk analysis and the development of a HACCP Plan for the scheme issues identified
include operator training, and the extent of community liaison during planning and later during operation
(Nadebaum, 2004).
The Netherlands have banned the use of dual reticulation schemes following a cross connection incident
in 1998 at a housing estate on the Rhine River where an outbreak of gastroenteritis affected some 200
people. The secondary supply was sourced from the Rhine River and was partially treated but not to
potable standards and testing revealed a high concentration of Norovirus particles which have the
potential to remain infectious for several months in the environment depending on the conditions (CRC
Water Quality and Treatment 2003a and b).
The risk assessment taken to prevent cross connection to potable or other higher quality supplies should
consider the level of treatment for the reuse water and the threat posed to human health or to sensitive
processes or the environment that might result.
19.6.2 Biofilms
Another method of re-contamination of treated water is through the accumulation of pathogens in biofilms
that grow in distribution system pipelines and storage facilities. Biofilms develop particularly with high
temperatures and poor hydraulic flushing conditions.
There can be a significant accumulation of virions or other pathogenic organisms incorporated into
pipeline biofilms. When these biofilms are sloughed from the pipeline walls by higher flow velocity or
after thickening of the biofilm the water will no longer meet the standards required for reuse even if the
treatment system barriers are performing normally. The resulting increase in numbers of pathogens in the
495
recycled water may increase the risk of infection beyond the normally accepted 10-4 (1 in 10,000) even for
the ingestion of aerosols. The authors consider that routine sampling regimes as part of future
requirements of reuse guidelines may be necessary (Storey and Ashbolt, 2003).
In July and August 1998 in Sydney Australia Cryptosporidium and Giardia were thought to be detected in
the water supply on a number of separate occasions. The events associated with this were reported in a
judicial enquiry (McClellan, 1998 and reported in Stein, 2000). Although the source of the contamination
was from within the catchment, the very high readings found in some parts of the distribution system were
(if accurate) most likely caused by the accumulation of organisms in the biofilm or sediments within the
pipes. It is thought that these were disturbed by the extensive flushing which was undertaken after early
detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the system. These organisms may have built up over time
and possibly prior to the commissioning of a water filtration plant several years earlier.
Experience in Israel has shown that the growth of bio-films on pipes supplying recycled water is a
significant issue and this is managed by both mechanical and chemical cleaning. One cause for the bio-
films is Manganese from wells used to recover water for reuse following SAT treatment. By monitoring
of the source of the problem and eliminating problem wells from the system the problem has been shown
to be manageable. A combination of mechanical cleaning or “pigging”, chemical cleaning using high
concentration “slug-doses” of chlorine, copper sulphate or other chemicals and the use of natural agents
such as fish or microbial organisms has been used in Israel to remove the biological material. There is a
preference for non-chemical management options wherever possible. A key issue to success is the need to
have effluent standards that are appropriate and sufficiently flexible to accommodate the method of
treatment relevant to the reuse application (Aharoni and Chikurel in Muston, 2004)
Based on the experience of pilot tests at Torreele in Flanders the use of ammonia chloride and sodium
hypochlorite to form mono-chloramine in the MF filtrate before entering the MF buffer reservoir (with
de-chlorination to protect the RO membranes) will control bio-fouling within the plant (Van Houtte and
Verbauwheld in Muston, 2004).
The use of small amounts of bleach for bio-film control has the possibility of producing chlorination by-
products but combining this with MF has the advantage of a short retention time being needed thus
minimising the potential for by-product formation (Muston, 2004).
19.7 HUMAN AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• System component design must take into account the operator and user interfaces and ensure that
technology and system operation and use are matched to the skills and competence of the operators
and users;
• Training and education of operators, contractors working on parts of the system and end users is an
important and should be integrated into a system risk management plan;
• Information about system operation and associated problems should be transparent within the
operator organisation and communicated to the community and particularly to key stakeholders in
a professional manner to ensure effective communication;
496
• Organisational governance arrangements within and between organisations must ensure that there
are clear accountabilities and balance of objectives and outcomes appropriate to manage health and
environmental risks within the overall governance framework;
• Emergency response plans should be developed as part of a risk management plan and these need
to be tested using simulated events and the governance arrangements within such plans must be
sufficiently well defined and robust to ensure that the emergency is competently managed;
• Testing and analysis must be undertaken in a manner that ensures confidence and consistency in
analytical results.
19.7.1 Operator capacity

The performance of a reuse plant will depend on the operability of the plant with the workforce on hand.
Acceptability of reuse will depend on the reliability, availability and maintainability of reuse facilities and
of their operators and the operator/machine interface is therefore a critical linkage as is the need for
appropriate organisational and technical support. The design of the plant to meet these operator needs and
the organisational and management as well as training and development needs for operator support are the
responsibility of the plant owner (Miller and Lambert, 1979).
Operator training and accreditation is an important aspect of the scheme operation. The training and
accreditation must include knowledge, skills and competencies relevant to the management of a reuse
water scheme and not be limited to wastewater treatment plant operation.
Operation systems and plans to assist the operators manage emergencies and unforeseen events that might
have an adverse impact on the reuse scheme users or others exposed to the reuse water. These plans
should be regularly tested to ensure their currency and to maintain the skills and awareness of the
operators.
The impact of operators and hence human contributions has in a number of cases lead to failures. While
there are no reported incidents of such systemic failure in reuse schemes there are a number of water
supply system failures that have been investigated and reported and these provide valuable lessons that
can be applied to reuse schemes.
19.7.2 Management and governance

In July and August 1998 in Sydney Australia Cryptosporidium and Giardia were thought to be detected in
the water supply leading to “boil water” warnings on a number of separate occasions. While no illness
was reported these incidents raised many serious issues in relation to the management of such events,
particularly as they occurred during the preparations for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. In the
subsequent judicial enquiry its head Mr. Peter McClellan QC (McClellan, 1998 and reported in Stein,
2000) was highly critical of the management of the first event by the agencies. Some of the problems
identified in the judicial report include:
• a lack of effective application of the incident management systems;
• the corporation’s governance structure which required it to give equal consideration to its potentially
competing business objectives; and
497
• problems in the laboratory work such that the results were unreliable
The most notable reaction of consumers was a loss of trust. Research showed that the majority of
customers prefer to be immediately notified when any contamination is detected and failure to do so will
result in low public esteem as a credible source of information (Stein, 2000).
In May 2000, the town of Walkerton in Southern Ontario Canada had its drinking water system became
contaminated with types of E. coli and Campylobacter from manure that had been spread following
proper practices on a farm near a supply well. Seven people died, and more than 2300 became ill with
enormous economic losses (O’Connor, 2003). A number of recommendations of the Commissioner’s
report on the Walkerton incident, highlighted in Holme (2003), include an approved operational plan for
water systems, including a financial management plan that provides for full cost recovery and proper asset
management.
Cunliffe and Stevens (2003) concluded that in the light of the experiences from these two events that
management based on compliance testing is not an effective way of managing risk. Analysis of drinking
water quality takes time and exceeding of guideline values is only detected after water has already been
supplied to consumers.
The reuse schemes should be operated to comply with the requirements of well-established and widely
recognised guidelines that are publicly available and the operation of the scheme should be regularly
audited to ensure compliance with these guidelines. The responsibility for independent approval and
ongoing regulation, audit and review should be well defined at the concept stage of the scheme
development.
Emergency response plans should be developed to plan for events which may result in health, safety or
environmental risks and the responsibilities and accountabilities of all relevant parties must be identified
in these plans. Included in the plan should be a communication plan to adequately advise the community
and in particular scheme users that may be impacted by the event.
The emergency response plan should be tested on a regular basis and adjusted to reflect the information
gained from the trial. It is important that any incidents are widely reported in the industry and adequate
records maintained including a database of such incidents that can be accessed by other scheme operators.
This will ensure that there is a growing body of knowledge that will contribute to the improved operation
and safety of reuse schemes throughout the world
19.7.3 User interface

The regular updating of information and education of end users and others in the community who may be
in contact with reuse water is an important aspect of scheme management. This aspect is dealt with in
more detail in Chapter 6. The design of the scheme components where there is an interface with the end
users must take into account the needs of the users and the limitations imposed by the level of competence
and skill or most of the users and in particular the risks posed by those most limited such as the very
young and elderly as well as those with physical or mental handicaps. The feedback from community
education programs and community surveys is an important consideration in the design of the way in
which the community and in particular users of the scheme can manage their responsibilities in a manner
that ensures safety and consistently reliable outcomes for all.
498
19.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson J., Adin A., Crook J., Davis C., Hultquist R., Jimenez-Cisneros B.,Kennedy W., Sheikh B.,van der Merwe (2001).
Climbing the ladder; a step by step approach to international guidelines for water recycling. Water Science and Technology 43
(10): 1-8
Asano T. and A. Levine (1996). Wastewater Reclamation Recycling and Reuse: Past, Present and Future. Water Science and
Technology 33 (10-11):1–14. 1996
Bixio D., Thoeye C. and G. De Gueldre (2005). Balancing cost implications and benefits of compliance with advanced risk
analysis. In: Business of Water Supply and Sustainable Development (in press) (2005); Greenleaf Publishing Eds, Sheffield, UK.
Blumenthal U., Mara D., Peasey A., Ruiz-Palacios G. and R. Stott (2000). Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated
wastewater used in agriculture: recommendations for revising WHO guidelines. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Sept
2000 78(9): 1104.
CRC Water Quality and Treatment (2003a) Setback for Netherlands Dual Supplies. Health Stream News, June 2003.
CRC Water Quality and Treatment (2003b) Netherlands Bans Dual Supplies. Health Stream News Items - Issue 31 September
2003.
Cunliffe D. and M. Stevens (2003) Success Of HACCP In The Drinking Water Industry – Can It Be Adapted To Reuse Schemes?
Proceedings Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane September 2003, Australian Water Association, Sydney Australia.
de Rooy E. and E. Engelbrecht (2003) Experience With Residential Water Recycling at Rouse Hill. Proceedings Water
Recycling Australia, Brisbane September 2003, Australian Water Association, Sydney Australia.
Dewettinck T., Van Houtte E., Geenens D., Van Hege K. and W. Verstraete (2001) HACCP to guarantee safe water reuse and
drinking water production – A case study. Water Science and Technology 43 (12): 31–38.
Eisenberg D., Soller J., Sakaji R. and A. Olivieri (2001) A methodology to evaluate water and wastewater treatment plant
reliability. Water Science and Technology 43 (10): 91-99.
Eisenberg D.M., Olivieri A.W., Soller J.A. and P.Gagliardo (1998) Reliability Analysis of an Advanced Water Treatment
Facility. Proc ASCE 1998 National Conference On Environmental Engineering.
Fairbairn I. (2005) Operation of an STP for Recycled Water Production, Proc. Liquid Trade Waste & Operators Joint Conference,
Tamworth NSW September 2005.
Fane S.A., Ashbolt N.J. and. S.B. White (2002) Decentralised urban water reuse: The implications of system scale for cost and
pathogen risk Water Science and Technology 46 (6): 281–288.
Haas C.N. and R.R. Trussell (1998) Frameworks for assessing reliability of multiple, independent barriers in potable water reuse.
Water Science and Technology 38 (6-5): 1-8.
Holme R. (2003) Implementation of the Recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry - Response to Innovation and Change. Proc.
Ozwater 2003 Australian Water and Wastewater Association.
McClellan P. (1998) Sydney Water Inquiry NSW Government 1998.
Miller R.D. and W.P. Lambert (1979) Human factors in design and operation of water reuse facilities. Proceedings of Water
Reuse Symposium. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Coloradi Vol. 2: 1269-1275.
Muston M and A. Wille (2005) Operators experience with recycling in Australia. Proc Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling.
Eds Muston Schaefer and Kahn. OzAQUAREC February 2005.
Muston M. (2004) Outcomes Report - International Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse
Plants Thessaloniki, Greece 11 - 12th March 2004. Available at: www.aquarec.org
Nadebaum P. (2003) Failure and Risk Management. Proc. OZ-AQUAREC Workshop II Technical Limitations in Water
Recycling Processes May 2003 http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/cme/research/ozaquarec/workshops.html accessed 13 October 2004.
Nadebaum P. (2004) The Application of a Third Pipe Recycled Water Scheme – Business Risk Considerations. Proc. Enviro
2004 Sydney Australia April 2004.
499
O’Connor D. (2003) The Walkerton Water Inquiry – Reflections of the Commissioner. Proceedings Ozwater 2003 Australian
Water and Wastewater Association.
Salgot M., Vergés C. and A.N. Angelakis (2002) Risk Assessment for Wastewater Recycling and Reuse, Ed Angelakis,
Tsagarakis, Paranychianakis and Asano, Proc. IWA Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in the Mediterranean Region
Iraklio, Greece September 2002.
Shuval H., Lampert Y. and B. Fattal (1997) Development of a risk assessment approach for evaluating wastewater reuse
standards for agriculture. Water Science and Technology 35 (11-12): 15-20.
Stein P. (2000) The Great Sydney Water Crisis of 1998. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 123: 419–436,.
Storey M. V. and N. J. Ashbolt (2003) A risk model for enteric virus accumulation and release from recycled water distribution
pipe biofilms. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 3 (3): 93-100.
Thoeye C., Van Eyck K., Bixio D., Weemaes M. and G. De Gueldre (2003) Methods Used for Health Risk Assessment. In:
Health risks in aquifer recharge using reclaimed water - State of the art report. World Health Organisation, Report
SDE/WSH/03.08: 123-152 .
500
20 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS:
AGRICULTURE
20.1 BACKGROUND
At least one tenth of the world’s population is thought to consume foods produced by irrigation with
wastewater (Smit and Nasr, 1992). Moreover, as freshwater becomes increasingly scarce due to
population growth, urbanization, the expansion of irrigation and climate change, the use of wastewater in
agriculture will further increase. In some cases, wastewater is already or will become the only water
resource available to farmers.
The use of this resource is particularly appropriate in areas where agricultural sites are near urban areas
and can easily be integrated with urban reuse applications. In a semi-arid area a city of one million people
would produce enough wastewater to irrigate approximately 1500−3500 ha. Moreover, the use of
wastewater for crop irrigation reduces the use of chemical fertilizers and is thus an important form of
nutrient recycling. At an irrigation rate of 2 m per year (a typical requirement in a semi-arid climate),
treated municipal wastewater can supply 300 and 60 kg/ha year of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively
(WHO, 2005). So that supplementary fertilization needs can be reduced (even eliminated) for some crops,
with a consequent increase in farmers’ income. Moreover, reclaimed water is a highly reliable source of
water throughout the year and during droughts.
The use of domestic wastewater for crop production has been practiced for several centuries in one form
or another. Prior to the 1940s, most wastewater use occurred on "sewage farms" for the treatment of
municipal wastewater in areas specifically designated for such use. The aim of these "sewage farms" was
to minimize or prevent pollution in rivers and conserve water and nutrients for improved agriculture
(Shuval, 1991). An example is the sewage farm at Werribee near the City of Melbourne, Australia. This
large well-managed farm was established in 1897 and is still operating today, irrigating some 10,000 ha
with wastewater.
The need to improve public health protection forced however a number of national health departments to
establish guidelines and regulations to control the public health aspects of wastewater use in agriculture.
These initial guidelines provided a rational basis for continuing wastewater use by agriculture while
meeting strict public health criteria. One important criterion was to restrict the use of partially treated
sewage to crops that are generally cooked before being consumed and allow only water that has been
reclaimed through advanced treatment and microbial disinfection to be applied to crops normally eaten
raw.
This chapter intends to
• summarise basic aspects to consider when considering the use of reclaimed water in agricultural
irrigation (§ 20.2),
• present a synoptic view of reclaimed water quality guidelines around the world (§ 20.3) and
• report on international experience with agricultural irrigation using reclaimed water (§ 20.4).
501
20.2 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE

RECLAIMED WATER
Water quality or suitability for agricultural use is judged on the potential immediate and future problems
that constant use of the water will cause. In this evaluation, emphasis is placed on the chemical and
physical characteristics of the water and only rarely is any other factor considered important.
The hazards that may result vary both in kind and degree and are modified by soil, climate and crop, as
well as by the skill and knowledge of the water user. The physical and chemical characteristics of
irrigation water are particularly important in arid zones where extremes of temperature and low humidity
result in high water losses through evaporation from the soil and surface water bodies and also high
transpiration from plants, collectively termed evapo-transpiration. Evapo-transpiration causes high salt or
trace metal accumulation in the soil.
The following physical-mechanical properties of the soil are sensitive to the exchangeable ions in the
reclaimed water (Metcalf & Eddy 2003):
• degree of dispersion of the soil particles;
• stability of aggregates;
• soil structure;
• permeability.
The most important criteria for evaluating the suitability of reclaimed water are salinity, heavy metals and
harmful organic substances and pathogenic organisms (Kretschmer et al., 2002).
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) identifies three ways that the presence of salts affects plant growth:
• the osmotic effects caused by TDS concentration in soil water (Section 20.2.1),
• Soil particle dispersion, caused by high sodium and low salinity and the water infiltration rate
caused by high sodium and high salinity (Section 20.2.2);
• Specific ion toxicity, caused by concentration of individual ions (Section 20.2.3).
Other problems can also occur and are examined in Section 20.2.4.
20.2.1 Salinity
In the case of irrigation, the salts are applied with the water and remain behind in the soil as the water
evaporates or is used by the crop. A salinity problem exists if salt accumulates to a concentration that
causes a loss in yield. Often the yield reduction occurs when saline water from a high water table or
applied effluent accumulates in the root-zone to an extent that the crop is no longer able to extract
sufficient water, resulting in a water stress over a significant period of time and as a consequence the plant
slows its growth rate.
The problem is affected by the type and quantity of dissolved salts. Salts that contribute to a salinity
problem are water soluble. Leaching is very important for the control of the salinity problem. Some of the
salts that accumulated prior to the irrigation can be leached below the root depth with the start of the
502
irrigation. Over a period of time salt removal by leaching should be equal or exceed the salt added by the
irrigation water to prevent the damage to crop (Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
Rhoades (1982) concluded that for crops irrigated infrequently (while using surface methods and
conventional irrigation management) yield is best correlated with the average root-zone salinity, while for
crops irrigated on a daily or near daily basis (localized or drip irrigation) yield is best correlated with the
water-uptake weighted root-zone salinity.
In agricultural irrigation many salinity problems are associated with a shallow water table (within 2 m of
the surface). In that case, salts accumulate in the water table and can be a source of additional salinity that
moves upward into the crop root zone. In this case, a good drainage program is needed for successful
long-term irrigated agriculture (Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
20.2.2 Water Infiltration Rate

A problem related to water quality occurs when the high sodium content in saline water can deteriorate
the physical condition of a soil including the formation of crusts, water logging and reduced soil
permeability (Ayers and Westcot, 1985; Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). In this case the infiltration rate of the
applied effluents is appreciably reduced and water remains on the soil surface too long or infiltrates too
slowly to supply the crop with sufficient water to maintain acceptable yields.
The infiltration problem related to water quality in most cases occurs in the top few centimetres of soil
and is linked to the structural stability of this soil layer and its low calcium content relative to that of
sodium. When a soil is irrigated with high salinity and low sodium water, the infiltration rate will
increase. However, when a soil is irrigated with high salinity and high sodium water, a high sodium
surface soil develops which weakens soil structure. The surface soil aggregates then disperses into much
smaller particles which clog soil pores. The problem may also be caused by an extremely low calcium
content of the surface soil. In some cases, low salt water irrigation can also cause the same problems but
in that case this is related to the corrosive nature of this water and not to its sodium content. To predict a
potential infiltration problem, the Sodium adsorption ratio [SAR = Na / ¥{(Ca + Mg) / 2}] is normally
used. In this correlation, the cations are expressed as milliequivalents per litre (meq/L).
20.2.3 Toxicity
Specific ions and their effect
Toxicity is different from salinity in that it occurs within the plant and is not caused by a water shortage.
Toxicity problems occur if certain constituents (ions) in the soil or water are taken up by the plant and
accumulate in leaves during transpiration to concentrations that can cause crop damage or reduced yields.
The degree of damage depends upon contact time; concentration; crop sensitivity; crop water use (Ayers
and Westcot, 1985; Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
If the damage is severe enough, crop yield is reduced. The usual toxic ions in irrigation water are (in order
of toxic effect): Boron, Sodium and Chloride.
Damage can be caused by each of these ions, individually or in combination. Not all crops are equally
sensitive to these toxic ions. Most annual crops are not sensitive, but the majority of tree crops and woody
perennial-type plants are. But if concentrations of these ions are high enough, toxicity signs may appear in
503
any type of crop. Sodium and chloride can also be absorbed directly into the plant through the leaves
moistened during sprinkler irrigation.
In addition to sodium, chloride and boron, many trace elements are toxic to plants at very low
concentrations. Table 20.4 gives suggested maximum concentrations for these unusual trace elements
(adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1985). These concentrations are based upon limits established to
protect the soil resource from contamination if continuously irrigated with water containing the trace
element.
Chloride
Chloride is not the most toxic but the most common compound that can cause toxicity to plant. Chloride
is not adsorbed or retained by soils, therefore it moves readily with the soil-water, is taken up by the crop,
moves in the transpiration stream and accumulates in the leaves. If the chloride concentration in the leaves
exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injury symptoms develop such as leaf burn or drying of leaf tissue.
Normally, plant injury occurs first at the leaf tips and progresses from the tip back along the edges as the
severity increases. Excessive necrosis (dead tissue) is often accompanied by early leaf drop or defoliation.
With sensitive crops, these symptoms occur when leaves accumulate from 0.3 to 1.0 % chloride on a dry
weight basis, but sensitivity varies among these crops. Many tree crops, for example, begin to show injury
above 0.3 % chloride (dry weight). Table 20.1 shows the tolerances of several crops to chloride in the
saturation extract or in the applied water (adapted from Maas, 1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
Sodium
Sodium toxicity can not be identified as easy as the chloride toxicity. Cases of sodium toxicity have been
identified due mainly to high Sodium content or SAR. Typical symptoms are leaf burn, scorch and dead
tissue along the outside edges of leaves in contrast to symptoms of chloride toxicity which normally occur
initially at the extreme leaf tip. An extended period of time (many days or weeks) is normally required
before accumulation reaches toxic concentrations. Symptoms appear first on the older leaves, starting at
the outer edges and, as the severity increases, move progressively inward between the veins toward the
leaf centre. Sodium toxicity is often modified or reduced if sufficient calcium is available in the soil.
Many crops do show sodium toxicity. Table 20.2 gives the relative sodium tolerance of several
representative crops. The data in the table are given not in terms of SAR but of Exchangeable Sodium
Percentage (ESP) (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Tolerance decreases in each column from top to bottom.
The tolerances listed are relative because, usually, nutritional factors and adverse soil conditions slows
growth before reaching these levels. Soil with an ESP above 30 will usually have too poor physical
structure for good crop production. Tolerance in most instances is established by first stabilising soil
structure.
Particular care in assessment of a potential toxicity due to SAR or sodium is needed with high SAR water
because apparent toxic effects of sodium may be due to or complicated by poor water infiltration (Ayers
and Westcot, 1985).
504
Table 20.1 Chloride tolerance of some fruit crop cultivars and rootstocks
(adapted from Maas, 1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985)
1
Maximum Allowable Cl- without Leaf Injury
Crop Rootstock or Cultivar Irrigation Water (Clw)
Root Zone (Cle) (meq/L) 2,3
(meq/L)
ROOTSTOCK
West Indian 7.5 5.0
Avocado
Guatemalan 6.0 4.0
(Persea americana)
Mexican 5.0 3.3
Sunki Mandarin 25.0 16.6
Grapefruit
Cleopatra mandarin
Rangpur lime
Sampson tangelo 15.0 10.0
Rough lemon
Sour orange
Citrus Ponkan mandarin
(Citrus spp.) Citrumelo 4475 10.0 6.7
Trifoliate orange
Cuban shaddock
Calamondin
Sweet orange
Savage citrange
Rusk citrange
Troyer citrange
Grape Salt Creek, 1613-13 40.0 27.0
(Vitis spp.) Dog Ridge 30.0 20.0
Marianna 25.0 17.0
Stone fruits
Lovell, Shalil 10.0 6.7
(Prunus spp.)
Yunnan 7.5 5.0
CULTIVARS
Boysenberry 10.0 6.7
Berries
Olallie blackberry 10.0 6.7
(Rubus spp.)
Indian Summer Rasberry 5.0 3.3
Thompson seedless 20.0 13.3
Grape Perlette 20.0 13.3
(Vitis spp.) Cardinal 10.0 6.7
Black Rose 10.0 6.7
Strawberry Lassen 7.5 5.0
(Fragaria spp.) Shasta 5.0 3.3
1
For some crops, the concentration given may exceed the overall salinity tolerance of that crop and cause some reduction in yield
in addition to that caused by chloride ion toxicities. 2Values given are for the maximum concentration in the irrigation water. The
values were derived from saturation extract data (ECe) assuming a 15–20 percent leaching fraction and ECe = 1.5 EC 3 The
maximum permissible values apply only to surface irrigated crops. Sprinkler irrigation may cause excessive leaf burn at values
far below these.
505
Table 20.2 Sodium tolerance of selected crops to Exchangeable Sodium

Percentage1 (Adapted from Maas 1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985)
Sensitive2 Semi-tolerant2 Tolerant2
Avocado Carrot Alfalfa
(Persea americana) (Daucus carota) (Medicago sativa)
Clover, Ladino Barley
Deciduous Fruits
(Trifolium repens) (Hordeum vulgare)
Dallisgrass Beet, garden
Nuts
(Paspalum dilatatum) (Beta vulgaris)
Bean, green Fescue, tall Beet, sugar
(Phaseolus vulgaris) (Festuca arundinacea) (Beta vulgaris)
Cotton at germination Lettuce Bermuda grass
(Gossypium hirsutum) (Lactuca sativa) (Cynodon dactylon)
Maize Bajara Cotton
(Zea mays) (Pennisetum typhoides) (Gossypium hirsutum)
Peas Sugarcane Paragrass
(Pisum sativum) (Saccharum officinarum) (Brachiaria mutica)
Grapefruit Berseem Rhodes grass
(Citrus paradisi) (Trifolium alexandrinum) (Chloris gayana)
Orange Benji Wheatgrass, crested
(Citrus sinensis) (Melilotus parviflora) (Agropyearon cristatum)
Peach Raya Wheatgrass, fairway
(Prunus persica) (Brassica juncea) (Agropyearon cristatum)
Tangerine Oat Wheatgrass, tall
(Citrus reticulata) (Avena sativa) (Agropyearon elongatum)
Mung Onion Karnal grass
(Phaseolus aurus) (Allium cepa) (Diplachna fusca)
Mash Radish
(Phaseolus mungo) (Raphanus sativus)
Lentil Rice
(Lens culinaris) (Oryza sativus)
Groundnut/peanut Rye
(Arachis hypogaea) (Secale cereale)
Gram Ryegrass, Italian
(Cicer arietinum) (Lolium multiflorum)
Cowpeas Sorghum
(Vigna sinensis) (Sorghum vulgare)
Spinach
(Spinacia oleracea)
Tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum)
Vetch (Vicia sativa) and
Wheat (Triticum vulgare)
The data were originally adapted from FAO-UNESCO (1973); Pearson (1960) and Abrol (1982)
1,2
Approximate levels of Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) corresponding to the three categories of tolerance are (Ayers
and Westcot, 1985): Sensitive less than 15 ESP, Semi-tolerant 15–40 ESP, Tolerant more than 40 ESP.
506
Boron
In small amounts, boron is an essential element for plant growth. Nevertheless, at higher concentration
boron can become toxic for most crops. Boron toxicity can affect nearly all crops but, like salinity, there is
a wide range of tolerance among crops. Ornamental crops concentrations in irrigation water of 0.5 mg/L
can be already toxic, whilst some less sensitive plants can tolerate up to 1 to 2 mg/L. Table 20.3 presents
relative boron tolerance data for different agricultural crops, keeping in mind that boron tolerances can
vary depending upon climate, soil conditions and crop varieties.
Table 20.3 Relative boron tolerance of agricultural crops1(Adapted from Maas,

1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985)
Very Sensitive (<0.5 mg/L) Moderately Sensitive (1.0 – 2.0 mg/L)
Lemon Citrus limon Pepper, red Capsicum annuum
Blackberry Rubus spp. Pea Pisum sativa
Sensitive (0.5 – 0.75 mg/L) Carrot Daucus carota
Avocado Persea americana Radish Raphanus sativus
Grapefruit Orange Citrus X paradisi Potato Solanum tuberosum
Orange Citrus sinensis Cucumber Cucumis sativus
Apricot Prunus armeniaca Moderately Tolerant (2.0 – 4.0 mg/L)
Peach Prunus persica Lettuce Lactuca sativa
Cherry Prunus avium Cabbage Brassica oleracea capitata
Plum Prunus domestica Celery Apium graveolens
Persimmon Diospyearos kaki Turnip Brassica rapa
Fig, kadota Ficus carica Bluegrass, Kentucky Poa pratensis
Grape Vitis vinifera Oats Avena sativa
Walnut Juglans regia Maize Zea mays
Pecan Carya illinoiensis Artichoke Cynara scolymus
Cowpea Vigna unguiculata Tobacco Nicotiana tabacum
Onion Allium cepa Mustard Brassica juncea
Sensitive (0.75 – 1.0 mg/L) Clover, sweet Melilotus indica
Garlic Allium sativum Squash Cucurbita pepo
Sweet potato Ipomoea batatas Muskmelon Cucumis melo
Wheat Triticum eastivum Tolerant (4.0 – 6.0 mg/L)
Barley Hordeum vulgare Sorghum Sorghum bicolour
Sunflower Helianthus annuus Tomato L. lycopersicum
Bean, mung Vigna radiata Alfalfa Medicago sativa
Sesame Sesamum indicum Vetch, purple Vicia benghalensis
Lupine Lupinus hartwegii Parsley Petroselinum crispum
Strawberry Fragaria spp. Beet, red Beta vulgaris
Artichoke, Jerusalem Helianthus tuberosus Sugarbeet Beta vulgaris
Bean, kidney Phaseolus vulgaris Very Tolerant (6.0 – 15.0 mg/L)
Bean, lima Phaseolus lunatus Cotton Gossypium hirsutum
Groundnut/Peanut Arachis hypogaea Asparagus Asparagus officinalis
1
Maximum concentrations tolerated in soil-water or saturation extract without yield or vegetative growth reductions.
Boron problems originating from water are more frequent than those originating from soil. In reclaimed
effluents for irrigation, boron mainly originates from household detergents and other industrial processes
where borates are used.
507
Boron toxicity symptoms normally show first on older leaves as a yellowing, spotting, or drying of leaf
tissue at the tips and edges. Drying and chlorosis often progress toward the centre between the veins as
more and more boron accumulates with time. On seriously affected trees, such as almonds and other tree
crops which do not show typical leaf symptoms, a gum or exudate on limbs or trunk is often noticeable
(Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
Trace elements and their toxicity

Trace elements are present in most reclaimed water for irrigation at very low concentrations (usually less
than a few mg/L with most less than 100 ȝg/L). As a rule, irrigation water supplies do not need to be
checked for trace elements unless toxicity is suspected. In most cases of high trace elements
concentrations, industrial wastewater pollution or other type of high-strength wastewater disposal is
suspected.
For sensitive crops, specific ion toxicity is difficult to correct, without changing the crop or the water
source. In hot countries the problem is accentuated by high evapo-transpiration. In severe cases, these
trace elements tend to accumulate in plants and soil causing phyto-toxicity in plants or health hazard for
humans and animals.
The suggested maximum trace element concentrations for irrigation waters are given in Table 20.4
(adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1985). The maximum concentration is based on a water application
rate which is consistent with good irrigation practices – 1.25 m/year (12,500 m3 per hectare per year). If
the water application rate greatly exceeds this, the maximum concentrations should be adjusted downward
accordingly. No adjustment should be made for application rates less than 10,000 m3 per hectare per year.
The values given are for water used on a continuous basis at one site.
Management of toxicity problems

The most effective method to prevent occurrence of a toxicity problem is to choose the irrigation water
that has no potential to develop toxicity. If such water is not available, there are several management
options than can be adopted to reduce toxicity and improve yields (Ayers and Westcot, 1985):
Leaching
The potentially toxic ions sodium, chloride and boron can each be reduced by leaching in a manner
similar to that for salinity. The depth of water required varies with the toxic ion and may in some cases
become excessive. If leaching becomes excessive, many growers change to a more tolerant crop.
Increasing the leaching or changing crops in an attempt to live with the higher levels of toxic ions may
require extensive changes in the farming system. In cases where the toxicity problem is not too severe,
relatively minor changes in farm cultural practices can minimize the impact. In a few cases, an alternative
water supply may be available to blend with a poorer supply to lower the hazard from the poorer one.
Drainage
Drainage is defined as the removal of excess water from the soil surface (surface drainage) and below the
surface (subsurface drainage) so as to permit maximum growth of plants. In semi-arid and arid areas,
drainage can prevent secondary salinisation (cfr. Section 20.1.1). In such cases a good drainage program
is needed for successful long - term irrigated agriculture (Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
508
Table 20.4 Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements in

irrigation water (adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1985)
Elem. mg/L Remarks
Can cause non-productivity in acid soils (pH < 5.5), but more alkaline soils at pH > 7.0 will
Al 5.0
precipitate the ion and eliminate any toxicity
As 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, from 12 mg/L for Sudan grass to < 0.05 mg/L for rice
Be 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, from 5 mg/L for Kale to 0.5 mg/L for Bush beans
Toxic to beans, beets and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solutions.
Cd 0.01 Conservative limits recommended due to its potential for accumulation in plants and soils to
concentrations that may be harmful to humans
Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated by neutral and
Co 0.05
alkaline soils
Not generally recognized as an essential growth element. Conservative limits recommended due
Cr 0.10
to lack of knowledge on its toxicity to plants.
Cu 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L in nutrient solutions
F 1.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils
Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidification and loss of
Fe 5.0 availability of essential phosphorus and molybdenum. Overhead sprinkling irrigation may result
in unsightly deposits on plants, equipment and buildings
Tolerated by most crops up to 5 mg/L; mobile in soil. Toxic to citrus at low concentrations
Li 2.5
(<0.075 mg/L). Acts similarly to boron
Mn 0.20 Toxic to a number of crops at a few tenths to a few mg/L, but usually only in acid soils.
Not toxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil and water. Can be toxic to livestock if forage
Mo 0.01
is grown in soils with high concentrations of available molybdenum
Ni 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L; reduced toxicity at neutral or alkaline pH.
Pb 5.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations
Toxic to plants at concentrations as low as 0.025 mg/L and toxic to livestock if forage is grown
Se 0.02 in soils with relatively high levels of added selenium. An essential element to animals but in
very low concentrations
Sn ---- Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance unknown
Ti ---- Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance unknown
W ---- Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance unknown
V. 2.0 0.10 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations
Zn 2.0 Toxicity to plants varies widely, reduced at pH > 6.0 and in fine textured or organic soils
Crop selection
Selecting a more tolerant crop offers a very practical solution to a toxicity problem. There are degrees of
sensitivity to boron, chloride and sodium just as there are degrees of sensitivity to salinity (cfr. Tables
20.2, 20.3, 20.4 and 20.5). The sensitivity depends also on the local farming conditions. Factors affecting
tolerance include climate, irrigation management, leaching fraction, drainage, crop growth stage and crop
maturity date.
509
The selection of tolerant rootstocks or cultivars is another method of changing the crop to cope with the
existing conditions. Certain rootstocks or varieties differ in their ability to exclude ions such as chloride
and produce good crops under less than ideal conditions.
Cultural practices
Since leaching is the principal method of toxic ion control, cultural practices to aid in management of
irrigation water at the farm level are the keys to success. Cultural practices which offer better control and
distribution of water include land grading; profile modification; artificial drainage if natural drainage is
inadequate.
These steps are complementary to those previously discussed for improving salinity and toxicity control.
Fertilization practices are normally thought to offer little benefit to counter salinity, but for toxicity such
as that from boron in a citrus crop, many growers apply extra nitrogen to stimulate vegetative growth.
Boron first accumulates to toxic amounts in the older leaves which then become necrotic and drop,
thereby reducing the photosynthetic capability of the tree. In this case, nitrogen is used to stimulate new
growth and restore the leaf area and photosynthetic capability.
Sodium toxicity (high SAR) from applied water is generally countered by use of a soil or water modifier
such as gypsum. In general, where salinity of water is relatively low (ECw < 0.5 ds/m) the beneficial
response to a water-applied amendment is much greater than if salinity is high because it is far easier to
change the sodium to calcium ratio of a relatively low salinity water than one of higher salinity. Soil
amendments rather than water amendments are relied upon to correct a sodium problem related to highly
saline water or to a high ESP soil. It also becomes more difficult to correct the sodium toxicity as the soil
clay content increases. Using soil modifiers should not be expected to mitigate chloride or boron
problems, unless these modifiers improve water infiltration and soil permeability which would permit
increased leaching to take place.
Blending water supplies
If an alternative water supply is available, but not fully adequate in quantity or quality, a blend of waters
may offer an overall improvement in quality and reduce the potential toxicity problem. Blending is
especially effective for a sodium toxicity problem since proportions of monovalent (Na+) and divalent
(Ca++) cations absorbed on the soil depend on concentration, with dilution favouring adsorption of the
divalent calcium and magnesium ions rather than the monovalent sodium.
20.2.4 Other problems (adapted from Ayers and

Westcot, 1985; Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Excess nutrients
The reclaimed water supplies some nutrient value for the crop but can cause problems when the available
nutrients exceed plant needs. In particular, reclaimed effluents from non-nutrient removal plants contain
nitrogen in excess. Nitrogen in reclaimed water can replace equal amounts of commercial fertilizer during
the early to mid-season crop-growing period. Excessive nitrogen in the later part of the growing period
may however cause excessive vegetative growth, delayed or uneven maturity, or reduced crop quality.
510
Abnormal pH
The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4. Irrigation water with a pH outside this range
may cause a nutritional imbalance or may contain toxic ions. Low salinity water (ECw < 0.2 dS/m)
sometimes has a pH outside the normal range since it has a very low buffering capacity. Such water
normally causes few problems for soils or crops but is very corrosive and may rapidly corrode pipelines,
sprinklers and control equipment. Any change in the soil pH caused by water will take place slowly since
the soil is strongly buffered and resists change. It may be easier to correct the soil pH problem that may
develop rather than try to treat the water. Lime is commonly applied to the soil to correct a low pH and
sulphur or other acid material may be used to correct a high pH. Gypsum is effective in reducing a high
soil pH (pH greater than 8.5) caused by high ESP.
Scale deposits
Irrigation water containing a high proportion of slightly soluble salts such as calcium, bicarbonate and
sulphate presents a continual problem of white scale formation on leaves or fruits when sprinklers are
used. Although there is no toxicity involved, the deposits often build up on the leaves and fruits and are of
special concern when flowers, vegetables or fruits are grown for the fresh market. The deposit reduces
their marketability and, in the case of fruits like apples and pears, requires an expensive treatment (acid
wash) before marketing. The deposits that build up on the leaves can reduce their photosynthesis and crop
yield. Besides, sprinkler and small drip emitters are subject to clogging near small openings. This occurs
particularly with oxidation pond effluents. Biological growth (slimes) in the sprinkler head, emitter
orifice, or supply line causes plugging as do high algae concentrations and other suspended solids.
Management options to prevent or correct a deposit problem will depend upon the concentration and the
irrigation method. To prevent biological or other suspended solids clogging, effective wire filtration and
chlorine disinfection are required. To prevent carbonate or other inorganic clogging, one technique is to
add an acid material to the water supply to reduce the bicarbonate, which should in turn reduce the lime
precipitate. An alternative approach might be to change the design and operation of the sprinkler system.
This will probably not solve the problem but may minimize it so as to make the product more marketable.
The same steps taken to reduce toxicity effects (leaf absorption) due to sprinkler irrigation will also
reduce deposits on leaves and fruits. The most useful measures are: irrigate at night; increase the speed of
sprinkler rotation or use spray heads; decrease the irrigation frequency.
These management steps may reduce the problem but they must be cost-efficient. Under some
circumstances, it may be more economical to change the irrigation method to an alternative, which keeps
the water off fruit and foliage.
Magnesium problems
Soils containing high levels of exchangeable magnesium are often thought to be troubled with soil
infiltration problems. This phenomenon is still not clear, but there is reasonably good agreement that
magnesium acts on soils in a way which is more like calcium than sodium and that it is preferentially
adsorbed by the soil to a much greater degree than sodium, but to a slightly less degree than calcium.
In high magnesium containing water (ratio of Ca/Mg < 1) or a magnesium soil (soil-water ratio of Ca/Mg
< 1) the potential effect of sodium may be slightly increased. In other words, a given SAR value will
511
show slightly more damage if the Ca/Mg ratio is less than 1. The lower the ratio, the more damaging is the
SAR.
There is insufficient data to make either the Ca/Mg ratio or the (calcium / total cation) ratio an evaluation
factor when judging the suitability of a water for irrigation, but if the irrigation water used has a Ca/Mg
ratio <1, or a (calcium/total cation) ratio less than 0.15, a further evaluation is needed. Although no
conclusive recommendations can be made, such water may pose a potential problem related to plant
nutrition and an evaluation may be needed to determine if a readily available source of soluble calcium
exists in the soil or if calcium should be added as a fertiliser or soil modifier.
20.3 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES

Prior to use for crop irrigation, wastewater should be treated to values recommended in the relevant
national and regional microbiological guidelines in order to protect public health. In the last decades, there
has been a number of different water quality guidelines related to the use of reclaimed water in irrigation.
These have been mainly directed to the health aspects of agricultural irrigation. International guidelines
or standards for the microbiological quality of irrigation water used on a particular crop do not exist. The
reason is the lack of direct epidemiological data to show any relationship between the water quality
actually applied at the field level and disease transmission or infection.
In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued the first guidelines for the use of wastewater in
agriculture. These guidelines focused mainly on health risk related to pathogenic micro-organisms that is
the most common concern associated with reuse of treated municipal wastewater. The WHO guidelines
set a high level of tolerance for microbiological contamination compared with guidelines from other
countries. The WHO guidelines are directed mainly toward developing countries to encourage the safe use
of wastewater, mainly in food crop agriculture.
In 2005 a new WHO guidelines draft was issued. The main difference is that, based on infection risk
analysis (see Chapter 2). WHO proposes to keep the criteria for unrestricted irrigation as 1,000
E.coli/100 mL but to relax in case of root crops to 10,000 E.coli/100 mL. This is relatively relaxed
compared to Title 22 (0 F.Coli/100 mL) for unrestricted irrigation and to the new proposed EU
regulations ( 1,000 F.coli/100 mL).
In the USA, twenty five states have adopted special regulation, sixteen states have guidelines or design
standards and only nine have no regulation or guidelines. From state to state, regulation and guidelines are
more specific in regard to the type of reuse application.
Tables 20.7 to 20.10 present the comparison of the water reuse guidelines for agricultural irrigation of
WHO, USA (EPA, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, Washington), Australia (ACT,
NSW, Victoria EPA), Spain, Catalonia, Italy, Israel (1999 and 2003), Mexico and EU (proposed) for a
number of microbiological indicators.
The different categories of crops that are compared are: crops used as animal food (Table 20.5); food
crops eaten raw and fruit crops irrigated by aspersion (Table 20.6); food crops to be processed and fruit
crops except those irrigated by aspersion (Table 20.7); and industrial crops, nurseries, silos forage, cereals
and oleaginous seeds (Table 20.8).
512
Table 20.5 Water quality criteria for irrigation of crops used as animal food
(adapted from Navarotto, 2005)
Faecal
Total Coli E. Coli
Coli Salmonella Helminths Nematode
STATE Cfu/ Cfu/ REMARKS
Cfu/ Cfu/100 mL eggs eggs
100 mL 100 mL
100 mL
WHO (act.) 104 <1 egg /L
If children present
WHO 0.1 egg/L. and
105 <1 egg /L
(proposed) 1,000 FC/100
mL
US EPA Mean 200
(proposed) Max 800
US EPA Mean 200
(actual) Max 800
Europe #
104- 105 <1 <1 egg /L Legionella absent
(proposed)
Mean 200
Arizona
Max 800
(USA)
Max 800
California Mean 23
(USA) Max 240
Mean 200
Florida
Max 800
(USA)
Hawaii Mean 2.2
(USA) Max 23
Mean 200
Nevada
Max 400
(USA)
Max 800
Mean 20
Texas (USA) Max 75
Washington Mean 23
(USA) Max 240
Mean 100, Max
Mean 200
ACT 1,000 FC if a
Max 2,000
(Australia) withholding
Max 800
period not resp.
NSW
Mean 100
(Australia)
100 EC if dairy
Victoria EPA <100 or Monitoring
cattle grazing,
(Australia) 1,000* of eggs
1,000 EC other
Mean
Spain <1 egg /L Taenia 1 egg/L.
1,000
Mean 10
Italy
Max 100
Catalonia Mean
<1 egg /L Taenia 1 egg/L.
(proposed) 1,000
Israel
Mean
Mexico 1,000 <1 egg /L
Max 2,000
#
= Europe includes also Enterococci < 1,000 Cfu/100 mL.
513
Table 20.6 Water quality criteria for irrigation of food crops eaten raw and
fruit crop- Aspersion (adapted from Navarotto, 2005)
Total Faecal
E. Coli Salmonella Nematode
Coli Coli Helminths Giardia and
STATE Cfu/ Cfu/ eggs REMARKS
Cfu/ Cfu/ eggs Cryptospori.
100 mL 100 mL (no/L)
100 mL 100 mL
WHO (act.)
1000 <1
WHO
1000 <1
(proposed)
US EPA
N.D.
(proposed)
US EPA
N.D.
(actual)
Europe# N.D. - N.D - Legionella
<1 <10
(proposed) <1000 <1000 <100/100 mL
Arizona N.D -
(USA) max 23
2.2
California
Max 23
75%
Florida
(25 max)
2.2 Max
Hawaii
23
200
Nevada Max 400
Max 800
20 Max
Texas
40
2.2
Washington
Max 23
10
ACT (AUS) Max 40
Max 800
NSW
Mean 10
(Australia)
Victoria
EPA Mean 10 <1 egg /L
(Australia)
Legionella
Spain 200 <1 Pneumophila
0/100 mL
10 If lagooning or
(80%) phitodepuration
Italy N.D.
Max used: 50 (80%)
100 200 Max
Catalonia
Mean 200 <1
(proposed)
Israel 10
Mean
1,000
Mexico <1 egg /L
Max
2,000
#
= Europe includes also Enterococci < 20 Cfu/100 mL
514
Table 20.7 Water quality criteria for irrigation of food crops to be processed
except for aspersion (adapted from Navarotto, 2005)
Total
Coli Faecal Coli E. Coli Salmonella Helminths Nematode
STATE
Cfu/100 Cfu/100 mL Cfu/100 mL Cfu/100 mL eggs eggs (no/L)
mL
WHO (act.) <1 egg /L
<1 egg /L
WHO (proposed) 10,000
US EPA (proposed) 200, Max 800

US EPA (actual) 200, Max 800
# <1 egg /L
Europe (proposed) N.D.-10,000 <1
Arizona (USA) 2.2, Max 23

2.2 Max
California (USA)
23
Florida (USA) 75%, (25 Max)
Hawaii (USA) 2.2 ,Max 23
Nevada (USA) 200, Max 400
Texas (USA) 20, Max 75
2.2 Max
Washington (USA)
23
1,000,
ACT (Australia,)
Max 10,000
NSW (Australia) Mean 1,000
Victoria EPA (Australia) 1000
<1 egg /L
Spain 1000
Italy$ 10, Max 100

<1 egg /L
Catalonia (proposed) 1,000
Israel 10 (Max 40)

Mean 1,000
Mexico <5 egg /L
Max 2,000
#
Europe includes also Enterococci < 1,000 Cfu/100 mL
$
In case of lagooning or phitodepuration E.Coli = 50 Cfu/100mL 80% of the time, Max = 200 Cfu/100mL
515
Table 20.8 Water quality criteria for irrigation of industrial crop (adapted from
Navarotto, 2005)
Total Coli Faecal Coli E. Coli Salmonella Nematode
STATE
Cfu/100 mL Cfu/100 mL Cfu/100 mL Cfu/100 mL eggs
WHO (act.) <1 egg /L
WHO (proposed) 10,000 <1 egg /L
US EPA (proposed) 200 Max 800
US EPA (actual) 200 Max 800
Europe# (proposed) ND -10,000 <1 <1 egg /L
Arizona (USA) 200 Max 800
California (USA) 23, Max 240
Florida (USA) 200, Max 800
Hawaii (USA) 23, Max 240
Nevada (USA) 200, Max 400
Texas (USA) 20, Max 75
Washington (USA) 23, Max 240
1,000,
ACT (Australia)
Max 10,000
NSW (Australia) < 1,000
Victoria EPA
<1,000
(Australia)
Spain <10,000 <1 egg /L
Italy 10, Max 100
Catalonia (proposed) <1,000 <1 egg /L
Israel
1,000
Mexico <1 egg /L
Max 2,000
#
Europe includes also Enterococci < 1,000 Cfu/100 mL
Besides these guidelines intended to reuse water at "zero health risk approach" countries like Australia,
Israel and the US also adopted the "barriers" to pathogen infection approach. The aim of this approach is
to block pathogen transfer to the consumers of the crop or the agricultural environment by management of
the barriers to pathogen transfer. Details on the barrier approach are given in the individual case studies of
agricultural reuse further in the chapter and in Chapter 19 Failure and failure management.
Guidelines related to good practice in agricultural irrigation to prevent specific ion toxicity from irrigation
water are summarised in Table 20.9 (adapted from Ayers and Westcot 1985; Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
516
Table 20.9 Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation

(Adapted from Ayers and Westcot 1985; Metcalf & Eddy 2003)
Degree of Restriction on Use
Potential Irrigation Problem Units
Slight None Moderate Severe
Salinity (affects crop water availability)

ECw dS/m <0.7 0.7 - 3.0 >3.0
TDS mg/L <450 450 – 2,000 >2,000
1
Permeability (affects infiltration rate of water into soil; Evaluate using ECw and SAR or adj. RNa together)
SAR 0-3 and ECw = >0.7 0.2 – 0.7 <0.2
3-6 = >1.2 0.3-1.2 <0.3
6-12 = >1.9 0.5-1.9 <0.5
12 -20 = >2.9 1.3-2.9 <1.3
20-40 >5.0 2.9-5.0 <2.9
Specific ion toxicity (affects sensitive crops)
Sodium (Na)
Surface irrigation SAR <3 3-9 >9
Sprinkler irrigation me/L <3 >3
Chloride (Cl)
Surface irrigation me/L <4 4-10 >10
Sprinkler irrigation me/L <3 >3
Boron (B) mg/L <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0
Trace elements (see Table 20.4)
Miscellaneous Effects (affects susceptible crops)
Nitrogen (N-NO3) mg/L <5 5 - 30 >30
Bicarbonate(HCO3)
(overhead sprinkling only) me/L <1.5 1.5 – 8.5 >8.5
pH Normal Range 6.5 – 8.4
1
For wastewater irrigation it is recommended that SAR be adjusted to include a more correct estimate of calcium in the soil
water. A procedure is given in "Metcalf & Eddy, Eq. 13-11 and Table 20-24". The adjusted SAR (adj. RNa) calculated by the
given procedure can be substituted with the values of SAR in this table.
517
20.4 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH AGRICULTURAL

IRRIGATION USING RECLAIMED WATER
Considerable experience is available in many parts of the world on the use of reclaimed water for
agricultural irrigation. In this section a detailed account will be given of agricultural reuse in the European
Union (§ 20.4.1), Australia (§ 20.4.2) and Israel (§ 20.4.3).
20.4.1 Europe
In Southern Europe the use of reclaimed water is predominantly directed towards agricultural irrigation
(see Chapter 1). The main users of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation purposes in Europe are
Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and Greece.
Spain
Numerous projects serving agricultural reuse have been implemented across the country (see Figure 1.3).
The major incentive for water reclamation and reuse has been based on the viable alternatives for cost
recovery. The highly competitive water markets of the Canary Islands, the highly productive hydroponic
crops of the southern Mediterranean coast and the more recent demands for golf course irrigation, have
largely contributed to the expansion of agriculture and landscape irrigation with reclaimed water in Spain.
Farmers have begun to realise the considerable benefits from a reliable supply of good quality water,
particularly during the summer season, when water shortages are most common.
Initially, reclaimed water consisted of disinfected secondary effluent; continuing improvements to water
reclamation facilities have led facilities to evolve into Title 22 reclamation treatment trains, consisting of
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection (cfr. Chapter 11). The major leap
forward in wastewater reclamation and reuse occurred in 1996, when several water reuse projects were
approved and partially (80 percent) funded by the European Union (EU).
In 1999, the Spanish Ministry of Public Works, Transportation and Environment proposed a set of
physicochemical and microbiological standards for 14 possible applications of reclaimed water. The
proposed microbiological standards range from limits similar to those included in the Title 22 regulations
(Californian reuse standards) for unrestricted water uses, to limits similar to those included in the WHO
guidelines, where public exposure to reclaimed water is restricted.
Water reuse standards in Spain are currently being revised. Existing regulations apply very stringent
drinking water standard requirements for water to be used for human washing and irrigation of food crops
to be eaten raw. Tertiary treatment with no faecal coliforms is required for unrestricted irrigation of sport
fields, pasture for milking animals and toilet flushing. The unrestricted irrigation and irrigation of non-
food crops require less than 1,000 FC/100 ml.
Italy
Agriculture is an important activity both in the North and in the South of the country. However, given the
high variability of climate conditions within the country, agricultural needs strongly varies from region to
region. In the North the climate is similar to Central Europe. Abundant precipitations (>900mm/y)
coupled with the presence of important surface water bodies (both rivers and lakes) guarantee large water
518
resources. Consequently, water problems are mostly related to water quality and wastewater reuse is often
intended to prevent pollution of surface water (Barbagallo et al., in press). On the contrary, a typical
Mediterranean climate is recorded in the South and on the Islands (Sicily and Sardinia). Very dry summer
months (July average rainfall can drop below 5 mm) and the lack of available surface water result in
strong water shortages, even for drinking purposes.
In recent years, interest has grown towards the relevant flows of effluents produced by WWTPs, which
are increasing in volume and quality as a result of the European Directive 91/271/CEE. While in the
North and in the Centre wastewater reuse is mainly focused on industrial purposes and agricultural or
landscape irrigation is more an occasional or local case, in the South and on the Islands the interest for
water reuse is mainly directed to irrigation, with the intent of saving high quality water sources for potable
uses (Barbagallo et al., in press).
Legislation and Practice
The first law concerning agricultural reuse was issued in the 1976 (Water Protection Act- Legge Merli-
319/1976). Irrigation was considered a wastewater treatment i.e. damping of wastewater on land. The
approach was clearly precautionary, with respect to soil and environment and human health. Fixed
standards where as follows (Nurizzo and Mezzanotte, 1994):
• Sodium Adsorption Rate (SAR) <15
• Level of Suspended Solids “low enough to avoid soil clogging”
• Absence of persistent organic compounds
• Total Coliforms Count < 2 MPN/100 mL (vegetables and fruits for raw consumption) or < 20
MPN/100 ml (products to be processed and grazing grass).
It has already been stressed (Nurizzo and Mezzanotte, 1994; Nurizzo et al., 2001) that this limit appeared
excessive when compared with the quality of the surface water used for irrigation, which has coliform
counts at least 3 orders of magnitude higher. However, some Regional Governments such as Emilia
Romagna and Puglia, issued additional regulations which were even more stringent. Only Sicily based its
approach on the WHO guidelines, accepting Total Coli < 3000MPN/100mL (Bonomo et al.,1999,
Barbagallo et al., 2001a). As a consequence, for over 20 years Italy has been lacking of a rational
approach to wastewater reuse at a national level, for instance with the identification of water quality
classes according to the reuse or the irrigational practice. If this was meant to avoid the risk of
inappropriate use, it has surely hampered the development of a transparent wastewater reuse in
agriculture.
On the other hand, indeed, indirect reuse has been profusely practiced. In the Southern regions, during the
dry season, withdrawal of water volumes from rivers whose flow is mainly composed by discharged
wastewater is common, whether extracting percolated water off wells or diverting it from river beds
(Barbagallo et al.,in press). Another case of irrigation with wastewater, among the oldest in Italy, is in the
North, just south of Milan. Water from the Vettabia River is used to irrigate over 4,000 ha, when the
Vettabia River receives most of the industrial and urban wastewater of Milan (Angelakis et al., 2003).
Only since April 2003, a part of this wastewater is treated at the Nosedo WWTP before being discharged
to the river (cfr. case description in Chapter 9).
519
A new law was finally promulgated during June 2003. The new standards are much more numerous: 54,
as shown in Table 20.10. Only some parameters can be modified by Regional Authorities with respect to
local conditions.
Table 20.10 Italian National Standards for irrigation with reclaimed wastewater
(D.M.185/03) from (Barbagallo et al., in press)
Parameters Limit Parameters Limit
pH 6.0 ÷ 9.5 Sulphites [mg SO3/L] 0.5
SAR 10.0 Sulphates [mg SO4/L] 500
Coarse solids Absent Chlorine residual [mg/L] 0.2
TSS [mg/L] 10.0 Chlorides [mg Cl/L] 250
BOD5 [mg/L] 20.0 Fluorides [mg F/L] 1.5
COD [mg/L] 100.0 Animal/vegetal oils & fats[mg/L] 10.0
Phosphorus [mg P/L] (total) 2.0 Mineral oils [mg/L] 0.05
Total Nitrogen [mg N/l] 15.0 Phenols [mg/L] (total) 0,1
Ammonia [mg NH4/l] 2.0 Pentachlorophenol [mg/L] 0.003
ECW [dS/m] 3.0 Aldehydes [mg/L] (total) 0.5
Aluminium [mg Al/L] 1.0 Tetra/tricloro-ethylene [mg/L] 0.01
Arsenic [mg As/L] 0.02 Chlorinated solvents [mg/L] (total) 0.04
Barium [mg Ba/L] 10.0 TTHM [mg/L] 0.03
Boron [mg B/L] 1.0 Aromatic solvents [mg/L] (total) 0.001
Cadmium [mg Cd/L] 0.005 Benzene [mg/L] 0.01
Cobalt [mg Co/L] 0.05 Benzo(a)pyearene [mg/L] 0.00001
Chromium [mg Cr/L] (total) 0.1 Org. nitr. solvents [mg/L] (tot.) 0.01
Chromium VI [mg CrVI/L) 0.005 Surfactants [mg/L] (total) 0.5
Iron [mg Fe/L] 2.0 Chlorinated biocides [mg/L] 0.0001
Manganese [mg Mn/L] 0.2 Phosphorated pesticides [mg/L] 0.00001^
Mercury [mg Hg/L] 0.001 Other pesticides [mg/L] (total) 0.05
Nickel [mg Ni/L] 0.2 Vanadium [mg V/L] 0.1
Lead [mg Pb/L] 0.1 Zinc [mg Zn/L] 0.5
Copper [mg Cu/L] 1.0 Cyanides[mg CN/L] (total) 0.05
Selenium [mg Se/L] 0.01 Sulphides [mg H2S/L] 0.5
E. Coli [UFC /100 mL] (80%ile) 10*
Tin [mg Sn/L] 3.0
CWs & Stabilisation ponds 50**
Thallium [mg Tl/L] 0.001 Salmonellae [UFC /100 mL] Absent
^ for any single item; * 100 CFU/100 mL allowed only for the first 3 years of application of the Act, measured as a maximum for
a single isolated sample ** 200 CFU/mL allowed only as maximum for a single isolated sample
Some new parameters for the irrigation practice (Boron and Conductivity) are introduced, and a more
rational approach is taken for microbiological contamination. However, relevant parameters such as
nematode eggs, viruses and protozoa are not considered. The approach is quite restrictive: 20% of the
parameters (in Italic in the table) ask for the same quality of drinking water, whereas another 37% (in
Bold in the table) is not even present in the drinking water guidelines. Again, no distinction is established
among restricted and unrestricted irrigation or the irrigating method. The limit in the concentration of
biocides and pesticides is also of difficult understanding in an agricultural environment (Barbagallo et al.,
in press).
In conclusion, the number of parameters and the associated monitoring protocols will probably result
extremely heavy to sustain, especially with regards to small and medium scale systems.
520
Examples of irrigation reuse projects in different Italian regions
In the following some examples of reuse schemes in Italy are given. Another case (Is Arenas, Sardina) is
presented in paragraph 11.7.1
Saint-Cristophe, Aosta, Quart, Valle d’Aosta (from Maddalena, 2003)

Located in the extreme North-West of Italy, Valle d’Aosta is a small mountain region. High tourist
presence is remarked both in winter and in summer; however it is only during summer that the
combination with irrigational need for pasture fields may lead to over-exploitation of water resources. To
protect its water resources, the Regional Government tries to reduce water consumption and to favor
water reuse.
The effluent form the Brissogne WWTP, managed by the “Saint-Cristophe, Aosta, Quart Wastewater
Treatment Consortium”, is tertiary treated to achieve water quality sufficient for various reuse options.
The inflow to the WWTP varies between 17,000 m3/d and 45,000 m3/d, and only a fraction of them is
upgraded: the overall capacity of the reclamation plant is 4800 m3/d.
The reclamation scheme includes:
• A tertiary filtration step (2 rapid filters with polyelectolite dosing) and disinfection (with
Chlorine);
• A pumping station (3 pumps serving 3 different distribution networks)
• 3 distribution networks for the different reuse options: irrigation, fire protection, process water for
close-by industries.
Water demand is low during winter and increases during spring and summer months, when the total
produced water can be used. During winter, reclaimed water is used merely for the industrial use,
including washing of machineries at the WWTP itself, for a total consumption around 1700 m3/d.
Therefore, the Consortium is evaluating the possibility of using reclaimed water for other facilities that
are under construction.
Region Apulia
The Apulia region, in the South of Italy, is a region characterised by a low yearly rainfall average (660
mm) coupled with a very low surface runoff (0,23), so that surface water is very scarce. Considering also
groundwater, the overall Per Capita Water Availability (PCWA) is still the smallest of Italy: 136 m3/y. As
a consequence, water is imported from the bordering regions and the regional aqueduct (Aquedotto
Pugliese, AQP) distributes it through a multi-reservoir system with 19,635 km network (Lopez and Vurro,
2006). Agriculture accounts for almost the 80% of the land use. Even though only 23.8% of the cultivated
area is irrigated, the lack of water amounts to about 700 Mm3/y. In order to answer their need of water,
farmers drilled about 140,000 wells, which led to overexploitation of the aquifers and saline intrusion
(Lopez and Vurro, 2006).
To tackle the problem, the Regional Government has planned to implement a large wastewater
reclamation plan. The whole plan estimates to produce 265,000 m3/d of reclaimed water (Lopez and
Vurro, 2006). However, only a fraction of it will be more readily implemented, about 110,000 m3/d
(Lopez and Vurro, 2006). According to the AQP the situation at summer 2003 included 4 reclamation
521
plant and distribution networks already tested and approved (60,000 m3/d) and 10 others in the last
constructive or testing phase (173,000 m3/d).
The tertiary treatments in the reclamation plants will make use of Title 22 technology, based on the
sequence of coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation, rapid filtration and disinfection. The quality of the
reclaimed water is expected to satisfy the recently approved Italian law (2003), modified for some
parameters as indicated in Table 20.11.
Table 20.11 Apulia limits as compared to National regulations (2003), from

(Lopez and Vurro, 2006)
COD [mg/L] BOD5 [mg/L] Boron [mg/L] Chlorides [mg/L]
National regulations 100 20 1.0 250
Apulia 50 10 2.0 500
Grammichele and Caltagirone (Catania, Sicily)

As the whole Caltagirone Plain, Grammichele lacks of water resources and domestic, agricultural and
industrial activities compete for the available volumes. Since the 80’s, the problem is further increased
because of the contemporary depletion of surface waters and the worsening of ground water sources
(lowering of water table and increased salinity). In 1988 an activated sludge plant treating the flow of the
combined sewer network started operation. Progressively and without official control, farmers
accustomed to use treated wastewater to irrigate citrus orchards. Only from 1993, joint efforts by the
University of Catania and the Regional Environmental Agency supported the effluent reuse scientifically,
introducing new management practices. The actual scheme is represented in Figure 20.1.
Figure 20.1 Grammichele water reclamation scheme (Barbagallo et al., 2001b)
During the non-irrigation season, usually from October to April, the secondary effluent is firstly stored in
a concrete tank to regulate the daily flow (1,550 m3/d, Barbagallo, 2006). Afterwards, it is distributed to
about 50 farms equipped with small reservoirs (1,000-40,000 m3), where the quality of the water
improves. During the irrigation period (May-September), the concrete tank is instead used to mix
522
groundwater and WWTP effluent, before the mixture is distributed to the farmers. The treatment at the
WWTP is indeed not sufficient to meet irrigation standards.
The overall wastewater reuse during one year is about 560,000 m3, corresponding to the total flow from
the WWTP. The distribution network extends for about 10 km, and the overall reservoirs capacity is
250,000 m3 (Barbagallo et al., 2001a).
Results from experimentations conducted by the University of Catania on a 35,000 m3 volume, 7.5 m
deep reservoir, showed that water suitable for irrigation can be produced. Microbiological reduction of 4-
5 log can be achieved, meeting the recommended value for unrestricted irrigation of WHO guidelines.
During summer, BOD5 and COD may increase because of the development and decay of phytoplankton
and zooplankton, however the presence of aquatic plants in the surface layer also helps its oxygenation.
The presence of stratification with an aerobic layer on top of anaerobic one may also prevent the diffusion
of noxious odours in the surrounding environment, which in fact are neglected in the reservoir in object
(Barbagallo et al., 2001b).
Similar results have been obtained also by investigations on other reservoirs in the same area, where the
effect of storage on both secondary effluent and untreated wastewater has been studied. In all cases,
storage during 40 days resulted sufficient to produce water for the irrigation of olive and oranges trees,
which were the irrigated crops. Algal development and stratification were similar to the ones described for
the Grammichele case, and reservoirs proved to be also a valid control barrier in case of malfunctioning of
the preceding WWTP (Cirelli et al., 2006).
However, concerning the case of Grammichele, the construction of 3 additional reservoirs has been
proposed, in order to increase the system reliability in the view of a fully approved implementation of the
scheme (Barbagallo et al., 2001a). The reservoirs should be introduced after the actual concrete (buffer)
tank, before the reclaimed water is distributed to the privately-owned farm reservoirs. Unfortunately, it
must be considered that not only the stringent limits but also the heavy monitoring activities imposed by
the Italian legislation of 2003 may negatively impact the development of this and similar small-scale
projects.
AQUATEC- “Innovative and sustainable technologies for facing water emergency in

Southern Italy” (from Lopez et al., 2006)
AQUATEC is a national joint project addressed to Southern regions deeply affected by water stress
among which: Apulia, Sicily and Basilicata. Under the coordination of the Italian Water Research
Institute (IRSA) of the National Research Council (CNR), the project deals with several issues, from
water management to groundwater restoration and water reuse. With respect to water reuse, four different
technologies have been investigated in order to evaluate their feasibility in the specific environments of
Southern Italy. Such experimental activities as summarised in Table 20.12.
The intermediate results, which are summarised in Lopez et al. (2006), are:
Membrane Filtration: When compared to well water, the effluent of membrane filtration displays higher
concentrations of Cl-, Na+ and B but higher microbial quality. Irrigation resulted in an increase of Na+,
Ca++, EC, SAR and ESP in the irrigated soil, whereas total coliforms were the only micro-organisms
found on the irrigated crops at harvesting time
523
Table 20.12 Experimentations on water reuse during AQUATEC

Technology and
Main Aims Crops Size Description
Location
Maintaining
agronomic processing Hollow fibre membranes, overall surface =
Tertiary Membrane
potential and tomatoes, 23,5 m2
Filtration, Cerignola 0.7 m3/h
microbiological fennel and drip irrigation
(Apulia)
quality avoiding Cl lettuce control test with well water
disinfection
Recovering 80% II eff+CO+Fi+Dis,,
fertilising 20% Den+Sed+CO+Fi+Dis,
#
Simplified treatments , principles and seldom Sewage+screen+CO+Fi+Dis to
olive trees 30 m3/d
Ferrandina (Basilicata) reducing costs for simulate malfunctioning
oxidation and drip irrigation
sludge disposal control test with not irrigated plants
Developing design
Wastewater Storage criteria and 140m x 140m x 3.75m (max), samples from
80,000 m3,
Reservoires, management citrus orchards 0.2m from the surface and 0.5m from the
HRT = 30 d
Caltagirone (Sicily) guidelines for bottom
small reservoirs
Analysing
Sub-surface flow performances and a) H-SSF CW, with Phragmites, surface
$
constructed wetlands , hydraulic a) 150 m3/d bed = 1,950 m2 ;
olive trees
San Michele di behaviour, b) pilot scale b) pilot scale (1.5m x 3.0m) CWs: H-SSF +
Ganzaria (Sicily) modelling removal V-SSF or two H-SSF in row
of contaminants
#
: II eff = secondary effluent; Den = outlet of denitrification tank; Fi = rapid filtration; CO = coagulation; Dis = disinfection
$
: H-SSF = horizontal sub-surface flow; V-SSF = vertical sub-surface flow; CW = constructed wetlands
Simplified Treatments: at an irrigation rate of 3000 m3/ha, the load of nutrients (N, P, K, Mg, Ca) in the
partially treated water is sufficient to olive plants except for Nitrogen. The bacteriological quality of the
irrigation water is not remarkably worse than common effluent tertiary treated. When compared to not-
irrigated crops, irrigated olives show a yield increase of 50% and improvement of characteristics such as
weight and flesh to pit ratio.
Storage Reservoirs: The first remark is that experiments with tracers showed that the actual detection
time in the Caltagirone reservoir is 7 days instead of the hydraulically calculated 30 days. However,
starting from a good quality secondary effluent (meeting EU 271/91 requirements for discharge), TSS,
BOD5, COD and nutrients concentrations in the effluent of the reservoir can achieve the limits for
Wastewater agricultural reuse of Italian legislation. Removal of pathogens indicators (Total and Fecal
Coliforms, E.Coli) is in average 2-3 log units, while great decrease is observed for Salmonella and
Helminth eggs. At Caltagirone reservoir, the first decreased from a mean value of 28.2 MPN/100 mL to 4
MPN/100 mL, while the latter were absent in the outflow despite being detected in the inflow with an
average value of 4.1/L.
Constructed Wetlands: Also the full-scale wetland showed an actual resident time significantly lower
than the design value (the half of it). Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the bad quality of the influent, not
satisfactory for EU 91/271, Italian standards for reuse can be met. Recorded average efficiencies for
removal of TSS, BOD5, COD, TN and TP are 85%, 65%, 75%, 42% and 32% respectively. With respect
to microbiological quality, indicator microorganisms show an average decrease around 2 log units.
Helminth eggs, detected in the influent with an average value of 12/L, and Salmonella, detected in influent
with a mean value of 3 MPN/100 mL, were never found in the effluent.
Final results will be available by the end of 2006.
524
France
The PCWA in France is high, around 3,190 m3 a year. No all regions share an equal access to water
resources and regional chronic droughts appear in different part of the country every year, but even during
the driest year, rain hardly falls below 600 mm/y in the least watered part of France and hydraulic
constructions to compensate the lack of resources are already not utilised. Even if he PCWA is supposed
to decrease steadily until 2025, when the population is expected to stabilise, the country is unlikely to face
any major water shortage over the next decades (Brissaud, 2004).
Agriculture accounts for only 15% of the overall national water consumption but irrigation with
wastewater has been practiced for at least one century, as a mean to dispose wastewater. Nowadays,
several reuse projects are driven by the aim of protecting receiving water from microbial pollution and
recovering rivers affected by eutrophication (Brissaud, 2004). Other local or exceptional situations which
can be considered as niches for water reuse development are the following:
a) the development of intensive irrigated farming (such as maize), in particular South-western France and
the Paris region;
b) the fall of water tables after several recent severe droughts in some regions
c) the necessity to maintain a profitable agricultural activity and a permanent population on some Atlantic
islands (Faby et al., 1999; Angelakis et al., 2003).
Legislation (from Faby et al., 1999; Angelakis et al., 2003)
The first time that the concept “reuse of wastewater” appeared in the French law, it was intended as a
mean of treatment and disposal of wastewater (Water Law and application decrees, 1992 and 1994). The
idea was repeated in an order of the Ministry of Environment in 1995, as alternative solution to discharge
in sensitive areas, and is still actual. The aim is to stop the disposal of wastewater in bathing waters,
shellfish breeding areas and other receiving waters, especially where tertiary treatment are not affordable.
From a general point of view, the country’s regulatory framework (Circular No. 51 of July 22, 1991, of
the Ministry of Health) is based on the WHO guidelines (1989). But France’s regulations are more
stringent having additional requirements concerning irrigation management, timing, distance and other
measures for preventing health risks related to human exposure and negative environmental impacts (i.e.
the potential contamination of groundwater). Some examples are shown in Table 20.13.
Regulations also concern the chemical quality of the wastewater and make it compulsory for the
departmental administration to apply for authorisation for any wastewater reuse project. Every
authorisation must include: a) information about industrial discharges in the sewerage system; b) at least
one analysis of the treated effluent with respect to SS, BOD5, COD, Nkhieldal, heavy metals and organic
compounds of concern; c) one analysis of the sludge produced at the treatment plant. New analyses are
required when any change in the content of toxic substances in the effluent occurs and when heavy metals
concentration in the sludge exceeds regulations. Finally, the Ministry of Health is in charge to monitor
each project on a permanent basis (Brissaud, 2004).
New water reuse guidelines are under preparation with the introduction of some new microbiological
indicators for unrestricted irrigation. A recent draft is presented in Table 20.14 (Brissaud, 2004).
Restriction on aspersion will be maintained and adjusted to water quality.
525
Table 20.13 Examples of restrictions to WHO guidelines in French regulations

concerning irrigational wastewater reuse
Water Faecal Nematode Vegetable to
Irrigational practice Distances
category Coliforms eggs irrigate
“reduce contact with
vegetables to be
wastewater” = no
eaten raw
aspersion
A <1000/100mL <1/L
>100 m from
public green, golf short range sprinkler
houses, sport and
courses outside opening hours
recreational areas
aspersion of cereal,
meadows, fodder >100 m from
B - <1/L crops, nurseries, sprinkles houses, sport and
vegetables to be recreational areas
cooked
drip or underground Areas close to
C - - nursery
irrigation public access
depending on the
A,B,C orchards
irrigation system
Table 20.14 Draft regulations for irrigational wastewater reuse, expected new
order by Ministries of Health, Environment and Agriculture
(Brissaud, 2004)
Water Other microbiological
E.Coli Vegetable to irrigate
category indicators
Vegetables and small fruits to be eaten raw sport
No Salmonella, No
A’ <1000/100mL areas and golf courses
Taenia eggs
Pastures, fruit tree, public parks
Vegetables and small fruit to be cooked or
B’ <1000/100mL - pasteurised, aspersion of flowers, nurseries, cereals
and fodder crops
Flowers, nurseries, cereals and fodder crops (no
C’ <104/100 mL -
aspersion)
Forests with controlled admittance to public (no
D’ - -
aspersion)
Overview of reuse projects
In the region around Paris, France has irrigated crops with wastewater for more than 100 years, because
until 1940 it was the only method of treating and disposing the wastewater of the Greater Paris
conurbation. In the early 1980’s, a survey could acknowledge only this and other 4 small examples, 3 of
which on islands of the Atlantic, as the only reuse practices in France (Faby et al., 1999). Between 1981
and 1997, many new projects were implemented rising the number up to 20 to 30 applications. The
overall irrigated surface covers more than 3,000 ha of land, but most of the projects are small scale sized
less than 100 ha. Quite a wide variety of applications is realised: market gardening crops, orchard fruit,
cereals, tree plantations and forests, grasslands, gardens and golf courses (Angelakis et al., 2003).
526
Driving factors of such a development have been numerous. With regard to islands and coastal areas,
increasing water shortages and wastewater volumes to dispose are a consequence of increasing tourist
activities. In this case wastewater reuse offers different advantages (Brissaud, 2004):
• maintains agricultural activities and thus a resident population on the islands (Noirmountier, Re’,
Porquerolles);
• prevents pollution of bathing areas and shellfish breeding areas (Noirmountier, Re’, Oleron, Mont
Saint Michel) and aquaculture water (Nourmoutier, Re’);
• allows irrigation of golf courses thus again sustaining tourist activity (Oleron, Port en Re’ and
Pornic, where tertiary treated urban wastewater is provided at 0.4 €/m3 with respect to
conventional sources at 0.9 €/m3);
• the tertiary process provided to enable irrigational reuse allows complying with microbiological
criteria for bathing and selfish breeding waters (excess water can be discharged)
Concerning the hinterland projects, the main aim is the rehabilitation of streams threatened by
eutrophication (Clermont Ferrand, Melle). In some other cases (Le Mesnil en Vallee and La Fuilet), given
the absence of suitable receiving bodies for secondary effluent, the reuse of wastewater represents a
cheaper solution than tertiary treatment.
Different water reclamation technologies are used according to the specific application. Typical starting
point is a biologically treated secondary effluent which is upgraded with some tertiary treatment.
For the irrigation of golf courses, disinfection with Chlorination or UV irradiation ensures sufficient
bacteriological quality. Conventional disinfection technologies are preferred to extensive treatments for
their reliability, because of commercial reasons and because of the vicinity with residential areas. Proper
operation and maintenance of the system is usually provided by the staff of the golf course.
Lagoons and reservoirs are the most widespread technologies for agricultural irrigation. Lagooning is
appealing for the moderate investment costs and the easy management and maintenance. However, it is
land consuming and temporary failures of the microbiological performances have been occasionally
observed. In order to assure an appropriate disinfection level, market gardening, the most restrictive
application, takes 3-4 maturation ponds, whilst 1 or 2 are sufficient for corn. Lagoons are also used as
storage facilities to cope with seasonal irrigation needs. Water depths generally ranges between 1-3 m, but
varies during the year. While the 4-lagoons system of Mont Saint Michel easily complies with the A
category standards, in the case of Noirmoutier the most critical period of the year for the coliforms
concentration in the effluent of the lagoon is the end of summer, when the stored water volume reaches
the minimum (Brissaud, 2004).
Paris Sewage Farms: the oldest wastewater reuse application in France

During the second half of the XIX century, the city of Paris was provided with a sewer network, which
rapidly resulted in heavy pollution of the river Seine. After experimentations at Clichy, it was decided that
sewage farms would be an appropriate method for wastewater disposal, and between 1872 and 1895, 4
sewage farms were realised at Gennevilliers (900 ha) and Acheres (Acheres plain, 1400 ha, Pierrelaye,
2010 ha and Triel, 950 ha). The raw wastewater was supplied by the Colombes pumping station, through
a 22 km long network.
527
At its maximum, the total capacity of the farms was around 160 hm3/y, which implies that another 250
hm3/y were still disposed in the Seine downstream Paris. The load on the Seine was reduced starting from
1940, when the first activated sludge plant was built in Acheres. In 1998 the Seine-Centre WWTP at
Colombes entered on-line and from that moment untreated wastewater has no longer be spread on the
fields. The actual remaining 2000 ha of Acheres make instead use of advanced primary treated effluent
(flocculation + settling), integrated, during summer with secondary effluent (Vedry et al., 2001).
Though irrigation took place by water flow in surface furrows rather than by sprinkling, health hazards
were acknowledged from the start of the irrigation practice. More recently, concern has risen also for the
accumulation of heavy metal in the soil.
The case of Pierralye fields (from Brissaud, 2004 and Vedry et al., 2001)
The Pierrelaye area is the largest of vegetable cropping. Therefore, it is the most exposed to sanitary
problems. The distribution system of untreated wastewater was built starting from 1900. It included 3
main works: 1) a pumping station; 2) a 92 km distribution network with 2,160 distribution outlets
equipped with manually operated valves; 3) a 40 km drainage system with open air and underground
pipes. About 1/3 of the fields belonged to the City of Paris, and were devoted to corn or industrial crop
cultivation. Therefore a great, constant sewage flow was handled. The remaining 2/3 were privately
owned and farmers used to grow vegetable crops. Irrigation of vegetables to be eaten raw was prohibited
but the rule has not always been obeyed. The farmers were free to irrigate according to their needs and
thus a smaller amount of sewage was disposed. In the following Tables 20.15 and 20.16, chemical and
bacteriological parameters before and after 1998, when the Seine-Central WWTP entered in operation, are
displayed.
Table 20.15 Chemical parameters in raw sewage and clariflocculated sewage,

average in mg/L (Vedry et al., 2001)
MES BOD5 COD TKN NH4-N NO3-N PO4-P Cd Pb Zn Cu
<1998 177 162 277 25 20 0.10 3.2 0.005 0.050 0.400 0.900
>1998 23.5 30 76 14.7 11.5 3.9 0.2 0.002 0.022 0.120 0.064
Table 20.16 Bacteriological parameters in raw sewage and clariflocculated

sewage, per 100 mL (Vedry et al., 2001)
before 1998 after 1998
Faecal Coliforms Faecal Streptoc. Faecal Coliforms Faecal Streptoc.
max min max min max min max min
supplied to fields 1.5*107 5*103 1.5*106 5*102 2*107 2.5*106 5.5*106 7.5*104
drain outflow 1.5*104 1*102 3.5*103 5*101 5.5*104 2.5*103 1.5*104 1*102
It is clear that the quality of the water applied to the field is very much improved. At the same time, the
smaller difference in bacterial counts decrease recorded in the drain outflow indicates the depuration
capacity of the soil. With respect to pollution by heavy metals, one century of irrigation with untreated
wastewater has definitively affected the soil composition. Furthermore, digested sludge from the
Colombes and the Acheres WWTPs were introduced in the irrigation flows in the period 1935-1992 and
528
1940-1952 respectively. The actual metal concentration at the surface of irrigation fields exceeds the
recommended limits of metals in soils in all case (Table 20.17).
Table 20.17 Heavy Metals content in the irrigated soil of Pierralaye fields, as
compared to control soil and French Regulation (Vedry et al., 2001)
Regulation
Elements Raw water irrigation Control
limit
Soil depth (cm) Soil depth (cm)
mg/kg dry mg/kg
0–30 30–60 60–90 0–30 30–60 60–90
As 8.42 10.4 6.83 9.86 7.93 9.61
Cd 2 2.17 0.92 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8
Hg 1 2.55 2.9 0.83 0.49 0.39 0.16
Pb 100 273.64 120.9 40.30 24.05 15.50 14.89
Cu 100 138.03 70.2 25.15 15.00 12.06 12.33
Zn 300 431.55 242.5 88.03 56.11 52.58 56.79
The following facts have been observed:
• The highest concentration of metals in the irrigated soil is in the top layer. Indeed humic matter,
also more present in the upper soil, binds metal with the following order: Zn, Pb, Cu, As, Hg, Cd;
• Concentration rate in the irrigation soil, when compared to the control soil, follows the decreasing
order Pb, Cu, Zn, Hg, Cd, As, where arsenic shows no accumulation effect;
• The control soil does not show any significant decrease of concentrations with depth except for
lead, which behaves as if coming from the surface (probably due to air pollution);
• From a mass balance, it is calculated that digested sludge in sewage account for almost 60% and
30 % of the Cd and Zn content in the soil respectively.
During 1998, several vegetables grown on the field were analysed for their heavy metals content. Results
shown in Table 20.18 - show variable concentrations with the type of vegetables.
Table 20.18 Heavy metals concentration in vegetables of irrigated and control

fields (irrigated fields in Bold, from Vedry et al., 2001)
mg/kg As Cd Hg Pb
moist irrigated control irrigated control irrigated control irrigated control
Onions 5.8 8.7 7.2 5.6 5.5 1.8 49.5 10

Parsley 13.2 30.3 4.4 3.3 6.1 3.6 81.9 32.6
Lettuce 15.7 6 27.7 34 6.4 4.0 220 30
Leeks 17.7 16.3 5.8 7.6 6.5 2.6 229 25.6
Celery 18.7 4.6 70.3 21 8.9 4.0 25.2 12.6
Corn 37.7 32.3 13.4 2.6 3.9 3.3 32.1 7.3
Limit 100 30 300/500
On average, and for each vegetable, metal concentration thresholds are not exceeded. However, several
samples of leeks and one of lettuce exceed recommended values for lead, which induced the authorities to
529
prohibit vegetable farming on the irrigated fields during 1999. On the contrary, the very low
concentrations of metals in the corn appear favourable to corn culture on the irrigated soil.
Health authorities have considered the interruption of irrigation practice at Pierralaye fields, but they
finally decided to keep the farms in operation with corn crops in order to a) maintain 2,000 ha green areas
in an heavily built up zone, b) prevent heavy metal release to aquifer and rivers in case that irrigation
practice is stopped and c) reduce the load discharged by the biological WWTPs to the river Seine:
especially in summer irrigation volumes can reach 300,000 m3/day.
Noirmoutier: Integrated Water Management on an Atlantic Island

Noirmoutier is a typical island off the French Atlantic coast. Its main activities are agriculture, salt
production, shellfish farms, fishing and tourism. Fresh water sources on the island are negligible and the
main supply is potable water conveyed from a hinterland reservoir 70 km away at 0.60 euro/m3 (Xu et al.,
2001). Wastewater discharge to the sea is also a sensitive issue, as waters around the island are source for
economical activities. Consequently, wastewater reuse has been implemented into an integrated water
management scheme, with the double purpose of increasing water availability and protecting the quality
of the aquatic environment around the island.
Wastewater irrigation has been implemented for over 20 years. Currently, reclaimed water is used for
irrigation of potato fields: 2.70 km2 at La Salaisière and 0.35 km2 at La Casie. Water reuse is between
150,000 and 300,000 m3/year in the first area and around 50,000 m3/year in the second (Xu et al., 2001).
At La Casie, primary effluent is stored in 90,000 m3 stabilisation ponds. At La Salaisière, secondary

effluent is stored in a series of 4 reservoirs, with an overall storage capacity of 220,000 m3. The reservoirs
accomplish the double function of improving the microbiological quality of the effluent and making water
available to meet the variable irrigation demand during the year (see Chapter 15.9.2). Stored water that is
not used for irrigation is disposed to the sea; therefore it must comply with the EU Bathing Water
Directive and Directives for shellfish breeding areas (330 faecal coliforms/100mL in intervalvular fluid or
flesh of the shellfish).
On the island, a single association manages water supply and wastewater collection, treatment, reuse and
disposal. Potable water is purchased in-land at 0.60 €/m3 and sold on the island at different prices
according to the customers. In order to stimulate its consumption, an appealing price is set for reclaimed
water (see Table 20.19). Reclaimed wastewater accounts for 80% of the total demand in agricultural
irrigation in the North and 100% in the South (Xu et al., 2001; 2002).
Table 20.19 Average water prices in Noirmoutier (including cost of subscription

and meters) from (Xu et al., 2001)
Potable Water Reclaimed water
Domestic, hotel, etc. Landscape Agriculture Agriculture
4.57* €/m3 0.67 €/m3 1.54 €/m3 0.23-0.3 €/m3
*
= including 2.21 €/m3 for sewage treatment and disposal
Clermont Ferrand: a hinterland project

The largest “modern” water reuse project of France, 700 ha, is located almost in the exact centre of the
country. The project has a double aim: to provide better quality water for irrigation, and to protect local
530
water streams. In the area, farmers used to pump water from the polluted Ambene, Genzat and Bedat
rivers, which caused further flow reduction and degradation of water quality in these streams.
Additionally, secondary effluent from the greater Clermont Ferrand WWTP (400,000 P.E.) used to be
discharged in the small river Artiere, which was consequently heavily polluted (Brissaud, 2004).
Design started in 1989 and authorization was given in 1995. The implementation has been gradual, from
50 ha in 1996 to completion in 1999. Seed-corn is the main irrigated crop, but given the direct contact
between operators and aspersed plant during corn castration, health authorities required category A
irrigation water. 8 municipalities are involved in the schemes.
Irrigation scheme and management
The treatment is based on 8 lagoons with a total surface of 12 ha and an overall volume of 312,000 m3.
Two effluents are used: from the Clermont Ferrand WWTP and from a sugar mill. The effluent form the
sugar mill is stored from October to June and is spread over the fields during May and June. Again during
June, empty lagoons are filled with the secondary effluent, that is used after one month detention.
Microbiological Quality
An intense microbiological study was carried on during 1998. The microbiological quality of the
reclaimed water resulted higher than the one of the water pumped from rivers Ambene, Genezat and
Bedat. Median content of faecal coliforms and Enterococci were 90 and 24 CFU/100mL respectively.
Salmonellae were detected in 23% of the samples.
An epidemiological study on the surrounding population and farmers was performed in 1996, 1997 and
1998. No epidemic event related to the exposure to water was identified (Devaux et al., 2001).
Germany
The amount of renewable freshwater in Germany is estimated at up to 188 billion m³/yr. Of this total, only
20 percent is used and only 0.1 percent by agriculture (UBA 2004). Therefore, there seems to be little
incentive for the recycling of wastewater. Nonetheless, direct municipal wastewater reuse is practiced in
the agricultural sector in a few cases. This is due to the historical development in regions with sandy soils,
where agriculture has always only been feasible through irrigation. Formerly, this was accomplished by
using untreated wastewater, but with the implementation of sewage treatment the method was continued
with upgraded water (Bixio et al., 2006)
Wastewater treatment is operated in line with the requirements of the intended use. Low nutrient
degradations are achieved in summer, during the vegetation period, whereas during winter the sewage is
de-nitrified as well as removed of phosphorus, and use is maintained for groundwater replenishment.
Constructed wetlands provide a final polishing step. Remarkable amounts of 10 and 20 Mm³/yr are reused
this way in Wolfsburg and Braunschweig, respectively (Bixio et al., 2006).
In terms of volume, indirect yet unplanned potable reuse is much more important. In some regions (e.g.,
Ruhr valley and Rhine valley, Berlin region) the artificial recharge of groundwater is practiced. In these
cases, surface water or riverbank filtrate is used as the source for drinking water production.
Because the federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) in Germany ensures a high level of protection for
water, the best opportunity for the reuse of wastewater is through environmental protection schemes.
German industry also practices a large amount of direct industrial reuse (Bixio et al., 2006).
531
Treatment and agricultural recycling of municipal wastewater in Braunschweig, Germany

Since the end of the 19th century, the wastewater of the city of Braunschweig has been treated in a 490 ha
sewage farm outside the city. With growing population the sewage farm became overloaded and the need
for additional areas arose. The concept of agricultural wastewater recycling in this region was quite
suitable as sandy soils with poor nutrient contents and low groundwater tables allowed for high hydraulic
loads.
In 1954 the Water and Soil Association was founded who since then was responsible for the soil
application of wastewater. In the past, the wastewater received only a mechanical treatment. Since the
biological treatment plant has been commissioned in 1979 the irrigation water is of ever increasing
quality.
Wastewater Treatment and Irrigation Practice
Today, the municipal wastewater treatment plant Braunschweig is a conventional activated sludge plant of
a design capacity of 420,000 P.E. The average daily dry weather flow amounts to 60,000 m³/d. The plant
includes nutrient removal and achieves a good effluent quality, staying well below the limit values of the
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (Table 20.20).
The sludge is thickened and stabilised by thermophilic digestion. During the vegetation period the
digested sludge is mixed with the treated effluent and applied to the fields as nutrient source. In the winter
period the sludge is dewatered, stored and later on (in spring time) applied as fertiliser on fields outside
the irrigation district.
Table 20.20 Effluent quality of wastewater treatment plant Steinhof in

Braunschweig
Effluent sewage
Parameter units Effluent WWTP
farm / wetland
pH - 7.7 8.0
BOD5 [mg/L] 5 3
COD [mg/L] 43 35
NH4-N [mg/L] 1.2 1.9
NO3-N [mg/L] 4.70 2.8
TKN [mg/L] 4.5 4.6
Ptot [mg/L] 0.7 0.7
TSS [mg/L] 9 12
Cd [mg/L] 0.0020 0.0020
Cr [mg/L] 0.0053 0.0050
Cu [mg/L] 0.0191 0.0199
Hg [mg/L] 0.0002 0.0003
Ni [mg/L] 0.0108 0.0149
Pb [mg/L] 0.0024 0.0023
Zn [mg/L] 0.0196 0.0024
AOX [mg/L] 0.0779 0.0410
The treated effluent is used for two purposes which can be categories as restricted irrigation and
environmental enhancement. As the irrigation continues all year, there is also a groundwater
replenishment taking place while over-irrigating during the winter months. The wastewater recycling
concept is depicted in Figure 20.2.
532
One third (7 Mm³/yr) of the sewage plant effluent is sent to the sewage farm fields which make up an area
of ca. 300 ha. Next to the classical vertical sewage farm operation (flooding, infiltration and drainage) the
system has been extended by lagoons and meanders which prolong the retention time of the effluent
before discharge into the receiving creek (Oker).
Figure 20.2 Water recycling concept of wastewater association Braunschweig,

(Abwasserverband Braunschweig, 2001)
Wastewater recycling concept
Combined sewer system

Municipalities of Braunschweig city
Sewer
overflow
Pumping
Pumping
station
stations
Ölper Oker
15 Mm³/yr Wastewater
Pumping
treatment station
plant Steinhof
Aue-Oker-Canal to the Oker

Buffer Delivery to
store sewage farms
7 Mm³/yr
Buffer store
(70,000 m³)
Sewage farms,
wetlands; 200ha
Irrigation area
2,700 ha
Oker
Approximately two third (15 Mm³/yr) of the wastewater treatment plant effluent is dedicated for restricted
agricultural irrigation. On the total area of 2,700 ha a volume of around 1,800 m³/h (range of 1,600 to
2,300 m³/h) is applied. Vegetables and fruit are strictly exempted from irrigation. Among the irrigated
crops:
• cereals (winter grains) (40%)
• sugar beet (25%)
• potatoes (20%)
• corn / maize (15%) for energy production: fermentation and biogas production
533
The irrigation field and an irrigator machine with the flexible irrigation pipe are shown in Figure 20.3.
Figure 20.3 Irrigated field and irrigator
A 12 km gravity main transports the reclaimed water into the irrigation district. There are four pumping
(see Figure 20.4) stations which distribute the water into distinct irrigation areas, via a network of 117 km
pressurised pipes. The pumping stations have a storage capacity of 3,000 m³ each.
Figure 20.4 Distribution pumping station
The whole irrigation scheme is authorised by a permit according to water law which specifies
requirements for the irrigation water quality with regard to COD ( 50-75 mg/L seasonal variations) and
total nitrogen ( 12 mg/L).
The measuring program for the surface water and groundwater monitoring is a bit more comprehensive,
having regard to temperature, TSS, oxygen content, EC, pH, CSB, TOC, BOD5, NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N,
Ninorg, Ntotal and P total but setting no limits.
534
As to the operation requirements a number of protection measures are demanded. Set back distances for
irrigators and windbreak hedges and spray shield plantings are mandatory accompanying measures.
Scheme Benefits
The water reuse scheme in Braunschweig generates a number of tangible and intangible benefits,
particularly for the farmer community. The benefits arising from the scheme are summarised in Table
20.21 (Teiser and Ripke, 2006). The irrigation activity influences both crop yields and soil conditions
positively. The nourishing value of the nutrient enriched effluent (addition of sewage sludge) improves
the yields of farmers within the irrigation district by 20-40 % compared to those outside. While the yield
on the local soils normally amounts to 5,000 kg/ha the farmers supplied with reclaimed water of the
“Abwasserverband” harvest 6,000-7,000 kg/ha.
The growth of under-sown crops, facilitated by continuous irrigation, helps preventing soil erosion.
Additionally the input of sewage sludge over years caused increased humus content of the soil by 0.5 %
points (1.6% for irrigated soils while 1.1% for non-irrigated soils). In this respect the reuse of wastewater
contributes to sustainable agriculture in this region.
Table 20.21 Benefits arising under the particular circumstances of the

Braunschweig water reuse scheme
Economic Social Environmental
constructed wetland attracting diverse bird species during migration period,
recreational area
fertilising effect of irrigation improved surface water quality in
receiving creek
increased crop yields (20-40%) less soil erosion
growing of crops for biogas soil melioration (increased humus
production and energetic content)
independence of the operator
avoided invest in upgrading of
treatment plant
reduced payment of effluent charge
20.4.2 Australia
Table 20.22 shows an extract of the agricultural reuse for the reclaimed water applications and grades
from the draft Australian National Guidelines (Anderson et al., 2001). High contact quality (FC <10,
Treatment: secondary + filtration + disinfection) is suitable for agricultural unrestricted irrigation. To
these microbiological guidelines for agricultural reuse, the salinity and chemical limitations explained in
Section 20.2 are also added to obtain a suitable water quality.
Approximately 200 agricultural irrigation projects were operational in the year 2004 in Australia (cfr.
Figure 1.1). Five case studies will be discussed in this chapter, namely: the Bolivar water reclamation
scheme in South Australia and the Shoalhaven, Picton, Gerringong-Gerroa and Richmond schemes in
New South Wales.
Other detailed material on cases of agricultural irrigation by reclaimed effluents in Australia can be found
in Dolniþar and Saunders (2005); and US EPA Guidelines for water reuse (US EPA, 2004).
535
Table 20.22 Australian suggestion for reclaimed water grades and treatment
Agricultural irrigation part (Adapted from Anderson et al., 2001)
High Contact
Low Contact
Open Access
A (31/2 star)
A+ (4 star)
FC<10000
Restricted
D (1 star)
C (2 star)
B (3 star)
FC<1000
Medium
APPLICATIONS
FC<100
Contact
FC<10
FC<1
Non Food Crops
Allowed Silviculture, Turf Farms
Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Withhold 4 h. fodder, fibre and seed crops
Allowed
Not allowed Not allowed Allowed Allowed Stock water
except pigs
Allowed Pasture and fodder for diary
Not allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Withhold 5days cattle and pigs
Pasture and fodder for beef
Not allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed cattle, sheep, diary wash
down water
Food Crops
Food eaten raw incl. salad
vegetables and root crops,
Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed Allowed Allowed
raw water contacts edible
portion
Food cooked processed
Not allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
before eating
Orchards, vineyards. No
Not allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed raw water contact with
edible portion
*Secondary +
*Sec.
membrane.
*Secondary +disinfection
filtration.
+maturation. *Adv. Primary *Secondary *Secondary +
+disinfection.
ponds +filtration. + filtration. TREATMENT
*Sec
*Oxidation +disinfection disinfection +disinfection.
+coagulation+
pond systems *UASB +
filtration.
disinfection.
+disinfection.
The Bolivar case study (Radcliffe 2004, Dillon et al., 2006)

The Virginia pipe-line project was developed in response to three problems: nutrients in the secondary
effluent were damaging an environmentally sensitive ocean gulf, farmers were experiencing declining
yields and there was an increase in salinity in underground aquifers (the Northern Adelaide Plains
vegetable growers were withdrawing an average of 18 million m3 of groundwater per year from aquifers
while the aquifer could support an annual abstraction of 6-10 million m3 per year).
Realising that, if improved, the Bolivar WWTP effluents could be used for horticultural irrigation the
Virginia pipe line project was developed (Radcliffe 2004). The reclaimed water system serves today over
536
220 irrigators in the Virginia area. The majority of the customers are horticultural farmers who produce
root and salad crops, brassicas, wine grapes and olives.
The pipeline was built in 1999 to transport up to 22 million m3 of reclaimed water per year from the
Bolivar Treatment Plant just north of Adelaide to the Virginia area for irrigation mainly for horticulture.
This has assisted expansion of irrigated crops, reversed the over-exploitation of groundwater supplies and
reduced the discharge of nutrient-rich effluent to a sensitive marine environment (Dillon et al., 2006).
Sewage from the Adelaide metropolitan area that was treated in the Bolivar Sewage Treatment Plant, by
trickling filter until January 2001 was replaced by an activated sludge process. The effluents from the
secondary treatment were then held in shallow aeration lagoons for a minimum of 6 weeks, before passing
through a dissolved air flotation and dual media filtration process (DAF/F) at the water reclamation plant.
Here the effluents discharge via a chlorinator into a balancing storage before being pumped into the
pipeline for distribution for horticultural irrigation. This process improves the water quality to less than 10
E. Coli /100 ml – the Australian standard for irrigation of crops eaten raw.
Other water quality requirements are that the turbidity must be on average below 10 NTU (and max. 15
NTU) and pathogens below 1/50 L.
The long retention time in the stabilization ponds provides a safety buffer (another barrier) before final
treatment for recycling as well as allowing for further degradation of any potential toxins or pathogens
that might break through the treatment process (Kracman et al., 2001).
For storing the excess treated effluents, subsurface Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) is being trialled
using wells. The trial provides information necessary to design and operate a full-scale scheme on the
Northern Adelaide Plains capable of expanding irrigation supplies by 5-10 million m3 per year. Surface
storage was prohibitively expensive and recharge by surface infiltration was not viable due to thick clay
layer in the Hindmarsh Clay Formation.
An aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) trial was established to test the technical viability, environmental
sustainability and economic feasibility of storing reclaimed water during winter when irrigation demand is
low and recovering it in summer to meet peak demand (Martin et al., 2000) in the event that this rose
beyond the current capacity for treatment and transmission in the pipeline.
The project has been operating since 2000 and the owners are considering extending the system to meet
demand that was unable to be met in the original development. There have been no public health concerns
and there is continuous monitoring for environmental impacts such as accession of irrigation water to the
water table and build-up of salts in the soil profile.
Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (Gould et al., 2003; Radcliffe, 2004):
The Northern Shoalhaven Reclaimed Effluent Management Scheme (REMS) is one of the largest and
more complex reclaimed water management schemes undertaken by an Australian water authority. REMS
has been developed to beneficially reuse up to 80% of the reclaimed water produced by six WWTPs in the
Shoalhaven region. In 2003, this project had a capacity to reuse 2 million m3 of reclaimed effluent per
year from 4 interconnected WWTPs and when completed will reuse 4 million m3 a year (Radcliffe, 2004).
The Shoalhaven REMS began as a local solution to a local problem. During the 1980s the Shoalhaven
Region experienced sustained high population growth. Local and State government authorities were
concerned that septic systems in the small coastal townships would pollute the adjacent bays, coastal
537
creeks and lagoons which were recognised as areas of high conservation value. One of these water bodies,
Jervis Bay, has since been declared a National Heritage Area and it is now also a State Marine National
Park (Gould et al., 2003).
In 1989, the State Government announced that no new ocean outfalls would be approved unless prior
assessment had been made of alternative reclaimed water management options. This caused changes from
the original plan to construct new ocean falls to the direction of water reuse Three basic options were
chosen as being the most suitable for exposure to public review (Gould et al., 2003). These options were
1) ocean release at three alternative locations, 2) Land reuse based on forestry plots and 3) river release
via constructed wetlands with local reuse. A key group for consultation in reuse scheme development was
the dairy farmers on the southern Shoalhaven River floodplain who had to pay for the reclaimed water. At
the end of public consultation process most of the respondents (80%) were willing to pay an additional
sewerage charge to implement the management option of land application throughout the Shoalhaven City
Council area.
Rich agricultural land on the Shoalhaven River floodplain offered potential for use by dairy farmers.
Reuse in this area would provide opportunities for the connection of the Nowra, Bomaderry and Callala
Wastewater Treatment Plants to the Scheme. REMS concept development required effective integration
of specialist studies and stakeholder/community consultation to arrive at a scheme which was sustainable
and met stakeholder expectations.
The final adopted option for REMS consists of a pipeline distribution network to access the most viable
agricultural re-use areas on the Shoalhaven River floodplain; a central bulk storage reservoir (600,000 m3
in Stage 1) at Coonemia to hold reclaimed water during wet periods; surplus Scheme releases at Penguin
Head and the Shoalhaven River – used about two to three times per year for periods of about one month
on average; tree irrigation trial areas; and allowance for irrigation of golf courses and recreational areas.
Nutrients are retained in reclaimed water used for irrigation on farms but the water is filtered (to safeguard
against helminths) and disinfected. However, phosphorus will be removed from surplus releases to the
Shoalhaven River and the ocean if required.
REMS process
REMS consists of 6 wastewater treatment plants, 6 pumping stations, a 74 km pipeline network, a

distribution storage and bulk storage. Filtered, disinfected reclaimed water is pumped from the plants
through the distribution system to users. When balance ponds on user sites are full, the water is pumped to
the 400,000 m3 distribution storage. The storage ensures a constant supply to users even when pumping
stations are not operating. Reclaimed water overflows from this storage to the bulk storage when
irrigation demand is low. In prolonged wet weather periods, surplus water is released to the ocean at
Penguin Head and to the Shoalhaven River (Gould et al., 2003).
The adoption of optimised design flows, based on loading which occurs over most of the year, resulted in
significant cost savings. The originally adopted design flows were based on short-term, summer loadings.
The optimised concept has utilised the capacity of existing storage ponds at treatment plants to attenuate
peak summer loadings (Gould et al., 2003).
538
Monitoring and irrigation scheduling
Irrigation of floodplain areas, which have a relatively high water table level and receive a reasonably high
but variable annual rainfall, will require close monitoring and effective irrigation scheduling. An
integrated monitoring program has been implemented to manage the Scheme effectively and ensure all
relevant public health and environmental requirements are met (Gould et al., 2003).
REMS benefits
Gould et al. (2003) outline the significant benefits in terms of social, economic and environmental
outcomes that Stage 1 of REMS is already delivering, including:
• successfully achieving the community’s aims at an affordable cost;
• elimination of reclaimed water discharge into Jervis Bay, now a marine national park,
significantly reduced discharge of nutrients to the ocean at Culburra and phasing out of discharges
into the Shoalhaven River (Stage 2);
• reduced capital and operating costs by scheme optimization;
• improved long-term viability of the local dairy industry;
• further promotion of the region’s clean and green tourism image;
• reduced potable water consumption as all participating farms in Stage 1 are connected to town
water for domestic use and dairy wash-down. REMS water is used for dairy wash-down and the
use of reclaimed water for livestock drinking is also being investigated; and
• establishment of an enhanced value for reclaimed water which, with the inclusion of Nowra and
Bomaderry WWTPs in Stage 2, has the potential to attract other rural industries such as
horticulture, farm forestry, cropping (e.g. tea-tree) and other primary and manufacturing
industries requiring significant volumes of good quality water.
Picton water reuse Scheme

Picton Reuse scheme produces reclaimed water used for growing lucerne and ryegrass/clover pastures and
a woodlot. Prior to the construction and commissioning of the Picton Scheme the sewerage facilities in
the NSW townships of Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor, consisted of on-site treatment systems. In 1996
Sydney Water approved the construction of a new tertiary 10,000 P.E. treatment plant to be located
southeast of Picton. Based on the need to protect the Nepean River where the effluents were directed, the
sewerage scheme would be designed to reuse 100 % of dry weather flows for agricultural and silviculture
activities on land adjoining the plant. The site chosen proved to have sufficient land area to enable reuse
of a large proportion of the effluent flow and to beneficially use all bio-solids produced (Cooper, 2003).
The sewage treatment and reclamation process
The water reclamation process includes intermittently decanted extended aeration lagoons (IDAL) -
operated in a manner to allow nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the effluent suitable for agriculture and
silviculture irrigation - and sand filters and UV disinfection and tertiary treatment (Cooper, 2003).
As treated effluent will be supplied for irrigation on a demand only basis, surplus flows are stored in one
of 2 dams which have a combined storage capacity of 280,000 m3.
539
With a current flow of 1,000 m3/d, the extended aeration lagoons are achieving a 50 percentile of 2 mg/L
and 2.6 mg/L for total nitrogen and total phosphorus respectively.
Up to 3,000 m3/d can receive filtration and UV disinfection prior to discharge to the Western Storage
Dam. Normally flows bypass the filtration and UV disinfection units and discharge directly to the Eastern
Storage Dam where a minimum 10 day detention time will achieve the required disinfection for crop
irrigation of less than 10,000 cfu/100 ml as a 90 percentile.
The agricultural reuse process
The utilisation area, otherwise known as Carlton Stud, is an area of 134 hectares (66 ha for perennial
pastures and associated break crops and 54 ha for Eucalypt woodlots) and is operated and managed by an
external enterprise as an income generating business .
Currently, the treated effluent is predominantly being used to irrigate a lucerne crop. The lucerne crop is
assumed to have similar crop coefficients as pasture.
Monthly average rainfalls and water losses associated with evaporation and other uses were taken into
account when calculating the amount of water required for the adequate lucerne crop irrigation and
calculate the size of reservoirs for effluent storage.
The agricultural production areas and layout of irrigation pipe-work have been designed to take into
account the various soil types, slopes and drainage on the site.
Irrigation schedules ensure a balance between the daily loading of effluent and the rate of crop uptake,
although these schedules fluctuate depending on weather conditions and available storage capacity. If
there is insufficient volume to meet the irrigation demand and a 10 day detention time cannot be met, UV
treated effluent can be discharged directly to irrigation.
The irrigation layout is based on appropriately sized rectangular pasture areas. The sprinkler systems are
designed to minimise the potential health hazard of wind blown spray and to prevent contamination of
nearby waterways. Windbreaks and a buffer zone have also been established around the irrigation areas.
In its first year of operation, the irrigation scheme has reclaimed 100 per cent of the dry weather flow and
has prevented 1,390 kg of phosphorus and 1,685 kg of nitrogen from being discharged to the
Hawkesbury-Nepean River system. Instead the water and nutrients have helped to produce viable crops
which are sold for agricultural feed. With irrigation rates ranging from 800 m3/d (winter) to 4000 m3/d
(summer) the demand is beginning to be higher than the supplied reclaimed water. If this trend continues,
irrigation water will have to be supplemented with river water extraction and will in turn affect operating
income. To avoid this situation expansion of the storage capacity by an extra 30% is planned. Such
variability in demand gives great emphasis to the importance of irrigation scheduling and management of
available storage capacity, so the use of reclaimed water is maximized (Cooper, 2003).
Gerringong-Gerroa Reclamation Scheme

Gerringong and Gerroa are located in the South East coast of Australia and have 3,500 permanent local
residents. The region is a popular holiday destination and very well known for its diversified flora and
fauna, as well as its beaches. The main local industries are dairy farming and tourism (Boake, 2005).
540
Table 20.23 shows the raw sewage quality, EPA license requirements and the current effluent water
quality.
Table 20.23 Performance criteria-Gerringong Gerroa WWTP (Boake, 2005)

Component Unit Raw Sewage (Avg.) EPA license Final effluent (Jul-Nov 2004)
BOD mg/L 280 5 2
COD mg/L 644 - -
SS mg/L 295 3 2
Ammonia mg/L 45 - -
Total Kjeldahl mg/L 55 - -
Total Nitrogen mg/L 55 3 0.79
Total
mg/L 10 0.1 0.015
Phosphorous
Alkalinity mg/L 280 - -
pH - 7-8 6.5-9 7.25
Faecal
FC/100 mL 1x106 2 0
Coliforms
Effluent reuse for agricultural irrigation - One of the scheme’s objectives is to reuse at least 80% of the
treated water on average over the next 20 years. Multi-stage pumps located at the Gerroa STP are used to
pump the advanced tertiary treated effluent through a rising main to a local dairy farm where it is used for
pasture improvement. As the water demand from the farm is seasonal, a 50,000 m3 storage dam balances
the water demand and availability between periods of high demand (spring and summer) and periods of
low demand (autumn and winter).
The farm is equipped with two Linear Move Irrigators that span 240m and 320m and irrigate
approximately 70 hectares of the 150-hectare property. The irrigators have the flexibility to operate in
centre pivot and linear modes, which maximise the irrigation area on an irregular shaped property. A
range of irrigation rates can be applied with maximum flexibility and minimum operator input (Boake,
2005).
The farmer uses a computer program to aid in irrigation scheduling. When water is unlikely to be used for
irrigation (for six months per year) and the storage dam water level is high, water is discharged onto the
sand dune systems up to a fixed rate of (800 m3/d). In extreme periods of extensive wet weather, with the
storage dam full, the sand dune system may not be able to accept the entire flow produced by the WWTP.
In that case, the surplus of effluent is directed to the natural on-site wetland via a constructed overflow
channel and ultimately to the Crooked River. A small amount of final effluent is also used on-site as
process water.
Hawkesbury (Richmond) Reclamation Scheme

Hawkesbury (Richmond) reclamation scheme produces reclaimed water used for pasture production for
the University of Western Sydney (UWS) diary, horse unit and grazing unit, for a range of horticultural
crops and orchards and for watering UWS playing fields.
Since the 1960’s the effluent from the Richmond WWTP has been supplied to the Richmond Golf Club
for irrigation. Since 2000, the Hawkesbury (Richmond) reclamation scheme run by Sydney Water is
542
starting to produce reclaimed water used for pasture production for the University of Western Sydney
(UWS) diary, horse unit and grazing unit, for a range of horticultural crops and orchards and for watering
UWS playing fields (Attwater et al., 2006). Since January 2002 the Scheme has been supplemented with
additional supplies of urban storm-water. The separate treatment, yet integrated management of treated
effluent and stormwater is an important feature of the Scheme.
Sydney Water is investing $11.4 million AUD to upgrade the Richmond WWTP from trickling filters to
Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Lagoons (IDAL) technology. Treated effluent (avg. 2500
m3/d) to the University's Hawkesbury campus is initially held in a 93,000 m3 Turkey Nest Dam (Radcliffe,
2004). Treated effluent is piped from Turkey Nest Dam to Horticulture Dam (84,000 m3) to the crop area
north of Blacktown Rd. and to Hillside Dam (76,000 m3). Between Turkey Nest and Horticulture Dam,
supply lines lead to the deer farm, amenities paddocks and experimental area. Supply lines from
Horticulture Dam include one line to the playing fields and a second main (pressurised line) supplies the
horse paddocks and the two horticulture areas.
The Hawkesbury (Richmond) reclamation scheme uses a total water cycle management approach to
integrate the above use of treated effluent with treated stormwater. As part of the Scheme a 60,000 m3
stormwater retention pond has been constructed on UWS land at the junction of the two main stormwater
channels draining the upper catchment of Rickabys Creek. From here the stormwater is pumped into four
1 ha wetlands. Polished stormwater, which has passed through the wetlands, is stored in a holding pond
for either pumping for storage or for release as environmental flows.
The principle requirement of the Scheme's infrastructure is that it enables the effective and efficient
transfer and storage of the treated effluent and storm water to facilitate integrated and sustainable water
reuse across the Hawkesbury campus (Attwater et al., 2006).
20.4.3 Israel
In Israel wastewater effluent reuse and desalination have become the main alternative sources of water to
compensate for the current and future shortage of freshwater resources. The main water reuse activity is in
agriculture (70% of all the treated wastewater is reused in agriculture), for the irrigation of industrial
crops, cotton and fodder, citrus, cooked food or unrestricted irrigation (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2006). The
type of crop dictates the type of possible barriers and the effluent quality dictates the type of barriers that
are applied. These barriers are detailed in the next section.
National guidelines on water reclamation and reuse

The national policy in Israel is to treat all reclaimed water to a make it suitable for unrestricted
agricultural irrigation, including irrigation of fruits and vegetables eaten uncooked. The official quality
requirements for such effluents were established in 1978 by the Shelef Committee. The requirements were
slightly more lenient than the 1978 California Title 22 criteria, but still provided high public health and
safety levels, as reuse in Israel is widespread, tourism is highly developed and the produce is often
exported to other countries (Shelef & Halperin 2002).
Since the year 1999, Israel has adopted new requirements for effluent reuse in agricultural irrigation (the
Halperin Committee), which implemented the vast experience that has been gathered and fully recognized
the wide practicing of seasonal long-term reservoirs, as well as the advancement in new irrigation
methods, such as drip irrigation, plastic soil covering and sub-soil drip irrigation, methods pioneered in
543
Israel. For unrestricted irrigation, the new requirements recognised various "barriers" that can be a
substitute for granular filtration (the "classical barrier"), which follows good secondary treatment, but
which is often cost-prohibitive (Shelef & Halperin 2002).
In 2003, concerned for the increasingly saline fresh water aquifers, the government appointed another
committee (Inbar Committee) which issued new recommendations designed to limit, besides the organic
parameters, the nitrogen, phosphorous, boron and chloride concentrations in effluents for unrestricted
irrigation and effluents to be discharged to water bodies. The 1999 guidelines are currently being applied
and the Inbar committee recommendations are still awaiting approval (see for comparison, Table 20.24).
Table 20.24 Halperin Committee Guidelines vs. Inbar Committee proposal

(Aharoni and Cikurel, 2006)
Parameters Units 1999 Guidelines Inbar Committee Proposal
BOD mg/L - 10
TSS mg/L 10 10
Faecal Coliforms MPN/100 mL 10 10
Residual Chlorine (min.) mg/L 1 1
Contact time (min.) min. 30 30
Total Nitrogen mg/L - 25
Ammonia mg/L - 20
Total Phosphorous mg/L - 5
Boron mg/L - 0.4
Chloride mg/L - 250
The 1999 Israeli regulations for effluent irrigation in agriculture tend to follow a 'zero risk' approach. In
fact, two approaches to zero risk were taken (Fine et al., 2005). The one that is more popular among
decision makers, requires pre-treatment at the WWTP to 10 FCs/100 ml or '10-10-10-1' that respectively
refer to BOD, TSS, FC and residual chlorine. Following such treatment, the wastewater would be
considered suitable for 'unrestricted irrigation'. The other 'zero-risk' approach involves basic pathogen
removal at the WWTP followed by additional on-farm protective means (or 'barriers' to pathogen
infection) that are aimed to block pathogen transfer to the consumers of the crop or to the general public.
Recently, Fine et al. (2005) show that upgrading all effluents in Israel to 'unrestricted irrigation quality'
would cost US$ 67 million each year for upgrading alone, in addition to the costs of treatment to the
sanitary level required for each individual crop and of observing all the necessary additional precautions
and boundaries. This difference in cost stems from the fact that most effluent is used for the irrigation of
non-edible crops, for which partial pathogen removal is sufficient. Thus, upgrading to the sanitary level
required by the most sensitive crops would be rather wasteful (Fine et al., 2005).
Table 20.25 shows the number and type of barriers to pathogen transfer recommended in the 1999
regulations taking into account the type of crop and the effluent quality (Fine et al., 2005).
544
Table 20.25 The number and type of barriers to pathogen transfer that are
recommended by the Israel Ministry of Health according to the
effluent quality and crop type (adopted from Halperin, 1999)
Number of barriers required as a function of Equivalent value of a
the effluent quality barrier
Low input +>10
Distance of fruit
Plastic ground
Inedible peel or
days detention(b)
Subsurface drip
from dripper(e)
High input (c)
Disinfection$
Low input (a)
Unrestricted
Crop
irrigation(d)
obligatory
Cooking
cover
shell
Leafy vegetables,
Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited none
strawberry
Vegetables eaten –fresh
grown above ground
+ Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1 2
(pepper, tomato, cucumber,
paprika, zucchini)
Cooked vegetables with
Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1 2 1 1
rind (eggplant, pumkin)
Cooked vegetables grown
Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1
in the ground (potatoes)
Peanuts Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1
Fresh eaten vegetables
grown in the ground + Prohibited Prohibited 2 0
(carrot, onion, radish)
Beans + Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1 2 1
Fresh vegetables and fruits
with rind (peas, + Prohibited Prohibited 2 0 1 2 1
watermelon, melon)
Artichokes 3 2-3 2 0 2 1 2 1
Corn (edible) 3 2-3 2 0 2 1 2 1
Citrus 3 2-3 2 0 2 2 1
Citrus, irrigated with
pulsators or under-leaf 3 2-3 2 0 1 1
sprinklers
Citrus with edible peel
3 2-3 2 0 2 2
(Chinese orange)
Nuts, almonds,
3 2-3 2 0 2 2 1
pomegranate, pistachios
Deciduous trees (apple,
prune, plum, pear, peaches, 3 2-3 2 0 2 2
apricot) and cherry
Tropical fruits (mango,
3 2-3 2 0 1 1 2 1
avocado, persimmon)
Tropical fruit (possibility of
3 2-3 2 0 2 1 2 1
cutting the lowest leaves)
Grapes with high trellis 3 2-3 2 0 2 2
Grapes with regular trellis 3 2-3 2 0 1 1 2
Grapes with no trellis + Prohibited. Prohibited. 2 0 1 2
$ Disinfection: (+) sign denotes disinfection is an obligatory barrier; In any other categories: Disinfection is another voluntary
barrier † Definition of types of effluent water:
(a) Low input treatment: BOD > 60 mg/L, TSS > 90 mg/L; e.g., oxidation pond effluent with detention time 10 days (b)
Medium input treatment: BOD 20-60 mg/L, TSS 30-90 mg/L, or oxidation ponds effluent with detention time >10 days (c) High-
quality effluent from MBTP or equivalent, BOD & TSS levels of 20 & 30 mg/L, respectively (d) Effluent suitable for
unrestricted irrigation: Effluent treated for thorough removal of pathogens by any of the following methods- Deep sand filtration,
or prolonged ponding ( 60 days), or dilution in reservoir to <10% of the water
545
Effluent quality parameters for unrestricted irrigation: Faecal coliforms (FC) 10/100 ml and turbidity 5 NTU (or TSS 10
mg/L) and 1 mg/L residual chlorine at the irrigation point The regulations mention also the possibility of using alternative
disinfectants (although not explicitly mentioned, for example UV) On a condition that the disinfectant will be equally effective to
faecal coliforms and will produce water with 10 FC/100 ml (e) Making a cut-off between effluents and fruits can be done in one
of the following ways: 1. A distance of at least 50 cm, above ground, between the drippers and the fruits, is considered as 2
barriers. 2. A distance of at least 25 cm above ground, between the drippers and the fruits is considered as 1 barrier.
3. A distance of at least 50 cm between under-canopy (branches) sprinklers or spray-irrigation and between the fruits is considered as
1 barrier. 4. A plastic groundcover, between the effluent and the fruits, is considered as 1 barrier. 5. Subsurface drip-
irrigation is considered 2 barriers in case the wetting front does not rise to the ground surface (encountering water puddles on the
ground surface disqualifies the subsurface drip irrigation method as a barrier, for the following years).
Case studies in Israel
Three case studies are described in this Chapter, namely: 1) The Dan Region Reclamation Project, 2) the
Hakishon Project and 3) The Hefer Valley Water Users Project. These projects produce most of the
tertiary treated and reused effluents of Israel.
Dan Region Project

Reclaimed water is used to irrigate 29,000 ha (6,000 ha of citrus, 2000 ha of nuts, 10,000-13,000 ha of
potatoes and other field crops). The Dan Region WWTP is based on the activated sludge process that
includes nitrification and de-nitrification. Water reclamation incorporates soil-aquifer treatment (SAT)
and storage in a confined groundwater aquifer (described in Chapter 14) and distribution (described in
Chapter 17).
The plant was first operated in 1977 and has been expanded in several stages during the 27 years of
operation, with the latest expansion in 2003 that enables the production of over 140 million m3 of
reclaimed water per year.
The long retention time in the aquifer provides for a very high quality effluent, which is then pumped out
by a series of production wells that surround the infiltration fields (Chapter 14). This reclaimed water is
then transferred to farmers, for unlimited agriculture use. The water is suitable for unlimited reuse for all
types of agricultural crops and meets the Ministry of Health's requirement that the water does not
endanger those who drink it unintentionally. The use of this water does not require application of surface
irrigation at a minimum distance from dwellings or from roads and can be used in protection area of
drinking water wells. The infiltration of the effluent to the aquifer also allows for the water to be stored in
the ground for short and long periods. This allows the water to be pumped when needed for agricultural
reuse. Further details on this known project can be found also in Avraham et al. (2003).
Hakishon Project and irrigation of Yizrael Valley

The Hakishon Project is the second largest reclamation project in Israel, now producing over 35 million
m3 of reclaimed water per year. The scheme produces unrestricted irrigation quality water by using long
storage polishing reservoirs and disinfection which follow a secondary mechanical- biological process. An
overall scheme is presented in Figure 15.7, paragraph 15.9.1.
The Hakishon Project, in its present form, started to operate on 1984, when the Upper Kishon Reservoir
was constructed. The volume of this reservoir is about 12 million cubic meters, with a maximum depth of
about 11 meters. The project also includes 4 smaller peripheral reservoirs with a cumulative volume of
about 8.6 million m³. The effluent from the Haifa wastewater treatment plant is pumped to the Upper
546
Kishon Reservoir, where it is retained after blending with the effluent from the Afula wastewater
treatment plant The transport takes place through a 30 Km long, 36” pipeline.
Supplementary treatment and disinfection allows unrestricted agricultural irrigation reuse, which
constitutes also an ideal solution for the disposal of the effluents.The reclaimed effluents are conveyed to
the Yiszre’el Valley, approximately 30 km east of Haifa, where they are used for summer irrigation of
15,000 hectares of cotton and other non-edible crops.
The irrigation system of the Yiszre’el Valley originally included the artificial lake Kfar Baruch, created
with the construction of a dam and further enriched with water through the pipeline known as National
Water Carrier. This lake is currently excluded by the system, but it will soon be re-integrated when a side
reservoir adjacent to the lake, with a 5.0 million m3 volume will be finished (Shelef, 2004).
During the monitoring year 2003/2004, the Hakishon Project has received water from the Haifa
wastewater treatment plant (about 27 million m3), the Afula wastewater treatment plant (1.6 million m3)
and flood water (2.5 million m3).
The principles of treatment in the Hakishon project are: 1) the effluents of the two WWTP should have no
more 20mg/L BOD/ 30 mg/L TSS quality; 2) the effluents should have a retention time of not less than 60
days in the Upper Kishon reservoir; 3) the effluents before use are chlorinated so that, a minimum of 1
mg/L total residual chlorine after 30 min. contact time is obtained; and 4) the effluents shall not contain
more than 10 FC/100 ml.
The results of the monitoring program for 2003/2004 for the samples of effluent taken at “Afula Farmers”
consumer’s connection and from the 900 mm to 1,050 mm pipelines connection showed that the average
residual chlorine concentration was 1.2 mg/L and the average Faecal Coliform concentration was zero.
Hefer Valley irrigation Project (Manor and Agali, 2003; Cikurel and Aharoni, 2004)
The region covers a total area of 13,000 ha. The total agricultural land of Hefer Valley is 8,000 ha. The
agricultural land of those who participated in the Hefer Valley Modernization project is 6,500 ha of which
4,500 ha are irrigated. In 1984 most of this area was irrigated with fresh water. Gradually the fresh water
was replaced with reclaimed water as part of the modernization process. In 2002, 75% of the land was
irrigated with reclaimed water. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation grew up from 1 million m3 per
year and planned to reach 20 million m3 per year in 2005. The rest of the irrigation is achieved with fresh
water and some storm water.
The main WWTP supplying the Hefer Valley reclamation system is the Natanya WWTP (12 million
m3/year), and a smaller contribution is coming from the Hefer Valley WWTP (2 million m3/year). Five
effluent reservoirs have been successively built between 1986 and 2005 (Figure 20.6).
Drip irrigation is the dominant irrigation method and includes irrigation of orchards, ggreenhouses,
cotton, corn for forage and avocado plantations. All the above crops are suitable for restricted quality
water irrigation. Vegetables and flowers are still irrigated with fresh water but future plans include up-
grading of Natanya WWTP to unrestricted quality effluents by deep bed filtration and disinfection.
547
Figure 20.6 View of the Hefer Valley Irrigation Project (Cikurel and Aharoni,
2004)
Natanya WWTP Hefer Valley WWTP “ Mertz”

3 WWTP (2 Mm3/year)
(12 Mm /year) Northern reservoir (4 m3)
Bahan reservoir
(0.2 Mm3)
Operational reservoir
(100,000 m3)
Alexander river
reservoir
Main distribution lines (14” – 32”) 53 km

Southern reservoir
(3.2 Mm3)
The implementation of the irrigation scheme (Manor and Agali, 2003)
Designed to handle 44,000 m3/d, the Natanya WWTP delivers an average of 35,000 cubic meters of
reclaimed water every day to an operational reservoir, the western reservoir, of 100,000 cubic meters
capacity. In 1995, the Natanya WWTP was upgraded with a nitrification – de-nitrification process.
Gradually farmers exchanged their fresh water quota with reclaimed water, but they still must keep a
minimum level of fresh water, namely: 300,000 m3 for the kibbutz and 500,000 m3 for the moshav. The
reason is to ensure sufficient water for livestock, domestic use and for the option to grow vegetables. The
network of the reclaimed water system is isolated from the fresh water system. The pipelines and the
valves are marked in red to warn people not to drink this water. The fresh water network is marked in
blue. Each outlet is designed for a specific flow rate as requested by the farmers at the planning stage of
the system. The farmers select the flow rate based on the size of the field to be irrigated, the crop and the
type of irrigation method. At the beginning of each irrigation season each consumer applies to the
association indicating the quantity of water, the flow rate (not more than flow rate as designed for his
outlet) and the period of irrigation during the day and the month. Every farmer also has to get an approval
every year from the Ministry of Health for the crops he is planning to irrigate with reclaimed water. The
supply network system is designed to supply water simultaneously to all the outlets.
The water quality requirements are (Manor and Agali, 2003):
• For the restricted irrigation - 20 mg/L BOD and 30 mg/L TSS quality effluents from the WWTP
and chlorination only for O & M purposes (clogging prevention). Due to clogging factors from
reservoirs (zooplankton, algae) wire (80 mesh) filtration and chlorination is applied.
• For restricted irrigation by drip irrigation for corn, forage, avocado, the indicators and
corresponding Ministry of Health’s regulations are - the quality of biological – mechanical
548
treatment plant effluent shall be no more than 20 mg/L BOD and no more than 30 mg/L TSS
(base-line quality).
Best practices for salinity and boron reduction in wastewater, salinity mitigation
measures and irrigation with saline water: the Israeli experience
a. Salinity and boron reduction in wastewaters:
In Israel, in recent decades, there has been a steady increase in the concentration of salts in the sewage.
The main contributors to salinity of the sewage in the nineties were detergents, household use, industrial
water softening (industry contributes to almost 50% of the total chloride addition to municipal sewage of
which roughly 30% is derived from industrial water softening), meat “koshering’, the textile industry,
dairy food processing, pH neutralization and hospitals. Detergents contribute important concentrations of
sodium ion to sewage and are the main contributors of boron (Weber and Juanico, 2004).
In the last decade, in order to reduce the salinity level of municipal sewage the Ministry of the
Environment issued a series of regulations. In 1994, regulations were issued limiting the use of salt in ion
exchange regeneration. In 1998, new regulations were issued that prohibit the discharge of brines
(exceeding 4 tons of sodium or 6 tons of chlorides per year) to water sources and to municipal sewers.
Nine points for discharge of brines to the sea have been designed along the Mediterranean Sea, Dead Sea
and Gulf of Eilat. At the same time the Ministry of the Environment has encouraged the substitution of
sodium by potassium in ion-exchange regeneration processes and the pH neutralizations in industrial
processes were more done by calcium and potassium and less by sodium hydroxides (Weber and Juanico,
2004).
In 1999, a unique regulation was approved limiting boron, sodium and chloride content in detergents (for
laundry and dish washing). In 2003 the new Inbar Committee regulations for effluent reuse, stressed that
effluents should not contain more than 250 mg/L chlorides and 0.4 mg/L boron.
The boron and salt concentration in wastewater has been steadily decreasing since the beginning of these
initiatives.
b. Irrigation with saline waters:
Two-thirds of the State of Israel are defined as semi-arid and arid. Israel southern region is called the
Negev desert, which is divided into several sub-regions that have varying climatic, topographical and soil
conditions: The Northern Negev, Western Negev, Negev Highlands and Arava.
Substantial land areas used for agriculture are located in these sub-regions including the Arava Valley.
Saline water in this region creates problems in various crops. The solution was found by precise irrigation
with saline water according to the plant’s absorption capacity. This could be applied by drip-irrigation
technique. As a result of this technique crops irrigated by saline water of up to 3,000 μS/cm such as
tomatoes, sweet peppers and melons are sweeter and can be sold at higher prices than “normal” crops.
Increasingly, the use of saline water (up to 9,000 μS/cm) is being used to irrigate crops such as tomatoes,
melons, olives, flowers, cotton and alfalfa by drip irrigation in the desert areas of the Negev.
Also, increasing use of “fertigation” and humid growing conditions in green houses has enhanced the
ability of some crops to effectively use saline water.
549
In soil media culture, the typical leaching fraction applied in Israel to remove accumulated salt is around
30-50%. As a result, one-third to one-half of the applied water drains out. Recycling of drainage water in
soilless media culture can save up to 50% of water and fertilizer inputs and reduce the potential pollution
of the aquifer with more salts (Israel Export & International Cooperation Institute, 2006).
Future trends to reduce further the salinity of the ground water includes desalination of brackish water,
mixing of desalinated sea water to the ground water and effluent desalination.
20.4.4 USA
In the USA, a significant portion of the existing water reuse systems supply reclaimed water for
agricultural irrigation (cfr. Figure 1.7). In Florida, agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately 19
percent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within the state. In California, agricultural irrigation
accounts for approximately 48 percent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within the state. By
1987, more than 0.899 million m3/d of municipal wastewater (7-8% of the production) were being used
for different reuse applications (California State Water Resources Control Board, 2003). Although
historically reuse was mainly practiced in agricultural irrigation in California, over the past decade
reclaimed wastewater has been increasingly used for landscape irrigation in urban areas and for
groundwater recharge. Most of the reclaimed water (78%) is used in the Central Valley and South Coastal
regions of California. Two hundred reclamation plants throughout California produce the volume of
treated effluent indicated above and save 0.759 million m3/d of fresh water. In agricultural use of treated
effluent, at least twenty different food crops are irrigated as well as at least eleven other crops and nursery
products, as indicated in Table 20.26.
Table 20.26 Types of crops irrigated with reclaimed water in California

Food crops Non-food crops
Apples Grapes Alfalfa
Asparagus Lettuce Christmas trees
Avocados Maize Clover
Barley Peaches Cotton
Beans Peppers Eucalyptus trees
Broccoli Pistachios Flower seeds
Cabbage Plums Hay
Cauliflower Squash Maize
Celery Sugarbeets Sod
Citrus Wheat Trees
Vegetable seeds
Wastewater reclamation criteria issued by the California Department of Health Services (1978) have been
in force in California since 1978. For surface irrigation of food crops the requirement is for the effluent to
be adequately disinfected and oxidized so that the median number of coliform organisms does not exceed
2.2 per 100 mL over 7 days, except that orchards and vineyards may be surface irrigated with effluent
having a quality equivalent to that of primary effluent. Reclaimed wastewater use for spray irrigation of
food crops must be at all times adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered wastewater
with a bacteriological quality such that the 7-day median number of coliform organisms does not exceed
550
2.2 per 100 mL and the number of coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 mL in more than one
sample within any 30-day period. Exceptions to these quality requirements may be allowed by the State
Department of Health on an individual case basis where the food crop is to undergo extensive commercial
physical or chemical processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic agents before human consumption. For
irrigation of fodder, fibre and seed crops the wastewater need only have received primary treatment.
Reclaimed wastewater used to irrigate pasture to which milking cows or goats have access must be at all
times adequately disinfected and oxidized to achieve a median number of coliform organisms not
exceeding 23 per 100 mL over 7-days (Pescod, 1992).
Numerous reuse cases studies in the US are documented in the literature. The reader can refer for instance
to Asano (1998), the WHO Guidelines (Draft) for the safe use of wastewater in agriculture (WHO 2005),
Pescod (1992), Lazarova and Bahri (2004) and US EPA (2004).
20.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrol I.P. (1982) Technology of chemical, physical and biological amelioration of deteriorated soils. Panel of Experts Meeting on
Amelioration and Development of Deteriorated Soils. 2-6 May 1982, Cairo, Egypt.
Abwasserverband Braunschweig (2001) Reinigung und landwirtschaftliche Verwertung kommunaler Abwässer.
Aharoni A. and H. Cikurel (2006) Mekorot’s research activity in technological improvements for the production of unrestricted
irrigation quality effluents. Desalination 187: 347-360.
Anderson J., Adin A., Crook J., Davis C., Hultquist R., Jimenez C.B., Kennedy W., Sheikh B. and B. Van der Merwe (2001)
Climbing the Ladder: A Step by Step Approach to International Guidelines for Water Recycling. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 1-8.
Angelakis A.N., Bontoux L. and V. Lazarova (2003) Challenges and prospectives for water recycling and reuse in EU countries.
Wat. Sci. Tech..: Water Supply 3 (4): 59-68.
Asano T. (ed.) (1998) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse - wastewater reuse for irrigation pp 30-47.
Attwater R., Aiken J., Beveridge G., Booth C.A., Derry C., Shams R. and J. Stewart (2006) An Adaptive Systems Toolkit for
Managing the Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme. Desalination 188: 21-30.
Avraham O., Icekson-Tal N., Sack J. and H. Cikurel (2003) Water Reuse in Israel The Dan Region Project: Evaluation of water
quality and reliability of plant’s operation. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water Supply 3 (4): 231-237
Ayers R. S. and D.W. Wescot (1985) Irrigation and drainage paper 29: Water Quality for Irrigation. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Barbagallo S., Cirelli G.L. and S. Indelicato (2001a) Wastewater reuse in Italy. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 43–50.
Barbagallo S., Cirelli, G.L. and F. Somma (2001b) CatchWater, Enhancement of integrated water Water Management Strategies
with Water Reuse at Catchment Scale (ENV4-CT98-0790).
Barbagallo S., Cirelli,G.L., Consoli S., Toscano A. and S.M. Zimbone (2006) Performances of a H-SSF Constructed wetland as
tertiary treatment for wastewater reuse: the case study of “S.Michele di Ganzaria” (Sicily). Proceedings of Aquarec Conference,
1-3 February 2006, Barcelona, Spain.
Barbagallo S., Cirelli G.L. and C. Nurizzo (in press) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse in Italy.
Bixio D., Thoeye C., Wintgens T., Hochstrat R.,Melin T.,Chikurel H, Aharoni A. and B. Durham (2006) Water Reclamation and
Reuse in the European Union and Israel: Status Quo and Future Prospects. International Review of Environmental Strategies 6
(2).
Boake M.J. (2005) Reclaimed Water – Case Study: Gerringong Gerroa. Desalination 188: 89-96.
Bonomo L., Nurizzo C. and E. Rolle (1999) Advanced wastewater treatment and reuse: related problems and perspectives in
Italy. Wat. Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 21-28.
551
Brissaud F. (2004) Wastewater reclamation and reuse in France. Personal Communication. Available at:
http://tierra.rediris.es/hidrored/ebooks/tipda/# (click on “Biblioteca Virtual”)
California State Water Resources Control Board (2003) Reclaimed Water Use in California. Sacramento, CA: Office of Water
Recycling, California State Water Resources Control Board Available at:
www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/docs/wrreclaim1_attb.pdf
Cikurel H. and A. Aharoni (2004) Unrestricted water reuse in Israel, O & M aspects. Workshop on Operation of Municipal
Wastewater Reuse Plants; Thessaloniki, Greece; 11-12 March 2004.
Cirelli G.L., Consoli S. and V. Di Grande (2006) Long term storage of reclaimed water: The Case studies in Sicily (Italy)
Proceedings of Aquarec Conference, Barcelona, Spain; 1-3 February 2006.
Cooper E. (2003) Rouse Hill and Picton Reuse Schemes: Innovative approaches to large-scale reuse. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water
Supply 3 (3): 49-54.
Devaux I., Gerbaud L., Planchon C., Bontoux J. and P.H. Y. Glanddier (2001) Infectious risk associated with wastewater reuse:
an epidemiological approach applied to the case of Clermont-Ferrand, France. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (12): 91-101.
Dillon P., Pavelic P., Toze S., Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Martin R., Knapton A. and D. Pidsley (2006) Role of Aquifer Storage in Water
Reuse. Desalination 188: 123-134.
Faby J.A., Brissaud F. and J. Bontoux (1999) Wastewater reuse in France: water quality standard and wastewater treatment
technologies. Wat. Sci. Tech. 40 (4-5): 37-42.
FAO-UNESCO (1973) Irrigation, Drainage and Salinity. An International Sourcebook. Unesco/Hutchinson (Publishers), London,
UK: 510.
Fine P., Halperin R. and E. Hadas (2005) Economic Considerations for Wastewater Upgrading Alternatives- Health and Fertilizer
Aspect. Newsletter of the IWA Specialists Group on Water reuse, July 2005: 8-9.
Gould J., Lee P., Ryl J. and B. Mulligan (2003) Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management Scheme: Clever planning delivers
bigger environmental benefits. Wat. Sci. Tech.: Water Supply. 3 (3): 35-41.
Halperin Committee (1999) Principles for requirement for irrigation with wastewater effluents, The Israel Ministry of Health (in
Hebrew).
IRSA-CNR (1999) Un futuro per l’acqua Proceedings from the Congress ”IRSA-30 anni”, Roma, Italy. (In Italian)
Kracman B., Martin R. and P. Sztajnbok (2001) The Virginia Pipeline: Australia's largest water recycling project. Wat. Sci. Tech.
43 (10: 35-42.
Kretschmer N., Ribbe L. and H. Gaese (2002) Wastewater Reuse for Agriculture. FAO Technology Resource Management 2: 37-
64.
Lazarova V. (2000) Wastewater Disinfection: assessment of the available technologies for water reclamation. Water Conservation
3. Water Management, Purification and Conservation in Arid Climates, Goosen, M.F.A. and Shayya W.H. (eds.), Technomic
Publishing Co. Inc.: 171-198.
Lazarova V. and A. Bahri (2004) Code of Successful Agronomic Practices. In: Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture,
Landscapes and Turf Grass: 104 –150.
Lopez A., Pollice A., Lonigro A., Masi S., Palese A.M., Cirelli G.L., Toscano A. and R. Passino (2006) Agricultural Wastewater
Reuse in Southern Italy. Desalination 187: 323-334.
Lopez A. and M. Vurro (2006) Planning wastewater agricultural reuse in South Italy: The Case of Apulia Region”. Proceedings
of Aquarec Conference, Barcelona, Spain; 1-3 February 2006.
Maas E.V. (1984) Salt tolerance of plants. The Handbook of Plant Science in Agriculture. B.R. Christie (ed). CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Maddalena R. (2003) Riciclare le acque. Environnement, Ambiente e Territorio in Valle d’Aosta. Available at
http://www.reg.vda.it/territorio/environment (in Italian)
552
Manor S., Hagali Z. and Emek Hefer Farmers Association (2003) Modernization of the Hefer Valley irrigation system, FAO
report, Rome, Italy.
Martin R.R., Gerges N.Z. and P.J. Dillon (2000) Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) using water treated to irrigation standards.
Proc. 30th IAH Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, November 2000.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation. Chapter 13-6. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-041878-0: 1401-1424.
Navarotto P. (2005) Risk Assessment on use of Reclaimed Wastewater in Public Park Irrigation Med-Reunet II (INCO - CT-
2003 – 502453) added value knowledge report AVKR 1.
Nurizzo C., Bonomo L. and F. Malpei (2001) Some economic considerations on wastewater reclamation for irrigation, with
reference to the Italian situation. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 75-81.
Nurizzo C. and V. Mezzanotte (1994) Legislative, economical and technical aspects of irrigation with reclaimed wastewater in
Italy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 10: 301-316.
Pearson G.A. (1960) Tolerance of crops to exchangeable sodium. USDA Information Bulletin 216: 4.
Pescod M. (1992) FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Irrigation and drainage paper 47, Wastewater Treatment
and Use in Agriculture. Rome, Italy.
Radcliffe J.C. (2004) Water Recycling in Australia, Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering 2004.
Rhoades J.D. (1982) Reclamation and management of salt-affected soils after drainage. Proc. 1st Annual Western Provincial
Cong. on Water and Soil Resources Management. Lethbridge, Alberta Canada: 123-197.
Shelef G. and R. Halperin (2002) The Development of Wastewater Effluent Quality Requirements for Reuse in Agricultural
Irrigation in Israel. IWA Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region. Iraklio, Greece: 443-449.
Shelef G. (2004) Mekorot report on the Hakishon Project (in Hebrew).
Shuval H.I. (1991) Health guidelines and standards for wastewater reuse in agriculture: historical perspectives. Wat. Sci. Tech. 23
(10/12): 2037-2080.
Smit J. and J. Nasr (1992) Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources.
Environment and Urbanization 4(2): 141-152.
Teiser and Ripke (2006) Abwasserverband Braunschweig. Personal Communication.
UBA (2004). Umweltdaten Online, Wasserresourcen und ihre Nutzung, retrived on 24 January 2006 at:
http://www.envit.de/umweltdaten/public/theme/document.do;jsessionid=2387E3EB69CF71ED5332BBF5D286
FBDE?documentIdent=5184 .
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for water reuse 2004. EPA/625-R-04-108.
Vedry B., Gousailles M., Affholder M., Lefaux A. and J. Bontoux (2001) From Sewage water treatment to wastewater reuse. One
century of Paris sewage farms history. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 101-107.
World Health Organisation (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture. Technical Report
Series 778, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organisation (2005) Guidelines (Draft) for the safe use of wastewater in agriculture. World Health Organisation,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Xu P., Brissaud F. and A. Fazio (2002) Non-steady-state modelling of faecal coliform removal in deep tertiary lagoons. Wat.Res.
36 (12): 3074-3082.
Weber B. and M. Juanico, (2004) Salt reduction in municipal sewage allocated for reuse: the outcome of a new policy in Israel.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 50 (2): 17-22.
553
Xu P., Valette F., Brissaud F., Fazio A. and V. Lazarova (2001) Technical-economic modelling of integrated water management:
wastewater reuse in a French Island. Wat. Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 67-74.
554
21 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS : URBAN

APPLICATIONS
The perception of paradigms of urban water systems has changed. Whereas human waste has been seen as
a nuisance which has to be removed, today it is seen as a resource for the production of both new water
resources and fertiliser. Also stormwater was troublesome in the past and now harvested stormwater is a
resource for drinking and non-drinking water applications (see 21.2.1). Nowadays the reuse of water has
to be considered, whereas for a long time water was for single use only. It is recognised that demand is
multi-faceted and that the water quality should match the different end-users and application purposes.
Water does not have to meet drinking water quality for every purpose. Hence, reuse by cascading from
higher to lower quality needs, and reclamation treatment for return to the supply side of infrastructure
provides an opportunity. Today’s decision makers are multidisciplinary and that allows new management
strategies and technologies. Linkages between water supply, wastewater and stormwater are necessary,
comprising highly coordinated management (Pinkham, 1999).
Figure 21.1: Total water reuse quantities and distribution by sector (AGR:
agriculture, GWR: groundwater recharge, IND: industry, ECO:
ecological, URB: urban, DOM: domestic) in different regions of the
world (AQUAREC, 2004) (Asano, 2000) (ATSE, 2004)
963 Mm3 /yr (2000) 434 Mm3 /yr (1999) 206 Mm3 /yr (1997) 166 Mm3 /yr (2001)
100 4 3
5 14
19
90 4
24
80 17
13
3
70 38
5
60
14
40
50
40
70
32
30
49
20
30
8
10
8
0
Europe California Japan Australia
AGR GWR IND ECO URB DOM
The implementation of urban water reuse is underdeveloped in the European context compared to other
water stressed regions of the world such as California, Japan or Australia (Figure 21.1). This is not only
based on the total degree of water scarcity, which is forcing a more comprehensive water reuse and
conservation practices in the US and the Australia, but urban water reuse is certainly more difficult to
implement due to the large number of end users, the vicinity to the public, relatively high cost due to
complex distribution and treatment systems as well as potential risks of accidental public exposure in the
555
case of cross-connections in dual supply systems and irrigation of public spaces. On the other hand, urban
water reuse offers one of the biggest potential growth rates, particularly in new residential developments,
parks, sports fields, and recreational areas. Urban water reuse can very effectively replace the use of
potable water in applications which do not require potable water. Water reuse is the only, but also the
least well exploited, linking element in the widely promoted concept of “integrated urban water
management”. It has the potential to mitigate the impact of urban centres on the catchment water quality
and quantity as well as to provide water for new uses (e.g. aesthetic impoundments, fountains, parks,
recreational lakes etc.) which can increase the quality of the urban environment and consequently the
quality of life.
One of the great barriers to more widespread implementation of urban water reuse is the lack of
successful case studies. Some negative experiences, such as a case in the Netherlands, where cross-
connections occurred in the first application of a dual reticulation system, blocked the way for many
similar future projects (Hoek et al., 1999). One of the conclusions drawn from the current situation is that
better demonstration of successful applications is needed and guidance has to be provided for potential
end-users and water utilities aiming to implement such schemes. The large degree of potential design and
operational parameters of water reuse schemes renders it impossible, or at least impractical, to formulate
highly generalisable rules that will be broadly applicable to all potential schemes. However, this chapter
provides an overview of some of the key experiences made in urban water reuse so far. It is intended that
these examples may enlighten the scope of urban water reuse opportunities, challenges and barriers to be
expected in the implementation and operation of such schemes.
21.1 TYPES OF URBAN USES FOR RECLAIMED WATER

There is an enormous variety in the types of urban water reuse schemes that may potentially be
considered or implemented in various regions. An overview of the range is provided below with
differentiation by location and type of use as well as by type of source water or type of treatment.
21.1.1 Differentiation by location of use

The locations where reclaimed water may be used are highly variable in geography, climate, social
conditions and nature. Accordingly, the quality requirements for water reuse applications are also various
in different regions. Some examples are given:
• Households
Household water use offers a great potential for the utilisation of alternative water sources as a significant
part of the water use is not for potable purposes. Anderson (2005) estimates for planning purposes in New
South Wales/Australia that a single residential household demands about 198 m³/yr of which 77 m³/yr are
potable water while recycled water could cover up to 121 m³/yr, including about 22 m³/yr for toilet
flushing and 72 m³/yr for garden watering. Depending on local regulations, household reclaimed water
applications can include toilet flushing, clothes washing, air conditioner chiller water, vehicle washing,
garden irrigation and also decorative fountains and other water features. Quality requirements differ with
the degree of exposure to people but for most household applications water quality comparable to that
defined as “Class A” by the Victoria (Australia) EPA standards (see 21.1.2) is required. In some cases
cross-connections between the potable water and recycled water supplies have the potential to
556
accidentally occur, leading to a contamination of potable water supply (see 21.4.1). Other problems, such
as odour, may develop when systems are newly installed.
In Australia Homebush Bay is an example where reclaimed water is supplied through a dual reticulation
system for household use (see 21.6.2). Also the Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water achieves reuse of
92% of urban wastewater. Wastewater is reclaimed and supplied to a number of customers also for
domestic use.
• Commercial and public complexes (multi-purposes buildings, exhibition centres, airports etc.)
Wastewater reuse is also suitable for many commercial and public complexes. Quality requirements and
potential problems can be compared to those for household applications with an important difference: this
kind of application includes many people and as a consequence, quality deficiencies will have more sever
consequences. Public buildings like hotels can use the water for toilet and urinal flushing as well as air
conditioner chiller water, also commercial laundries, have the potential to reuse reclaimed water.
The Arabella Hotel in Berlin, Germany, provides an example of greywater reuse. It is a high category
hotel with capacity for 400 guests which uses reclaimed greywater since 1996 successfully for toilet
flushing (Nolde, 2005).
• Public spaces (parks, impoundments etc., sports complexes)
Public spaces like parks, impoundments and other decorative fountains and water bodies can be supplied
with reclaimed water. Also other public activities such as fire protection, street cleaning and supply of
water to sports complexes can be suitable applications for reclaimed water. Similarly to previously
described applications, quality criteria (see also 21.2.1) will be dependent on the risk and nature of human
exposure, but also the impact on plants and soils is important.
In Australia the use of recycled water for fire fighting has raised occupational health and safety concerns
by fire fighters. A report commissioned by the Water Services Association of Australia has assessed the
risks from recycled water in relation to other sources of water that might be used for fire fighting and
concludes that the potential risks associated with use of these other sources of water are greater than from
recycled water and that properly treated Class A and in some cases Class B recycled water is safe for use
by fire fighters (WSAA, November 2004).
Quality requirements often do not give reference to chemical elements which plants need for their growth.
These so called trace elements are essential, but true to the motto “the dose determines the poison”
(Paracelsus) they can be very hostile in excessive concentrations. Potentially deleterious concentrations
are dependent of the species of plant. For example, roses are very sensitive to boron while some other
species will tolerate higher concentrations. Carbonate of lime applied in high concentrations can increase
the pH of the soil and as a consequence the solubility of other chemicals can change. Due to such
changes, these chemicals can then have a different response to the plants. This knowledge is important
when a park or a (public) garden is irrigated to prevent damage to the plants caused by the dissolved
chemical constituents of reclaimed water.
557
21.2 DIFFERENTIATION BY TYPE OF USE

The table 21.1 provides data in percentage of respondents (n = 80) about preferred uses of reclaimed
water and main anticipated benefits people expect from water reuse. The study has been conducted in a
residential development which is equipped with a dual reticulation system (Marks et al., 2002).
Table 21.1 Uses and main benefits of reclaimed water: results of an Australian
survey (Marks et al., 2002)
Type of use % of interviewed people (n=80)
Automatic irrigation for garden watering 98.8
Washing car 31.3
Toilet flushing 50.0
Swimming pools 7.5
Washing down house/ windows/ driveway 6.3
Hand watering 6.3
Pets/ flows 6.3
Fruit trees 3.8
Vegetables/ herb 3.8
Ornamental fountain 3.8
Other (not specified) 3.8
Fish pond 2.5
Benefits of reclaimed water
Cost savings 70
Environment, saves natural resources 36
Supply, not wasting potable water 34
Nutrients/ enables beautification 25
Feel good/ responsible 20
Automatic irrigation system is convenient 13
Reclaimed water can be used for many applications in the urban context, requiring different quality
standards and precautions:
• Toilet flushing
Toilet flushing is one of the largest applications for reclaimed water in households (for examples see
21.6). Reuse for that purpose has high community acceptance, especially when the source of water is
reclaimed stormwater or greywater. The acceptance decreases when reclaimed wastewater is used while
problems increase. Currently no serious accidents related to human health impacts from recycled water
use could be reported. However, there are various examples of other problems which have occurred.
Malfunction and odour from facilities are two of them, and the frequency is higher, when wastewater is
used as source, followed by greywater including kitchen effluent. Lesser problems occurred when
greywater without kitchen wastewater is used and even less when rainwater is used. As shortage of
reclaimed water is also a problem, mostly arising when greywater is used as a source, the toilet should be
also connected to a potable water system to maintain water supply but this connection needs to comply
558
with strict plumbing rules to prevent backflow (Yamagata et al., 2003). Typical quality requirements for
toilet flushing are given in Table 21.2.
Table 21.2 Quality requirements for toilet flushing (Mehlhart, 2005; amended
with Yamagata, 2003)
Quality parameter Requirement

BOD5 < 5 mg/L
O2-saturation > 50%
Total coliforms < 10/mL
Faecal coliforms < 10/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa < 1/mL
pH 5.8 – 8.6
Odour Not unpleasant
Chlorine residual (trace amount) 0.5 mg/ L
• Garden watering
Greywater or stormwater is generally suitable for garden irrigation. Stormwater can mostly be used
without any treatment, greywater should be treated. To minimise the human contact with the water, sub-
surface irrigation systems are recommended. Precautions should always be taken to prevent cross
contamination: a dual reticulation system must exist, which has to be explicitly colour-coded and
completely segregated from the potable supply. The reclaimed water tap, intended only for non-potable
applications, must also be clearly coded. Despite these preventive measures a high quality of the water
should be supplied. The EPA Victoria, Australia, framed a list with regulatory classes of treated water for
reuse. Class A (see Table 21.3) is water for non-potable urban uses with uncontrolled public access.
Water for garden irrigation should meet these criteria for the following reasons:
• It is not unlikely that children play with the water and accidentally drink it.
• Although not allowed, some people may use the reclaimed water for their swimming pool.
• Aerosol development can happen when the garden is e.g. irrigated with a sprinkler.
Responsibility for exposure to reclaimed water rests ultimately with the householder. It is also up to the
householder not to use the water in an excessive way, just because it is available, and to prevent accidents.
559
Table 21.3 Quality criteria for Class A water (EPA, 2002)

(http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf)
Parameter Requirement
BOD5 < 10 mg/L
SS < 5 mg/L
Turbidity < 2 NTU
pH 6-9 (90th percentile range)
Residual Cl2 < 1 mg/L (at point of supply)
E. coli < 10/100 mL
Helminths < 1 viable helminth egg/L
Protozoa < 1 protozoa/50 L
Viruses 1 enteric virus/50 L
• Car washing
Car washing is also a suitable application for reclaimed water in many circumstances. The tap for
reclaimed water should be labelled in the same way as required for garden irrigation. A lot of projects
exist where water reuse for car washing is among the permitted uses. Examples include Rouse Hill and
Sydney Olympic Park, both in New South Wales, Australia (see 21.6).
• Park and turf irrigation
Numerous parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, golf courses, road rights-of-ways, school grounds, greenbelts,
residential and other lawns are irrigated with reclaimed water. In California currently 409 parks and
playgrounds and 295 schools are irrigated with reclaimed water, in Florida 486 respectively 213 (Crook,
2005). Quality requirements examples are given in Table 21.4.
Table 21.4 Water reuse criteria for Irrigation of parks, playgrounds,

schoolyards and similar areas (Crook, 2005)
State Water quality limits Treatment requirements
Secondary
Coagulation
total coliforms: 2.2/100 mL
California Filtration
turbidity: 2 NTU
Disinfection
faecal coliforms: no detectable/100 mL Secondary

Florida BOD: 20 mg/L Filtration
TSS: 5 mg/L Disinfection
In a study conducted in the US, public acceptance of park irrigation with reclaimed water ranged from 86
to almost 98%, so it was higher than acceptance of playground/schoolyard irrigation with a range between
70 and 86% (Crook, 2005). An important measure to avoid unnecessary exposure of people to reclaimed
water is to select irrigation times that do not coincide with human activities or uses of amenities. The
application should be close to the soil to inhibit aerosol development and the water taps for the reclaimed
water should be unreachable by the public. Quality standards should also consider the nature of use of the
park or playing field. For example the use of sports grounds for contact sports where there is potential for
frequent ground contact (such as in some football codes such as rugby) increase the risk of infection to
560
players when poorer recycled water quality is used. Also the use of parks by young children can result in
higher exposure risks.
Golf courses are a growing irrigation application of reclaimed water due to the high water demand to
maintain the high quality turf grasses and the general ambience of the green space by watering fairways.
The high quality turf grasses (such as bent) are generally less tolerant to salt concentrations of above 800
mg/L TDS and therefore require higher levels of treatment than the fairway grasses that are generally
more salt tolerant. The long-term irrigation of turf can also result in soil problems particularly where soils
are sodic and are poorly drained. Similarly the nutrient balance must be determined and an assessment of
the potential for accumulation of contaminants in the soil horizon (such as boron) should be undertaken.
An assessment of the soils and a plan for the irrigation regime should be undertaken where long term
intensive irrigation of turf grasses is proposed (Crook, 2005).
• Impoundments
The reuse of reclaimed water for impoundments such as ornamental fountains, basins and recreational
bathing requires a high water quality (e.g. Class A by Victorian EPA standards) because direct contact to
humans and even full body contact is possible. The quality standard must meet accidental drinking water
quality to minimise risk to human health. To achieve these standards reclaimed water for such purposes
should be treated in a tertiary way and disinfected. Recycled water from Rouse Hill or Sydney Olympic
Park is suitable to fill ornamental ponds, but not for swimming.
The use of recycled water in public fountains and other landscaping features must also comply with the
same health and safety standards that would apply to water sourced from potable sources. Issues such as
management for Legionella and the safety of exposure to water where there is a high risk of secondary
contamination or re-growth are no greater for water sourced from reuse supply unless there are inherent
quality issues that may be precursors to these exposure risks (such as higher nutrient or organic loading).
21.2.1 Differentiation by source water

• Municipal wastewater
Municipal wastewater includes wastewater from a range of sources, not specialised in type or quality. It
includes water from households, stormwater and even industrial water. Treatment is more difficult when
the quality of the wastewater changes over time and cannot be defined. An advantage is achieved, when
contamination with toxic substances is known and can be eliminated with special treatment processes.
The more the water is contaminated the harder is the reclamation of the water to achieve quality
requirements for reuse. An example of requirements is given in Table 21.5 that shows quality guidelines
for the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant. This water plant has an absolute advantage because no industrial
wastewater is included.
561
Table 21.5 Water quality guidelines for the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant
(Sydney Water, 2002)
Quality parameters Guidelines
Faecal coliforms (E. coli) < 1/100 mL
Coliforms < 10/100 mL
Virus < 2/50 L
Parasites < 1/50 L
< 2 NTU geometric mean
Turbidity
< 5 NTU in 95 % of samples
6.5 to 8 allowable
pH
7 to 7.5 desirable
Colour < 15 TCU
Free chlorine < 0.5 mg/L
< 500 mg/L TDS – low salinity
Salt levels depend on use > 500 mg/L TDS – moderate
> 1000 mg/L TDS – high
Various heavy metals are tested but are not usually
Heavy metals
found in significant levels
• Greywater
Preferred sources of greywater are the shower, bath tubes, wash-basins and water from washing machines.
Applications where this type of water is mainly used are toilet flushing, irrigation, laundry wash and
house cleaning (Nolde, 2004). A typical composition of grey water is given in Table 21.6.
Table 21.6 Typical mean concentrations of a range of parameters for untreated

greywater (Mehlhart, 2005)
Greywater (including shower, bath tubes, wash-basins,
Parameter
water from washing machines and from kitchen)
COD [mg/L] 535
BOD5 [mg/L] 360
Ptotal [mg/L] 5.4
Ntotal [mg/L] 13
pH [-] 6.9- 8
Total coliforms (CFU/mL) 102- 106
Faecal coliforms (E. coli) (CFU/mL) 102- 106
The exclusion of some sources of greywater such as kitchen water with higher organic load and/or
laundry with higher alkalinity, nutrients and other chemicals such as boron from washing detergents can
significantly change the water quality.
Greywater is inherently more difficult to treat using conventional biological treatment processes due to
the high dilutions and thus low organic carbon content. Also the main pollutants tend to be stable
chemicals (such as detergents) that are not easily removed either by biological treatment processes or by
the more common filtration processes that are used to treat this type of water.
562
• Stormwater (harvested rainwater)
Rainwater, here defined as collected from the roofs and covered surfaces, can be collected and stored in
devices such as advanced eaves gutter systems or fused polypropylene sacs with a wide range of capacity.
There are now available a broad range of steel and UV stable plastic tanks that can be readily adapted to
the landscaping and architecture of houses when retrofitted. The use of this non-treated water for hot
water systems in houses (60°C) seems to be feasible because most of the bacteria existing in rainwater are
expected to die at these temperatures. Additional to the thermic disinfection a supplemental UV
disinfection can assure the quality for some indoor applications. Rainwater harvesting does not only have
the benefit to save potable water but also reduce stormwater peak discharge flows and thus reduce the
requirements of stormwater infrastructure (Diaper, 2004) although the operation of the tank systems
requires different criteria for peak flood reduction with part of the tank capacity reserved for flood
management.
Stormwater is described as collected from pervious and impervious surfaces around houses. Due to
drinking water scarceness and increasing environmental problems stormwater sensitive urban design
principles have been developed. One objective of these projects is to provide water quality suitable for
discharge to the environment, and additional treatment may be required in order to provide a quality
suitable for reuse. Treatment techniques like microfiltration, reverse osmosis, dissolved air flotation,
electrolysis, aeration and other biological treatment have been applied. Stormwater is mainly used for
irrigation purposes, but also distribution through third pipe systems to homes exist and are common for
larger schemes with more than 500 ha (Hatt et al., 2004). The benefits are the same as reported for
rainwater. An extensive overview on reuse possibilities of urban stormwater is given by Berndtsson
(2004).
Table 21.7 shows quality requirements for service and process water in buildings which also have to be
met by storm and rainwater quality, as well as greywater quality (described below).
Table 21.7 Quality requirements for service and process water in buildings
(Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, 2004)
Parameter Quality criterion
Total coliforms: < 100/mL
Hygienic/ microbiological acceptable Faecal coliforms (E. coli): < 10/mL
P. aeruginosa: <1/mL
BOD7 below 5 mg/ L
Colouration UV- transmission 1cm cuvette 254 nm > 60%
O2 saturation > 50% saturation to make the water storable
Free of suspended solids
To keep the functions of the fittings and avoid comfort
Free from odour
loss for the customers
No composition during 5 days
21.2.2 Differentiation by treatment type

• Centralised water reclamation plant
Centralised wastewater treatment plants have a range of entities connected to them and thus the incoming
wastewater is of varying quality. Household wastewater, stormwater and even industrial wastewater flow
together, hence the contamination level varies and is difficult to evaluate. Therefore it is not easy to meet
563
a quality of reclaimed water acceptable for reuse. Centralised systems are endued with an expensive large
reticulation system of wastewater pipes, which all have to be maintained. The monitoring of the treatment
plant itself is easier instead of monitoring a lot of small scale systems, distributed over a large area. The
system is observed 24 hours a day with a centralised body behind it, responsible for quality and
management. The water utility obligation ensures the proper operation of the system.
• De-centralised water reclamation plant (incl. sewer mining)
A de-centralised system is usually defined as the treatment of wastewater from one household or
sometimes from a limited number of neighbours. One benefit of de-centralised systems is the limited
inflow from different types of wastewater. Industrial water can be excluded and the contamination level
with toxic substances is low. Nutrients can be recycled back as fertiliser and the reclaimed water can be
reused for non-potable uses. The state-of-the-art technique is well suited to meet the quality standards for
conventional (centralised) treatment and even higher quality to minimise risk for human health in case of
reuse. De-centralised systems do not need a widespread reticulation system, because wastewater
originates from on-site and reuse is also likely to occur on-site. Problems of de-centralised systems are
operation and management, because householders are normally responsible for maintenance. There is
normally no 24 hours-service available and no water utility obligation to ensure the quality of reclaimed
water. Other limitations of on-site systems are the need to provide adequate buffering storage of both
untreated and treated water and/or to provide an alternative supply source and an alternative means of
disposal of wastes and to ensure continuity of supply and removal. Land area may be a limiting factor in
the onsite storage and disposal options.
Table 21.8 An Australian Comparison between centralised and decentralised

systems (Ho et al., 2004)
Centralised Decentralised
AUS$ 5,000 – 10,000; mainly in the
Investment costs AUS$ 5,000 – 10,000 per property
treatment unit and reuse or disposal land area
Operation & AUS$ 500 – 1,000 per property/ year AUS$ 500 – 1,000 per property/ year
maintenance cost
From a spacious area, all kinds of wastewater Origin of wastewater mostly known, types of
Collected water flow together, those from industry are often wastewater are limited, contamination can be
contaminated with toxic substances minimised
Are often deficiently removed, can cause
Nutrients eutrophication in the water where it is Are often recycled back onto land
discharged to
Also included, hence this water becomes Can be directly used for garden irrigation and
Stormwater
contaminated too groundwater recharge
Operation and Taken for granted, responsibility and Responsibility and supervision remains with
management supervision regulated by government householders with insufficient control by law
Stat-of-the-art technique well suited to
Standards and Standards are achieved but environmental
achieve standards, environmental
environment aspects are partly neglected
sustainability considered
Where the demand or supply is impacted by seasonal or weather related events or by diurnal variation this
requires additional management. There is a need to develop a compliance regime that ensures that there is
564
a regular inspection and maintenance regime with independent verification and certification if the
reliability of these systems is to be ensured. This can consist of certified maintenance contractors and
regular certificates of compliance required plus regular independent audits by the relevant authority. In
Table 21.8 centralised and de-centralised systems are compared.
21.3 WATER REUSE AS PART OF INTEGRATED URBAN WATER

MANAGEMENT
A common barrier to the development of effective urban water reuse schemes has been the traditional
institutional frameworks used, in many areas, to manage various aspect of the urban water cycle. The
traditional management of potable water supply, sewage disposal and treatment, stormwater management,
extractive licensing for surface and groundwater as well as pollution licensing of discharges all by
separate departments or agencies means that there is little incentive for the integration and optimisation of
the various elements of the urban water cycle.
In some places these institutional barriers have been better managed by the development of an integrated
urban water management plan. These plans include all aspects of the urban water cycle as well as the
quality and quantity associated with each source and use. They may be prepared at a city-wide scale, a
local scale for assessment of proposed urban development proposals or at an individual site scale where
the principles of cleaner production should be applied. In each case there is scope to incorporate an
assessment of financial and economic costs, energy usage and other externalities and to undertake an
optimisation of these factors.
In contrast to conventional urban water management, where wastewater, stormwater and water supply is
considered as a separate entity, Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) involves looking at water
supply, stormwater and wastewater as components of an integrated physical system. This implies that the
whole urban region including infrastructure and water systems has to be involved in the IUWM. It must
be recognised that changes to one system will consequently have downstream or upstream impacts that
will affect costs, sustainability or opportunities. For that reason, the IUWM has always to bee seen as a
whole with a comprehensive view to all constituent parts.
The principles of integrated urban water management can be summarised as:
1. Consider all parts of the water cycle, natural and constructed, surface and sub-surface,
recognising them as an integrated system
2. Consider all requirements for water, both anthropogenic and ecological
3. Consider the local context, accounting for environmental, social, cultural and economic
perspectives
4. Include all stakeholders in the process
5. Strive for sustainability, balancing environmental, social and economic needs in the short,
medium and long term
An example of an IUWM approach has been be given by Pupyrev (2002). Pupyrev found especially the
following initial data to be necessary to arrange the integrated water use management:
565
• An inventory of the water sources and the water users
• Information concerning specific water uses for various groups of water users
• Calculation data concerning the costs of supplying various water use objects with the required
amount of water
• Data concerning the total water economy balance on the territory
• Data concerning the cost of resources and the financial expenses within the system of water use
Marks (2005a) gives an other example which points out the procedure to develop an integrated water
resource design methodology. It is targeted on the development of cities with limited population because
of lack of reticulated systems for water supply. To enable population growth the integration of local water
resources is required.
The methodology steps used to establish the water resource demand and supply as well as the
infrastructure sizing and staging are as follows:
• Calculate the ultimate lots and population within town boundary
• Assess the stormwater runoff areas and volumes
• Confirm the adequacy of rainwater tanks for in-house use
• Estimate the non potable demand and supply volumes
• Calculate the wastewater treatment and winter storage requirements
• Calculate the stormwater harvesting and winter storage requirements
• Estimate peak demand rates for plant sizing
• Process design of WWTP expansion and non potable water
• Estimate capital and operating costs and unit cost of non potable water
Paris is an example of a city with a very old dual reticulation system. The foundation stone for this
network system was laid in the second half of the 19th century. Both systems, for potable and non-potable
water supply, are organised by the same company. To avoid cross connection the system for the non-
potable water is characterised by pressure lower than that observed in the drinking water network
(Nguyen, 2002). Dual reticulation systems have also been used in some Caribbean islands like Saint Lucia
and the U.S. Virgin Islands (UNEP, 1997).
The development of a sustainable IUWM concept should essentially include the community. Public
relation can be facilitated with the establishment of a website or the performance of an information
activity. Education is an important contribution for the public acceptance and strengthens the awareness
that there is call for action (see AQUAREC WP5, 2006). For further information can also be obtained
from the CityNet Cluster of European Projects on Intgerated Urban Water Managemet (citynet.unife.it).
566
21.4 CHALLENGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND

OPERATION OF URBAN REUSE SCHEMES
Compared to agricultural and industrial reuse, urban reuse is facing a much more difficult to assess set of
risks and pitfalls. Most of these risks are caused by the fact that the number of people involved is much
larger and that the benefits of reuse to the individual are less easily measured and more vulnerable than in
the other uses. Hard economic and hygienic facts, laws and regulations and the seasonal and local
distribution of water demand and supply play important direct or indirect roles and an urban project can
only succeed if all risks are taken into account.
21.4.1 Public perception

Urban water reuse requires a stable public opinion in favour of reuse. As long as a reuse project is seen as
a water company's project and not lying in the undisputed interest of the general public, the risk of failure
is high. For example, Australia's public opinion has in part remained favourable to reuse, because the
water companies are not the drivers but the driven in the development of reuse projects. The impact of
prolonged drought with consequent urban water shortages has been a significant factor in driving public
opinion in this case. But even the most stable public opinion can turn, if projects are run incompetently or
if the promised benefits fall too short of the expectations. Public opinion can be stabilised by a number of
outside factors, the most important ones being laws and regulations, economic incentives, sound project
execution and management and the commitment of the political and news making scene. A firm
commitment of public bodies and firm political support is critical. If, for instance, the safety of the reused
water is publicly questioned, particularly by influential members of the water community, the whole
future of urban reuse may be at stake. Also an incident that results in some adverse health or other
outcomes that are or are perceived to be a consequence of the reuse scheme will significantly impact on
the commitment of the public not only in the area affected but in other existing or proposed schemes.
During reuse scheme implementation, the following aspects have been mentioned to be of significant
importance (Listowski, 2004b):
Community education
To improve the quality of community information about water recycling, there is a need for government
and the water industry to embark on an education program that raises awareness and increases public
perception. Issues that need to be covered include:
• Benefits (individual, community)
• Positive and enthusiastic approach to urban water management and knowledge-based decision
making process
• Impact (environmental factors, conservation of resources, pollution control)
• Water uses (direct and indirect body contact, practical non-potable applications)
• Competing water needs and responsible demand management
• Costs and values (price, charges, incentives)
567
• Technology and controls (natural processes, high tech robust and proven installations,
incremental innovation)
• Risks profiles (health, safety)
• Immediate actions and short term planning, versus long-term strategies.
• Holistic and integrated approach to water management
Increasing public knowledge and understanding of these issues is essential before meaningful debate with
the community can occur. To improve the level of community trust, honesty, transparency, adequacy of
information and listening to public concerns are fundamentals to the implementation of innovative reuse
schemes. The public is particularly concerned about the issues that have a potential to impact on the
quality of life, health and public safety and very quickly becomes negative to the whole concept if trust is
lost in the source of information.
Role of Media in Engaging the Community on Water Recycling
The mass media is recognised as a pivotal tool for the building and mobilisation of public opinion. The
print media, in particular, plays a significant role in introducing issues and shaping their importance in
public consciousness.
There is a need to create a broad-based media platform to address the concept of sustainable development
and related issues in a comprehensive and dedicated manner. It is important to engage national media
(TV, radio, press) and professional organizations in supporting national water reuse agenda and to provide
positive, constructive and informative coverage on urban water management as well as to showcase,
emphasize and encourage urban water reuse schemes and water initiatives across the region (see also
chapter 8 on stakeholder communication).
Marks et al. (2005b) concludes from a cross-case analysis of four urban water reuse case studies in the US
and Australia that only the combination of best available technology as well as strong public information
and involvement ensures enduring support for a recycling scheme. Some management recommendations
which can be derived from the results of the investigations are:
• awareness for the rules and regulations applied for the set-up and operation of the urban water
reuse scheme should be raised among the residents,
• rules should be enforced by formal permissions for connections to the dual reticulation system
and regular checks on appropriate use practices,
• clear governance structures should be set up, e.g. by setting up scheme governing boards also
fostering public involvement,
• information and assistance should be provided by the scheme operator in a comprehensive way.
21.4.2 Laws and regulations

Somewhat to the surprise of outsiders, restrictions regarding the use of fresh water seem to convey a sense
of urgency of water stress to the general public, which is favorable for reuse. Sydney Water and other
Australian water providers in their web pages have stressed the direct relationship between water scarcity
and the need for conservation and water reuse (Sydney Water, 2006b). Reservoir levels (down to 40% of
568
total capacity in 2005) and water consumption are published regularly. Over 3000 fines of at least 220
AUS$ for disregard of water restrictions have been issued.
Even if one considers the Australian per capita water use of over 400 L/d exorbitant, the success of this
strategy is convincing: In spite of steadily increasing population figures, total fresh water consumption
has been 12% below the ten year average since the current water restriction were introduced in 2003, with
this value increasing to almost 14% in 2005. Future urban developments in Sydney are required by
regulation to meet targets of reduced water (and energy) consumption which can only be achieved by
some form of recycling or rainwater harvest to complement other demand management strategies such as
water efficient fittings and appliances.
Laws and regulations are also the main driver in Japan’s thriving on-site reuse practice. In some large
cities (e.g. Tokyo), dual water distribution (grey water to black water) is required by law for buildings
with a certain floor space and/or water supply pipe diameter. The reasoning here is less the scarcity of
water per se, but the limited supply line and sewerage capacity (Suzuki et al., 2002).
But, as much as legislative and political action may favour the expansion of reuse, they or their absence
may also hinder it. Examples range from the recently proposed giant desalination programme for Sydney,
over the absence of legislation on urban reuse in most European countries to the very strict Californian
regulations (Title 22) that often are seen as a hindrance to the spreading of urban reuse, if applied in a
socio-economic context which is totally different from the place of origin.
21.4.3 Economic factors, incentives

With reused water hardly ever being cost competitive, incentives play an important role and are generally
necessary to support reuse. On the other hand, the Australian experience (Rouse Hill) teaches us that
exaggerated incentives can also be counterproductive and distort the market. With the price for reused
water at only a fourth of that of that of fresh water, and the absence of any restrictions on the extend of
recycled water use for beneficial applications, the demand for recycled water has surpassed the supply of
wastewater by a large margin in the critical summer months. As a consequence, fresh water has been used
to supplement the supply for toilets and outdoor taps. It should be noted that a large part of the “recycled”
water goes into watering gardens and golf courses, where the water use intensity is high, and hardly any
part is collected again as wastewater. Excessive incentives combined with high quality of reclaimed water
will also favour inappropriate use such as for filling of backyard swimming pools.
Wherever reuse requires the construction of waste water treatment facilities, it is important to clarify that
the cost of a standard treatment is not part of reuse but the responsibility of the primary water user, whose
duty includes a treatment that restores the water to the quality he received it in.
The water price is not the only economic factor. Plumbing and development cost and the associated
regulatory and compliance costs are significantly higher for settlements with dual distribution systems as
are those required for centralised reuse schemes. The cost becomes absolutely prohibitive, if buildings
have to be retrospectively converted to dual distribution. This explains why urban reuse is limited to new
developments. Generally, a developer decides beforehand, whether or not to offer reuse and the whole
settlement has to adopt a dual distribution scheme. For dual reticulation projects in Australia connection
cost have been estimated to be AUS$690/house for service reservoirs and distribution mains plus
AUS$1950/house for local reticulation and house services. The provision of a recycled water reticulation
569
system is estimated to lower potable water reticulation costs by roughly AUS$640/house (Apostolidis,
2003). The cost savings for decreased use of potable water are not included.
To dilute cost, golf courses or parks are very sought after participants in reuse projects. A golf course has
a water consumption of around 500 homes. In many instances however these additional facilities
represent new water uses and therefore they contribute to an increase in the overall water demand rather
than offering a potential saving of water sourced from potable supplies.
Size is also a critical factor in on-site reuse in some areas such as Japan. Commercially offered systems
are fairly complex, often including MBR’s, carbon filters, multiple disinfection stages and storage
systems and are highly uneconomical for small units. The average size of the systems installed in Japan is
150 m3/d (GEC, 2005).
21.4.4 Technical issues: project management,

water quality, safety hazards, ecological risk
Due to the fact that urban reuse is generally not favoured by economic arguments and supported primarily
by public opinion, it is very susceptible to any events that disrupt public support. Irregularities,
corruptness or incompetence of the management, as well as technical /hygienic failures (non-functioning
disinfection, cross connections of water systems), must be absolutely avoided. They pose a risk not only
for the respective project, but also for other projects, particularly for those in the planning stage.
This has a number of consequences in project planning and project management and in technical design.
In most cases the safety required for urban reuse can only be achieved by producing a product that in all
respects except the name and the permitted uses resembles drinking water. Wastewater treatment has to
surpass standard treatment methods particularly with respect to COD, suspended solids and hygienic
parameters. Unfortunately, this not only increases cost, but also leads to undesirable side effects like the
generation of halomethanes and nitrosamines through excessive disinfection. It is very difficult to
estimate to what degree these volatile substances are a hazard in regular use, i.e. in typical non-potable
applications. Proponents of heavy disinfection claim that the hygienic risks connected to improper use are
the ones that we have to safeguard against first.
Ecological risks are not considered a major aspect in urban reuse. To be checked are salting up of irrigated
soils and a number of risks connected with the construction and operation of the reclamation and/
treatment facilities. Typical examples for these are concentrates from membrane processes (NF, RO). As
ecological risk from trace organics tends to be limited to aqueous environments, and urban reuse does not
lead to increased waste water loading, urban recycling does not pose a problem in this respect.
21.5 MONITORING AND CONTROL STRATEGIES
21.5.1 Monitoring and control

Risk management relies heavily upon effective monitoring and control systems. Any critical deviation
from safe operation has to be detected and corrected very rapidly and reliably. All elements of monitoring
and control are part of an overall operating strategy. Monitoring and control also have an important
documentary function. They are subject to regular checks of function and are governed by plans that
regulate type, location and frequency of measurement or sampling and by rules of which action to take in
case of predefined events.
570
Human involvement varies widely, depending upon size and type of system. It may be very minimal in
the operation of certain types of systems that are fully automated, particularly in medium size internal
recycling systems. In those cases highest demands regarding safety and reliability have to be met.
21.5.2 Parameters
Parameters monitored include water quality parameters, i.e. physical, chemical, biological, hygienic
parameters. Particle size distribution, temperature and colour are physical, a large number of grouped
parameters and individual components’ concentrations would belong to the chemical parameters.
Toxicities and endocrine effects are biological and the presence /numbers of micro-organisms of different
kinds are hygienic parameters. Monitoring is not restricted to water quality parameters but includes
parameters that characterise the state of the technical system from incoming waste water to distribution.
This would include flows, pressures, levels and rates of change of parameters. A number of safety related
data have to be collected if hazardous chemicals (chlorine, acids) are stored and used.
Depending upon use and technical system different parameters are critical. Urban reuse is most strongly
impaired by hygienic parameters, but nutrient level (BOD, COD, N, P), heavy metals, hardness, amount
of suspended solids, salt content, odour and colour may also be critical for safe use. Disinfection effects
(residual chlorine, THMs) are considered important as well.
21.5.3 Indicators
Some parameters can be used as indicators for others that are more difficult to detect or to monitor.
Integrity defects of dense membranes can be detected by TOC, conductivity or colour. Indirect indicators
are particularly desired for those parameters that cannot be monitored on-line or in rapid repetition, e.g.
hygienic parameters. Micro-organisms (MOs) are also particles and will be counted by particle or
turbidity sensors yet the number of particles that are not MOs can be very large. Not all MOs are equally
critical and the sensitivity of particle or turbidity sensors is limited. It could be shown that even the most
superficial technique, turbidity measurement, could be used effectively to monitor membrane integrity if
the sample stream was degassed and the offset of the measurement by the formation of gas bubbles was
eliminated (Côté, 2005). Turbidity has become a standard monitoring parameter in reuse installations, not
only those using membranes. Other parameters that are regularly monitored on-line include T, pH, TOC,
conductivity, dissolved O2, redox potential, P and NH4-N.
21.5.4 Monitoring and risk management

Monitoring has two purposes, first the assurance that overall the system appears to be functioning as
designed, and secondly, the confirmation that all quantitative criteria are met. The first calls for on-line
sensors, the second is not accessible to high frequency measurement. Ideally, the range of all parameters
will stay well within the permissible spectrum, as long as all on-line data are okay. Confidence that this is
actually the case can only be gained by a combination of state of the art monitoring, safe design,
experience from other installations and internal track record. One example for safe design is a multi-
barrier concept that leads to a lower likelihood of failure and generally to larger margins between
performance and minimum requirements. However, the installation and operating cost of such systems are
higher, and may sometimes be excessive.
571
It is generally assumed that the required safety margins can be reduced if monitoring is improved.
Improved monitoring thus can reduce cost considerably, ideally without compromising operating safety.
21.6 EXAMPLES OF URBAN WATER REUSE SCHEMES AND THEIR

MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
21.6.1 Rouse Hill (Sydney Water)

The Rouse Hill water recycling scheme is established in a new residential development in the North
Western part of Sydney, Australia. The scheme has been planned, implemented and is now operated by
Sydney Water Corporation. The proposal for the Rouse Hill Development Area comprising 13,000 ha of
land was accepted by the New South Wales Government in 1989. In the Environmental Impact
Assessment phase for the sewage treatment plant which would serve the area concerns from both the
regulators and the community became obvious on the effect of the sewage discharges on the very
sensitive Hawkesbury-Nepean River. In response to these concerns Sydney Water proposed to plan a
water recycling scheme providing high quality effluent through a dual reticulation system to the
households in the area. The foreseen applications were garden irrigation, car washing, and toilet flushing.
After approval of these plans the wastewater treatment and the recycling plant were completed in 1995,
by 2001 the first phase of the recycling project started with supplies to 4,000 households (Figure 21.2)
Figure 21.2 Overview on the Rouse Hill water recycling project (Sydney Water
Corporation)
The Rouse Hill Sewage Treatment Process shown in Figure 21.3 has been modified in successive stages
in response to experience gained from operation of each stage and is therefore rather complex. In 2005, it
was treating an average dry weather flow of 5.6 ML/d (5,600 m³/d). The primary treatment includes a fine
screen, grit removal and a primary clarifier. The activated sludge system includes nitrification,
denitrification and biological phosphorous removal. The sludge treatment comprises dissolved air
flotation, aerobic digestion and dewatering. The tertiary treatment system includes flocculation, tertiary
sedimentation and filtration. A part of the effluent is further upgraded in the recycling plant by ozonation
(until 2003) and microfiltration (with recirculation of permeate to ozonation in re-work mode) as well as
sodium hypochlorite dosing. The microfiltration unit has been provided by USF Memcor (see Figure
21.4). The excess water is chlorinated and dechlorinated before discharge into wetlands. Due to
operational problems with the ozone generation unit ozonation has been decommissioned in 2003 and
572
recycled water is now provided without ozone dosage. The NSW guidelines are still met (Fairbairn,
2005).
Figure 21.3 Schematic of the Rouse Hill wastewater treatment and water
reclamation process (Cooper, 2003)
Raw Sewage
Screenings and Grit removal
Primary Sedimentation
WML Biological Reactor
RAS
DAF
Secondary Clarifiers
Aerobic Digester
Rapid
Mix/Flocculators
sludge
Dewatering
Tertiary Clarifier
to biosolids
Filters
Chlorine tank
Ozonation
rework
Microfilter Declorination
Storage Tank
to Wetlands
The quality of the effluent is complying with all NSW EPA limits (BOD < 2 mg/L, SS < 4 mg/L, NH4-N
= 0.03 mg/L, TN = 7.6 mg/L, TP = 0.18 mg/L), the reclaimed water quality meets the “NSW Guidelines
for Urban and Residential Use of Reclaimed Water” (RWCC, 1993) and concentrations in the
microfiltration permeate are: FC < 1/1000 mL, Total Coliforms < 1/100 mL, Enteric Viruses <1/50 L,
Parasites (Giardia and Cryptospyridium < 1/50 L), Turbidity <0.01 NTU.
An important management feature of the treatment process is that ozonation was used to disinfect and
particularly to deactivated parasites, redox potential and pH level of the ozonation product are monitored
prior to microfiltration to prevent breakthrough, limits are 300 mV and pH 6.5-8.0 respectively. In case of
exceeding values the flow is diverted to the sewage treatment plant outlet. The MF permeate is
573
continuously monitored in terms of turbidity, if the value exceeds 0.5 NTUs the system switches to re-
work mode. The super-chlorination has to deliver recycled water with 6-7 mg/L residual free chlorine
(Fairbairn, 2005). The Rouse Hill scheme operator also mentions a number of operational challenges met
in the 4 years of recycled water production which include:
• temporary inflow of industrial wastewater with potential inhibition effect on the biological
treatment or high BOD load leading to low dissolved oxygen levels prohibiting recycling of the
produced water during those periods
• low inflow during early morning hours as part of the diurnal flow pattern can lead to disruption
of the recycled water production, this effect has been mitigated through additional storage
capacity at the inflow pumping stations
• occasional overdosing of alum and caustic in the tertiary treatment can lead to deviations from
the target pH range in the recycled water
• ammonia peaks in the inflow can lead to ammonium levels in the effluent > 0.5 mg/L which can
lead to a decrease in the residual free chlorine level after disinfection due to co-formation of
chloramines
These types of operational challenges have been addressed through various process monitoring and
control measures as well as routines preventing the release of recycled water not meeting the guideline
values.
Figure 21.4 Continuous Microfiltration unit at Rouse Hill treatment plant

operated by Sydney Water (Fairbairn, 2005)
574
The system in Rouse Hill also includes three storage tanks with a volume of 2 ML, the residual chlorine is
up 2 mg/L, and re-chlorinated in the storage tanks if needed, prior to distribution by gravity through
colour coded pipes. The storage facilities can be supplemented by potable water supplies.
The major management and safety issue in a dual reticulation scheme is the risk of cross-connection of
the reclaimed water system and the potable water supplies. In efforts aimed at minimizing the likelihood
of cross-connections a series of three inspections is required in each new property prior to supply of
reclaimed water (Cooper, 2003).
According to the mentioned NSW guidelines the reclaimed water system should be operated with lower
pressure than the potable system. Moreover, backflow prevention devices should be installed and pressure
tappings provided to allow in situ testing (NSW RWCC, 1993).
Sydney Water has issued a number of fact sheets (Sydney Water, 2006a) which cover important issues
around the use of recycled water, including information on:
• the water recycling system and appropriate uses, e.g. that recycled water should NOT be used
for drinking, cooking, personal washing, evaporation coolers, cloth washing, household cleaning,
swimming pools, irrigation of crops and fruit that are eaten raw
• gardening with recycled water, including considerations of soil conditions and nutrient
requirements
• plumbing and measures to avoid cross-connections including checks inside and outside the
house
Despite this advice to the public and specific instructions to the private plumbers there have been a
number of cases of faulty plumbing and cross-connections. Most of these have been detected and
corrected prior to commissioning, but some cases have occurred after commissioning. Although there are
instances where these cross connections have lead to recycled water being used for potable purposes there
have been no proven adverse health outcomes. Detection of these cross connections has in at least one
incident, been by the salty taste in the water due to higher salinity in recycled water leading to customer
complaint. Another major management issue is that peak demand (e.g. maximum demand of 14 ML/d in
summer vs. 5 ML/d design capacity) has to be covered with supplementary potable water which does not
contribute to the water saving objective and to the financial viability of the project (de Rooy et al., 2003).
In 2005, the recycled water usage charges for the Rouse Hill area were 0.293 AUS$ per kL or m³ while
the normal water charge for filtered water rose on 1 October 2005 to 1.20 AUS$/kL for up to 1.096 kL per
day and 1.48 AUS$/kL in excess of 1.096 kL per day (Sydney Water , 2005a). Although the usage charge
is topped up by some service charges the recycled water cost does not reflect to full cost of the scheme
which are believed to in the order 3-4 AUS$/kL (de Rooy et al., 2003). It is obvious that the current price
incentive for recycled water leads to some diversions to inappropriate uses in the supply area (e.g. filling
of swimming pools) and is not supportive to a water saving objective (Sydney Water, 2005a).
21.6.2 Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA)

The Water Reclamation and Management Scheme (WRAMS) at Sydney Olympic Park in Australia is an
integrated water management project in an urban area. WRAMS includes use of treated sewage collected
from within the site, supplemented where necessary by stormwater and with sewage pumped from outside
575
the area, for non-potable reuse in and around Sydney Olympic Park. Included in the 760 ha supply area
(including 425 ha of parkland) with a total permanent population of 7 000 are large sporting and
recreation facilities, hotels and commercial premises and the residential village of Newington.
The sewage is treated in a 2 ML/day capacity Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process followed by UV.
It is then treated in an advanced treatment plant with a maximum capacity of 7.5 ML/day using MF.
Normally about 30% of the reclaimed water is then treated using RO to maintain the TDS at below 500
mg/L (mostly when supplemented with stormwater which accumulates salts from the local clay soils).
The reclaimed water is chlorinated before distribution.
The reclaimed water is supplied by a separate “third pipe” distribution system with separate meters and
colour coding of pipes and taps. A key management issue is the potential for cross connections and
extensive checking was undertaken which lead to the detection and corrective action taken on two cross
connections prior to the commissioning of pipe systems. A cross connection was also identified in late
2005. This cross-connection was from the original commissioning of the scheme in 2000 and was not
detected during the “extensive checking”. As a result some customers have been consuming recycled
water for 5 years, but no negative health impact has been shown (Sydney Water, 2005b).
The reclaimed water system operates at a lower pressure than the potable water supply to minimise the
risk of polluting the potable supply if any cross connection occurs (Listowski, 2004a).
The cost for recycled water is currently 1.05 AUS$/kL (from 1 October 2005) compared to the price of
potable water of 1.48AUS$/kL (for usage above 100 kL/day), while the estimated life cycle cost of the
recycled water operation is 2.0 AUS$/kL (Listowski, 2004b).
21.6.3 Millennium Dome, Greenwich/UK

One of the largest in-building recycling schemes for reclaiming water in Europe was established at the
Millennium Dome in Greenwich, UK (Figure 21.5). Recycled water provided 55% of the Dome’s water
demand1 during the year 2000 with an alternative water supply of up to 500 m³/day for WC and urinal
flushing. Thames Water’s Millennium Dome “Watercycle” experiment became one of the most profound
studies in the research field of water conservation, since manifold aspects including the continuous
monitoring of the recycling technologies, water saving washroom appliances and visitor’s behaviour
could be surveyed.
1
Extrapolated from optimum plant output
576
Figure 21.5 Millennium Dome and water saving devices (Thames Water, 2003)
For reducing the use of potable water for the Dome’s water supply, a “twin track approach” for water
conservation was used, in line with Thames Water’s existing supply/demand balance strategy. This
approach involved both, the introduction of new resources while also improving demand management.
The new resource was the reclaimed water, consisting of greywater, rain water and groundwater. Demand
management of WCs, urinals and taps was enhanced by various devices such as waterless urinals and
infra red taps, and also educating the public by providing information about the water recycling
technology and water conservation issues in general contributed to improvements.
Figure 21.6 Millennium Dome´s core buildings: function and equipment

(according to Hills et al., 2002)
Behaviour cores
- educational information
on water conservation in
one of the cores
Control cores Super efficient core

(standard appliances) (water saving appliances)
- siphonic flush toilets - dual flush toilets
- flushing urinals - waterless urinals
- push top taps - infrared taps
For furthering knowledge into the advantages and disadvantages of various water management devices,
the Dome’s washrooms were equipped with a variety of different water-efficient appliances for
comparison, ranging from "super-efficient" toilet blocks (containing waterless urinals, infra-red taps and
dual flush toilets) to blocks with more conventional technology installed.
577
For comprehensively calculating the water usage of all of the washroom appliances in the toilet blocks,
over 150 meters with associated remote download data loggers were installed. Therefore, a wide range of
information could be gained regarding the water demand. Figure 21.6 demonstrates the appliance of water
saving means in the core buildings.
Total water demand at the Millennium Dome was 131,000 m³ during the year 2000, from which, 72,050
m³/year was provided by reclaimed water (Hills et al., 2002).
Three sources, greywater from the wash basins in the toilet blocks, rainwater collected from the roof of
the Dome and groundwater collected from a borehole on site, fed the different treatment stages for the
reclaimed water (Spencer, 2000). Their shares on the reclaimed water volume add up to 71% of
groundwater, 19% rainwater and greywater contributing 10% (Hills et al., 2002).
Reclaimed water conditioning
Since pre-treatment of the reclaimed waters is necessary before using it as water for toilet flushing,
several technologies from very innovative membrane treatment to natural wetlands were utilised. In terms
of efficacy and required space the membrane performance is high, whereas alternative treatment steps
(wetlands) approve because of low demands in energy and cleaning chemicals, thus resulting in lower
operating costs. At the Millennium Dome site alternative and advanced (membrane) processes were
combined to gain an optimal reclaimed water conditioning. Trials were executed to choose the membrane
type most suitable for the Dome’s prevailing conditions (see Figure 21.7).
Figure 21.7 BOD reduction following BAF and membrane treatment in pilot trials
(Hills et al., 2001)
Key:
membrane type material rejection characteristics product name
1 Polyvinylidenofluoride MWCO 200,000 Daltons FP 200
2 Modified Polyethersulphone MWCO 6,000 Daltons EM 006
3 Polyethersulphone MWCO 4,000 Daltons ES 404
4 Polyamide film 75% CaCl2 rejection AFC 30
5 Polyamide film 80% NaCl rejection AFC 80
6 Cellulose acetate 90% NaCl rejection CDA 16
Figure 21.7 indicates that, in the pilot trials, the BOD was reduced down to 2-10 mg/L by all membranes,
however, the tight UF membranes performed best in handbasin greywater treatment.
The second source of reclaimed water was the rainwater collected of the Dome’s roof. Due to the
comparatively good quality of this water source it was possible to install a biological treatment system
consisting of reedbeds and a lagoon, which could also be integrated in the Dome’s landscape design.
The rainwater treatment process proceeded in three steps. After coming from the roof, the rainwater
passed through two reedbeds and a storage lagoon. Both reedbeds had an area of 250 m² each, a gradient
578
of 0.5% and a 0.6 m in depth. Their maximum cleaning capacity was 100 m³/day, with the lagoon of 300
m² in size positioned between the reedbeds. Overflows were discharged to the river Thames.
In the reed bed, the so called common reed, Phragmites australis, removed contaminants from the
rainwater by both filtration and biological processes. It was planted on washed river gravel with 5-10 mm
in diameter. Selecting an appropriate sort of reed, special attention had to be paid to the plants salt-
tolerance (Hills et al., 2001).
The extensive root system typical for reeds and its associated microorganisms can break down the micro-
pollutants efficiently and thus utilise the runoff from the Dome’s roof for growth-nutrients. Furthermore
heavy metals are absorbed into the root system, so the overall performance of this small-scale ecosystem
gives an extremely clean effluent (Grant et al., 2002).
The city of London’s problems with uprising groundwater gave the opportunity to open up a third source
of reclaimed water. A 110 m borehole was drilled to pump up the groundwater, but also this source’s
water has to go through a purification process to meet quality standards.
Figure 21.8 Schematic of treatment process (Hills et al., 2001)
Handbasin
Pilot
greywater Balance
Membrane
120 m³/d
H 2O 2
Groundwater UF/RO
Feed
280 m³/d membranes standby
potable
water
waste Cl supply
reharden
Balance
300 m³
Rainwater Reedbed/
100 m³/d Lagoon
Its treatment procedure is shown in the graphic below (Figure 21.8). When coming up to the surface, the
groundwater was held in contact with hydrogen peroxide for 15 minutes to oxidise hydrogen sulphide and
ferrous iron (Spencer, 2000). Granular activated carbon (GAC) was used for the removal of organic
contaminants, and, after passing the GAC, membrane filtration (ultrafiltration) removed suspended
particles including bacteria and viruses. Reverse osmosis membranes were used to remove salt.
579
In a final step, greywater, rainwater and groundwater were passed through the same membrane
configuration, consisting of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. The reclaimed water was re-
hardened and disinfected by a chlorine treatment, to exceed worldwide quality standards set for toilet
flushing purposes (Hills et al., 2001).
Use of water efficient devices
The comparison of the various water efficient devices revealed that conventional technologies (e.g. swivel
top taps, siphonic cisterns) in some cases can be more water efficient and water efficient technologies,
such as dual flush toilets and infra red taps can sometimes waste more water than they save if they are not
installed correctly or regularly maintained.. In the male washrooms, if there were urinals provided, there
was no difference in the efficiency performance of siphonic toilets or dual flush WCs, whereas in the
female washrooms the dual flush technology improved water efficiency, but only after a complete
overhaul of the installation of the devices occurred mid-way through the monitoring period.
For urinals, the waterless ones were best available technique for water saving. This could have saved
8,000 m³/year, if the Dome had been entirely equipped with those. Additionally, they also require less
maintenance and fine-tuning than the flushing types. However, the need for changing the proprietary
cartridges after 8,000 uses is a significant cost.
The taps with the lowest use of water were conventional swivel top taps, with an average water use of less
than 1 litre per user.
It has to be underlined, that the correct installation and maintenance of the various devices is of significant
importance for making use of their full potential concerning water efficiency. The malfunctioning of some
devices due to improper installations even caused a water use of 42% higher compared to those correctly
installed (Hills et al., 2002).
Public perception and media reactions on the project
Next to the technical performance of the recycling scheme, its visitor’s perception is essential for the
project’s success. Fortunately, the visitors showed a positive response towards the water saving means
with surveys reflecting a public support at a rate of 95%.
Encouragingly, education, information and exposure to reclaimed water systems significantly enhance the
user’s acceptance of the concepts (Hills et al., 2002).
Of course, next to all the commendation, also critical voices to this exceptional project came up. Antony
Barnett, a reporter of “The Observer”, gave a brief view over the tremendously high costs and the
problems, which occurred in realizing this water recycling scheme (Barnett, 2000).
21.6.4 German Example (DEUS 21)

The German Project DEUS 21 is an innovative concept for a sustainable urban water structure. DEUS is
the abbreviation for the German “decentralized urban water infrastructure system”. In this project
rainwater will be used for water supply and residential wastewater will be collected together with
biogenic kitchen wastes for joint anaerobic treatment (see Figure 21.9). The date for the beginning of the
project was in summer 2004. The implementation of DEUS is included in a new developed residential
area with about 100 single family homes connected in the community of Knittlingen. Knittlingen is a city
in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education
580
and Research and supported by the municipality of Knittlingen. Three research institutes and several
industrial partners are involved in DEUS with the aim to design an urban water infrastructure in a more
sustainable way and to develop alternatives to conventional water supply and wastewater disposal.
Rainwater
Rainwater from the roofs should be collected in a subterranean system of storage drains. The treatment of
the rainwater takes place by using a membrane process. Also the requirements of the German Drinking
Water Ordinance (Trinkwasser-Verordnung TVO) are achieved after these processes and the water will be
used only for non-potable purposes like washing, bathing, cleaning, toilet flushing, garden irrigation and
so on. The water will be distributed through a dual pipe system, independent from the water for potable
uses and colour labelled. The treated rainwater has a very low hardness and is therefore suitable for hot
water applications such as in washing machines, dishwashers and showering.
Figure 21.9 Schematic representation of the water cycle in the DEUS 21 concept
(Kotz et al., 2004)
A rainwater treatment
B treatment of rainwater-runoff or greywater
C sustainable wastewater treatment
potable water
water for non-potable use
rainwater
A
surface water/
greywater leaching/ utilisation
B
wastewater
C
Sewage system
To collect the domestic wastewater a vacuum sewage system is installed. It is the house developers choice
to install the system directly in the house, or to connect the house to a subterranean transmission station in
the conventional way. The benefit of in-house installation is the alternative to use vacuum toilets with the
potential to save 80% water in comparison to conventional systems.
581
Biogenetic kitchen waste
Biological kitchen waste can also be discharged to the vacuum sewer treatment with the advantages of no
unpleasant odours or hygienic problems during warm seasons and the high biogas yield due to high
concentration of organic compounds in the waste.
Wastewater treatment
The wastewater will be treated in a semi-centralised treatment plant. All houses from this residential area
will be connected, but for the municipality Knittlingen there is a separate centralised treatment system.
The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) will consist of four modules with the feasibility to use all
compounds within the wastewater as a resource of material and energy.
Module one will be a membrane filtration of the wastewater with the aim to convert a highly concentrated
water flow to a highly polluted concentrate and a less polluted filtrate flow. Carbon will be re-extracted as
biogas, nitrogen as ammonium and phosphorus as fertiliser. Rotating disc filters with ceramic membranes
with 200-800 revolutions per minute will be in use. Those filters have a low energy demand and they
work very efficiently.
Module two will be an anaerobic decomposition system of the highly polluted fraction. Biogas (methane,
carbon dioxide) will be gained from the concentrated flow to generate energy for heating and cooling.
An aerobic membrane bioreactor for the less polluted fraction forms the third module. The solid-free and
less polluted fraction will be used as a source for biomass production in modern wastewater reactors with
a highly efficient oxygen supply. The biomass can be used in the anaerobic process of module two and the
treated wastewater can potentially be discharged into the receiving water.
The fourth module will recycle nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen, transformed to ammonium, can be
stripped or precipitated and then recycled as a technical product. Remaining phosphorus can be removed
from the solid-free wastewater, the precipitate has to be recycled as a fertiliser.
DEUS 21 is the first project in Germany making rainwater available for domestic use by delivering the
water through a dual reticulation system for all applications which does not require drinking water quality.
Parallel to the development of the WWTP and the vacuum station the whole residential area is under
construction and this enables the optimisation of the treatment process (Kotz et al., 2004).
21.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson J.M. (2005) Integrating Recycled Water into Urban Water Supply Solutions. Proceedings Conference on Integrated
Concepts for Water Recycling. Wollongong, 15-17 February 2005.
Apostolidis N. (2003) Integrated Water Management – Pushing the Boundaries. Proc 2nd Intl Conf on Efficient Use and
Management of Urban Water Supply, Tenerife, 2-4 April 2003.
AQUAREC (2004) Deliverable 10 of Work package 6. Management review report including survey results and whole life cost
model. Management guidelines for the implementation and operation of water reuse cycles.
AQUAREC WP5 (2006) Guidelines for Participative Planning for Water Reuse Projects.
582
Asano T. (2000) Recycling of treated wastewater for indirect potable and urban reuse – treatment options and challenges.
Proceedings of Euro-CASE Workshop. “Wastewater as a resource”. Institute de France, Paris, 7 July 2000. European Council for
Applied Sciences and Engineering, 24-27.
ATSE (2004) Water Recycling in Australia.
Barnett A. (2000) Pure water flows in Dome toilets. The Observer, Sunday January 16th, 2000.
Berndtsson J. C. (2004) Benficial use of stormwater: a review of possibilities. Urban Water Report 2004:6, Chalmers University
of Technology.
Cooper E. (2003) Sydney Water Cooperation. Rouse Hill and Picton Reuse Schemes – Innovative approaches to large-scale
reuse. Water Supply 3 (3): 49–54.
Côté P. (2005) An Evaluation of Membrane Integrity Monitoring Methods for Micro- and Ultrafiltration Systems, Aachen
Membrane Colloquium, March 2005
Crook J. (2005) Irrigation of Parks, Playgrounds, and Schoolyards with reclaimed Water: Extend and Safety. Water Reuse
Foundation. ISBN: 0-9747586-3-9
de Rooy E. and E. Engelbrecht (2003) Experience With Residential Water Recycling at Rouse Hill. Proc. Water Recycling
Australia, Brisbane, Queensland; September 2003.
Diaper C. (2004) Innovation in on-site domestic water management systems in Australia: A review of rainwater, greywater,
stormwater and wastewater utilisation techniques. Australien Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program.
EPA (2002) http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf
Fairbairn I. (2005) Operation of an STP for Recycled Water Production. Liquid Trade Waste & Operators Joint Conference, 21-
22 September 2005, Tamworth NSW.
GEC – Global Environment Foundation Centre Foundation (2005)

http://nett21.gec.jp/JSIM_DATA/WATER/WATER_2/html/Doc_244.html
Grant M., Hill G., Holbrook C., Lymburner P., McTavish A. and A. Sundby (2002) Water management and waste water
treatment at the University of British Columbia: a study for sustainable alternatives. http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/Updated.PDF
(status February 2006)
Hatt, B., Deletic, A. and T. Flecher (2004) Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Reuse Systems, Inventory of Australian
Practice. CRC Catchment Hydrology Industry DRAFT Report.
Hills S., Birks R., B. and McKenzie (2002) The Millennium Dome “Watercycle” experiment: to evaluate water efficiency and
customer perception at a recycling scheme for 6 million visitors. Water Science and Technology 46 (6-7): 233-240.
Hills S., Smith A., Hardy P. and R. Birks (2001) Water recycling at the Millennium Dome. Water Science and Technology 43
(10): 287-294.
Ho G. and M. Anda (2004) Centralised versus decentralised wastewater systems in an urban context: the sustainability
dimension, IWA, Sydney, November 2004 .
Hoek J.P. van der, Dijkman B.J., Terpstra G.J., Uitzinger M.J. and M.R.B. van Dillen (1999) Selection and evaluation of a new
concept of water supply for "IJburg" Amsterdam. Water Science and Technology 39 (5): 33-40.
Kotz C., Hillenbrand T., Hiessl H., Mohr M. and W. Trösch (2004) Pilot-project DEUS 21: A concept for sustainable urban water
infrastructure, IWA Leading EDGE Conference Sydney 2004.
Listowski A. and A. MacCormick (2004a) Proceedings Enviro 04 Conference Sydney Australia, Australian Water Association,
April 2004.
Listowski A. (2004b) Experiences with Urban reuse Applications in Australia. Proc. Aquarec Workshop; Thessaloniki, Greece;
11–12 March 2004.
Marks J., Cromar N., Fallowfield H., Oemcke D. and M. Zadoroznyj (2002) Community Experience And Perceptions Of Water
Reuse. Environ 2002 IWA World Water Congress. Melbourne, April 2002 .
583
Marks R. (2005a) Meadows, South Australia: Development through Integration of Local Water Resources. Integrated Concepts
in Water Recycling (2005) – Khan, S.J., Schäfer, A.I., Muston, M.H. (Eds) – ISBN 1 74128 082 6.
Marks J. S. and M. Zadoroznyi (2005b) Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context and Cultures of Trust.
Society and Natural Resources, 18: 557–572.
Mehlhart G. (2005) fbr-Hinweisblatt H 201 Grauwasser Recycling: Eine Zusammenfassung rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen
sowie technischer Entwicklungen. Grauwasser-Recycling Chance für die deutsche Wirtschaft.
Nguyen B. (2002) Operation of Dual Drinking and Non Potable Water Networks in Paris: Advantages and Constrains, ENVIRO
2002, IWA, Melbourne.
Nolde E. (2004) Grauwasser Recycling im Hotel-, Gaststättengewerbe und Wohnungsbau – langjährige Betriebserfahrung.
Grauwasser-Recycling Chance für die deutsche Wirtschaft.
Nolde E. (2005) Grauwasserrecycling, Ökologische, technische und wirtschaftliche Aspekte mit Beispielen aus der Praxis,
www.nolde-partner.de (status October 2005) .
NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee, 1st Edition (1993) NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential Use of Reclaimed
Water.
Pinkham R. (1999) 21st Century Water Systems: Scenarios, Visions and Drivers, An opening presentation for an EPA Workshop
on “sustainable urban water infrastructure – a vision of future“, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colorado,
http://www.rmi.org
Pupyrev E. (2002) The Principles of Water Use Integrated Management, ENVIRO 2002, IWA, Melbourne.
Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen (Hrsg.) (2004) Merkblatt: “Betriebswassernutzung in Gebäuden“, Berlin.
Spencer P. (2000) Wastewater Reuse and Recovery: Gain not Pain. Filtration and Separation January/February 2000: 14-16 .
Sydney Water (2002) Rouse Hill. Recycled Water Plant: www.sydneywater.com.au
Sydney Water (2005a) Pricing of Recycled Water

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/Recycling/RecycledWaterPricing.cfm
Sydney Water (2005b) Recycled water cross-connection at Newington, Media Release, 18 Nov 2005
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/WhoWeAre/MediaCentre/MediaView.cfm?ID=295
Sydney Water (2006a) Saving Water by Recycling and Reuse http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/RecyclingandReuse/
Sydney Water (2006b) Mandatory Water Restrictions:

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/index.cfm
Thames Water (2003) Water Recycling Brochure.
UNEP - International Environmental Technology Centre, United Nations Environment Programme (1997) Source Book of
Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augmentation in Latin America and the Caribbean:
(http://www.oas.org/osde/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch30.htm)
Water Futures (2004) Health Risk Assessment of Fire Fighting from Recycled Water Mains. Occasoinal Paper no 11, Water
Services Association of Australia, November 2004 .
Yamagata H., Ogoshi M., Suzuki Y., Ozaki M. and T. Asano (2003) IWA Publishing. Water Supply 3 (3): 149-154.
Yutaka Suzuki, Masashi Ogoshi, Hiroki Yamagata, Masaaki Ozaki, Takashi Asano (2002). Large-area and on-site water reuse in
Japan,"World Day for Water" International Seminar http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/kokusai/conference/suzuki-yutaka020327.pdf
584
22 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS: INDUSTRIAL

USES
22.1 BACKGROUND
In Europe, as well as in other industrialised world regions, industrial water withdrawals represent a high
water demand - over 50% of the total water use, and exceeding 80% in some member states. Therefore,
the management of water demand from industries plays a very important role in establishing water use
and efficiency targets.
Partly as a result of the EU's environmental policies and partly due to the response of industry itself, the
last two decades witnessed substantial steps in the direction of process integrated and external measures,
including water-saving equipment and in-plant water recycling. The use of reclaimed water along with
other alternative sources is becoming common practice.
This is a trend that is observed at a global level. While in the 1980’s there were only few industrial water
reuse applications - mostly in the USA -, in 2004 more than 100 of such schemes were operative around
the world (see Figure 1.1), and dozens of multipurpose water reuse schemes including an industrial
component also exist (Aquarec, 2004).
Today, the industrial market offers unique opportunities to European reclaimed water purveyors:
• Increasing economic and regulatory pressures dictate the use of alternative water supplies for those
industrial processes that can accept lower water quality, the use of high-quality groundwater
resources being progressively reserved for high-quality purposes such as e.g. drinking water.
• With reclaimed water, water sensitive industries can benefit from a drought-proof, complementary
water sourcei. Moreover, there is virtually no competition (yet) to access this resource.
• The existence of demonstrated water reclamation technology enables the purveyor to provide - at
affordable costs - a consistent level of water quality and ample and quick warning in case of
accidents at a treatment facility.
• Environmental stewardship is becoming an important factor in business (and for acceptance of

industry by the local community: Po et al., 2003). Moreover, economic incentives supporting the
use of reclaimed water in industry are already present or being envisaged (cfr. Chapter 4).
• Industrial applications may lead to lower investment costs for water reclamation than other
applications, as they are characterised by a relevant baseline demand and also, are often
conveniently located - i.e. close-by the (suburban) wastewater treatment plants. These factors make
the unit cost for distributing reclaimed water, which is generally the highest investment cost in
water reuse schemes, lower than for other applications.
i
The cost of water shortages to water sensitive industries is unacceptably high. For instance, a 15% water shortage to the water
sensitive industries in Southern California could cause US$ 3.5-4.0 billion in loss of jobs and production (Rodrigo et al., 1996).
585
22.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter has been prepared to help reclaimed water purveyors answer their questions about water
quality specifications and water reclamation needs to supply reclaimed water to water sensitive industries.
The use of reclaimed water in industry has many potential applications, ranging from simple rinsing and
washing options to ultra-pure water make-up in high-tech processing. As water quality requirements tend
to be industry specific, the documentation has been broken down into four sections:
Section 22.3 outlines typical water quality constraints for industrial uses which may impact the
commercial viability of the reuse of reclaimed water in industry and that are largely
independent of the particular industry. Regulatory requirements for health and occupational
compliance will also be provided.
Section 22.4 focuses on cooling water make-up. Water quality requirements of cooling systems are
largely independent of the particular industry, as they normally operate as closed-loop
systems isolated from the process. Similar considerations apply to wash-down water, which
is also described within this section.
Section 22.5 focuses on boiler feed water. Boilers can also be regarded as separate water systems with
their own specific set of water quality requirements, largely independent of the particular
industry.
Section 22.6 studies water quality requirements and experience in the manufacturing process.
Particular emphasis will be given to water sensitive sectors such as textile finishing, the
pulp and paper sector, the chemical industry, steel, iron and metallurgy and the food
industry.
Note that on-site recycling of industrial wastewater is outside the scope of this manual. For this topic the
reader is referred to, for instance, Lens et al. (2002).
22.3 TYPICAL WATER QUALITY CONCERNS FOR INDUSTRIAL

USES
Occupational health concerns

Reclaimed-water specific occupational health concerns include exposure to aerosols that contain toxic
volatile organic compounds and pathogens. These concerns are largely independent of the particular
industry. Distinctions in regulatory requirements for health protection vary between closed and open
systems, for occupational safety reasons, and between industrial products such as e.g. food processing or
personal care products, for customer safety reasons.
In Europe, Italy, Cyprus and Spain foresee specific regulatory requirements for the use of reclaimed water
in industry (see Chapter 2), Italy including uses such as fire protection, process water, wash-water or
water for thermal cycles but excluding all those uses where direct contact between food as well as
pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and reclaimed water exists.
586
In Australia, all states have guidelines on water quality specifications for industrial uses. The South
Australian guidelines also provide information on treatment processes, system design, operation and
reliability, site suitability, monitoring and reporting (Environment Protection Agency, South Australia,
1999).
In North America, the US EPA guidelines (2004) provide extensive information related to water reuse
requirements and water reclamation processes, including a summary of state regulatory requirements, case
studies and EPA recommendations. In Canada, British Columbia included guidelines for industrial uses
such as cooling towers (excluding evaporative cooling), boiler feed, aggregate washing, concrete making,
equipment washing, stack scrubbing, and process water excluding food processing (British Columbia
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 2001).
Typical reclamation treatment regulatory requirements in the category of industrial uses include
secondary treatment and disinfection, with effluent quality criteria for BOD, total suspended solids or
turbidity and coliforms.
The water quality laid down in different legislations is reported in Table 22.1. The values in Table 22.1
refer to maximum concentrations with the exception of the standards for Victoria, which refer to annual
medians (Cyprus and North Carolina also include NH3, NH4, NO3, PO4 and P limits, and Italian legislation
includes heavy metal and nutrient limits. Other exceptions are reported in the note).
Table 22.1 Minimum requirements for the use of reclaimed water in industry in
the EU, Australia and USA (Bertini, 2005)
USA (US EPA, 2004) AUSTRALIA (US EPA, 2004)
Washington
New Jersey
Guidelines
Oregon (11)
CYPRUS
California
Carolina*
Tasmania
Australia
National
Victoria
ITALY
Florida
Hawaii
Texas
North
South
Utah
6- 6.5- 5.5-
pH 6-9 6-9(7) 5.5-8.0 7:8
8.5 8.5 9.5
BOD5 30
202 15 5 25 6 30 30 <20 20 80 6 40
(mg/L)
COD
25 160
(mg/L)
TSS 5
(3) a 10 25(6) 30 30 30 30 10 80
(mg/L)
Turbidity 10
1 2 10 5 5 2(8)
(NTU)
F.Coli
(cfu/100 25 200 200(4 400 25 800 800 10
mL)
T.Coli
240 240 23 240 23
(“)
E. Coli 1000
100010 10 5000
(“)
Ther.Coli 10 10
1000 <1000
(“)
Res.Cl
1 5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1
(mg/L)
A-1 Cooling water creating mist, A-2 that does not create mist, B Open cooling tower; C-1 Cooling water that emit vapour or droplets- or an
industrial process with exposure to workers, C-2 Cooling water that does not emit vapour or droplets- or an industrial process without exposure to
workers or industrial boiler; D Not specified industrial uses, E Cooling water make-up; F-1 Industrial boiler feed, cooling water where aerosols
or other mists are not created, and industrial process water with no exposure to workers, F-2 Industrial boiler feed, cooling water where aerosols
or other mists are created, and industrial process water with exposure to workers; G Industrial system with no potential worker exposure; H
Industrial processes (closed loop) (1) Requirements for wastewater that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a
bed of filter media (2) Annual average (3) To be met after filtration and prior to disinfection (4) Max in 30 d (5) With treatment using pond
system (6) Monthly average (7) 90 %ile (8) Turbidity limit is a 24-hour median value measured pre-disinfection. The maximum value is 5 NTU
(9) Turbidity before disinfection. Turbidity based on 24-h and < 5NTU (10) Median value (11) Weekly average
587
Water quality factors that may impact industrial process integrity and efficacy as well
as product quality
Water quality concerns that cross industrial uses and may impact the commercial viability of any
alternative water supply in industry include scaling, corrosion, biological growth, and fouling. The water
quality constituents that are causes of concern and treatment options that are typically envisaged to
mitigate them are summarized in Table 22.2.
Table 22.2 Common water quality concerns for industrial process applications
and typical water treatment options
WATER TREATMENT
CONCERN CAUSE
OPTION
Phosphorus, Calcium, magnesium, iron, silica, Scaling inhibitor, softening,
Scale formation sulphates, dissolved solids along with pH and carbon adsorption, ion exchange,
temperature (Cowan and Weintritt, 1976) reverse osmosis, blending
Dissolved and suspended solids, ammonia (very
aggressive to copper alloys), pH imbalance (along with
Corrosion Filtration and neutralisation
temperature fluctuationsb), metals with high oxidation,
chloride and sulphates
Biological growth, maintenance of a disinfection,
including algal Residual organics, ammonia, phosphorus low biocide residual (monitored
growth on-line), dispersants, filtration
Fouling Residual organics, phosphorus
Chemical conditioning, Carbon
Foaming Residual organics
absorption Ion exchange
In fact, secondary effluent (i.e. before reclamation) may be less corrosive than freshwater (and more prone
to scale formation) because of higher concentrations of alkalinity, hardness, silica and, in non-nutrient
removal systems, phosphate. The possible presence of higher levels of dissolved solids, ammonia in case
of non-nitrified effluent, heavy metals, chlorides and sulphates, may however change the picture. No
general conclusions can therefore be derived.
22.4 COOLING WATER MAKE-UP
Cooling water is an essential component for many industries, and most particularly power generating
stations, oil refineries, chemical manufactures, metal processing, meat and dairy industry, and food and
beverage manufactures.
Often 50 % or more of the industrial water intake is used for the purpose of process cooling alone (Asano
and Visvanathan, 2001; Schaefer et al., 2003).
b
With high temperature processes (i.e. heat exchangers), corrosion is caused principally by complex oxide-slag with low melting
points. Deposits also promote the transport of oxygen to the metal surface.
588
The water quantity and quality requirements of industrial cooling processes depend on the type of cooling
process rather than the industry. In this respect, industrial cooling systems can be broken down into four
classes:
1. Closed-loop systems: these systems are composed of two cooling circuits that are completely
separated. The water of the primary circuit is cooled by a heat exchanger, which is fed by the
secondary circuit. The primary circuit requires water of high quality but a limited water demand. The
water quality is determined by the concentration of potential precipitants within the make-up-water.
The secondary circuit can be a partial by evaporative or open loop system (see below). Closed-loop
systems are generally used when process temperatures are elevated.
2. Partial by evaporative condensers: In these systems, cooling is carried out by evaporation with
forced or natural draught. Due to evaporative losses in the cooling tower, contaminants that are
present in the water concentrate in the recycled flow. To maintain good operating conditions, part of
the cooling water is removed (blowdown) and replaced with cooling water make-up. The lower the
blowdown (i.e. the higher the recirculated water), the higher the quality requirements for the cooling
water (Keen and Puckorius, 1988). Most cooling systems are operated in the range of 5 to 10 cycles.
For cooling towers and recirculation cooling purposes it seems that the quality of reclaimed water is
satisfactory for up to 5 cycles (AwwaRF, 2003). Side-stream filtration and chemical conditions would
allow the increase of the number of cycles up to about 20 without fouling of condenser surfaces with
silica. Increased cycles to 20 would reduce the volume of blowdown by 80 % (Chatfield, 1982).
3. Once-through cooling systems: In this type of systems, water is used only once and then rejected
into the receiving water body. The volumes of water that may be used are generally linked to the
limits on the temperature increase before discharge, usually the temperature increase is never above
5-10°C for reject water. Once-through systems are used by large industrial processes such as the
power generating plants, chemical industry, and refineries. Quality requirements for these cooling
systems are less restrictive than in the case of recirculating systems (in some cases even salt water
can be used, with little or no treatment). However, the volumes needed are so large that reclaimed
water is rarely considered a feasible alternative. Once-through cooling systems also present additional
opportunities for water reuse, such as connection to a recirculating cooling system to reuse water, and
its cascading use in other applications.
4. Cooling by direct contact: This is the typical case, where water is used to extinguish ashes and slag
from the ovens or in metal processing to cool down the metals during fabrication. In general for these
uses there are no problems related to the water quality. Water can be reused several times, when
treated in clarifiers.
Table 22.3 and Table 22.4 summarise information on the average water needc, minimum achievable end
temperature of the process medium, and typical size range of different cooling water systems for non-
power generation and power generation applications, respectively.
c
Note that the average water use is subject to seasonal fluctuations. Cooling towers need 10-20% more water during the summer
when air temperature increases and relative humidity decreases.
589
Table 22.3 Technical characteristics of different cooling water systems: (1)

non-power generating applications (EU, 2001)
MAIN AVG WATER RELATIVE MINIMUM
COOLING CAPACITY
COOLING USE WATER END TEMP
SYSTEM (MWth)
PRINCIPLE [m³/h. MWth-1] USE(2) (3)
Once-through Conduction/
86 100% 18 – 20 °C <0.01 - > 2000
system, direct Convection
Once-through Conduction/
86 100% 21 – 25 °C <0.01 - > 1000
system, indirect Convection
Open recirc. cooling
Evaporation(1) 2 2.3% 27 – 31 °C <0.1 - > 2000
tower, direct
Open recirc. cooling
Evaporation(1) 2 2.3% 30 – 36 °C <0.1 - > 200
tower, indirect
Closed circuit wet Evaporation +
Variable Variable 28 – 35 °C 0.2 - 10
cooling tower convection(1)
Open wet/dry Evaporation +
0.5 0.6% 28 – 35 °C 0.15 – 2.5
Closed circuit Evaporation +
1.5 1.7% 28 – 35 °C 0.15 – 2.5
(1) Water is the secondary cooling medium and is mostly recirculated. (2) Assuming a cooling capacity ǻT 10 K, open
recirculating cooling tower with cycles between 2 and 4, open wet/dry cooling 75% dry operation, closed circuit wet/dry tower
with dry operation ranging from 0 to 25% (3) End temperatures depend on site climate (data are valid for average middle
European climate conditions and 15°C max water temperature).
Table 22.4 Technical characteristics of different cooling water systems: (2)

power generating plants (Lens et al., 2002)
TYPE OF POWER PLANT CONDITIONS WATER USE
Conventional thermal power plants (600 ǻT= 8.7°C, high velocity 20-21 m³/s
MWth) ǻT= 12°C, low velocity 14-15 m³/s
Nuclear power plants (1200 MWth) ǻT= 12°C 47-48 m³/s
Support in open recirculation systems Concentration 3-4%
Thermal power plants 1.2-2 m³h-1MWth-1
Nuclear power plants 1.2-2 m³h-1MWth-1
22.4.1 Specific concerns related to cooling water

circuits
Fouling, scaling, corrosion, and microbial growth are common hazards to cooling systems. Specific
attention points are the control of scale deposition and biofilm and bacterial growth. If proper biocides are
used and good operation and maintenance practices are applied, however, biofilm growth, scale
deposition and bacterial growth are not anticipated to cause technical difficulties (Wijesinghe, 1996).
Scaling
In cooling systems that recycle water, depending on the number of cycles some of the dissolved solids in
the circulating water can exceed their solubility limits and precipitate, causing scale formation in pipes
and coolers (Asano and Visvanathan, 2001). The formation of scale is particularly undesirable because
reduces the efficiency of heat exchangers. To avoid scale formation, sulphuric acid is often used to
convert calcium and magnesium carbonates into more soluble sulphate compounds (EC, 2001).
590
The amount of acid used is limited by the residual alkalinity in the water (if the pH of the system is
reduces to far below 7, accelerated corrosion can occur).
Biological growth
Microorganisms find extremely favourable growing conditions in the water circuit. Suboptimal control of
their growth may lead to many problems, including reduction of the heat transfer efficiency, fouling and,
in certain cases, corrosion. Both open and closed cooling systems are vulnerable; however open systems
are more vulnerable, as they are directly open to the environment.
Mainly, four groups of bacteria are of particular concern, namely:
1. Legionella pneumophila
2. Sulphide-reducing bacteria and sulphate-reducing bacteria
3. Iron bacteria (Sphaerotilus natans)
4. Nitrifying bacteria
1) Legionella pneumophila – it is by far the most significant cooling-specific hazard. The risk of
Legionellosis, associated with the exposure to Legionella pneumophila, is well documented. There is no
indication that reclaimed water is more likely to contain Legionella than other water sources (Crook,
1998).
Factors that influence the growth of Legionella bacteria are temperature (25-42 °C with optimum at 35
°C), and pH (2-11 with optimum at 5-8.5), periodical stagnation (> 1 month) or bad circulation of the
water, and the presence of other microorganisms (in particular protozoad), in biofilms and sediments. The
health hazards caused by Legionella bacteria can be eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels under well-
established operating conditions. A scientific basis for those conditions is provided in McCoy (2005).
The monitoring and control of Legionella growth in industrial cooling systems is strictly regulated by
national or regional norms. In Flanders, Belgium, for instance, Legionella concentrations over 10,000
cfu/L prompt the shut down of the installation and the execution of an emergency disinfection
intervention. The plant may be reopened when the concentration drops below 1,000 cfu/L. In the range of
1,000-10,000 cfu/L a new sample has to be taken and if the values are confirmed an emergency
disinfection intervention is carried out. In the UK, death from Legionella from mismanaged water systems
can result in a manslaughter charge.
Indicative values for oxidising biocides are:

• NaOCl/ClO2: 2 ppm during 5 hours/0.5 ppm during 2 hours
• O3: 2 ppm during 5 hours
• H2O2: 5 ppm during 5 hours
d
Protozoa are resistant against biocides and protect Legionella against biocides
591
2) Sulphide-reducing bacteria and sulphate-reducing bacteria are also reported as common corrosion-
causing organisms in cooling systems using reclaimed water (Puckorius and Hess, 1991).
3) Iron bacteria - Corrosion problems related to the presence of iron bacteria (Sphaerotilus natans) have
been reported by Roofthooft (1999). However, so far there is no evidence, that reclaimed water could
worsen the situation. The deleterious effect of iron bacteria is in their capability to increase the corrosion
rate by a factor 10 and form slimes which are rich in iron. To form slimes the dissolved oxygen content
has to be lower than 5-6 mg/L and the pH between 6 and 8 (Roofthooft, 1999). Demonstrated successful
dosing rates of oxidising biocides for iron bacteria control are (Roofthooft, 1999):
• 2.5 mg Cl2/L during 30 minutes
• 0.3 mg O3/L if the O3 concentration at the outlet of the circuit remains at a minimum of 0.05
mg/L
• UV irradiation (254 nm) with a contact time of at least 2.5 minutes.
• Non-oxidising biocides are less efficient. In some cases concentrations as high as 200 mg/L and
contact times of several hours may be needed.
4) Nitrifying bacteria - The use of non-nitrified or partially nitrified effluents can be of particular concern
due to the decrease in pH associated with nitrification (nitrification reduces the alkalinity of 7.2 mg per
each mg ammonia removed). Cooling water systems offer ideal temperature for nitrifiers to develop.
To control bacterial growth in water cooling systems, thermal treatment (> 55 °C) and UV-treatment are
not applicable for most cooling systems. Therefore, oxidizing biocides –e.g. NaOCl or ClO2, O3, H2O2- or
non-oxidizing biocides (e.g. quaternary ammonium salts, isothiazoline) are used. We have seen that non-
oxidizing biocides, however, give poorer results.
In Europe, the choice of the disinfection method is affected by the EU Directive 98/8/EC on Biocide
Products. In particular, when non-oxidising products are used for disinfection, one should make informed
decisions about what water treatment regime is applied and how it should be controlled and monitored
(EC, 2001).
22.4.2 Reclaimed water quality guidelines specific to

cooling water make-up
In most of the markets, reclaimed water used in cooling towers needs some level of disinfection, the
windblown spray and aerosol drift from cooling towers being recognised as a serious occupational and
public health hazard (Adams et al., 1978, 1980)e. Worldwide, there is no consensus, however, on the
health risk indicator and absolute limits that have to be adopted. Figure 22.1 and 22.2 illustrate the
microbiological and physical reclaimed water quality requirements for cooling water make-up in
identified regulations throughout the world.
e
Closed-loop systems may therefore result in reduced health risks.
592
Figure 22.1 Microbiological requirements for cooling water make-up in identified

regulations worldwide
+
2000
F. Coli
T. Coli
1500 E. Coli
Therm. Tolerant Coli
[cfu / 100 mL]
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

1000
800 800
500 400
240 200 240 200
25 25 23 10
0
NORTH CAROLINA
WASHINGTON
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
HAWAII
OREGON
CALIFORNIA
TASMANIA
PANAMA
ANG*
FLORIDA
UTAH
VICTORIA
CYPRUS
NEW JERSEY
TEXAS
ITALY
Figure 22.1 implies that secondary effluents must be disinfected prior to use (cfr. Figure 7.1), unless
secondary treatment is achieved using membrane technology (cfr. Chapter 13).
Figure 22.2 Physico-chemical requirements for cooling water make-up in

identified regulation worldwide: TSS and turbidity
PANAMA
Turbidity [NTU]
ITALY
CYPRUS TSS [mg/L]
TASMANIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA
ANG*
WASHINGTON
UTAH
TEXAS
OREGON
NORTH CAROLINA
NEW JERSEY
HAWAII
FLORIDA
CALIFORNIA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
TSS [mg/L], Turbidity [NTU]
Figure 22.2 hints that in some market places a filtration step is required while in some others it is not
(typically suspended solids and turbidity concentrations in the effluent of a well designed and operated
activated sludge system are in the range of 5-10 mg SS/L and 2-7 NTU, respectively).
Additionally, some types of cooling water systems may require nutrient removal. Table 22.5 shows the
typical treatment technology required for the use of reclaimed water for four types of industrial cooling
systems (Asano and Visvanathan, 2001).
593
Table 22.5 Treatment technology for the use of reclaimed water for industrial
cooling (Asano and Visvanathan, 2001)
Type of cooling system N and P removal Chemical precip. Filtration
Cooling tower make-up Normally Yes Yes
Once through cooling
- Turbine exhaust condensing Sometimes Seldom Sometimes
- Direct contact cooling Seldom No Sometimes
- Equipment and bearing cooling Yes Yes Yes
Minimum quality guideline objectives to maintain proper operation of the cooling water circuit for the use
of reclaimed water as cooling water make-up and at point of use for cooling in heat exchangers are
reported respectively in Tables 22.6 and 22.7. In Table 22.6, the requirements are compared to the effluent
quality obtained by conventional municipal wastewater treatment, i.e. discharging to the receiving water
body. The data refers to Flemish facilities complying with the EU UWWTD for sensitive (9 WWTPs) and
non-sensitive (4 WWTPs) areas.
Table 22.6 Indicative minimum objectives for the cooling water make-up with
reclaimed water (WPCF, 1989) vs. secondary effluent
Secondary effluent Secondary effluent with
Parameter WPCF guidelines (1989)
without nutrient removal nutrient removal
Min-Median-Max Min-Median-Max
Cl [mg/L] 500 / 93
TDS [mg/L] 500 / /
Hardness [mg/L] 650 / /
Alkalinity [mg/L] 350 / /
pH [-] 6.9-9.0 6.7-7.4-7.9 6.7-7.4-7.9
COD [mg/L] 75 30-90 30-90
TSS [mg/L] 100 5-35 5-35
Turbidity [NTU] 50 <2-3-10 <2-3-10
BOD5 [mg/L] 25 3-15-25 3-15-25
Organics * [mg/L] 1.0 / /
NH4-N [mg/L] 1.0 5-35 0.2-2
PO4 [mg/L] 4 2.5-6 0.2-1(2)
SiO2 [mg/L] 50 / /
Al [mg/L] 0.1 / /
Fe [mg/L] 0.5 <0.05 <0.05
Mn [mg/L] 0.5 / <0.05
Ca [mg/L] 50 / /
HCO3 [mg/L] 0.5 / /
SO4 [mg/L] 200 / 52
* Methylene blue active substances, / = not measured
Table 22.6 hints that nutrient removal facilities could meet the WPCF recommendations while non
nutrient removal systems would need additional removal of ammonia, and phosphates.
594
Table 22.7 Indicative minimum objectives at point of use for cooling in heat
exchangers (NAS, 1972)
Parameter Once-through Make-up for recirculation
Fresh Brackish A Fresh Brackish A
Silica (SIO2) 50 25 50 25
Aluminium (Al) C C 0.1 0.1
Iron (Fe) C C 0.5 0.5
Manganese (Mn) C C 0.5 0.5
Calcium (Ca) 200 420 50 420
Magnesium (Mg), Ammonia (NH4) C C C C
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 600 140 24 140
Sulphate (SO4) 680 2,700 200 2,700
Chloride (Cl) 600 19,000 500 19,000
Dissolved solids 1000 35,000 500 35,000
Copper (Cu) C C C C
Zinc (Zn) C C C C
Hardness (CaCO3) 850 6,250 650 6,250
Alkalinity (CaCO3) 500 115 350 115
pH units 5.0 – 8.3 6.0 – 8.3 C C
Organics: Methylene blue active subst. C C 1 1
Organics: Carbon tetrachloride extract F F 1 2
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 75 75 75 75
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) - C C C
Dissolved oxygen (O2) Present Present C C
Temperature C C C C
Suspended solids 5000 2500 100 100
Unless otherwise indicated, units are mg/L. A Brackish water – dissolved solids more than 1000 mg/L. C = Accepted as received
(if meeting other limiting values); had never been a problem at concentrations encountered
22.4.3 Full-scale experience

Water reclamation for cooling water make-up has a long and extended track record, with the first facility
introduced in Baltimore in 1942 (US EPA, 1992), and with now dozens of identifiable schemes, and many
others in the planning phase.
Out of the identifiable schemes that are reported in Figure 22.3, typical water reclamation technology is
composed of secondary treatment with nutrient removal (in particular nitrogen), filtration (sometimes
preceded by a coagulation-flocculation or softening step), and chlorination (Bertini, 2005).
Ozone treatment seems to be a valuable substitute for chlorination in those market places where
chlorination is abandoned (cfr. BOX 22.2), especially because:
• of its property of increasing the high dissolved oxygen concentration in the bulk medium, in
several market places discharge of coolant water has limits for oxygen concentration
• Ozone kills algae and enhances flocculation which improves the filtration process
• Industries are well acquainted with side stream filtration and ozonation to inhibit corrosion and
scaling (NCDENR, 1998).
595
Figure 22.3 Distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes for cooling

water make-up throughout the world (Bixio et al., in writing)
An international enquiry was conducted to assess the level of satisfaction and specific management
practices attached to the use of reclaimed water at some of the sites identified in Figure 22.3. Respondents
indicated that pH, conductivity, turbidity, BOD5, and bacterial counts are the most important parameters
for routine monitoring and process control, along with ammonia and phosphates in facilities where
nutrient removal is not practiced.
Box 22.2 reports two case histories of the use of reclaimed water for industrial cooling water make-up.
BOX 22.2: Two examples of water reuse schemes that produce cooling water
make-up
1. Tienen Water reuse scheme, Belgium (non-power generating application)

Since 2002, a pharmaceutical company in Tienen, Belgium makes use of 2,500,000 m³ of treated
municipal wastewater per year – i.e. almost the entire flow. Secondary-treated effluent is ozonated for
disinfection and prevention of regrowth in the cooling circuit. In the feasibility study, a sand filtration as
ozonation pre-treatment was foreseen, but it has not been installed because of the positive experiences so
far. If the amount of reclaimed wastewater is too low or temperature is too high, it is mixed with
groundwater before usage.
The driving force for this project was to reduce the extraction of natural groundwater for cooling water
make-up. The use of surface water was also studied but rejected because compared to effluent, surface
water had a lower and less constant quality, in particular regarding suspended solids and nutrients. Also,
596
in dry periods, the possibility exists that no permit for surface water abstraction can be obtained.
The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) consists of a low loaded activated sludge system with enhanced
biological phosphorus removal. The WWTP has a nominal capacity of 29,000 population equivalents and
is fully loaded. The WWTP complies with the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive for
sensitive areas. The influent and effluent characteristics of the WWTP are reported in Table 22.8.
Table 22.8 Influent and effluent water quality at WWTP Tienen (2003-2005)
2003 2004 2005
AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX
Q biology [m³/year] 2,711,034 2,597,280 2,074,860*
24h comp samples 50 50 43
BOD [mg/L] <3 10 <3 5 <4 11
COD [mg/L] 30 64 33 79 28 47
SS [mg/L] 4 21 <4 35 <4 14
NH4-N [mg/L] 0.35 1.9 0.3 2.8 0.3 1.7
Total N [mg/L] 6.56 27.7 5.4 11.4 5.0 12.3
TP [mg/L] 1.2 4.0 1.3 2.4 1.3 3.4
The ozone generator can produce up to 1.25 kg O3/h. Ozone production is controlled according to the
water flow and residual dissolved ozone (500 ppb of O3/L for cooling water make-up), residual gaseous
ozone being vented to the destructor. No fouling / anti-scaling agents are added.
On-line conductivity and turbidity measurements are in place to detect / retain reclaimed water of
unacceptable quality, when conductivity is over 1700 μS/cm or turbidity over 3 NTU. In that case, the
reclaimed water is discharged to the surface water body and the system is provided with an alternative
water supply (groundwater). Thus far, this situation has never occurred.
2. Cleburne water reuse facility, Texas (power generating application), Sloan and
Barkman (1998)
Since 1997, the new power cogeneration facility of Cleburne, Texas receives an average of 5,640 m³
(max. 6,662) of municipal wastewater effluent per day, to meet its cooling water demand. The City of
Cleburne WWTP is composed of a conventional activated sludge system, followed by chlorination and
dechlorination. Effluent permit limits are 10 mg BOD5/L, 15 mg TSS/L and 3 mg NH4-N/L. To achieve
adequate recirculation of the cooling water, it was deemed necessary to upgrade the WWTP to remove
excess phosphorus. Chlorinated effluent is reclaimed to a dedicated treatment facility for P removal by
chemical precipitation. Effluent turbidity and phosphate are monitored continuously in this tertiary
treatment unit effluent. An additional chlorine feed point has also been included to ensure a continuous
chlorine residual at the end of the 13-km transmission line that connects the WWTP with the power
generation plant. Chlorine residual is also monitored at the cogeneration plant and standby chlorination
facilities allow supplemental chlorine addition at the facility.
597
22.4.4 Wash-down water

A second reclaimed water use that is considered as “low-quality” application is the wash-down water.
Often the secondary treated water is used at wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) for in-plant equipment
wash down along with other uses such as e.g. scum cleaning and channel cleaning. Outside the WWTP,
several schemes were identified by the Aquarec mapping study concerning the use of reclaimed water as
wash-down water, but in all cases this purpose was considered as an ancillary use of the reclaimed water
among other uses such as for instance water cooling make-up. Two full-scale references are provided by
BACWA (2005), where the schemes produce disinfected tertiary level as defined by Title 22 (because of
other uses requiring it), two other examples are reported in Thoeye et al. (in publication).
Similarly to cooling water make-up, limited efforts are required to produce wash down water from
secondary treated municipal wastewater. In most market places a secondary treatment process, combined
with pathogen reduction, is sufficient. The EPA Victoria reuse guidelines, which are quite conservative
for this type of application, give for instance an indicative minimum objective of E. Coli <100 cfu/100
mL, pH between 6 – 9.3, BOD <20 mg/L. and SS concentration <30 mg/L.
Except for when it is intended for food processing equipment or is to be recycled as process water, the use
of reclaimed water as wash-down water is hindered only by economic considerations.
22.5 BOILER FEED WATER
It has been widely proven that the use of reclaimed water as boiler feed water is a viable and common
application. In contrast to wash-down water, water quality requirements for boiler feed water are very
demanding and boilers are generally equipped with treatment systems such as ion exchange to process
potable, ground or surface water.
The use of reclaimed water could radically reduce the industries water costs, reduce power and chemical
demand and reduce wastewater volumes as supported by the EU IPPC BREF documents. The actual cost-
effectiveness to convert from conventional to reclaimed water should be verified on a case-by-case basis -
especially when considering supplying reclaimed water for other industrial uses (cfr. case studies).
22.5.1 Water quality concerns unique to boiler feed

water
Scaling – apart from the considerations that were made for cooling water systems, the carryover of
varying amounts of droplets of water in the steam lowers the energy content of steam and leads to the
deposit of salt crystals in super heaters and turbines. This process is due to the viscosity of the water and
its tendency to foam and is primarily affected by:
• The alkalinity, presence of certain organic substances, and by total salinity or TDS.
• The design of the boiler and its steaming rate.
Corrosion (www.lenntech.com) - Corrosion in the boiler generally occurs when the boiler water
alkalinity is low or when the metal is exposed to oxygen bearing water either during operation or inactive
598
periods. High temperatures and stresses in the boiler metal tend to accelerate corrosion mechanisms. In
steam and condensate system corrosion is generally the result of contamination with carbon dioxide and
oxygen. Corrosion is caused by the combination of oxide layer fluxing and continuous oxidation by
transported oxygen.
Foaming (Camp Dresser and McKee, 1993) – high content of potassium and sodium causes excessive
foaming in the boiler. Excessive alkalinity also contributes to foaming and results in deposits in heater, re-
heater, and turbine units.
22.5.2 Reclaimed water quality guidelines for boiler

feed water
The level of purity depends on boiler design (pressure, heat transfer rate, etc.) and the amount of feed
water used. The criteria recommended by US EPA (1992) to maintain proper operation of the boiler feed
water are reported in Table 22.9.
Table 22.9 Indicative minimum objectives for industrial boiler-feed water

quality (adapted from US EPA, 1992)
Low pressure Inermediate pressure High pressure
Parameter *
(<11.4 bar) (11.4-49.3 bar) (>49.3 bar)
Silica 30 10 0.7
Aluminium 5 0.1 0.01
Iron 1 0.3 0.05
Manganese 0.3 0.1 0.01
Calcium -♣ 0.4 0.01
Magnesium -♣ 0.25 0.01
Ammonia 0.1 0.1 0.1
Bicarbonate 170 120 48
Dissolved solids 700 500 200
Copper 0.5 0.05 0.05
Zinc ♣ 0.01 0.01 -♣
Hardness 350 1.0 0.07
Alkalinity 350 100 40
pH, Units 7.0-10.0 8.2-10.0 8.2-9.0
Organics ° 1 1 0.5
C tetrachloride extract 1 1 0.5
COD 5 5 1.0
Dissolved oxygen 2.5 0.007 0.0007
Suspended solids 10 5 0.5
° Methylene-blue active substances *Recommended limits in mg/L except for pH (units) ♣ Accepted as received (if meeting
other limiting values); has never been a problem at concentrations encountered.
Table 22.10 reports the recommended water quality by the Association of electrical and steam unit owners
(APAVE), up to pressures of 100 bar for medium steaming rates and for volumes of water in the
chambers sufficient to properly control the blow down rates.
599
Table 22.10 Minimum objectives for industrial boiler-feed water after APAVE
Working Pressure (bar)
Parameter *
0-20.7 20.8-31.0 31.1-41.4 41.5-51.7 51.8-62.1 62.2-68.9 69.0-103.4 103.5-137.9
O2** 0.04 0.04 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
Fe 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
Cu 0.05 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01
CaCO3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 not detectable
Non vol. TOC 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Oily matter 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
pH at 25°C 7.5-10 7.5-10 7.5-10 7.5-10 7.5-10 8.5-9.5 9.0-9.6 9.0-9.6
*Recommended limits in mg/L except for pH (units) ** measured before oxygen scavenger addition (source:
www.lenntech.com)
Higher cost water reclamation through membrane systems (MF/RO) or ion exchangers would be required
for high pressure and super critical boiler applications. But also the use of conventional freshwater
resources such as river water, which is utilised by many plant operators, requires similar water treatment
technologies.
Hence, it is not necessarily a disadvantage to use reclaimed water in terms of the treatment effort. Müller
(2003) describes an application of a combination of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis for boiler feed
water production used in a copper smelter plant utilising surface water from the river Elbe in Germany.
Keil and and Brüggendick (2003) report on the bio-fouling problems with RO membranes used for boiler
feed water production at a refinery in Leuna (Germany), also in this case surface water is used (river
Saale). The fouling problems were mitigated by addition of biostatics and by limitation of nutrients. This
relates well with the case practices on reclaimed water use (BOX 22.2).
BOX 22.2: Some case histories of boiler water makeup from reclaimed water
In Australia, since 1995 recycled water from the Dora Creek sewage treatment works is pumped to the
2,640 MW Eraring Power Station at Lake Macquarie, about 100 km north of Sydney. There it is treated
further by microfiltration and reverse osmosis to produce a water of potable quality which is then treated
in the existing demineralisation plant to produce purified water which is used as boiler feed to provide
steam for the power station turbines (Anderson, 2003). Eraring Power Station was close to the planned
route of the effluent pipeline from the new Dora Creek STP. This provided the opportunity for reducing
potable water use, by substituting effluent for most uses except drinking and showering. The water
reclamation plant costs AUS $ 4 million, and realised savings in the order of AUS $ 1.0 million per year
in purchase of potable water and AUS $ 100,000 per year saving in operating the power station's
demineralised water plant; construction of a planned effluent pipeline could also be deferred for at least
15 years (EIDN, 1996). The production cost of reclaimed water is AUS $ 0.126 per unit and the expected
pay-back period 7-8 years due to a limited availability of wastewater. Payback would have been 3-4 years
if more wastewater was locally available (Layson, 2004).
The West Basin water reclamation plant, in El Segundo, California treats the secondary effluent from
the Los Angeles’ Hyperion wastewater treatment plant to produce four types of drought proof reclaimed
water. One of the streams is ultra-pure reclaimed water produced by a double membrane system
(microfiltration and reverse osmosis) for use as boiler feed water in the petroleum industry (Figure 22.4).
600
A similar reclamation process is used in Honolulu for the refinery and power station, and in Illawara and
Kwinana in Australia (Durham et al., 2001).
For over 30 years three industries in Odessa, Texas were supplied with about 9,500 m³/d of municipal
wastewater effluent for cooling water make-up and boiler feed (WPCF, 1989). Secondary effluent is
treated by lime softening prior to use by the industries. The reclaimed water is used directly for cooling
tower make-up, while for boiler feed it is treated by two-bed demineralization before use.
The Wyodak Power Plant near Gilette, Wyoming, uses up to 1,600 m³ of reclaimed water per day
mainly for boiler make-up and dust suppression. The treatment consists of chlorination, softening,
activated carbon adsorption, pH adjustment, sand filtration, cartridge filtration, reverse osmosis,
dechlorination, recarbonation, and ion exchange demineralisation (Breinstein and Tucker, 1986).
Figure 22.4 Layout of the West Basin water reclamation scheme (adapted from
Lazarova, 2000)
Industrial reuse, 51 %
MF Reverse Osmosis
Boiler water
HYPERION WWTP
secondary effluent Biofor Cl
114 000 m³/d Cooling water
Urban uses, golfs, 11 %

Coalgulation Filtration Disinfection Tertiary nitrification
flocculation (Cl) (Biofor reactors) Title 22 effluent
Lime
clarification
Drinking
35 65 water, %WD
% %
Recarbonatation Filtration Reverse Disinfection
multimedia Osmosis (Cl)
Aquifer recharge, 38 %
MF Barrier effluent
Reverse Osmosis
22.6 PROCESS WATER
The water quality requirements for process water depend on the type of industry, the extent of internal
recycling and the existing water treatment in the industry. In the next section water quality specifications
and real life examples of the application of reclaimed water in water sensitive industries are reported,
namely:
Textile finishing (22.6.1), pulp and paper (22.6.2), metal finishing (22.6.3), food processing (22.6.4),
petrochemical and coal industry (22.6.5), ultra-pure water for the electronic industry 22.6.5) and
chemical and other industries (22.6.5).
601
22.6.1 Textile finishing industry

Manufacturing of textile requires a large amount of process water, the textile finishing industries being the
largest water consumers. Textile finishing involves treating unfinished fabric with chemical baths (fabric
preparation and dyeing) and often requires additional washing, rinsing, and drying steps (finishing) - the
washing and rinsing steps generally requiring 60-90% of the water demand (Groves et al., 1979).
Indicative water demand of the different finishing processes is illustrated in Table 22.11.
Table 22.11 Water use in textile finishing as indicated by US EPA (1996)
WATER USAGE (m³/ton)
FABRIC TYPE MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
1 Wool scouring 4.2 11.7 77.6

2 Wool finishing 110.9 283.6 657.2
3 Low water use processing 0.8 9.2 140.1
4 Woven fabric finishing
a. Simple processing 12.5 78.4 275.2
b. Complex processing 10.8 86.7 276.9
c. Complex processing + desizing 5.0 113.4 507.9
5 Knit fabric finishing
a. Simple processing 8.3 135.9 392.8
b. Complex processing 20.0 83.4 377.8
c. Hoslery processing 5.6 69.2 289.4
6 Carpet finishing 8.3 46.7 162.6
7 Stock and yam finishing 3.3 100.1 557.1
8 Non-woven finishing 2.5 40.0 82.6
9 Felted fabric finishing 33.4 212.7 930.7
Source: Mattioli et al. (2002)
Because of the different requirements for each fibre, process and final product quality, water quality
requirements are hard to define. Key water quality concerns for this industry are the presence of colour
and of suspended solids. These and other typical water quality concerns are summarised in Table 22.12.
Table 22.12 Water quality concerns in the textile finishing industry
PARAMETER CONCERN
turbidity, colour, iron, manganese, nitrates and

Staining, interference with the dyeing process, especially for light colours
nitrites, alkalinity and pH
salts concentrations (mainly Cl & SO4) interference with the dyeing process
metals content (mainly Fe & Cu) Staining
Hardness scouring, dyeing and for preparing printing pastes
Textile companies often operate on a very small financial margin, with the industrial water tariffs having a
small impact on the profits and costs. Therefore, they cannot afford the loss of a batch of fabric damaged
or destroyed due to the use of undesirable water quality. To prevent this, finishing processes are often
602
already equipped with water softening devices or alternatively, several chemicals are being added
depending on the types of finishing process employed.
Indicative minimum water quality objectives recommended by the US Water Pollution Control Federation
(WPCF), US EPA and Rozzi et al. (1999) are reported in Table 22.13. On top of these guidelines, Valeri
(2004) indicates that tolerable values for chlorides, conductivity and hardness are in the range up to 300-
400 mg/L, 2,000 μS/cm and 10°F, respectively. The REDOX potential can be up to 150 mV (Valeri,
2004).
Table 22.13 Indicative minimum objectives for different types of fabric

WPCF (1989) & US EPA (2004) ROZZI ET AL. (1999)
PARAMETER* HIGH-QUALITY TEXTILE
SIZING SUSPENSION SOURCING, BLEACH & DYE
PRODUCTION
Conductivity - - 1,800
Cu 0.01 - -
Fe 0.3 0.1 -
Mn 0.05 0.01 -
Hardness 25 25 270
TDS 100 100 -
TSS 5 5 10
Colour 5 5 0,01**
pH - - 7-8
COD - - 30
Anionic surfactants - - 0.025
Non-ionic surfactants - - 0.5
* AII values in mg/L: except colour, pH and conductivity (μS/cm); "-": no information is provided; ** 426 nm absorption
There are several success stories concerning the use of reclaimed water in the textile finishing industries
(see also BOX 22.3). Hendrickx (1995) noticed that while slight differences may have been noticeable
between the use of conventional water supplies and reclaimed water, none were so significant as to be
unacceptable to the processing facility staff.
BOX 22.3: Some case histories of using reclaimed water as process water in the
textile finishing industry
1. Water reuse for the textile industries in the Prato textile district, Italy (IDRA, 2004)
This case study illustrates that ozonation may be a suitable tertiary water reclamation process for the
textile industry in that it can provide simultaneous disinfection and colour removal.
The Baciacavallo water reclamation facility distributes 5 million m³ of reclaimed water per year through a
distribution system of 65 km serving the textile district of Prato (about 70 manufacturers). The key driver
for the project was the necessity to counteract the overexploitation of the aquifer while continuing the
supply of a reliable water source to water sensitive industrial activities. The water reclamation scheme has
been operational since 1990 and was expanded in 1998, 2003 and 2004.
The secondary effluent is reclaimed by flocculation, ozonation, coagulation, sand filtration and biological
activated carbon. Numerous parameters are followed for the day-to-day operation. Parameters that are
considered indicative of the good operation of the scheme are a pressure in the distribution network > 4
603
bars, a COD content < 50 mg/L, colour < 0.015 abs/cm, turbidity < 1 FTU and total coli < 10 cfu/100 mL.
The system has reliably supplied the textile district for 14 years with no complaints from the 70 end users.
The capital investment of the water reclamation facility and the distribution network was mainly provided
by the industrial users (80% of the total investment). The average cost of production and distribution is
0.126 €/m³, with the Italian government providing an economic incentive - on average - of 0.075 €/m³
(Dettori, 2005). The energy consumption of the water reclamation and distribution steps is respectively
0.47 and 0.44 kWh/m³. The water purveyor IDRA is intending to expand the scheme to reach an end
capacity of 8 to 10 million m³ of reclaimed water per year. Additional information on this case study can
be found in Nurizzo et al. (1998).
2. Feasibility of advanced water reclamation technology for the textile finishing

industries in the Como textile district, Italy (Mattioli et al., 2002)
In the framework of the EU funded project Integrated water recycling and emission abatement in the
textile industry (Final Report EC contract ENV4-CT95-0064, 1999), demonstration pilot plants were
installed at the Bulgagrosso WWTP –tertiary treatment consisting of sand filtration followed by
ozonation– and at the Fino Mornasco WWTP –where the coagulation flocculation and lamella settling
replaced sand filtration as ozonation pre-treatment. The WWTPs receive a mixture of municipal and
industrial load. Table 22.14 reports some reclaimed water quality characteristics of the two schemes.
Table 22.14 Water quality characteristics at Bulgarogasso and Fino Mornasco

reclamation schemes, Italy (adapted from Mattioli et al., 2002)
Parameter units Bulgarogasso Fino Mornasco
Hardness ppm CaCO3 196 (effl)/3.6 (softened) 90 (effl)/0 (softened)
Chloride ppm Cl- 575 325
Conductivity μS/cm 2,400 1,200
Ammonia ppm NH4+-N 0 17.3
COD ppm 76 58
Colour Abs 426 nm 0.027 0.008
The main conclusions were that the reclaimed water was as good as the freshwater normally used by the
factories (which included the production of linen, polyester-acrylic fibres, polyester-cotton fibres, silk and
acetate-silk) and the reliability of the system was high. Also, the use of activated carbon was tested on
pilot scale to reduce COD and colour variations. The dampening effects were good, but effective and
frequent backwashing of the filters and automatic control of the clariflocculation and ozonation section
are required in the full scale to ensure the consistency and reliability of the operation.
3. Water reuse for textile dyeing operations in the USA (Water 3 Eng, 2005)
Fruit of the Loom operated a large bleach-and-dye facility in Southern Texas. The company built their
facility in this water-scarce area in 1988 in part because of a promise of a dependable supply of high
quality reclaimed water. The Harlingen Water Works System supplied the plant with 15,000 m³/d of
wastewater treated with reverse osmosis. Though the plant has been operating very successfully for 15
years on the recycled water provided, the company closed December 31, 2003 and relocated overseas in
order to cut costs (Brezosky, 2003).
604
Table 22.14a Comparison of Water Quality Values for Constituents of

Concern for Dye Processes (Water 3 Eng, 2005)
Potable Water State Project Colorado River Ground Reclaimed
PARAMETER*
Standard Water1 Water Blend2 Water3 Water4
CaCO3 -- 97 112 181 198
Aluminium5 0.2 0 0.14 <0.05 NA
Chloride6 250 64 76 45 116
Chlorine -- 2 2 NA 3.7
Colour6 15 2 1.2 4.8 NA
Copper6 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.03
Heavy Metals5 0.06 0 0.002 NA NA
Iron6 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.36 0.08
Manganese6 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 0.09 0.02
pH -- 8 8.1 7.7 7.0
Sulphate6 250 68 174 110 101
TSS -- NA NA NA 1.7
TDS6, 7 500 – 1,000 305 487 419 569
Total Hardness -- 147 241 227 217
* AII values in mg/L, except pH; NA Not available
1
Average reported values in Water Quality Reports for Metropolitan Water District Jensen plant (100% State Project Water)
2
from 1999 to 2002. Average reported values in Water Quality Reports for Metropolitan Water District Weymouth and Diemer
3
plants (61 to 82 percent Colorado River Water blended with SWP water) from 1999 to 2002. Average groundwater quality
4
values as reported by CBMWD from 1998 to 2000. Average reported values for the San Jose WRP from 1998 to 2000 .
5 6
State of California DHS Primary Drinking Water Standard . State of California DHS Secondary Drinking Water Standard .
7
500 mg/L is recommended TDS level for drinking water, 1,000 mg/L is upper limit
22.6.2 Pulp & Paper

The Pulp and Paper industry is an industry with a large variety of raw materials and products. Water is
one of the major makeup materials in all production processes, at first instance in the form of steam, but
also for the making of all pulp and paper products.
A detailed global view of the water circuit arrangement in paper mills is provided in the BREF on pulp
and paper industry (2000). Several types of processing can be distinguished, the BREF classifying them
according to the:
• chemical pulp manufacturing process (kraft and sulphite processes),
• mechanical pulp manufacturing process (refiner groundwood pulp) and
• re-pulping of recovered wastepaper (with and without de-inking)
• non-integrated paper processes (uncoated and coated fine paper, tissue and special paper
production)
Indicative water use for individual processes and sub-processes is provided by the US National Council of
the Paper Industry (NCPI) and illustrated in Table 22.15.
605
Table 22.15 Water use in pulp and paper wet processes according to the
standards NCPI (Degremont, 1991)
Minimum Maximum
Fabric Type
(m³/ton) (m³/ton)
Pulp production:
Unbleached kraft 25 60
bleached kraft 40 80
bleached sulphite 80 150
semi-chemical 12 20
CTMP 12 25
Dinking 50 80
Paper production:
kraft paper 20 40
newspaper 40 60
Fine paper 40 100
paperboard/wrap 3 40
Small paper mills manufacturing e.g. 10,000 tons per year consume about 0.2-1.0 million m³ of process
water for the paper production alone, the pulp production generally requires higher volumes.
According to the PAPERBREF project, a reduction of about 40% in the water used by paper mills can
reasonably be achieved by the installation of equipment that uses water more efficiently and by closing up
the water circuits (PAPERBREF, 2001). There are good examples of zero liquid discharge papermills that
reuse all their wastewater and large mills such as the Mondi Mill in Durban that use reclaimed water. In
most cases the cooling water demand is lower than the process water demand and cooling water is often
recycled (PAPERBREF, 2001).
Water treatment technologies which may be available at the mill are (PAPERBREF, 2001):
• ҏwater clarification (sedimentation, flotation, filtration) and recycling process water,
• ҏinternal treatment (biological treatment) and recycling treated process water,
• ҏbiological effluent treatment with anaerobic treatment as the first stage.
Water quality concerns for the pulp and paper industry are in many aspects similar to those of the textile
finishing industry, with colour and suspended solids being also the major concerns. The grade of paper is
a decisive factor for water quality - and thus the reclaimed water cost -, with increasing brightness
requiring increasingly better water quality.
Nevertheless, there is no classification which completely covers all cases. Table 22.16 and 22.17 report
the water quality recommendations for different classes of products, given by respectively the NCPI and
TAPPI, and California Office for Water Recycling (1982).
606
Table 22.16 Specifications of process water quality for manufacture of various

papers NCPI (1) and TAPPI (2)
BASE QUALITY PAPER MECHANICAL PULP

FINE QUALITY PAPER
PARAMETER* (1) PAPER
(1) (2)
Bleached Unbleached (1) (2)
pH - 6-10 - 6-10
Turbidity (SiO2) 10 10 40 100 50 50
Colour (Pt /Co) 5 5 25 100 30 30
Total Hardness
10 10 10 20 20 20
(°Fr)
Ca H (°Fr) 5 - - - -
Ca - 10 - - - 20
Alkalinity (°Fr) 7,5 7,5 7,5 15 15 15
Fe 0,1 0,1 0,2 1,0 0,3 0.3
Cr - 75 - - - 75
Mn 0,05 0,05 0,1 0,5 0.1 0.1
Mg - 10 - - - 12
Chlorine residual 2,0 - - - -
Soluble Si02 20 - 50 100 50
TDS 200 200 300 500 500 500
TSS - 5 - - - 25
Free CO2 10 - 10 10 10 -
Cl - - - - 75 -
* AII values in mg/L if not mentioned otherwise **maximum concentrations
Table 22.17 Specifications of process water quality for manufacture of various

papers, McKee & Wolf (OWR, 1982)
PARAMETER BROWN GRADES WHITE GRADES
Ground wood Soda and SO4 Kraft paper
Unbleached Fine paper
(tar) paper pulps bleached
Turbidity in NTU 70* 35 (1) 56 140 14
Colour (Pt) 30 5 25 100 5
Total hardness (2) 200 100 100 200 100
Mg hardness (2) - 50 - - 50
Alkalinity (2) 150 75 75 150 75
Fe 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1
Mn 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.5 0.05
SiO2 50 20 50 100 20
TDS 500 250 300 500 200
CO2 10 10 10 10 10
Chlorides 75 75 200 200 -
Residual chlorine - - - - 2.0
* AII values in mg/L if not mentioned otherwise; (1) Materials causing turbidity must not be gritty. (2) as CaCO3
607
BOX 22.5: Experience with water reclamation in the pulp & paper industry
For about 30 years six pulp and paper mills have used reclaimed water in their process operation one of
which is the Pomona reclamation scheme, California for about 30 years (Harrington et al., 1992). The
Pomona reclamation plant was upgraded in 1977 to reclaim 3,800 m³/d for a paper mill (Camp Dresser
and McKee, 1982). The treatment includes biological oxidation, alum coagulation, filtration, and
disinfection (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1993). To accommodate the paper mill’s needs,
activated carbon filters were installed as an alternative to media filters conventionally used.
In 1993, two paper mills in the Pomona area used 13,000 m³/d of reclaimed water. The water quality
requirements adopted per type of pulp and paper products and the plant records of 1979 are reported in
Table 22.18.
Table 22.18 Process water requirements for paper production and WWTP
effluent quality (Office of Water Recycling, 1982)
San Pomona
Container Kimberley-
Parameter Celotex, L.A. Jose/Santa Simpson Water
Corp. Santa Clark
(mg/l) (1) Clara Ponoma (4) Reclamation
Clara (2) Fullerton (3)
WWTP* plant♣
Total solids 1,000 - - 700 - -
- Volatile S - - - 10 - -
- Fixed S 30 - - 10 - -
- Susp. S 40 - - 30 - <65
- Dissolved S 1,000 1,000 1,011 650 <500 555
pH 6-8 7 7.5 8-10 7.0-7.5 7.1
Hardness 14 grains 100 ppm 302 300 <250 -
Manganese Tr 0.5 - 30 - -
Chloride Tr 260 3.70 90 <100 -
Silica Tr - 26.5 9 - -
Alkalinity (see pH) - 251 125 - -
Aluminium Tr 10 - .05 - -
Sulphate Tr - 173 300 <100 -
Turbidity♠ Light JTU <10 - 1.3 mg/l - 1.3 NTU
Conductivity - - - 1,100 <800 -
Colour immaterial - 1.9 - <10§ <10**
Iron Tr 5.0 - 0.2 <1.0 -
Temp 130 °F mat. 27°C - 15°C <27°C 22°C
(Requirements from responses to CDMlOWR survey, Winter 1980) * Effluent quality from Plant records. ♣ Plant records,
December 1979.♠ NTU = Nephalometric turbidity unit; JTU = Jackson turbidity unit, other values as noted. § As received (not
filtered). ** Filtrate from 0.45 μm filter. (1) asphalt roofing felt (brown); (2) clay coated box board (brown); (3) tissue (white);
(4) fine paper;
22.6.3 Metal finishing

The water use in the steel industry is reported in Johnson (2003). The water use intensity of the steel
industry is decreasing, mainly because water is being recycled in the production facilities (AISI, 2001).
608
From the limited literature that is available, the supply of reclaimed water does not seem to pose particular
problems. Three case histories are reported below.
1. Britannia Zinc ltd in Bristol, UK (Threlfall et al., 2003)

From its Avonmouth works near Bristol, Britannia Zinc ltd produces zinc, lead, cadmium, silver and
sulphuric acid. The operation of blast furnace and associated equipment needs thousands of m³ of soft
water per day.
Historically, the industry used softened potable water for process supply. However, the existing ion
exchange softening plant was near to retirement when a feasibility study considered the use of reclaimed
water which was retained. A reverse osmosis system fed with reclaimed water could produce the quality
of softened water required for process use. To protect the RO membranes, the secondary treated municipal
wastewater was first polished through Multi Media filtration (coagulation-flocculation filtration). A
combination of chlorine dioxide and aluminium sulphate showed positive results for the coagulant and
biocide combinations.
The RO system was designed at a flux of 20 L/(m²*h) and 70% target recovery for flows up to
2,520 m³/d. Potable water can be used as an emergency water makeup alternative to maintain production
and flow to the industry in case of operational problems with the water reclamation.
Table 22.19 Selected feed water parameters and projected RO performance at

Brittannia Zinc ltd, Bristol (Threlfall et al., 2003)
Parameter units Feedwater [min-max] RO permeate [min-max]
Hardness ppm CaCO3 396-430 0-<15
Alkalinity ppm CaCO3 310-325 0-<10
Chlorides ppm Cl- 93-580 30-136
Sulphates ppm SO4-- 170-300 8-10
Silica ppm Si- 7-15 2.5-5
TDS Ppm 1075-1500 82-271
Turbidity NTU 3.5-<40 -
pH - 5-8 6-8
Colour °Hazen <60-<100 -
The plant suffered from wide variation in the feed water supply, however the permeate water quality was
maintained. The particular problems for the sites were potential RO membrane fouling by bacteria or
organic materials. Metal scale or oxide deposits can be removed using acidic cleaning solutions, while
organic and bacteria foulants are removed using alkaline cleaners.
2. BHPS steelworks in Wollongong, New South Wales
Since 2005 the BHPS steelworks in Port Kembala, New South Wales, have use reclaimed water from the
municipal WWTP of Wollongong. The secondary treated effluent from the municipal wastewater
treatment plant is reclaimed through filtration; continuous microfiltration and reverse osmosis (Aquarec,
2004).
609
3. International Steel Group’s Sparrow Plant in Baltimore, Maryland (WPCF, 1983)
The International Steel Group’s (former Bethlehem Steel Corporation) Sparrow Plant in Baltimore
County, Maryland, is the largest industrial reuse application in the U.S., using approximately 405,000 m³
of reclaimed water per day for cooling and steel production (Crook, 1996). Because of the once-through
nature of cooling, secondary effluent from Baltimore’s Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant has been
successfully used with chlorination being the only additional treatment provided at the plant (WPCF,
1983). Other uses of reclaimed water at the plant include roll cooling, de-scaling, sluicing, gas scrubbing,
pickle liquor diluting, slab and coil cooling, and indirect cooling in heat exchangers (Crook, 1996). Crook
(1996) mentioned that the process water receives additional treatment prior to reuse, but no information
was found on the water reclamation technology in use.
22.6.4 Food processing

Any water reuse programme instituted by a food processing plant must first and foremost adequately
consider food safety and food quality requirements.
The minimum water requirements in the European Union are described in the EU Directive 98/83/EC
concerning water quality for human consumption purposes. This Directive leaves open the possibility for
water production through recycling. Parameters that need to be monitored are numerous including Al and
Fe (only necessary if used as coagulants), Ammonium, Colour, Conductivity, Clostridium perfringens,
Escherichia Coli, pH and Odour, Coli, Turbidity. Several Member State legislations, however, explicitly
prohibit the use of reclaimed water in food processing. An example is the Italian DM 185/2003.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations allow water reuse in certain areas
provided the reuse water meets specific water quality criteria (USDA, 1999). Any water reuse programme
must ensure that the finished food product is not adulterated with pathogens or other contaminants. Water
reuse programs must also ensure that no objectionable taste, colour or texture condition is imparted to the
finished food product.
Reuse of reclaimed water in food processing will therefore require the same process technologies and
techniques than those adopted for potable reuse. Case examples of potable reuse are reported in Chapter
12. The treatment process control system is the key element for a successful and reliable water reuse
programme. The reuse programme needs to be integrated in the plant’s Hazard Assessment and Critical
Control Point (HACCP) programme. Case descriptions of the application of HACCP in water reuse
schemes are discussed in Chapter 19. Reuse water collection, storage and distribution systems should be
clearly marked for easy recognition (cfr. Chapter 17 and Chapter 21).
22.6.5 Chemical and other industries

Water quality requirements in chemical industries vary widely depending on the product manufactured. In
general, desired water qualities include neutral pH, moderately soft, low turbidity, low suspended solids,
and low silica; dissolved solids and chloride content are not critical (WPCF, 1989).
Table 22.20 shows the requisites for some additional industrial processes (WPCF, 1989; USEPA, 2004)
610
Table 22.20 Process water quality requirements (WPCF, 1989& USEPA, 2004)
FIRE- PETROCHEM. SEMI

PARAMETER* TANNERIES
EXTINGUISHING & COAL CONDUCTORS
Cu - 0.05 0.05 <0.001
Fe 0.1 1.0 1.0 -
Mn 0.1 - - -
Ca 68 75 75 -
Mg 19 30 30 -
Cl 500 300 300 <2
HCO3 128 - - -
NO3 100 - - -
SO4 100 - - -
SiO2 50 - - <0.005
Hardness 250 350 350 -
Alkalinity 125 - - -
TDS 1,000 1,000 1,000 -
TSS 5 10 la -
Colour 20 - - -
pH 6.2-8.3 6-9 6-9 -
* AII values in mg/L: except colour and pH; "-": no information is provided in the reference
Tanneries offer limited potential for the reuse of treated municipal wastewater, having high quality
requirements and low water use. One case practice existed at Villefranque, France, but the scheme was
abandoned. Water reclamation technology was composed of membrane bioreactors.
Use of reclaimed wastewater for fire protection purposes is commonly and safely used in several
countries including Florida, Italy (cfr. Chapter 20 for the case study of Saint-Cristophe, Aosta) and Spain
but has encounter resistance from some operators for fear of causing health problems even though the
quality of reclaimed water can be less of a health risk than surface water. Fire-fighter Unions in
Queensland have rejected the use of recycled water to fight-fires (Johnstone, 2005). Some Sydney
suburbs, such as Newington and Rouse Hill, use dual reticulation systems but campaigns by the NSW
fire-fighters union have ensured that potable water is used for fighting fires (Johnstone, 2005).
Petrochemical and coal industry – in a refinery that adopts excellent water conservation measures,
process water accounts for only 6% of the overall water supply, with boiler feed water and cooling tower
makeup water accounting for respectively 23% and 63% of the water supply (McIntyre, 1999).
Petrochemical plants commonly use reclaimed water to reduce their operating costs and secure continuous
production in water stressed regions as reclaimed water is generally drought proof and higher quality /
lower cost water to treat than many surface waters. In temperate climates reclaimed water also reduces
costs as it is always warm. Therefore the drive to use reclaimed water only for processing reasons is
limited. An example of the use of reclaimed water in oil refineries is provided by Hopkins and Barr
(2002): at Luggage Point, Queensland about 10,000 m³/d are reused for various purposes. The secondary
treated sewage receives advanced tertiary treatment – microfiltration, reverse osmosis, chlorination and
dechlorination – to meet very strict specifications (conductivity: 60-120 μS/cm, pH: 6.5-7.2, turbidity
<0.8 NTC, and free Chlorine 0.3-0.5 mg/L along with various other trace elements specifications).
611
Semiconductors - Process water for the electronic industry (integrated circuits and sensitive surfaces)
must be of a very high quality (Tables 22.20 and 22.21). Semiconductor water manufacturing requires the
highest quality of ultra-pure water and this is being produces today from municipal wastewater that has
undergone reverse osmosis/ion exchange and ultraviolet treatment prior to the ultrapure treatment process.
An example is the NEWater water reuse scheme, which is described in Chapter 12.
Table 22.21 Specifications of the process water for the electronic industry
(integrated circuits and sensitive surfaces) (Lens et al., 2002)
Level of Procedure 1 Level of Procedure 2 Level of Procedure 3
Resistivity > 18 MΩcm at 25°C
pH 6.5 to 7.5
Temperature 20°C ± 1°C
Evaporation residue (mg/L) 1 0.5 0.25
Si (mg/L) 0.02 0.02 0.01
Na (mg/L) 0.01 0.01 0.005
Metallic and metalloidal
0.05 0.05 0.01
impurities, each imp.ty (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L) 1 0.25 0.05
Class 0
membrane - -
Particulate (NAS 1638)
contamination Optical 10,000 per L 1,000 per L 100 per L
counter dia. ≥ 0,5 μm dia. ≥ 0,5 μm dia. ≥ 0,5 μm
Microorganisms 37°C/24 h 40 10 1
(cfu/100 mL)
22°C/72 h 300 30 3
General advantages of using reclaimed water in industry are well recognized and this practice is
implemented where deemed legally and economically feasible. The advantages include:
• Reclaimed water is generally drought-proof and has more stable quality regarding dissolved salts,
turbidity, nature of suspended solids and temperature than surface water. It can save the industry
the cost of production shut down due to loss of water (drought, cancelled abstraction licence or
problems with steam production)
• RO treated reclaimed water at less than 50 mg/l saves the industry the cost of potable water, the
cost of treatment (man power, chemical regenerants, regeneration water and effluent volume and
treatment costs) and increases the reliability of polishing ion exchange plants by reducing their
workload and regeneration frequency.
• Reclaimed water used to substitute potable water for non potable application increases the
availability of potable water to the local community, it reduces the demand on depleted
groundwater and can help reduce the outflow to bathing beaches and long sea outfalls there by
reducing investment and supporting the local economy.
612
• Reclaimed water for industry is attracting grants, tax incentives and other financial incentives as
well as helping to achieve government water reuse targets.
The appropriate water quality varies from industry to industry. While the pharmaceutical sector and
electronic industry need ultrapure water, once-trough industrial cooling water systems can accept
(disinfected) secondary effluent. Minimum water quality requirements of the most common industrial
applications can be summarised by a water-quality pyramid where the water quality gradually increases
when climbing up the pyramid:
Electronic industry
Pharmaceutical sector
Chemical, Food
processing
textile or paper mills
Tanneries, fire-extinguishing water,

petroleum and coal products
Washing, transport water
Within each of the above-mentioned categories, there exists a large heterogeneity of water quantity and
quality requirements. The desirable water quality is site-specific, with most industries wanting reclaimed
water quality to be equivalent to or higher than the water supply they are accustomed to. Therefore,
legislation tends to be oriented towards occupational and customer safety and the associations
representing commercial or industrial entities provide the user with their own water quality guidelines.
Industry is rightly focused on the appropriate quality for each application such as cooling or boiler feed
water. The source of the water is a secondary issue as long as it is the most attractive option from an
economic, environmental and social point of view. Regulations and guidelines are not uniform, neither for
classes of use nor for indicators of concern and absolute limits.
Consistent water quality can reduce the need for continuous inspection, analysis and adjustments and it
plays a very significant role in the success of the application of water reclamation and reuse in industry.
Most of the reclaimed water supplied is intended for “low water-quality” applications (e.g. industrial
cooling or industrial washing waters). Nevertheless, examples of higher quality applications are also
widely available, especially for those industries using large volumes of water like the textile finishing,
power and petrochemical, the pulp and paper industries.
Because of the site specificity and the variety of water treatment techniques that are applied by the
industry, the success of the project depends largely on tailored (and well proven) solutions.
613
22.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams A.P., Garbett M., Raes H.B. and B.G. Lewis (1978) Bacterial aerosols produced from cooling towers. J. WPCF 50 (10):
2362-2369.
Adams A.P., Garbett M., Raes H.B. and B.G. Lewis (1978) Bacterial aerosols produced from a cooling tower using wastewater
effluent as make-up water. J. WPCF 52 (3): 498-501.
AISI (2001) Steel Industry Technology Road Map. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
Anderson J. (2003) The environmental benefits of water recycling and reuse. Water Supply 3 (4): 1-10.
Asano T. and C. Visvanathan (2001) Industries and Water Recycling and Reuse. Proc. Business and Industry – a Driving or
Braking Force on the Road Towards Water Security? Founders Seminar Stockholm, Sweden; August 15, 2001.
AwwaRF (2003) Industrial water quality requirements for reclaimed water. ISBN 1 84339 8869.
BACWA Water Recycling Committee (2005) DRAFT Water Recycling Section of the WW/WR Chapter of the San Francisco
Bay Area IRWMP, File Number 10, 385. Available from:
Bertini A. (2005) Municipal wastewater reuse for cooling water make-up: background study. Università degli Studi di Firenze,
Italy; Tesi di laurea.
Bixio D., A. Bertini, C. Thoeye and C. Lubello (in writing) Status and trends in the use of reclaimed water for cooling water
make-up.
Breinstein L. and R.C. Tucker (1986) Water reuse and recycle in the U.S. Steam Electric Generating Industry – An assessment of
current practice and potential for future applications. U.S. Geological Survey.
Bryant P., Malcolm E.W. and C.P. Woitkovich (1996) Pulp and Paper Mill Water Use in North America. In: TAPPI International
Environmental Conference.
Cowan J.C. and D.J. Weintritt (1976) Water-formed scale deposits. Gulf publ. Co.; Houston, Texas, USA.
Crook J. (1996) Experience with water reuse in the U.S. Proc. AWWA/WEF Reclaimed water conference; Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, USA; 10 April 1996.
Degremont (1991) Water Treatment Handbook, 6th edition, Vol. 1.
Durham B., Bourbigout M.M. AN T. Pankratz (2001) Membranes as pre-treatment to desalination in wastewater reuse: operating
experience in the municipal and industrial sectors. Desalination 138: 83-90.
EIDN (1996) Proposal Toowoomba water reuse project. Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/20/19979.htm
EU (1991) Council Directive concerning urban wastewater treatment. 91/271/EC of May 21, 1991, OJ L135/40 of May 30, 1991.
EU (1996) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official
Journal L 257, 10/10/1996: 26-40.
EU (1998) Council Directive concerning Water Quality for Human Consumption Purposes - EU Directive 98/83/EC
EU (2000) Council Directive concerning a Framework for Water Governance – EU Directive 2000/60/EC
EU (2001) BREF Document: IPPC Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry.
EU (2001) BREF Document: IPPC Reference Document on Best Available Techniques to Industrial Cooling Systems.
614
Gardner T., Atzei M., McGahan E., Vieritz A. and K. Casey (1996) MELDI – a computer model to help resolve environmental
conflict in intensive rural areas. In Symp revolving Environmental Conflict, institute of engineers Australia, Brisbane.
Groves G.R., Buckley C.A. and R.H. Turnbull (1979) Closed loop recycle systems for textile effluent. J. Wat. Pollution Control
Fed. March 1979: 499-517.
Harrington B., Tantolo L., Henry C., Merry K. and J. Ongerth (1992) Feasibility of municipal wastewater reuse at a bleached
kraft mill. Proc. WEF conf. on urban and agricultural water reuse, Orlando, Florida; 28 June – 1 July, 1992: 433-449.
Hopkins L. and K. Barr (2002) Operating a water reclamation plant to convert sewage effluent to high quality water for industrial
reuse. In 3rd IWA World Water Conference; Melbourne, Australia; 7-12 April 2002.
http://www.ana.gov.br/Destaque/d179-docs/PublicacoesEspecificas/Metalurgia/Steel_water_use.pdf
http://www.nasites.com/cmprojects/Projects/1140/docs/10,385_Water_Recycling_IRWMP_12-1-05.pdf.
IDRA Facility (Prato, Italy) Questionnaire on Water Reuse Management Practices. Aquarec Deliverable D10 Review Report
Water reuse scheme Management Practices.
Johnson R. (2003) Water Use in Industries of the Future: Steel Industry. Available from:
Johnstone C. (2005) Recycled water use rejected by union. In The Courier Mail. National News 23 May 2005. Accessed through
the net at http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/
Keen S.J. and P.R. Puckorius (1987) Municipal wastewater reuse for cooling: implications and proper treatment. Proc. AWWA
Water Reuse symposium IV, 2-7 August 1987: 985-997.
Keil U. and H. Brüggendick (2003) BiosS-Treat-Process as a Preceding Stage of membrane Process for Surface Water
Purification. 9. aachen membrane colloquium. Proceedings, ISBN 3-86130-185-7
Lazarova V. (2000) Recycled water: technical-economic challenges for its integration as a sustainable alternative resource.
Lens P., Hulshoff Pol L., Wilderer P. and T. Asano, eds. (2002) Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry – Analysis,
technologies and implementation. ISBN: 1 84339 005 1. 677 pp.
Lepri, Masi F., Lubello C. Verlicchi P, Valeri R., Ciatti L., Dettori P. and L. Masotti (1998). Water reuse in Prato (Italy). Proc.
IAWQ Conference Advanced Wastewater Treatment Recycling and Reuse. Fiera Milano, September 1998.
Levine A.D. and T. Asano (2002) Water reclamation, recycling and reuse in industry. In: Water Recycling and Resource
Recovery in Industry – Analysis, technologies and implementation. Lens et al. (eds.) IWA Publishing: 29-50.
Marcucci M. and L. Tognotti (2002) Reuse of wastewater for industrial needs: the Pontedera case. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 34: 249-259.
Mattioli D., Malpei F., Bortone G. And A. Rozzi (2002) Water minimisation and reuse in the textile industry. In: Water
Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry – Analysis, technologies and implementation. Lens et al. (Eds); IWA Publishing,
London, UK: 545-581. ISBN: 1 84339 005 1.
McCoy W.F. (2005) Preventing Legionellosis. ISBN: 1843390949.
McIntyre J.P. (unknown) Industrial water reuse and wastewater minimization.
Miner R. and J. Unwin (1991) Progress in Reducing Water Use and Wastewater Loads in the U.S. Paper Industry. TAPPI Journal
74 (8): 127-131.
Müller J. (2003) Direkte Flusswasseraufbereitung mit Ultrafiltration. 5. Aachener Tagung Siedlunsgwasserwwirtschaft und
Verfahrenstechnik. Proceedings, ISBN 3-921955-28-9.
NAS (1972) Water Quality Criteria, A Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria. National Academy of Science,
National Academy of Engineering, Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
NEWater Facility, Singapore (2004) Questionnaire on Water Reuse Management Practices. Aquarec Deliverable D10 Review
Report Water reuse scheme Management Practices.
615
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (1998) Manual for Commercial, Industrial and
Institutional Facilities. North Carolina, USA.
Nurizzo C., Masotti L., Dettori P. and L. Ciatti (1998) Industrial water reuse: the case of the Prato reclamation plant. In: Proc.
Technical workshop Reclaimed water management; Palamós, Spain; June 1998: 133-146.
Office of Water Recycling OWR (1982) Water Recycling in the Pulp and Paper Industry in California.
Paperbref (2001) Deliverable D 16: technical guidelines (water management concept) for paper makers in European regions with
difficult boundary conditions on how to operated mills with minimum water use.
Po M., Kaercher J.D. and B.E. Nancarrow (2003) Literature review of factors influencing public perception of water reuse.
CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 54/03, December 2003.
Puckorius P.R. and R.T. Hess (1991) Wastewater reuse for industrial cooling water systems. Industrial Water Treatment 23 (5):
43-48.
Radcliffe J.C. (2004) Water recycling in Australia. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering; Parkville,
Victoria. ISNB 1875618 80 5.
Rodrigo D., Blair T. and B. Thomas (1996) Integrated water planning and reliability analysis: a case study of the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California. In: Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources; JAI Press; Greenwich,
Connecticut: 49-73.
Rozzi A., Malpei F., Bonomo L. And R. Bianchi (1999) Textile wastewater reuse in Northern Italy (Como). Wat. Sci. Tech. 39
(5): 121-128.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (1993) Water Use. Annual Status Report on Reclaimed Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, Whittier, California. In: Crook, ed. (1996).
Schaefer K., Tate D., Renzetti S. and C. Madramootoo (2003) Manufacturing and thermal energy demands. In: Threats to Water
Availability in Canada: 41-48.
Sloan D.W. and L.R. Barkman (1998) Long-term partnership for industrial reuse of municipal wastewater: 197-205.
Thoeye C., Wintgens T., Van Houtte E., Bixio D., De Gueldre G. and B. Van De Steene (in publication) Wastewater Reclamation
and Reuse in Flanders, Belgium. In: Wastewater management in regions under water scarcity. Salgot et al. (eds); Springler.
Threlfall D., Sperring S. and G. Amos (unknown) Municipal effluent recycling for industrial users: a case study in the United
Kingdom.
US Department of Agriculture USDA (1999) Regulations allowing reuse of water, ice and solutions. Federal Register -Volume
64, No. 202, Wednesday October 20, 1999 - Part 416 – Sanitation @ 416.2 (g).
US EPA (1992) Water reuse guidelines. EPA/625/R-92/004; Washington, D.C., USA.
US EPA (1996) Manual Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry. EPA/625/R-96/004;
Washington, D.C.
US EPA (2004) Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA 625/R-04/108; Washington, D.C.
Valeri R. (2004) Industria tessile e irrigazione di piante ornamentali - Sentimenti degli utenti e guida rapida per l’uso. In Proc.
26th Giornata di Studio di Ingegneria Sanitaria-Ambientale. Verona, Italy; 16 April 2004 (in Italian).
Water 3 Engineering (2005) Final analysis of the potential benefits of recycled water use in dye houses. State of California, Dept
of Water Resources, Office of Water Use Efficiency.
WPCF (1989) Water reuse manual of practice- 2nd edition.
616
AQUARAEC - EVK1–CT-2002–00130 Water Reuse System Management Manual
23 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
23.1 INTRODUCTION
Groundwater recharge is playing an increasing role in indirect water reuse, and this role is expected to
grow as research continues to give increased certainty on the processes and rates of attenuation of
contaminants, notably pathogens and some trace organics, within the subsurface (Dillon, 2005).
Groundwater recharge is not in itself an end use of reclaimed water but can form a valuable part of the
treatment train that leads to high valued uses and larger volumes of productive reuse of reclaimed water.
Such uses may include creation of irrigation supplies, indirect potable reuse, and environmental functions
such as protection against saline intrusion and land subsidence or support of groundwater dependent
ecosystems (Pyne, 1995; USEPA, 2004). Historically, in some jurisdictions where groundwater resources
management has focused only on protecting drinking water supplies, existing regulations and guidelines
on recharge enhancement have not kept up with the newly emerging scientific knowledge on sustainable
subsurface treatment processes (Toze et al., 2001; Dillon, 2002; Dillon and Toze, 2005).
Concurrently, there has been a recent rapid evolution in the frameworks being adopted for managing
water quality. Holistic risk-based approaches, where the focus of control extends upstream within water
systems and catchments, and deal holistically with pollution prevention and water treatment, take into
account multiple barriers to avert potential problems (WHO, 2003). Monitoring of delivered water quality
is simply verification that the preventative measures are effective, and often variables that can be
monitored instantaneously can give a higher level of confidence in safety of supply and at less cost than
analyzing for an expanding number of chemicals. Such approaches give renewed emphasis on operator
training and acting on feedback from customers on water quality. Examples of such frameworks are
provided and a current draft Code of Practice for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is described.
The Section starts by presenting terminology and descriptions of the various types of Management of
Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and overviews the risk management framework evolving internationally and in
Australia for groundwater recharge.
23.2 MANAGEMENT OF AQUIFER RECHARGE

Management of aquifer recharge (MAR) describes intentional banking and treatment of water in aquifers.
The term ‘artificial recharge’ has also been used to describe this, but adverse connotations of ‘artificial’,
in a society where community participation in water resources management is becoming more prevalent,
suggested that it was time for a new name. The old name incorrectly implied that the water was in some
way unnatural. And to be consistent we do not call wells “artificial discharge”. Managed recharge is
intentional as opposed to the effects of land clearing, irrigation, and installing water mains where recharge
increases are incidental. MAR has also been called enhanced recharge, water banking and sustainable
underground storage.
23.2.1 Methods
Groundwater recharge enhancement usually evolves in response to local needs and hydrogeological and
hydrological conditions. Hence there is an increasing variety of methods for enhancing or managing
617
Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUARAEC – EVK1–CT-2002–00130
aquifer recharge. At the outset it is helpful to standardize terminology, and thereby avoid confusion.
Figure 23.1 (Dillon, 2005) contains schematics of the most common forms of MAR. Each of these is
described briefly below, and examples of a number of these from around the world are described in Peters
(1998), Tuinhof and Heederik (2003) and Bouwer (2002) discusses design features and sustainability of a
number of these methods.
• Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) – injection of water into a well for storage and recovery from
the same well.
• Aquifer storage transfer and recovery (ASTR) – injection of water into a well for storage and
recovery from a different well, generally to provide additional water treatment.
• Bank filtration – extraction of groundwater from a well or caisson near or under a river or lake to
induce infiltration from the surface water body thereby improving and making more consistent the
quality of water recovered.
• Dune filtration – infiltration of water from ponds constructed in dunes and extraction from wells
or ponds at lower elevation for water quality improvement and to balance supply and demand.
• Infiltration ponds - ponds constructed usually off-stream where surface water is diverted and
allowed to infiltrate (generally through an unsaturated zone) to the underlying unconfined aquifer.
• Percolation tanks – a term used in India to describe harvesting of water in storages built in
ephemeral waddies where water is detained and infiltrates through the base to enhance storage in
unconfined aquifers and is extracted down-valley for town water supply or irrigation.
• Rainwater harvesting – roof runoff is diverted into a well or a caisson filled with sand or gravel
and allowed to percolate to the water-table where it is collected by pumping from a well.
• Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) – treated sewage effluent, known as reclaimed water, is
intermittently infiltrated through infiltration ponds to facilitate nutrient and pathogen removal in
passage through the unsaturated zone for recovery by wells after residence in the aquifer.
• Sand dams – built in waddies in arid areas on low permeability lithology, these trap sediment
when flow occurs, and following successive floods the sand dam is raised to create an “aquifer”
which can be tapped by wells in dry seasons.
• Underground dams – in ephemeral streams where basement highs constrict flows, a trench is
constructed across the streambed keyed to the basement and backfilled with low permeability
material to help retain flood flows in saturated alluvium for stock and domestic use.
• Recharge releases – dams on ephemeral streams are used to detain flood water and uses may
include slow release of water into the streambed downstream to match the capacity for infiltration
into underlying aquifers, thereby significantly enhancing recharge.
618
Figure 23.1 Schematic of types of management of aquifer recharge
This list is not exhaustive, and for example could also include vadose zone wells, trenches and infiltration
galleries that are currently in use at some locations in Arizona and Western Australia. Some of these
methods, such as SAT, are designed specifically for water reclamation and others have been adapted for
water reclamation (e.g. ASR at Bolivar, South Australia, discussed later). Often the surface water source
may contain a component of sewage effluent, eg bank filtration adjacent Lake Tegel, Berlin (Ziegler et
al., 2002) or dune filtration with River Rhine water at Amsterdam (Olsthoorn and Mosch, 2002). Each
619
system needs to operate in such a way that the quality of recovered water or water discharging to
groundwater dependent ecosystems, meets required standards.
23.2.2 Selection of Methods

Selection of the recharge method at any site depends strongly on local hydrogeology and the specific
water needs. Normally ASR and ASTR are undertaken where suitable aquifers are confined (capped by
formations with low permeability) although they have also been used where aquifers are unconfined and
land value is high, such as in urban areas. ASR is normal where background groundwater quality does not
meet the standards required for the intended use of the recovered water. ASTR provides more treatment
than ASR because there is an assured minimum residence time within the aquifer for injected water before
it is recovered. However ASTR historically has relied on the ambient groundwater meeting the water
quality requirements for recovered water. An exception is the emerging Salisbury stormwater ASTR
project in a brackish aquifer where it is intended to recover water suitable for drinking water supplies (this
is the Australian study site for the EC RECLAIM WATER project). Once stored in a confined aquifer the
water is protected from pollution, assuming wells are constructed properly, and the main issues are
management of clogging, ability to harvest injected water and water quality changes due to geochemical
interactions with the aquifer matrix.
Where aquifers are unconfined there are more choices available for the recharge method. However there
is also the issue of potential for recontamination of water that has been stored in the aquifer if
management of overlying land does not provide adequate groundwater protection. Where land value is
low and the soil and vadose zone are permeable, infiltration ponds are the cheapest form of MAR. These
maximise the recharge rate and have low operating costs that depend on the frequency of cleaning
infiltration basins, which in turn depends on the quality of source water and the properties of the soil and
vadose zone. There are many issues to consider such as potential for excessive rise in water table, adverse
geochemical reactions with minerals in the aquifer, ability to recover the recharged water, and the ability
to protect stored water from extraction by those who have not contributed to the recharge operation.
Hydrogeological and other investigations would normally be performed as part of project design in order
to identify and assess the various risks, and to evaluate appropriate means of adequately managing these.
Public consultation would normally take place to ensure that all risks have been addressed to a
satisfactory degree of certainty and that monitoring programs are established to deal with any remaining
uncertainties (e.g. EWRI/ASCE, 2001; Dillon et al., 2005). Site-specific investigations are required as
geological, hydrogeological and geochemical conditions vary from site to site along with source water
quality and availability, and intended uses of the recovered water, so generic recommendations are rarely
sufficient for MAR site selection, design and operational management. Judicious application of a risk
management framework provides an essential starting point for water reuse via groundwater recharge.
620
23.3 RISK MANAGEMENT AND CODE OF PRACTICE
23.3.1 International Approaches to Managing Risks

in Groundwater Recharge
The Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers Standards
Committee developed standard methods for investigating, establishing and operating recharge
enhancement projects (EWRI/ASCE, 2001) in an attempt to reduce risks of failures in future projects.
This provides a checklist of issues and is helpful in ensuring that proponents take these into account in
establishing projects. However, because of the large number of variables at any site; social,
hydrogeological, hydrological, water quality, it is not possible to provide a recipe on the investigation
requirements at any site. One of the benefits of this publication is to reinforce the value of careful staged
investigations and through these to control the level of risk. Since then two further documents have been
released in United States concerning management of aquifer recharge.
USEPA (2004) Guidelines for Water Reuse contains a number of sections that relate directly to
groundwater recharge with reclaimed water, via the unsaturated zone and directly to groundwater.
Unfortunately, groundwater recharge is classified as a use of reclaimed water when in reality it is a route
providing storage and further treatment prior to end uses such as drinking, irrigation, industrial supplies
and ecosystem support. Marine discharge is also another potential outcome, particularly for water
recharged in saline intrusion barriers. The processes for contaminant attenuation in the subsurface are
discussed, and examples for particulate, pathogens, dissolved organic constituents, and nitrogen removal
are presented (USEPA, 2004, section 2.5.2). This acknowledges attenuation in both unsaturated and
saturated zones. This also refers to epidemiological studies of similar populations in Los Angeles County
with exposure (Montebello Forebay) and without exposure to indirect potable reuse of water via
groundwater recharge over a period of 30 years, which found no association between reclaimed water and
rates of cancer, mortality, infectious diseases or adverse birth outcomes (Sloss et al., 1996, 1999). These
guidelines establish principles but do not specify minimum requirements for proponents of recharge
projects.
WateReuse Foundation (2004) produced a report on best practices for developing indirect potable reuse
projects. Thee study includes examining features of three projects, two of which involved groundwater
recharge (one at Scottsdale Arizona, involved injection of water treated by microfiltration and reverse
osmosis into vadose zone wells, and one at Orange County, California involving reverse osmosis and
advanced oxidation treatment of water for expanding direct injection (ASTR) and infiltration basin
recharge). Three indirect reuse projects which did not proceed were also discussed in relation to a
checklist of 25 proposed best practices. One of these three projects involved groundwater recharge
(Dublin/San Ramon, California). The other projects involved surface storages or canals. The 25
abbreviated titles for these best practices are listed in BOX 23.1.
Another WateReuse Foundation report, by Crook (2004), presents a series of case studies of leading
practices in water reuse including indirect reuse projects via aquifers using; soil aquifer treatment
(Montebello Forebay, California), ponds and ASTR (Orange County, California), rapid infiltration basins
(Orange County, Florida), and ASTR (West Basin, California). The EC project ‘RECLAIM WATER’
will provide and interpret data for a number of projects in Europe, Israel, China and Australia where
621
reclaimed water or stormwater is reused indirectly via aquifers for agricultural, industrial or drinking
water supplies (www.reclaim-water.org).
BOX 23.1: Value-based practices of Indirect Potable Reuse (after WRF 2004)
1. Create a perception of improvement
2. Clearly articulate the problem
3. Have meaningful water supply planning criteria
4. Evaluate alternatives to indirect potable reuse
5. Communicate all of the benefits of indirect potable reuse
6. Express costs in meaningful terms
7. Avoid environmental justice issues
8. Understand and use track records
9. Break the source-quality connection
10. Articulate an ongoing water quality plan
11. Utility as responsible for water quality
12. Rename the water quality
Communication Process Practices
13. Communication and collaboration about value
14. Inform, don’t educate
15. Practice good leadership
16. Start early
17. Identify and collaborate with key authorities
18. Embrace potential conflict and opposition
19. Constantly communicate
20. Keep communicating after the project is completed
21. Develop ongoing relationships with the media
22. Use general information/ advertising campaigns appropriately
23. Don’t be defensive
24. Practice conflict resolution
25. Maintain credibility
In general the indirect reuse projects that proceeded were considered to follow at least to some degree all
or almost all of the applicable best practices, whereas the projects that did not proceed were considered to
follow to some degree at most only two-thirds of the applicable best practices. The best practices which
were deemed to best differentiate between projects approved and those that did not proceed are; creating
an accurate perception of improvement, articulating an on-going water quality plan, breaking the source-
quality connection, and establishing the water supply utility as taking responsibility for managing water
quality.
California Department of Health Services (2004) Draft revision of Title 22 contains quite specific
provisions for any Groundwater Recharge Reuse Project (GRRP) that recharges an aquifer designated in a
Water Quality Control Plan as a source of domestic water supply. Section 60320 modifications focus on
protecting the quality of sewage effluent by active control of sources, making an inventory of compounds
discharged to sewer, and understanding the fate of contaminants through the treatment systems.
Approved contingency plans are required in the event that replenishment operations degrade quality in
drinking water supply wells. A public hearing will be held by CDHS prior to permitting a GRRP and if
any increase is sought in the proportion of reclaimed water in the water recovered.
622
The draft revision of Title 22 remains very specific as to how objectives are to be achieved for recharge of
aquifers considered to be sources of drinking water. It requires disinfection of reclaimed water before
recharge, in addition to a minimum detention period below ground before recovery for drinking of 6
months (with minimum travel distance of 150 m) for surface spreading and 12 months (and 600 m) for
subsurface injection. Mandatory sampling and analysis procedures for total nitrogen in source water
require reporting to DHS if the concentration exceeds 5 mg/L and that action is required to ensure that
mean concentration does not exceed this level. These are in addition to requirements that nitrate and
nitrite concentrations in groundwater remain within the limits for drinking water supplies, and that
groundwater monitoring can track the evolution of the plume of recharged water to the point of recovery.
Sampling locations should be located with 1-3 months travel time from the recharge site and at least one
further monitoring well before the nearest downgradient domestic water supply well. Furthermore, the
recharge water is required to comply with maximum contaminant levels for inorganics, organics,
disinfection byproducts, action levels for lead and copper and secondary limits for other constituents and
characteristics.
Surprisingly, in relation to findings of Sloss et al. (1996, 1999), Title 22 draft revision has a reduced
allowable total organic carbon in recharged water. Accounting for dilution at the recovery well by
recharge from sources other than reclaimed water, and for attenuation in the unsaturated zone where
recharge is by surface spreading, the reclaimed water TOC contribution is not to exceed 0.5 mg/L. For
any new well injection project, the entire stream is required to be treated by reverse osmosis in order to
achieve this objective. The title 22 revision makes no provision for attenuation of TOC in the saturated
zone, and appears to be based on application of best available technology, without reference to risk
assessment. TOC is a gross measure of organic residual in water and is not necessarily an indicator of the
abundance of endocrine disrupting or carcinogenic chemicals. While RO is effective in removal of EDCs
it is not as good for some trihalomethanes (Drewes et al., 2002). There is a scientific basis for many of
Title 22 requirements (Tsuchihashi et al., 2002) but the case for 1 mg/L TOC made in WHO (2003,
Appendix D) is relatively subjective. However Title 22 does allow proponents to put forward alternatives
and will approve them if they are at least as protective of public health as the specified TOC requirements.
Title 22 also specifies 50% as the maximum average reclaimed water contribution to water recovered
from extraction wells, unless special provisions are made. These include advanced oxidation after any
reverse osmosis to achieve at least a 1.2 log reduction of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and 0.5 log
reduction of 1-4 Dioxane, and biennial analyses for additional trace chemicals.
Prior to approval for construction of a GRRP a detailed investigation report is required, with a long
checklist of requirements. Annual and five year reports are also required, with specified minimum
reporting requirements. There are also provisions that alternatives may be allowed, and in particular, that
the effect of the engineered and natural treatment systems are as effective as the specified systems for
treatment of non-regulated components of organic material, and that these are present and monitored. The
onus is on the proponent to demonstrate effectiveness. Throughout Title 22 it is presumed that the aquifer
to be recharged with reclaimed water is to be protected for potable use.
Based on a World Health Organization expert consultation meeting held in Budapest in November 2001,
World Health Organization (2003) compiled a state of the art report on health risks in aquifer recharge
using reclaimed water. The report is aimed at providing a first step towards developing simple, flexible
and practical health-related guidelines that will help to improve practices in both intentional and
623
incidental recharge of reclaimed water. The latter occurs as a consequence of irrigation with raw
wastewater or land disposal of wastewater. The report starts from a broader perspective than Californian
Title 22, recognizing that aquifers may have different beneficial uses, and that there are practical
economic and capability constraints on treating water and managing reuse systems.
The report argues for a holistic microbial health risk management approach, taking into account all other
water-related exposure pathways. The distinction between potable and nonpotable aquifers is essential to
allow development of intentional and incidental groundwater recharge. Appropriate treatment
technologies combined with site characterization are required to eliminate the potential threats by
chemicals and pathogens. Like Title 22 it suggests that undefined contaminant attenuation in the saturated
zone should be considered an additional factor of safety. It notes however that even in Australia where an
attenuation zone within an aquifer receiving injected stormwater is allowed in relation to conforming with
water quality criteria (South Australia EPA, 2004), that this is still conservative. Thus unless there is
evidence to the contrary, the report gives as a general principle that only potable water should be injected
into potable aquifers, and, where water is to be recovered from nonpotable aquifers for unrestricted
irrigation, only water suitable for unrestricted irrigation should be injected directly. The unsaturated zone
is identified as providing contaminant attenuation which can be relied on as part of the treatment train.
Hence for surface infiltration systems the same water quality criteria are considered to apply at the water
table rather than in the spreading basin, subject to investigations and monitoring of in-situ tests.
Research needs identified in WHO (2003) include quantifying risks associated with pathogens and
contaminants in relation to the exposed population, determining sustainable attenuation of diverse locally-
relevant contaminants in soils and aquifers, development of models to establish residence times or
extraction distances, and evaluation of environmental as well as health risks. Methods used for risk
assessment also need refinement particularly for trace organic substances such as natural hormones,
endocrine disrupting chemicals, personal care products and surfactants, where effects on humans and
aquatic organisms are ill-defined and may be related to longer term chronic or mutagenic effects rather
than acute effects. Biotesting methods are undergoing rapid development and may assist in this. Health
aspects of groundwater policy will also require development with socio-ecomomic factors playing a large
part in assessing human and environmental health impacts of groundwater policy and the role of recharge
with reclaimed water. There was agreement that for projects to proceed on groundwater recharge with
reclaimed water effective communication with the public, water resources managers, regulators, and all
other stakeholders is required concerning risks and concerns and how these will be addressed in the
project.
United Kingdom Water Industry Research, American Water Works Association Research Foundation and
the WateReuse Foundation have combined to develop a framework for developing water reuse criteria
with reference to drinking water supplies (UKWIR, in press). The process starts with a reclaimed water
safety plan, that addresses the contaminants present in the wastewater catchment, controls on releases into
the sewage system, wastewater treatment, operational monitoring and verification of water quality,
controls on the uses of reclaimed water, (e.g. cross-connection and irrigation methods) operational
monitoring and verification. Changes in hazards or risks, as a result of changes to any component of the
system or due to unusual circumstances or new knowledge, suggest revision of each component to ensure
the system effectiveness is sustained. The report goes on to discuss the risks and provide a nested
framework for developing reuse criteria and then the role of groundwater recharge (UKWIR, in press,
624
41
sections 6 and 10.2.6). These differentiate requirements depending on the beneficial uses of ambient
groundwater, recovered water and the method of recharge. The report summarizes by listing five elements
necessary for safe recycling:
• Numerical scientifically-based guidelines that provide targets for quality of water for safe reuse
• A set of operational and process controls with appropriate fail safe systems for wastewater
treatment and any subsequent treatments
• A set of water treatment guidelines relevant for various uses of reclaimed water
• A set of controls associated with end uses of reclaimed water
• An adaptation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points as used in water safety plans in
order to provide a management structure to minimize the risks and that this can be verified.
Importantly, it concludes that the most flexible approach is to introduce proper process controls and
further treatment as required, supported by process monitoring and a limited number of numerical
standards. The framework is an attempt to build on existing international best practice but provide a more
formal structure that is more broadly applicable. This approach has been adopted for the Salisbury
stormwater ASTR project (Swierc et al., 2005) which is a component of the EC RECLAIM WATER
project.
In conclusion, international guidelines in this area are relatively consistent, and are generally moving in
the same direction towards improved verifiable controls at source, in treatment, storage, and use. Taking
account that Title 22 is designed for potable aquifers and indirect potable reuse in an affluent society, it is
not surprising that water quality and treatment requirements are strict. However the notion of applying
concentration limits to surrogate parameters (e.g. TOC in Title 22) is contentious due to the cost impacts
of the specified numerical values, and aside from applying the precautionary principle, there is an absence
of a sound scientific risk-based method to justify reducing the value. An increasing number of chemicals
in use in sewer catchments suggest that guidelines, based on source controls and treatment requirements
with verification of treatment effectiveness, will be much more pragmatic and defensible than specifying
target values for contaminants. There is a distinct need to differentiate beneficial uses of aquifers and of
recovered water in order to ascertain the risks that must be averted. A clearer understanding of the
effectiveness of engineered treatments and natural attenuation processes in the unsaturated and saturated
zones is also required to encompass recharge methods within the treatment train. Currently only
unsaturated zone treatment is acknowledged. Failure to recognize the role of the saturated zone,
particularly with respect to pathogen attenuation, unnecessarily introduces additional chemicals as a
byproduct of disinfection, that in some cases are recalcitrant in aquifers. This is discussed further in
section 3.3, but first it is necessary to have a risk management framework, and this is discussed below.
23.3.2 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Risk

Management Framework
In Australia, guidelines for water reuse are currently in preparation and discussed in the next section. The
principles on which these are based have been agreed and were adopted in the Australian Drinking Water
Guidelines (National Water Quality Management Strategy, 2004; Nadebaum et al., 2004). The guiding
principles are:
625
• Protection of water sources and treatment are of paramount importance and must never be
compromised
• The system must continually maintain robust multiple barriers appropriate to the level of potential
contamination facing the raw water supply.
• Any sudden change in water quality, flow or environmental conditions should arouse suspicion
that drinking water might become contaminated.
• System operators must be able to respond quickly and effectively to adverse monitoring signals
• System operators must be dedicated to providing customers with safe water and never ignore a
consumer complaint about water quality
• Ensuring drinking water safety requires application of a considered risk management approach.
Although the ADWG framework, a preventative strategy from catchment to consumer, was not designed
with reuse specifically in mind it encompasses all elements of those proposed above for indirect potable
reuse, and is largely conveyed unchanged into the proposed water recycling guidelines, with the addition
of environmental protection, and taking account of the variety of end uses of reclaimed water. The
framework, shown schematically in Figure 23.2 addresses:
• Active corporate commitment to drinking water quality management
• Systems analysis and management – understanding the water supply system, hazards and events
that can compromise water quality, and the preventative measures and operational control
necessary for assuring safe and reliable drinking water
• Supporting requirements – employee training, community involvement, research and

development validation of process efficacy, and systems for documentation and reporting
• Review – evaluation and audit processes to ensure that the management system is functioning
satisfactorily, and provide a basis for review and continual improvement.
The elements of the framework are listed in Table 23.2. The framework incorporates principles of
established systems such as HACCP, ISO 9001 (2000) and AS/NZS 4360 (1999), and the relationship
between ADWG and these systems is shown in Table 23.2. ADWG also extends beyond single water
utilities and takes into account the need for multi-agency involvement where responsibilities for different
components of the entire water supply system from catchment/aquifer to tap are dispersed between
organizations, such as water supply utilities, catchment management boards, water resources,
environment protection, agriculture and planning departments, local government, and community-based
interest groups.
626
23.3.3 Draft Australian Guidelines for Water

Recycling
ADWG provided a template for developing risk management strategies for water recycling and a draft
Guideline for Water Recycling in Australia was issued for public comment in October 2005 (NWQMS,
2005). These take into account human and environmental health and intentional and unintentional uses or
exposure to reclaimed water. Environmental end points include biota, plants, soils, surface water and
groundwater. Uses include residential, municipal, agricultural, fire control and environmental flows, but
not yet drinking water or intentional indirect reuses via aquifer recharge. With many more endpoints to be
protected than only human health these guidelines are more complex, but employ the same risk
management strategies as for drinking water.
23.3.4 Draft Technical Guidance for ASR

Objectives
Guidelines for the quality of stormwater and wastewater for injection into aquifers for reuse were
developed based on international review (including Australian Water Resources Council 1982, National
Research Council 1994) and five years of experience with stormwater ASR in South Australian by Dillon
and Pavelic (1996), founded on the Australian National Water Quality Management Strategy guidelines
for groundwater protection (NWQMS, 1995). These Australian guidelines are summarized in Dillon and
Pavelic (1998). Since then substantial development in stormwater ASR has occurred in South Australia
(Hodgkin, 2004) and the South Australian EPA published a Code of Practice for stormwater ASR (2004)
based on a draft produced by Dillon et al. (2000) and conforming to a locally developed water quality
policy which in part follows the NWQMS. While most of the fundamentals of this Code are considered
sound, inconsistencies with NWQMS and the requirement to expand the Code to address also reclaimed
water ASR and domestic scale roof runoff ASR, and take account of substantial research undertaken since
the original draft Code of Practice, a revised and updated technical guidance (Dillon and Molloy, 2006)
was developed with the support of the Victorian Smart Water Fund for Victoria, with the intention that it
would be applicable in other jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere. This code aims also to address
quantity and quality issues which previously have not been holistically addressed in Australia (Martin and
Dillon, 2002). The new code has four objectives, which are:
• to ensure all new recharge enhancement projects protect public health, are environmentally
sustainable, socially acceptable and the economics of required operation, maintenance,
monitoring and reporting have been taken into account in establishing economic viability.
• to foster innovation to enable improved practices and use of resources while managing risks
within a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points strategy to meet the first objective.
• to facilitate a new integrated framework for effective management and policy development taking
into account the resource management objectives of surface water systems, groundwater systems,
water supplies, and planning, in order to create opportunities that otherwise would be foregone for
developing and improving water resources.
629
• to make use of aquifer recharge experience so that future projects will be sited, designed and
operated in such a way as to maximise the benefit to the community at large of the aquifer system
and the water available in the catchment.
Specific aims within the primary objective are to:
• protect or improve groundwater quality wherever ASR and ASTR is practiced,
• ensure that the quality of recovered water is fit for its intended use,
• protect the aquifer and aquitard from being damaged by depletion or over-pressurisation,
• prevent problems such as clogging and excessive recovery of aquifer material,
• ensure that the impacts on surface waters, downstream of ASR and ASTR operations, are
acceptable and are taken into account in catchment water management,
• ensure that an appropriate public and environmental health risk assessment and management
strategy is in place to deal with potential variations in water quality of injectant
• ensure that appropriate investigations are performed to site, design and operate projects in an
environmentally responsible way
• ensure that an environmental management system is in place and monitoring and reporting
requirements are an integral part of ASR and ASTR operations
• ensure that data are available for assessing the performance of the project, and to assist in defining
the potential of the aquifer and catchment for project expansion or further projects
Policies
A Code of Practice alone is insufficient to achieve these objectives, unless it is implemented by
participants, including proponents of projects, developers, local government, water utilities, urban
planners, regulators, water resource managers, and communities. This also calls for coordination of
environmental regulation and water resource management roles in the approval of new projects, to make
this process efficient for proponents and facilitate evolution of effective policies.
Such policies (see Table 23.3) are in different states of maturity in different jurisdictions, surface water
catchments and groundwater basins. In some catchments surface water and groundwater allocation
policies are already integrated due to awareness of interactions between resources. In many jurisdictions
the different parts of the policy matrix are addressed by different organisations or sections. Concerning
objective three, a means of addressing these in a combined way needs to be identified. Proponents of
initial ASR projects in any jurisdiction should be aware that institutional arrangements are not already
orientated to respond to such proposals and patience will be required. However, a means of addressing
this is provided through objective two, and demonstration licences may be issued on a case by case basis,
to allow proponents and regulators to gain experience with ASR to assist in addressing the other
objectives.
Two examples demonstrate the requirements of proponents of ASR projects, making use of Table 23.3.
(1) ASR to produce irrigation supplies using urban stormwater in coastal cities and brackish aquifers that
are not initially regarded as water resources is likely to have the simplest requirements for proponents. In
630
such cases environmental flow requirements and groundwater allocation plans may not exist, and the level
of groundwater protection may be met by requiring the proponent to meet irrigation water quality with
recovered water.
(2) At the other end of the regulatory spectrum, a proponent may intend to take freshwater from an inland
stream in a horticultural catchment to recharge a heavily exploited aquifer containing potable water that is
used for town water supplies. In this case each quadrant of the policy matrix suggests constraints on the
proponents operations that would add to the costs of investigations, design and operation of an ASR
project.
Table 23.3 Resource management and environmental protection policies that

are invoked in the licensing of MAR operations.
Resource / Attribute Quantity Quality
Environmental flow requirements

Catchment pollution control plan
Source Water Inter-jurisdictional agreements
HACCP plan
See below if source water is groundwater
Groundwater allocation plan Groundwater quality protection
Resource assessment accounting for g/w policy
dependent ecosystems Water quality requirements for
Groundwater
Demand management intended uses (may include HACCP
Allocatable storage capacity above)
Inter-jurisdictional agreements
Environmental flow requirements are unlikely to apply (with exceptions) for:
• Urban stormwater (noting that discharge is enhanced by urbanisation)
• Constructed waterways and drains ( assuming discharge would not have occurred naturally)
• High flows in coastal streams discharging to sea (assuming fresh flows are not sustaining marine
ecosystems)
Aquifers often without groundwater allocation management plans, but often suitable as ASR storage
zones are:
• Saline or brackish aquifers that are not regarded as water resources
• Low yielding aquifers in fractured rocks without incised streams
Source water quality management may be part of catchment water management plans, and the level of
information needed will depend on the environmental values (beneficial uses, including ecosystem
support) of ambient groundwater and the intended uses of recovered water. The differences that have
occurred up to recently in guidelines for ASR operations internationally have hinged on differences in
groundwater quality protection policies. For example in USA the Underground Injection Control
Provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act (US Congress 1988) considers all water with total dissolved
solids below 10,000 mg/L as potentially potable (40CFR 146.3). This arose from the perceived feasibility
limit for reverse osmosis to produce drinking water. This has the consequence that water pumped from
such an aquifer cannot be returned unless it has been treated to potable standards. This also neglects the
631
treatment that is provided to water through reverse osmosis. It fails to recognise uses of water other than
as drinking water supplies, and the revised draft Title 22 (California DHS, 2004) specifically refers to
injection into potable groundwaters. In contrast, the National Water Quality Management Strategy
(NWQMS, 1995) in Australia and the Victorian EPA (1997) differentiates water quality (also based on
salinity) suitable for various environmental values (Table 23.4). The UIC provision does not differentiate
between injection of water for disposal or recovery, whereas the South Australian Code of Practice for
ASR (SA EPA, 2004) clearly addresses only operations where water is to be recovered.
Table 23.4 Environmental values for Victorian Groundwaters (from Victorian

EPA, 1997)
Segments (TDS mg/L)
A1 A2 B C D
(0-500) (501- (1,001- (3,501- (>13,000)

Beneficial Uses 1,000) 3,500) 13,000)
1. Maintenance of ecosystems ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
2. Potable supply- desirable ¥
Potable supply - acceptable ¥
3. Potable mineral water supply ¥ ¥ ¥
4. Agriculture, parks and gardens ¥ ¥ ¥
5. Stock watering
¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
6. Industrial water use ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
7. Primary contact recreation (eg

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
bathing, swimming)
8. Buildings and structures ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
In parts of Europe, such as The Netherlands, chlorinated water is not to be injected in to groundwater. In
USA, under the SDWA, water must be disinfected before injection. Largely these contrasts are due to
differences in locations of point of compliance. In USA the water must meet the criteria at the well-head.
In The Netherlands and Australia, (SA EPA, 2004), there is provision for a groundwater attenuation zone,
beyond which the water must meet its specified environmental values. Recent research has demonstrated
at all sites where measurements have been made, the effectiveness of residence time in aquifers for
sustainable removal of pathogens (Dillon and Toze, 2005). Hence there is increased confidence that the
attenuation zone is an effective approach to meeting groundwater protection requirements and may be
relied upon in ASTR systems for recovering water free of any pathogens (including viruses) that may be
present in injected water. Combining a HACCP plan with an attenuation zone and an increasing body of
knowledge on in-situ passive remediation of trace organics and other contaminants, is providing increased
632
assurance that recovered water can meet not only irrigation water quality requirements, but may be a
competent treatment process for supply of drinking water (Swierc et al., 2005).
Guiding principles for best practice

Risk management
With all aquifer systems, not all relevant characteristics can be completely defined before a project
commences, and the same is true for variations in the quality and quantity of source waters in a
catchment. Furthermore land uses and management may change within the catchment over the operating
life of an ASR project. Hence a risk management approach must be adopted. This involves strategies to
allow learning about the system while preventing irreparable damage, taking an informed precautionary
approach, developing a hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) plan relying on multiple
barriers for water quality protection, and being proactive in determining how the aquifer behaves. This
aspect is in accordance with ADWG and draft Guidelines for Water Recycling and more detail is given
later.
Prevention of irreparable damage
It is recognised that not all of the information required to predict the performance of an ASR/ASTR site
will be available until a site is operating and can be monitored. Hence a guiding principle is to issue
demonstration licences where the proponent can assure no irreversible harm (e.g. over-pressurisation of
an aquifer puncturing an aquitard, polluted water reaching water supply wells, discharge of arsenic-rich
water). This involves:
• Identifying all the reasonably foreseeable modes of failure and taking preventative action to
ensure with a high degree of certainty that these do not occur. This includes a HACCP plan for
water quality protection in the source waters through to the recovered water.
• Identifying contingency plans to prevent irreparable damage in the event that failures or
unfortunate surprises occur.
Demonstrations and continuous learning
Recognising the value of information from complex systems to better inform about system states and
processes, monitoring of operations will be an important part of the management of ASR systems. This is
especially so in the first few years of an operation, particularly in a new aquifer type or with a different
quality of source water or for a new ASR operator. Basic assessment of quantity of injectant and
recovered water is essential for all operations. This needs to be supplemented with analyses of samples of
injectant and recovered water, and where possible from observation wells. Monitoring data need to be
documented and reported periodically (initially annually) to give the proponent and the regulator a chance
to assess any chronic long term issues associated with ASR. Analytes and their frequency of sampling
would be selected on the basis of potential risk. Initially sampling frequency will be sufficient to evaluate
the temporal variation and factors influencing concentrations, and the frequency of sampling and selected
number of analytes subsequently reduced in accordance with the revised level of risk, informed by the
data.
633
Informed precautionary principle
Taking account of the principles above, the frequency of sampling for each selected analyte and use of
continuous monitoring of relevant surrogate variables should enable potential problems to be ruled out or
verified by data. Until ruled out, all potential problems must be considered possible. However the set of
potential problems should first be constrained or enlarged based on existing knowledge of the system
derived from investigations, data from related sites and scientific literature. A rational hierarchy of
problems should be addressed using a risk management approach, in order to allow projects to proceed
with monitoring budgets in keeping with the risks.
Water quality requirements
The quality of water that can be injected into an aquifer will be determined by the designated
environmental values (beneficial uses) of native groundwater in the aquifer. Designated beneficial uses,
such as raw water for drinking, stock water, irrigation, and ecosystem support, are determined by
reference to state policies and historical practice. Recharge enhancement should preserve or widen the
beneficial uses of native groundwater. Baseline groundwater quality and environmental values need to be
established before an ASR project commences to serve as a future reference.
Attenuation zone
Reliance on an attenuation zone to reduce contaminant concentrations or pathogen numbers to acceptable

levels, for the surrounding groundwater also places an onus for initial investigations at least in a new
aquifer type, to locate a monitoring well on the perimeter of the attenuation zone in the down-gradient
direction to allow the effectiveness of attenuation to be assessed and reported. This will allow revision of
the assumptions.
Rights of water bankers and recoverable volume
As a guiding principle, there needs to be provision that water stored in an aquifer is available to the
operator of the ASR project for an assured proportion of injected water over a specified time horizon of
typically 10 to 30 years. This requires protections within a proximity that could threaten those rights, that
new well permits will not be issued, nor rights given to increase abstractions from existing wells. This
also avoids the potential problem that neighbouring wells could become artesian during the injection
cycle. For over-exploited aquifers, ASR can be a means of enhancing net recharge by allowing the water
banker to recover say only 80% of the volume injected. Where aquifers are in hydraulic equilibrium, the
entitlement may be 100% of the water injected, although in brackish aquifers this figure in unlikely to be
achieved as recovery efficiency will be diminished by the amount of water required for buffering the
ambient groundwater.
Finite storage capacity of aquifers and interference effects between sites
The elastic storage capacity of confined aquifers is relatively small and the hydraulic head effects during
injection and pumping can extend for kilometres from the ASR well. Hence, while there is a very large
capacity to store water in the aquifer, displacement of native groundwater by injection may invoke large
changes of hydraulic head (piezometric head). Aquitards have a finite capacity to withstand hydraulic
gradients (especially when flow is upwards) without rupturing. Injecting against high artesian pressures
also creates an excessive energy demand for injection. Therefore issuing a licence for ASR reduces the
amount of allocatable storage within the same aquifer. If sites were located close together, significant
634
hydraulic interference effects would occur with each operator affecting the injection rates, energy costs
and recovery efficiencies of the other. Hence as a guiding principle, sites should not be located in close
proximity unless they are managed by the same operator. A single operator has the potential to manage
multiple injection wells to advantage by creating a contiguous plume of fresh water in the aquifer, thereby
increasing recovery efficiency.
HACCP plan and barriers against pollution and damage

Operators of an ASR project should use a hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) plan to
assess and manage the risks of pollution of groundwater and failure to meet required water quality criteria
for the recovered water. An international guideline for establishment of HACCP for the food industry
proposes twelve steps (FAO/WHO, 1996), and these are summarized relating to water sources as follows:
1. Assemble a project team
2. Identify the product (e.g. recovered water) and processes to generate it
3. Identify the intended use of the recovered water
4. Construct a flow diagram of the system
5. Perform a site evaluation to confirm the flow diagram processes
6. Perform a hazard analysis of threats to the water supply system
7. Determine Critical Control Points within the system, where management of water quality related
to each hazard can be monitored and system operation can be controlled
8. Establish critical limits for monitoring parameters at each control point
9. Develop the monitoring requirements for each control point
10. Determine corrective actions and responses for periods when critical limits are not attained
11. Establish procedures for managing monitoring data and operation records for the system
12. Develop protocols for verifying that the system is producing acceptable water in accordance with
the HACCP requirements
Applying this HACCP approach to the case of ASR with urban stormwater the first major work required
is to identify the potential sources of contaminants in the catchment and the incidents by which they may
reach the intake to the wetland or detention storage (item 6). A similar approach may be used for
reclaimed water and roof runoff. This leads to assessing barriers and control points whereby the residual
risks are diminished (items 7 to 10). A well operated and managed system should have many, if not all, of
the barriers identified in Figure 23.3 and discussed below.
635
Figure 23.3 Multiple barriers to protect groundwater and recovered water at

ASR projects (from Dillon et al., 2000)
Increasing the number of barriers incorporated into an ASR scheme, increases confidence that the aquifer
is protected. There should be a demonstration of best practice with all feasible and relevant barriers
utilised to assure groundwater protection is achieved, especially for commercial (larger-scale projects).
Use of these barriers has the added benefit of reducing the risk of ‘clogging’ the ASR injection well.
Knowledge of pollutant sources in the catchment upstream

An evaluation of sources of contaminants that could potentially be present within injectant needs to be
undertaken and the nature of contaminants considered will depend on land use within the stormwater
catchment and the nature of industries within a sewer catchment for reclaimed water. The concentrations
of contaminants in runoff typically have seasonal or within-event patterns (eg the first autumn flush in
urban catchments). Heavy contaminant loadings can be avoided by being selective on the timing of
diversions. Knowledge of the potential contaminants helps to focus water quality sampling and analysis
costs in determining the viability of the ASR project.
Source selection
Where ASR is proposed for drinking water supplies, it should be possible to divert runoff from polluted
surfaces away from the project, or to collect runoff only from roofs (and other relatively clean surfaces) in
order to obtain the quality of water required for injection. Plans also should be considered for the
management or release of unwanted water in the detention storage. For domestic scale ASR, rainwater
636
from roofs is likely to be the only suitable source given the management and monitoring effort likely to be
widely achievable.
Aquifer selection
The quality of water to be injected should be no worse than the quality of water already in the aquifer, and
better if possible. This may exclude the use of aquifers containing high quality groundwater. Other users
of the aquifer need to be considered in aquifer selection. Where an aquifer may be made artesian by ASR
operations, any affected wells may need to be fitted with equipment to prevent overflow.
Passive treatment
A detention pond reduces variability in water quality and therefore mitigates the effects of isolated
pollution events in the catchment. Detention storage also allows time to shut down injection in the event
that pollution of the surface water source occurred before the diversion to the pond could be closed.
Other pretreatments
Comparisons with native groundwater quality and its environmental values will indicate the requirements
for treatment of water detained for injection.
Screens should be used to sieve out leaf litter, gross pollutants, and aquatic life, and prevent these
reaching the filter or the injection well. Generally these will be floating screens that also exclude any
surface scums (e.g. from hydrocarbons and pollens) from the intake to the injection well. Swimming pool
filters, such as recirculating sand filters with backwash facilities, cartridge filters, and diatomaceous earth
filters are relatively cheap and can assist in reducing concentrations of suspended sediments in injectant.
While these will not affect dissolved solutes, they may reduce the frequency of back-flushing of the
injection well to economic advantage, especially for turbid source waters and fine grained aquifers.
Simple disinfection systems are also available, including ultraviolet systems, and electrode chlorination
systems, which would reduce pathogenic bacteria in injectant and may reduce the growth of bacterial
slimes within the injection well.
Injection shutdown system

Controllers should be incorporated to shut down the injection pump or valve if the standing water level in
the well, injection pressure, or water quality parameters that can be continuously monitored, exceed the
criteria for the environmental values of the aquifer (e.g. electrical conductivity (salinity), turbidity,
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, volatile organics, etc.). Use of this technology is part of best practice.
The cost of remedial activities for a single pollution event may significantly exceed the cost of control
equipment.
Maintenance and contingency plans

Protection of the surface water pond from contamination will be necessary. This includes constructing the
pond off flood-prone land and taking care with or avoiding use of herbicides and pesticides in its vicinity.
Avoid deciduous vegetation in the area and mosquitoes and other pests breeding in the detention pond.
Monitoring equipment should be recalibrated at manufacturer-specified intervals. Pumps and pretreatment

equipment need to be maintained, e.g. filter media replaced at manufacturer-specified intervals or
volumes. Keeping records of maintenance is part of good management practice.
637
Contingency plans are required in the event of contaminated water being inadvertently injected. This
would include how to determine the duration of recovery pumping, what sampling intervals are needed,
and what to do with recovered water.
Treatment of recovered water

Normally it is desirable not to rely on post-treatment of stored water. However, comparing the quality of
recovered water with water quality criteria for its intended uses will indicate whether there is any
requirement for further treatment. For drinking water supplies, treatment of recovered water may be
needed such as UV disinfection. For some other forms of supply, eg irrigation via drippers, it may be
necessary to insert a cartridge filter. Commissioning tests on the operation will indicate if these are
necessary. However, operators need to remain vigilant for water quality changes, such as metal
mobilisation in aquifers (e.g. As, Fe, Mn), which in some geological settings may be released through the
ASR operation.
Discharge of well redevelopment water

This must not be disposed of to a water body or a water course unless it is of suitable quality. This water
may be used on site, possibly for irrigation or discharged to sewer (with the approval of relevant
authority), or returned to the wetland.
Pond sediments
Sediments that accumulate in detention ponds or wetlands may ultimately need to be removed, and
beforehand need to be analysed to determine locations and methods for safe disposal or reuse that are
environmentally acceptable. Design guidelines for stormwater pollution control ponds and wetlands are
available (Lawrence and Breen, 1998).
Monitoring
Monitoring in itself is not a barrier to pollution and damage but is an indicator of the success of the
barriers described above. It is an essential part of every ASR project. The injectant and recovered water
needs to be sampled and analysed according to an agreed water quality assurance program and other
performance indicators important for the project should be monitored and reported.
23.3.5 South Australian Experience in ASR

South Australian experience in ASR has contributed to the formation and evolution of guidelines and
codes of practice for ASR with stormwater and reclaimed water, and has contributed to the scientific
knowledge on water quality changes during the residence time of injected water in aquifers.
Adelaide, the capital city of South Australia, is a city of 1 million people situated on a coastal plain and
has a Mediterranean climate with an average annual rainfall of 500 mm and evaporation of 1800 mm. Its
water supply (200 million m3/yr) comes from water-stressed catchments dominated by agricultural and
pastoral land use, and is treated in water filtration plants before supply to the city. The sewage system
discharges (90 million m3/yr) via four sewage treatment plants along the coast, which previously
discharged all treated effluent into the Gulf of St Vincent. 15% of this water is now reclaimed and used to
irrigate horticulture and viticulture (Radcliffe, 2004). A separate stormwater system discharges
approximately 100 million m3/yr to the Gulf, with less than 3 million m3/yr of rainfall being captured and
638
used in the 38% of dwellings that have rainwater tanks. Low yielding shallow alluvial aquifers,
interbedded with surficial clays, have variable salinity and in the minor areas where groundwater is
sufficiently fresh, such as near streams, a small and unknown amount is used for irrigation from less than
2000 wells. Recharge to the Quaternary alluvium is thought to be of the order of 10 million m3/yr and
recharge potential for ASR was mapped by Pavelic et al. (1992). Two deeper confined Tertiary limestone
aquifers at depths ranging from 50 to 200 m provide drinking water and irrigation supplies of about 30
million m3/yr mostly north and south of the city where it is freshest, and usage has been capped with a
license system due to historical over-abstraction. Elsewhere this aquifer is brackish, but when recharged
with fresh stormwater harvested from urban wetlands, provides good supplies of irrigation quality water.
Twenty two aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems have been installed, between 1992 and 2004 and
most within the last two years, with a combined capacity of about 2 million m3/yr (Table 23.5). ASR and
other forms of recharge are also being actively pursued in Perth (Rattray et al., 2002; Dillon et al., 2004).
All routine operational ASR sites in South Australia recharge stormwater runoff, which is typically
detained and treated in wetlands. The most common storage zone is Tertiary limestone, followed by
fractured bedrock and several small-scale ASR projects are in alluvium. Because of the potential for rising
water tables and potential contamination in unconfined aquifers, generally confined aquifers are preferred.
A further 32 projects are currently under investigation. Most of the ASR projects are owned and operated
by local government, or private organisations, such as developers or sporting clubs, to replace reticulated
potable water for irrigation of parks and sports fields.
Table 23.5 ASR operational sites in Adelaide in 2004, classified by aquifer type
(adapted from Hodgkin, 2004)
Volume stored
Aquifer type No. of sites
(103 m3/yr)
Limestone 12 1740
Fractured rock 7 250
Alluvium 3 3
Total 22 1993
BOX 23.2: Case description of stormwater ASR at Andrews Farm, South Australia
The Andrews Farm site is located within a residential development in the northern metropolitan area of
Adelaide in South Australia. Urban and rural stormwater runoff from a 55 km2 catchment was detained in
a 1.6 ha basin constructed to mitigate flooding downstream due to enhanced runoff from urbanisation. In
this semi-arid area (450mm annual rainfall) resources for mains water supplies are stressed and the
developer recognised the potential for harvesting detained stormwater in winter and storing it beneath the
flat clay plain in an aquifer to provide landscape irrigation supplies in summer. Because there was no
relevant data on well clogging, water quality impacts, recovery efficiency and economics of such
operations with urban runoff, a research project was established to monitor and report on these aspects,
and assist in developing national giuidelines for the quality of water for injection into aquifers.
639
Adelaide
0 50 metres trash main

rack drain
ain
dr
intake
delivery line
325 m well 65 m ASR

25 m well
Andrews Farm experimental ASR site location, showing stormwater detention basins ASR well and
observation wells
The aquifer targeted for ASR was a confined variably-cemented sandy-limestone confined by 9 m of
plastic clay with an aquifer transmissivity of 180 m² day-1 and storage coefficient of 5x10-4. The ASR
well was completed as an “open hole” from 108 to 127 m BGL and three observation wells were drilled
along a transect at distances of 25, 65 and 325 metres down-gradient of the ASR well to trace the fate of
the injected fluid. Native groundwater was too salty to use for irrigation supplies, so success relied on
being able to recapture a high fraction of injected fresh stormwater. The only treatment was settling of
coarse sediments in the basin, a geotextile filter around the pump intake and a coarse screen in the intake
pipe. There was no disinfection prior to injection.
Water was first injected in August 1993 (a small mains water test), and progressively larger volumes of
stormwater were injected over four successive winter/spring periods until October 1996. A net total of
256,000 m³ water was injected at rates of 15-20 L s-1. Redevelopment of the injection well was
undertaken by airlifting six times during the four years of injection. Final hydraulic conductivity was no
less than the initial value. Unintentional recharge of shallow alluvium by leakage due to drying and
cracking of the basin floor was found to be about 50% of the volume injected into the confined aquifer
(Santich, 1996).
Samples were taken from the four wells during injection and storage periods. The levels and water quality
in the 25 m well were identical to the injection well showing direct hydraulic connection along a
preferential flow path. The 65 m well failed to show a complete breakthrough of injectant after four years,
and the 325 m well was unresponsive to injectant. A single recovery phase was conducted between July
1997 and July 1998 when 151,000 m³ was extracted, all of which was at a salinity suitable for irrigation.
Water quality monitoring of chloride showed the relative mixing between waters and was used to
determine attenuation rates of reactive species. In addition studies of pesticide and pathogen attenuation
were conducted in the field and in laboratory conditions, and carbon and sulphur cycles delineated by
isotopic methods (Herczeg et al., 2004).
640
1400
1200 ASR well
Chloride (mg/L)
25 m well
1000
65 m well
800 325 m well
injection
600 recovery
400
200
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Chloride concentration in groundwater during the five year duration of experiment
One Log10 removal times (days) for selected microorganisms in filter-sterilized injectant and groundwater
in the presence and absence of aquifer media.
Injected Stormwater Native Groundwater

Microorganism with media without media with media without media
Giardia 30.2 27.6 ND ND
Poliovirus 17.2 121.5 4.5 30.9
E. coli 12.2 10.7 19.6 6.3
Streptococcus faecalis 5.2 5.2 5.2 8.3
Salmonella typhimurium 4.9 5.5 4.7 4.7
ND not determined
The study found that all objectives were met and the cost of recovered stormwater was about half the cost
of mains water Further details are found in Dillon et al. (1997). A full scale ASR project has subsequently
been established on the site for irrigation of sportsfields and public open space. Partners of this study
were CSIRO, Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, the Hickinbotham Group and
the Urban Water Research Association of Australia.
Two state government departments play a role in licensing ASR operations: the Department for Water,
Land and Biodiversity Conservation (responsible for water allocation and water quantity), and the
Environment Protection Agency (responsible for water quality protection). The Department of Human
Services also becomes involved if there are public health issues. Furthermore, four Catchment Water
Management Boards have responsibility in the metropolitan and adjacent areas for producing and
implementing catchment water management plans, and local government has responsibility for urban
stormwater infrastructure and planning regulations. The complications in starting ASR projects were
considerable, so a South Australian ASR Coordinating Committee was established to improve
coordination among regulatory and research agencies, to provide accurate information to proponents and
discourage spurious applications, to identify research needs, to oversee demonstration projects, to
coordinate inputs to a database on operational ASR sites and applications, and to provide information
suitable for the public and for government (e.g. Martin and Dillon, 2002).
The first stormwater ASR project commenced in 1993 at Andrews Farm, situated 25 km north of the
Adelaide city centre on a new urban subdivision where a wetland was established in a park for urban
stormwater flood mitigation and water quality improvement. Based on the success of this project, the first
641
reclaimed water ASR project began in 1996. Both projects involved state government partners with a
view to learn about the technical aspects of ASR operations, to act as project manager, and to use the
experience to be in a good position to regulate further projects as they arose. These projects were much
more intensively monitored than subsequent ASR operations and hence were selected for description in
Boxes 23.2 and 23.3.
BOX 23.3: Case description of reclaimed water ASR at Bolivar, South Australia
Buoyed by the success of Andrews Farm stormwater ASR (Box 23.2) and the coming availability of large
volumes of reclaimed water which is unused in winter, but for which summer demand is forecast to grow,
a research project was established at Bolivar to determine the technical, environmental and economic
viability of ASR with reclaimed water in a brackish aquifer. Between October 1999 and October 2002, in
the first two ASR cycles, 360,000 m3 water was injected and 240,000 m3 was recovered. Intensive
monitoring with 8 piezometers and 8 observation wells within 300 m enabled an understanding to be
developed on water movement, mixing and quality changes in the aquifer. The study has demonstrated
that the recovered water met the guidelines for unrestricted irrigation. The quality of the water improved
during ASR, particularly with respect to pathogens, disinfection by-products, suspended particles, organic
carbon and most metals. The anticipated clogging was found to be manageable using simple methods and
the cost of the operation was found to compare favourably with conventional alternatives.
The ASR trial used water from the nearby Bolivar water reclamation plant. Secondary treatment involved
trickling filters from October 1999 to January 2001, prior to being replaced by activated sludge reactors.
The treated effluent was stored in stabilisation ponds and passed through a water reclamation plant
involving coagulation, dissolved air flotation and filtration (DAF/F) followed by chlorination. The water
was delivered for horticultural irrigation across the Northern Adelaide Plaithe ASR via the Virginia
Pipeline Scheme (VPS), from which the ASR supply was drawn.
The target aquifer was a confined limestone aquifer from 100 m to 160 m below ground surface without
the sand layers encountered at Andrews Farm, and contained brackish groundwater. It was confined above
by 7m clay which insulated the ASR operation from a local drinking water supply aquifer. Travel time to
the well at a radius of 4m was 1-2 days and to 4 of the 8 piezometers at a 50 m radius was 90 to 120 days.
Injectant was not detected in the remaining piezometers completed in lower permeability horizons.
Detections were observed at fully penetrating wells at 75 m and 120 m but not at 300 m.
Oxidation of organic matter was evident within 4 metres of the ASR well during the injection phase and
was responsible for removal of up to 4 mg L-1 DOC, or 20% of that injected. In contrast, strongly
reducing conditions were evident around the ASR well during the storage phase, when sulphate reduction
and methanogenisis locally occurred. Dissolved organic compounds with larger molecular weight and
more reactive functional groups were adsorbed or decomposed close to the ASR well. Recalcitrant OM
that had the same characteristics as natural deep groundwaters was persistent in the aquifer. Disinfection
by-products, trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) all degraded before recovery with
chloroform the most persistent of the (DBPs) with degradation rates shown to be dependent on redox
status of the aquifer (Pavelic et al., 2005). The microbial pathogens tested were Poliovirus,
Coxsackievirus, Salmonella typhimurium, the opportunistic pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila, as well as
the indicator microorganisms Escherichia coli and the coliphage MS2. Results indicated that the bacteria
had the fastest attenuation rates followed by the coliphage MS2, with the enteric viruses inactivating
642
slowest of all the organisms tested. In all cases the time for one log removal was less than one month.
Laboratory column studies were used to investigate the combined effect of physical, biological, chemical
and mechanical factors on clogging and to quantify calcite dissolution processes that would offset this on
the perimeter of an injection well (Rinck-Pfeiffer et al., 2000). Initial teething problems and infrequent
redevelopment produced clogging at the beginning of the trial, however periodic pumping of the ASR
well was effective in restoring injection rates which have been maintained over the three year duration of
the trial. The relationship between water quality and well clogging was evaluated from the field and
laboratory results, allowing water quality criteria to be developed for this aquifer.
The recovered water quality was found to satisfy the requirements for use as irrigation water according to
Australian guidelines. Salinity remained below the locally permissible limit for irrigation of 1500 mg/L
TDS until the volume of recovered water reached 66% in the first cycle and > 80% in the second.
Subsurface storage reduced the concentrations of pathogenic micro-organisms, suspended solids, organic
carbon and some metals, as predicted from the in-situ and laboratory pathogen survival experiments by
Toze and Hanna, (2002).
Quality of injected water, local ambient groundwater and recovered water
cycle 1 cycle 2
Parameter Irrigation Ambient Injectant Recovered Injectant Recovered

(mg/L) Guidelines Groundwater (n=24) Water (final (n=14) Water (final
(NWQMS) (n=17) sample) sample)
Electrical Conductivity 3592 ± 326 2265 ± 191 2470 1975 ± 92 2550
(μS/cm)
Temperature (oC) 25.9 ± 1.0 20.4 ± 4.5 22.7 16.3 ± 3.6 21.1
pH 4.5-9 7.3 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.4 7.06 6.9 ± 0.3 7.31
Dissolved Oxygen 0.77 ± 0.79 4.4 ± 3.4 0 6.0 ± 1.4 0
Total Suspended Solids 12 ± 14 14 ± 13 1 - -
Total Dissolved Solids (by 1500 2006 ± 188 1267 ± 58 1470 1225 ± 55 -
EC)
Total Nitrogen 0.08 ± 0.03 19.9 ± 10.8 15.6 7.8 ± 2.5 4.12
Total Phosphorus 0.02 ± 0.001 0.72 ± 0.65 0.24 2.3 ± 0.9 0.24
Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.3 16.7 ± 2.1 10.5 19.5 ± 1.9 12
Total Organic Carbon 0.3 18.2 ± 2.3 10.6 20.1 ± 2.12 12.2
Chlorine residual - total 0 0.7 ± 0.4 0 3.0 ± 2.4
E. Coli. (cells/100mL) 1000 0±0 42 ± 113 0 - -
Neglecting treatment and distribution costs, the cost of ASR with reclaimed water was found to be
substantially cheaper than for stormwater ASR and similar to groundwater extraction by individual
irrigators for typical annual production volumes taking into account capital and operating costs and the
expected lifetimes of wells and pumps. Surface storage of large volumes of reclaimed water is not
considered an acceptable option on the Northern Adelaide Plains. The Bolivar Reclaimed Water ASR
Research Project has been the first reclaimed water ASR project in Australia, and is the first known
successful ASR trial with nutrient-rich irrigation water. Further details are found in Dillon et al. (1999)
and Dillon and Toze (2005). The project partners were CSIRO, SA Department of Water Land and
Biodiversity Conservation, United Water International Pty Ltd, SA Water Corporation and SA
Department of Administrative and Information Services. The American Water Works Association
Research Foundation also contributed through Research Project No. 2618 ‘Water Quality Improvements
During ASR’.
643
23.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Water Resources Council (1982) Guidelines for the use of reclaimed water for aquifer recharge. Water Management
Series 2 Aust. Govt. Publishing Service, Canberra..
Bouwer H. (2002) Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeology Journal 10: 121-142.
California, Department of Health Services (2004) Title 22, California Code of Regulations. Division 4. Environmental Health,
Chapter 3. Recycling Criteria. Draft, 1 Dec 2004.
Crook J. (2004) Innovative Applications in Water Reuse: Ten case studies. WateReuse Association Report, May 2004.
Dillon P. and R. Molloy (2006) Technical Guide for ASR Practice in Victoria. CSIRO Land and Water Report to Victorian
Smart Water Fund.
Dillon P., Gerges N.Z., Sibenaler Z., Cugley J. and J. J. Reed (2000) Draft Guidelines for aquifer storage and recovery of surface
water in South Australia. CGS Report (Apr 2000).
Dillon P.J., Pavelic P., Sibenaler X.P., Gerges N.Z. and R. Clark (1997) Aquifer storage and recovery of stormwater runoff.
Australian Water & Wastewater Association J. Water 24(4): 7-11.
Dillon P., Pavelic P., S. Toze, S. Ragusa, M. Wright, P. Peter, R. Martin, N. Gerges and S. Rinck-Pfeiffer (1999) Storing
reclaimed water in an aquifer: benefits and risks. Australian Water & Wastewater Assoc. J. Water 26(5): 21-29.
Dillon P. and P. Pavelic (1998) Environmental guidelines for aquifer storage and recovery: Australian experience. Proc 3rd Intl.
Symp. on Artificial Recharge, Amsterdam, 'Artificial Recharge of Groundwater: 313-318, Peters, J.H. et al. (eds.) Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Dillon P., Toze S. and P. Pavelic (2004) Conjunctive use of urban surface water and groundwater for improved urban water
security. Proc IAH XXXIII Congress, Zacatecas, Mexico, Oct, 2004.
Dillon P. and S. Toze (eds.) (2005) Water Quality Improvements During Aquifer Storage and Recovery. AWWARF Report
91056F (286p+2CD).
Dillon P., Pavelic P., Toze P., S. Rinck-Pfeiffer, Martin R., Knapton A. and D. Pidsley (2005) Role of aquifer storage in water
reuse. Proc. Intl. Conf. Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling, Wollongong, 14-17 Feb 2005.
Dillon P.J. and P. Pavelic (1996) Guidelines for the quality of stormwater and treated wastewater for injection into aquifers for
storage and reuse. Urban Water Research Assoc. of Australia, Research Report No. 109.
Dillon P.J. (2005) Future management of aquifer recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 13(1): 13-316.
Dillon P.J. (ed.) (2002) Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. Proc.4th Intl. Symp. on Artificial Recharge. A.A.
Balkema Publishers.
Dillon P.J. (ed.) (2002) Management of aquifer recharge for sustainability. Proc. 4th Intl Symposium on Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater, ISAR4, Adelaide, 22-26 Sept 2002: 567. A.A.Balkema.
Dillon P.J. and P. Pavelic (1996) Guidelines on the quality of stormwater and treated wastewater for injection into aquifers for
storage and reuse. Urban Water Research Assoc of Aust., Research Report No 109, July 1996: 48.
Drewes J., Amy G. and M. Reinhard (2002) Targeting bulk and trace organics during advanced membrane treatment leading to
indirect potable reuse. In Procs. Amer. Water Works Assoc. Water Sources Conf, Las Vegas, Nevada, 27-30 Jan 2002.
EWRI/ASCE (2001) Standard guidelines for artificial recharge of groundwater. Environmental and Water Resources Institute,
American Society of Civil Engineers EWRI/ASCE 34-01.
FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1996) Report of the Twenty Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Food
Hygiene. ALINORM 97/13A.
Herczeg A.L., Rattray K.J., Dillon P.J., Pavelic P. and K.E. Barry (2004) Geochemical processes during five years of Aquifer
Storage Recovery. Ground Water 42(3): 438-445.
644
Hodgkin T. (2004) Aquifer storage capabilities of the Adelaide region. Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation Report DWLBC 2004/47.
Martin R. and P. Dillon (2002) Aquifer storage and recovery – future directions for South Australia. Dept for Water Land and
Biodiversity Conservation. Report DWLBC 2002/04. Aug 2002.
www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/publications/pdfs/reports/asr_future_directions_2002_04.pdf
Nadebaum P., Chapman M., R. Morden and S. Rizak (2004) A guide to hazard identification and risk assessment for drinking
water supplies. CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Research Report 11.
National Research Council (1994) Groundwater Recharge Using Waters of Impaired Quality. National Academy Press,
Washington DC.
National Water Quality Management Strategy (1995) Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia. Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council. Sept 1995.
National Water Quality Management Strategy (2004) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical
Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.
National Water Quality Management Strategy (2005) National Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and
Environmental Risks. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and Environment Protection and Heritage Council
(draft for public consultation).
Olsthoorn T.N. and M.J.M. Mosch (2002) Fifty years artificial recharge in the Amsterdam dune area. Management of Aquifer
Recharge for Sustainability: 29-33, P.J. Dillon (ed.) A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Pavelic P., Dillon P., Barry K.E., Herczeg A.L., Rattray K.J., Hekmeijer, P. and N.Z. Gerges (1998) Well clogging effects
determined from mass balances and hydraulic response at a stormwater ASR site. Proc 3rd Intl. Symp. on Artificial Recharge,
Amsterdam, 'Artificial Recharge of Groundwater: 61-66, Peters, J.H. et al. (eds.) Balkema, Rotterdam.
Pavelic P., Gerges N.Z., Dillon P.J. and D. Armstrong (1992) The potential for storage and re-use of Adelaide stormwater runoff
using the upper Quaternary groundwater system. Centre for Groundwater Studies Report No. 40.
Peters J. (ed.) (1998) Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Proc 3rd Intl. Symp. on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Amsterdam. A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Pyne R.D.G. (1995) Groundwater recharge and wells: a guide to aquifer storage and recovery. CRC Press, Florida.
Rinck-Pfeiffer S., Ragusa S., Sztajnbok P. and T. Vandevelde (2000) Interrelationships between biological, chemical, and
physical processes as an analog to clogging in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. Water Research 34(7): 2110-2118.
Santich M. (1996) An investigation into leakage and its impact on artificial recharge at Andrews Farm. Flinders University
School of Earth Sciences, B.Sc. Hons Thesis.
Sloss E., Geschwind S.A., McCaffrey D.F. and B.R. Ritz (1996) Groundwater recharge with reclaimed water: an epidemiological
assessment in Los Angeles County, 1987-1991. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Sloss E., McCaffrey D.F., Fricker R.D., Geschwind S.A. and B.R. Ritz (1999) Groundwater recharge with reclaimed water: birth
outcomes in Los Angeles County, 1982-1993. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
South Australia Environment Protection Authority (2004) Code of Practice for Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Jan 2004.
www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/cop_aquifer.pdf
Swierc J., Page D., Van Leeuwen J. and P. Dillon (2005) Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Plan (HACCP)
- Salisbury Stormwater to Drinking Water Aquifer Storage Transfer and Recovery (ASTR) Project. CSIRO Land and Water Tech
Report 20/05, Sept 2005.
Toze S., Dillon P., Pavelic P., Nicholson B. and M. Gibert (2001) Aquifer storage and recovery: Removal of contaminants from
stored waters. Aust. Water Assoc. J. Water 28(7): 41-44.
645
Toze S. and J. Hanna (2002) The survival of enteric microbial pathogens in a reclaimed water ASR project. In: Management of
Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: 139-142, P.J. Dillon (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial
Recharge (ISAR4), Adelaide Sept. 22-26, 2002, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN. 90 5809 527 4.
Tsuchihashi R., Asano T. and R. Sakaji (2002) Health aspects of groundwater recharge with reclaimed water. Management of
Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: 11-20, P.J. Dillon (ed.) A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Tuinhof A. and J.P. Heederik (eds.) (2003) Management of Aquifer Recharge and Subsurface Storage. Netherlands National
Committee- Intl Assoc Hydrogeol., NNC-IAH Publicn. 4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/625/R-04/108, Sept. 2004.
UK Water Industry Research Ltd (in press) Framework for developing water reuse criteria with reference to drinking water
supplies. UKWIR Report No XX.
Victoria Government Gazette (1997) State Environment Protection Policy, Groundwaters of Victoria. No S160, 17 Dec 1997, as
amended in Gazette G12, 21 March 2002: 531-2.
www.epa.vic.gov.au/Water/EPA/wov.asp
WateReuse Foundation (2004) Best Practices for Developing Indirect Potable Reuse Projects: Phase 1 Report. Report of Project
WRF-01-004.
World Health Organization (2003) State of the Art Report Health Risks in Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water (Eds.) R.
Aertgeerts and A. Angelakis, Water Sanitation and Health Protection and the Human Environment WHO Geneva, and WHO
Regional Office for Europe Copenhagen, Denmark. SDE/WSH/03.08.
Ziegler D., Hartig C., Wischnack S. and M. Jekel (2002) Organic substances in partly closed water cycles. Management of
Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: 161-167, P.J. Dillon (ed.) A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Pavelic P., Nicholson B.C., Dillon P.J. and K.E. Barry (2005) The fate of disinfection by-products in groundwater: A case study
from the Bolivar aquifer storage and recovery site. J. Contaminant Hydrology 77(4).
646
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Identifiable water reuse schemes in 6 regions of the world per type of reuse application 9
Figure 1.2 Geophysical map of Europe (EEA, 2003) and identifiable water reuse projects
in Europe, incl. their size and intended use 10
Figure 1.3 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Spain in 2004 11
Figure 1.4 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Belgium and the Netherlands in 2004 11
Figure 1.5 Identifiable water reclamation schemes in Australia in 2004 12
Figure 1.6 Size distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes
in the Southern United States in 2004 13
Figure 1.7 End-use distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes
in the Southern United States in 2004 13
Figure 1.8 Application of water reclamation technology throughout the world 14
Figure 2.1 Survey of EU water legislation and environmental policy relevant for water reuse
(source: Wintgens et al., 2005) 21
Figure 2.2 E. Coli standards for unrestricted irrigation in Europe, California (Title 22) and
according to the WHO guidelines of 1989 (*Total Coli) 26
Figure 2.3 Example for design purposes: health based targets along with advices of health
protection measures (Kamizoulis, 2006) 28
Figure 3.1 WTRNet Components 46

Figure 3.2 Procedure for Determining Least-Cost Design Alternatives 48
Figure 3.3 Sample Result of Integrated Water Reuse Scheme Optimisation 49
Figure 3.4 The Simplest Element of Whole Life Costing (Skipworth et al., 2002) 56
Figure 3.5 The Investigative Tool Basic Framework (Skipworth et al., 2002) 57
Figure 3.6 System Definition (after Skipworth et al., 2002) 58
Figure 3.7 Interactions between WLC Data Structures (Skipworth et al., 2002) 59
Figure 3.8 Typical distribution of energy usage in a wastewater treatment plant (EPRI, 1994) 60
Figure 4.1 Public-Private-Partnership contracts within public and private management and
ownership (redrawn from Earle, 2001) 76
Figure 5.1 Sustainable water reclamation technology considering physical, social-cultural and
economic environment (adapted from Balkema et al., 2002). 91
Figure 5.2 Environmental tools that will be discussed in this chapter 92
Figure 5.3 The structure of the inventory analysis section of life cycle assessment
(adapted from Nazaroff and Alvarez-Cohen, 2001). 94
Figure 5.4 Typical input and output flows within material flow analysis
(adapted from Eriksson et al., 2002) 96
Figure 5.5 The notion of environmental space (Spangenberg, 2002). 97
Figure 5.6 Six different options for laundry wastewater treatment, recycling and
waste management (Jørgenson et al., 2004) 100
Figure 6.1 Multilingual interactive display of reclaimed water ASR with flashing lights
indicating water movement in winter and summer cycles with corresponding
commentaries in English, Vietnamese and Khmer (Courtesy of Peter Dillon, CSIRO). 118
Figure 6.2 Some cutaway models on display at NeWater, Singapore. 119
Figure 7.1 Faecal Coliform content in different stages of wastewater treatment at

Flemish wastewater treatment facilities, Belgium 135
Figure 7.2 Life cycle cost ratio of chlorination, UV and ozonation, in function of the plant size
(redrawn from Lazarova, 2004) 142
Figure 7.3 Cost distribution ofdisinfection with Cl2, UV and O3 (redrawn from Lazarova, 2004) 142
Figure 7.5 Membrane pore size versus microbial retention (De Wilde, 2004) 145
Figure 8.1 Theoretical breakpoint chlorination scheme

(1 mg/L N-NH4, pH = 7, temperature 25oC, contact time 2 hours) (AWWARF, 1993) 157
Figure 8.2 Free chlorine Giardia and Virus CT Requirements (US EPA, 1999) 159
Figure 8.3 CT Values for inactivation of Giardia cysts by chlorine dioxide (US EPA, 1999) 161
Figure 8.4 CT Values for inactivation of viruses by chlorine dioxide (US EPA, 1999) 161
Figure 8.5 Chlorine gas cylinders (left) and concrete building for housing chlorine
gas cylinders (right) 162
Figure 8.6 Scrubber for chlorine fumes 163
Figure 8.7 Good practices 1 - Chlorine injection and mixing (White, 1999) 166
Figure 8.8 Good practices 3 – Proper chlorine dosage to a pressure line and
on-line monitoring (White, 1999) 166
Figure 8.9 Concrete contact chambers for effective chlorination 167
Figure 8.10 Good practices 2 – Proper chlorine contact chamber configuration (White, 1999) 167
Figure 8.11 Calalla WWTP chlorine gas containers and monitoring equipment, NSW,
Australia (Shoalhaven Water) 170
Figure 8.12 Dan Region project- Chlorine gas containers (Mekorot Water, 2005) 171
Figure 8.13 Dan Region project- Chlorine gas monitoring system (Mekorot Water, 2005) 172
Figure 8.14 Dan Region project- Chlorine leak prevention system (Mekorot Water, 2005) 172
Figure 8.15 Dan Region project- Chlorine containers weight monitoring (Mekorot Water, 2005) 173
Figure 9.1 Germicidal effectiveness as a function of wavelength 182

Figure 9.2 Example of average UV dose calculation vs. transmittance diagram 183
Figure 9.3 Effect of lamp ageing for different lamps (courtesy of Wedeco) 185
Figure 9.4 Current UV disinfection systems (adapted from Hunter et al., 2006) 188
Figure 9.5 Features of modern excilamps (adapted from Oppenlander, 2005) 190
Figure 9.6 Field bio-dosimetric test stand (US EPA, 2003) 195
Figure 9.7 UV disinfection unit at Castell-Platja d'Aro WRRS, Spain; (Muñoz, 2004) 197
Figure 9.8 Mechanical cleaning equipment (left) and example of deposits on quartz sleeves
(Muñoz, 2004) 197
Figure 9.9 Probability curves for expected faecal coliform concentrations according to UV dose
(Mujeriego et al., 2002) 198
Figure 9.10 Wedeco TAK55 module (left) and completed installation (right) (Lawal et al., 2005) 199
Figure 9.11 Final commissioning tests: coliform inlet and discharge levels vs. discharge permits
(Lawal et al., 2005) 200
Figure 10.1 Municipal WWTP effluent disinfection with ozone 206

Figure 10.2 Influence of feed gas moisture on the ozone yield (Lenntech) 214
Figure 10.3 Influence of the presence of hydrocarbons in the feed gas on the ozone yield
(Lenntech) 215
Figure 10.4 Air preparation system (Stanley, 1999) 215
Figure 10.5 Principle of ozone generation by dielectric barrier discharge
(redrawn from Ozonia, 2000) 216
Figure 10.6 Ozone generator with electrode pairs (source: Ozonia, 2000) 217
Figure 10.7 Influence of oxygen concentration in the feed gas on ozone production (Lenntech) 217
Figure 10.8 Solubility ratio coefficient as a function of temperature (Lenntech) 218
Figure 10.9 Air feed based ozone system + UV for waste water disinfection Catania
(courtesy of WEDECO) 225
Figure 10.10 Flow chart ozone plant Bahrain (Ried et al, 2004) 226
Figure 10.11 Ozone plant Bahrain (WEDECO Effizon HP generators) (Ried et al, 2004) 227
Figure 10.12 Schematic overview of the Kalundborg ozonation plant (Denmark) (Ried et al, 2004) 228
Figure 11.1 Layout of the Title 22 treatment before disinfection (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) 231
Figure 11.2 Conventional rapid sand filtration unit at WWTP Waregem (Belgium),
courtesy of Aquafin NV 243
Figure 11.3 Cagliari wastewater reuse scheme (Vacca et al., 2004) 248
Figure 11.4 Irrigation area and soils sampling points (Vacca et al., 2005) 249
Figure 11.5 Is Arenas Tertiary treatment plant scheme (Vacca et al., 2005) 250
Figure 11.6 Results of questionnaires on water reuse (Vacca et al., 2005) 250
Figure 11.7 Sewage treatment plant of Limassol (Christou, 2006) 251
Figure 11.8 Limassol re-use scheme 252
Figure 11.9 Hersonissos WTP operational flowchart (Borboudaki et al., 2005) 257
Figure 12.1 Multiple-barrier approach for microbial and chemical contaminant removal
[http://www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater_files/newater_tech/index.html] 264
Figure 12.2 Membranes classification with pore size, in comparison to the size of
removed components 269
Figure 12.3 Process scheme of Torreele water reclamation plant 287
Figure 12.4 Monitoring of the RO skids during a period of failure of the UF unit
(Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2004) 291
Figure 12.5 Schematic drawing of Bedok NEWater factory process scheme
(http://www.hyflux.com*pj_sg_seletar.html) 292
Figure 12.6 New Goreangab Reclamation Plant scheme, from
(http://www.vatech.at/Truman/up-media/1653_Windhoek2001en.pdf) 296
Figure 12.7 Membrane filtration racks at Windhoek/Namibia (City of Windhoek, 2004) 298
Figure 13.1 MBR system configurations: submerged (a) and side-stream (b) 304
Figure 13.2 Calculated investment costs for different design concepts of the WWTP Nordkanal
(Germany) (Engelhardt et al., 2001) 309
Figure 13.3 Wet weather flow, dry weather flow, and a fraction of both for different WWTPS in
Germany (Wintgens, 2005) 310
Figure 13.4 Evolution of membrane costs in MBR applications (Zenon) 310
Figure 13.5 Specific energy consumption of the MBR WWTP Rödingen (Germany) in 2001
(Engelhardt et al., 2001) 311
Figure 13.6 Evolution of the MBR technology (Zenon) 312
Figure 13.7 Specific energy consumption of single modules at the MBR WWTP Markranstädt
(Germany) (Stein, 2003) 313
Figure 13.8 Comparison of relative costs for MBR and CAS treatment (van der Roest et al., 2001) 314
Figure 13.9 Expected domain of application for membrane technology in municipal wastewater
treatment in a competitive market (Lesjean et al., 2004) 315
Figure 13.10 ZeeWeed®-module of ZENON (Melin et al., 2004; Zenon) 319
Figure 13.11 PURON®-module of Koch Membrane System (Melin et al., 2004;
Koch Membrane Systems) 320
Figure 13.12 Sterapore®-module of Mitsubishi (Melin et al., 2004; Mitsubishi) 320
Figure 13.13 Flat Sheet Membranes Module: KUBOTA concept (a);
KUBOTA double deck system (b) and Toray system (c) (Kubota: Melin et al., 2004;
Toray: http://www.toray.com/products/mizu/index.html) 321
Figure 13.14 VRM-system of HUBER (Melin et al., 2004; Huber Technology) 322
Figure 13.15 Fouling mechanisms of porous membranes (Melin et al., 2004) 325
Figure 13.16 MBR Varsseveld (Water Board Rijn & IJssel) 333
Figure 14.1 Layout of Soil Aquifer Treatment 341

Figure 14.2 Recharge basin (Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005) 347
Figure 14.3 Flow sheet of the infiltration fields, pumping and distribution system
(Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005) 348
Figure 14.4 Dan Region SAT system and observation wells (Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005) 351
Figure 14.5 Infiltration ponds at Yavne, Dan Region (Cikurel, 2005) 358
Figure 15.1 Removal of BOD, helminth eggs, bacteria and viruses in WSP systems with 4 to 5
cells at temperatures above 20 °C (from Juanicó and Dor, 1999) 363
Figure 15.2 Effluent polishing in ESR 364
Figure 15.3 WSP in series and in parallel (Adapted from a presentation by Mara, 1998) 372
Figure 15.4 Different WSTR configurations (Mara and Pearson, 1998) 373
Figure 15.5 Division of the total volume of a WSTR (Juanicó and Dor, 1999) 374
Figure 15.6 Embankment protection – a. Stone “rip-rap” b. Pre-cast concrete slabs
(Mara and Pearson, 1998) 378
Figure 15.7 Hakishon maturation ponds and reuse project (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004) 386
Figure 15.8 Upper Hakishon maturation ponds (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004) 387
Figure 15.9 Chemicals (CuSO4 or a natural product Degilin) are used against algae and
zooplankton in blooming seasons (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004) 388
Figure 15.10 Layout of the La Salaisière WWTP and tertiary lagoons (Brissaud, 2004) 391
Figure 15.11 Layout of the tertiary lagoons (5-8) (Brissaud, 2004) 391
Figure 15.12 HRT in La Salaisière tertiary lagoons (Brissaud, 2004) 392
Figure 16.1 Different types of constructed wetlands (I to III from Vymazal et al. (1998), repro-
duced with permission from Backhuys Publishers; IV and V courtesy of Aquafin NV) 398
Figure 16.2 Overview of the LIEDEKERKE wetland system. 419
Figure 17.1 Risk factors in RWDS (adapted from Sadiq et al., 2004) 424
Figure 17.2 Conceptual flow sheet for biofilm formation (Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004) 426
Figure 17.3 Attachment, detachment and accumulation of Biofilm (adapted from Flemming, 1991) 427
Figure 17.4 Underground utility tunnel for adequate separation of dual systems
(redrawn from Riley, 2005) 431
Figure 17.5 Equipment used in chemical or physical methods for Zooplankton and algal removal
(Mekorot, 2005) 434
Figure 17.6 Achieving slug flow during air scoring (Vitanage et al., 2004) 437
Figure 17.7 Sand trap for DS lines clogging prevention (Mekorot, 2005) 438
Figure 17.8 Monitoring of clogging of irrigation systems by headloss measurement for
a determined time (Mekorot, 2005) 440
Figure 17.9 Sand- detectors (Mekorot, 2005) 440
Figure 17.10 Control filter used as biofilm monitor (Mekorot, 2005) 440
Figure 17.11 Pilot for biofilm in RWDS study (Cikurel et al., 2002) 442
Figure 17.12 Chironomus larvae in biofilm on half – pipe and plates (Cikurel et al., 2002) 443
Figure 17.13 24” Diameter Cement-Steel Effluent Pipe with 10 Year Old Biofilm
Dan WWTP (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003) 444
Figure 17.14 Large –scale biofilm cleaning and prevention experiments (Cikurel et al, 2002) 445
Figure 17.15 Effect of mechanical cleaning on the head-loss in 54” Diameter Cement-Steel
Effluent Pipe, Dan WWTP (Icekson-Tal et al., 2003) 447
Figure 17.16 La china WWTP and the tertiary treatment system
(redrawn from Navarotto et al., 2005) 448
Figure 18.1 Hierarchy of water reuse classification (derived from Salgot et al.; 2006) and
the related monitoring programme requirements 471
Figure 20.1 Grammichele water reclamation scheme (Barbagallo et al., 2001b) 522
Figure 20.2 Water recycling concept of wastewater association Braunschweig,
(Abwasserverband Braunschweig, 2001) 533
Figure 20.3 Irrigated field and irrigator 534
Figure 20.4 Distribution pumping station 534
Figure 20.5 Gerringong Gerroa WWTP and irrigation project (Boake, 2005) 541
Figure 20.6 View of the Hefer Valley Irrigation Project (Cikurel and Aharoni, 2004) 548
Figure 21.1 Total water reuse quantities and distribution by sector (AGR: agriculture, GWR:
groundwater recharge, IND: industry, ECO: ecological, URB: urban, DOM: domestic)
in different regions of the world (AQUAREC, 2004) (Asano, 2000) (ATSE, 2004) 555
Figure 21.2 Overview on the Rouse Hill water recycling project (Sydney Water Corporation) 572
Figure 21.3 Schematic of the Rouse Hill wastewater treatment and water reclamation process
(Cooper, 2003) 573
Figure 21.4 Continuous Microfiltration unit at Rouse Hill treatment plant operated by Sydney Water
(Fairbairn, 2005) 574
Figure 21.5 Millennium Dome and water saving devices (Thames Water, 2003) 577
Figure 21.6 Millennium Dome´s core buildings: function and equipment
(according to Hills et al., 2002) 577
Figure 21.7 BOD reduction following BAF and membrane treatment in pilot trials
(Hills et al., 2001) 578
Figure 21.8 Schematic of treatment process (Hills et al., 2001) 579
Figure 21.9 Schematic representation of the water cycle in the DEUS 21 concept (Kotz et al., 2004) 581
Figure 22.1 Microbiological requirements for cooling water make-up in identified regulations
worldwide 593
Figure 22.2 Physico-chemical requirements for cooling water make-up in identified regulation
worldwide: TSS (left) and turbidity (right) 593
Figure 22.3 Distribution of identifiable water reclamation schemes for cooling water make-up
throughout the world (Bixio et al., in writing) 596
Figure 22.4 Layout of the West Basin water reclamation scheme (adapted from Lazarova, 2000) 601
Figure 23.1 Schematic of types of management of aquifer recharge 619

Figure 23.1 Schematic of framework for management of drinking water quality
(from NWQMS, 2004) 627
Figure 23.3 Multiple barriers to protect groundwater and recovered water at ASR projects
(from Dillon et al., 2000) 636
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Structure of the Chapters on Best Available Technologies 5
Table 1.2 Shortlist of benefits reportedly enjoyed by communities that implemented
water reuse projects 6
Table 1.3 Top 20 priorities and issues for water reuse (EUREAU, 2004) 8
Table 2.1 Outline of correlation of reuse applications a-nd effected compartments

regulated under European law (Wintgens et al., 2005) 23
Table 2.2 Existing reclaimed water quality regulation within the EU 29
Table 2.3 Water quality categories for different final uses of reclaimed wastewater
defined by the Aquarec project (Salgot et al., 2006) 30
Table 2.4a Criteria established by the Aquarec project: microbial limits (Salgot et al., 2006) 30
Table 2.4b Criteria established by the Aquarec project: chemical limits (Salgot et al., 2006) 31
Table 2.5 Conditions for the application of the precautionary principle (Andorno, 2004) 36
Table 3.1 Processes and Sub-Processes in Water Reclamation 52
Table 4.1 Types and benefits of options to financing water reuse schemes 66
Table 4.2 Definition of typical bankability indicators and their minimum expected
threshold values in the European Union in the period 2000-2006 67
Table 4.3 Water prices of conventional and reclaimed water sources 74
Table 4.4 Types of operating contracts involving private participation 76
Table 5.1 Overview of the above environmental tools 98
Table 7.1 Characteristics of an ideal disinfectant (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) 136
Table 7.2 Pathogens potentially present in secondary effluent and used indicators
(modified from AQUAREC, 2005) 138
Table 7.3 Techno-economical comparison of some disinfectants 141
Table 7.4 Impact of effluent quality characteristics to chlorine, UV and ozone
(adapted from Metcalf and Eddy,2003 & Hidalgo Barrio et al., 2004) 143
Table 8.1 Physical properties of chlorine compounds (Metcalf&Eddy, 2003) 156

Table 8.2 Treatment train of the water reclamation facility (Shoalhaven Water) 169
Table 8.3 Design effluent concentrations of Callala WWTP (Shoalhaven Water) 169
Table 8.4 WWTP Effluent standards for water reuse (yearly averages) 169
Table 8.5 Effluent results of WWTPs: Test Result (Shoalhaven Water) 170
Table 8.6 Treatment train of the water reclamation facility 170
Table 8.7 Unrestricted irrigation effluent standards Israel (Halperin, 1999) 171
Table 8.8 Quality of Dan region reclaimed water (yearly averages) 171
Table 9.1 Pros and cons of disinfection with UV irradiation vs. chlorination 177
Table 9.2 Relative effectiveness of UV radiation for disinfection of specific pathogens and
indicators (adapted from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) 178
Table 9.3 Life-cycle costs of the UV system at YCUA water reclamation scheme 181
Table 9.4 Transmittance values of different effluents as a function of the secondary treatment 183
Table 9.5 Summary of studies of photo-reactivation following UV disinfection
(modified from Martin and Gehr, 2005; Arnon et al., 2005) 187
Table 9.6 Comparison of LP and MP lamps (modified from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003;
Schalk, 2005; Dussert, 2005) 189
Table 10.1 Advantages and disadvantages of ozone as a disinfectant 205

Table 10.2 Inactivation of parasites and viruses by ozone 207
Table 10.3 Oxidation of organic micropollutants by ozone 207

Table 10.4 Impact of ozonation on standard parameters 208
Table 10.5 Overview of parameters for monitoring 220
Table 10.6 Examples for ozonation plants in different WWTP 224
Table 10.7 Technical data of the Catania plant (Italy) 225
Table 10.8 Technical data of the Kalundborg ozonation plant (Denmark) 228
Table 11.1 Options for filtration with the related function and process operations 232
Table 11.2 Achievable quality of effluent in mg/L, (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) 233
Table 11.3 Average performance data WWTP De Groote Lucht, (Kramer and Wouters, 2003) 233
Table 11.4 Sampling and quality control, (Water Environment Federation, 1996) 234
Table 11.5 Summary of process indicators 234
Table 11.6 Costs for dosage of FeCl3, (Schäfer et al., 2001) 237
Table 11.7 Percentage maintenance costs for assumed construction (C)* and
electro-mechanical (EM)* costs for rapid media filtration (Miska et al., 2003) 239
Table 11.8 Wastewater characteristics affecting chlorination performance
(National Water Research Institute, 1993) 240
Table 11.9 Wastewater characteristics affecting UV disinfection performance
(National Water Research Institute, 1993) 241
Table 11.10 Process equipment 241
Table 11.11 Recommended Process Parameters and Alarm Conditions to Be Monitored in a
Water Reclamation Plant (Richard, 1998)* 246
Table 11.12 Total tertiary operation cost for the period 1995-2000 (Papaiacovou, 2001) 251
Table 11.13 Maximum allowable concentrations considered for reuse
(landscape irrigation and mixed types of industrial applications) 253
Table 11.14 Frequency for monitoring parameter 253
Table 11.15 Quality characteristics of influent wastewater (Tsagarakis et al., 2001) 258
Table 11.16 Qualitative characteristics of secondary treated and filtered (SF) effluent 259
Table 11.17 Trace elements of treated wastewater 259
Table 11.18 Summary of the annual O&M costs 260
Table 11.19 Calculation of the total annual economic costs for the individual stages of
wastewater management 260
Table 12.1 Examples of achieved water quality in full-scale (double) membrane systems
compared to US-EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards
and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines 264
Table 12.2 O&M Costs Summary for full-scale plants with membrane processes for water
reclamation and reuse 268
Table 12.3 Monitoring control parameters for a typical double membrane system 278
Table 12.4 Comparison of O&M costs for conventional reclamation scheme
(12 year average at WF 21) and double membrane scheme 281
Table 12.5 Effect of pre-treatment technology on specific permeate flux and
power consumption for various types of RO membranes (Wilf and Alt, 2000) 282
Table 12.6 Feed water quality to the GWR system (Daugherty et al., 2005;
Chalmers et al., 2000; Guendert, 2004) 282
Table 12.7 Comparison among MF systems proposed for GWRS [Broens et al., 2004] 284
Table 12.8 Preliminary estimation of O&M Cost for MF system at GWRS
[Chalmers et al., 2000] 285
Table 12.9 Annual estimated operations and maintenance costs for GRWS [GWRS,
http://www.gwrsystem.com/about/pdf/0503gwrs_cost_paper.pdf] 286
Table 12.10 Influent of the Wulpen reclamation unit: yearly average in 2003 288
Table 12.11 Effluent results of the Wulpen reclamation unit: quality of different waters
during December 2004- December 2005 (Van Houtte and Verbauwhede, 2006) 289
Table 12.12 Chemical usage at Wulpen reclamation scheme: double membrane system
(Dec 2004-Nov 2005) 290
Table 12.13 Monitoring practice at Wulpen reclamation scheme: double membrane system 290
Table 12.14 Influent water quality at Kranji NEWater Reclamation Plant during
demonstration period [Singapore Water Reclamation study, 2002] 293
Table 12.15 Typical UF permeate quality at Goreangab (NORIT Membrane Technology, 2003) 297
Table 12.16 Intermediate monitoring parameters along Goreangab treatment train
[Du Pisani, 2006] 298
Table 13.1 Advantages and disadvantages MBR technology 304

Table 13.2 Removal efficiency and effluent quality MBR technology 305
Table 13.3 Biological operating conditions submerged MBR (STOWA, 2002) 316
Table 13.4 Typical operating conditions submerged MBR (sources: www.toray.co.jp, 2005;
Melin et al., 2004 Lesjean et al., 2004; Judd, 2002) 322
Table 13.5 Monitoring and record keeping for MBR process 323
Table 13.6 Monitoring and record keeping for MBR effluent quality 324
Table 13.8 Elimination efficiencies of MBRs and CAS process (Lyko et al. 2005) 326
Table 13.7 Large/medium scale (>2000 m³/d) municipal wastewater treatment with
MBRs in Europe (Wintgens et al., 2006) 329
Table 13.8 Municipal reuse projects with MBRs effluents in Europe 330
Table 13.9 Characteristics MBR Varsseveld 334
Table 14.1 SAT removal efficiencies (Cikurel, 2004; Mekorot 2004) 343
Table 14.2 Operating conditions for SAT systems 344
Table 14.3 Conceptual framework for the California and Israel groundwater criteria
(Adapted from Metcalf& Eddy, 2003; Mekorot, 2004) 346
Table 14.4 Water quality monitoring in recovery wells after SAT treatment
(Cikurel & Aharoni, Aquarec, 2005) 352
Table 14.5 Large and medium scalewater reuse projects using SAT 353
Table 14.6 Field sites and their characteristics 354
Table 14.7 SAT performance at Shafdan – basic wastewater parameters (Mekorot, 2003) 359
Table 14.8 Comparison of drinking water standards for specific organics and
results obtained in Observation well No. 54* (Mekorot, 2003) 360
Table 15.1 Removals of excreted pathogens achieved by various types of ponds vs.
conventional activated sludge process 365
Table 15.2 Removals of nutrients achieved by various types of ponds vs. conventional
activated sludge process 366
Table 15.3 Advantages and disadvantages of MP and ESR compared to more intensive
polishing systems 366
Table 15.4 Consumption of electrical energy for WSPs and other conventional treatment
processes (Mara and Pearson, 1998) 367
Table 15.5 Cost and land requirements for various methods of wastewater treatment
for a rural community of 500 inhabitants in Germany 368
Table 15.6 Examples of algal genera present in Maturation Ponds as compared to
Facultative Ponds (Mara and Pearson, 1998) 370
Table 15.7 Strategies for solving problems involved with maturation ponds or WSTR
(Metcalf and Eddy, 2003) 381
Table 15.8 List of parameters to be monitored in WSP (Mara and Pearson, 1998) 383
Table 15.9 Quality of water for reuse obtained in the Kishon Project
(Aharoni and Cikurel, 2004) 390
Table 15.10 Quality of the treated effluent from La Salaisière WWTP (Fazio et al., 2001) 392
Table 15.11 Quality of Maturation ponds' effluent in 1998 (Fazio et al., 2001) 392
Table 15.12 Maturation ponds effluent quality – Caltagirone, Sicily (Barbagallo et al., 2003) 394
Table 16.1 Advantages and disadvantages of constructed treatment wetlands as compared to

conventional treatment technologies (adapted from Merz, 2000). 398
Table 16.2 Investment and operating costs, indifferent of treatment level or wastewater type,
after Kadlec and Knight (1996). Reproduced with permission of
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 400
Table 16.3 Design features for tertiary treatment with aquatic treatment units
(based on Vymazal et al., 1998) 405
Table 16.4 Essential maintenance tasks for a standard VSSF constructed wetland
serving 1000 P.E. (from Liénard et al., 2004) 406
Table 16.5 Maintenance of FWS treatment wetlands (after Merz, 2000) 406
Table 16.6 Maintenance of FWS wetland-associated facilities (from Merz, 2000) 407
Table 16.7 Summary of potential factors resulting in wetland vegetation maintenance
problems (from Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Reproduced with permission of
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 409
Table 16.8 Additional potential hazards and design/management actions that can be taken
to prevent them (after Merz, 2000) 410
Table 16.9 Minimal monitoring requirements (from Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 411
Table 17.1 Parameters that can influence microbial growth in RWDS 424
Table 17.2 Issues for designing and operating a distribution network 429
Table 17.3 Pipe- line separation standards in the US (Adapted from Riley, 2005) 430
Table 17.4 Cost of dual plumbing systems in RWDS (Asano, 1998) 432
Table 17.5 Characteristics of the non-aggressive pipe cleaning methods. (Vitanage et al., 2004) 437
Table 17.6 Summary of case studies for microbial problems and mitigation techniques
(AWWARF, 2005) 438
Table 17.7 Physico-chemical and microbiological analyses in La China park irrigation project
(Navarotto et al., 2005) 449
Table 18.1 Summary of water quality parameters relevant to water reclamation and reuse (adapted
from Asano and Levine, 2004) 454
Table 18.2 Tests and reference procedures for indicators and pathogens in water 458
Table 18.3 Tests and reference procedures for physical-chemical indicators 464
Table 18.4 parameters with very low monitoring frequency (from AQUAREC WP2) 468
Table 18.5 Monitoring of schemes in Australia: results from the Aquarec questionnaire 470
Table 18.6 Maximum permissible values and effluent quality at the water reclamation
scheme of Lloret de Mar, Spain. 473
Table 18.7 Microbiological quality of the water at different stages in the Dan Region Project
(5 years average) 475
Table 18.8 Intensified analysis program for water reuse sites which is being carried out in the
RECLAIM WATER project (www.reclaim-water.org) 477
Table 18.9 Number and nature of monitored parameters per sampling location at the NeWater
reclamation facility, Singapore 477
Table 20.1 Chloride tolerance of some fruit crop cultivars and rootstocks
(adapted from Maas, 1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985) 505
Table 20.2 Sodium tolerance of selected crops to Exchangeable Sodium Percentage1
(adapted from Maas 1984; Ayers and Westcot, 1985) 506
Table 20.3 Relative boron tolerance of agricultural crops1(Adapted from Maas, 1984;
Ayers and Westcot, 1985) 507
Table 20.4 Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water
(adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1985) 509
Table 20.5 Water quality criteria for irrigation of crops used as animal food
(adapted from Navarotto, 2005) 513
Table 20.6 Water quality criteria for irrigation of food crops eaten raw and
fruit crop- Aspersion (adapted from Navarotto, 2005) 514
Table 20.7 Water quality criteria for irrigation of food crops to be processed except
for aspersion (adapted from Navarotto, 2005) 515
Table 20.8 Water quality criteria for irrigation of industrial crop
(adapted from Navarotto, 2005) 516
Table 20.9 Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation
(adapted from Ayers and Westcot 1985; Metcalf & Eddy 2003) 517
Table 20.10 Italian National Standards for irrigation with reclaimed wastewater
(D.M.185/03) from (Barbagallo et al., in press) 520
Table 20.11 Apulia limits as compared to National regulations (2003), from
(Lopez and Vurro, 2005) 522
Table 20.12 Experimentations on water reuse during AQUATEC 524
Table 20.13 Examples of restrictions to WHO guidelines in French regulations concerning
irrigational wastewater reuse 526
Table 20.14 Draft regulations for irrigational wastewater reuse, expected new order by
Ministries of Health, Environment and Agriculture (Brissaud, 2004) 526
Table 20.15 Chemical parameters in raw sewage and clariflocculated sewage,
average in mg/L (Vedry et al., 2001) 528
Table 20.16 Bacteriological parameters in raw sewage and clariflocculated sewage,
per 100 mL (Vedry et al., 2001) 528
Table 20.17 Heavy Metals content in the irrigated soil of Pierralaye fields, as compared to
control soil and French Regulation (Vedry et al., 2001) 529
Table 20.18 Heavy metals concentration in vegetables of irrigated and control fields
(irrigated fields in Bold, from Vedry et al., 2001) 529
Table 20.19 Average water prices in Noirmoutier (including cost of subscription and meters)
from (Xu et al., 2001) 530
Table 20.20 Effluent quality of wastewater treatment plant Steinhof in Braunschweig 532
Table 20.21 Benefits arising under the particular circumstances of the Braunschweig
water reuse scheme 535
Table 20.22 Australian suggestion for reclaimed water grades and treatment Agricultural
irrigation part (Adapted from Anderson et al., 2001) 536
Table 20.23 Performance criteria-Gerringong Gerroa WWTP (Boake, 2005) 542
Table 20.24 Halperin Committee Guidelines vs. Inbar Committee proposal (Aharoni and
Cikurel, 2006) 544
Table 20.25 The number and type of barriers to pathogen transfer that are recommended
by the Israel Ministry of Health according to the effluent quality and crop type
(adopted from Halperin, 1999) 545
Table 20.26 Types of crops irrigated with reclaimed water in California 550
Table 21.1 Uses and main benefits of reclaimed water: results of an Australian survey
(Marks et al., 2002) 558
Table 21.2 Quality requirements for toilet flushing (Mehlhart, 2005;
amended with Yamagata, 2003) 559
Table 21.3 Quality criteria for Class A water (EPA, 2002)
(http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf) 560
Table 21.4 Water reuse criteria for Irrigation of parks, playgrounds, schoolyards and
similar areas (Crook, 2005) 560
Table 21.5 Water quality guidelines for the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant
(Sydney Water, 2002) 562
Table 21.6 Typical mean concentrations of a range of parameters for untreated greywater
(Mehlhart, 2005) 562
Table 21.7 Quality requirements for service and process water in buildings
(Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, 2004) 563
Table 21.8 An Australian Comparison between centralised and decentralised systems
(Ho et al., 2004) 564
Table 22.1 Minimum requirements for the use of reclaimed water in industry in the EU,
Australia and USA (Bertini, 2005) 587
Table 22.2 Common water quality concerns for industrial process applications and
typical water treatment options 588
Table 22.3 Technical characteristics of different cooling water systems: (1) non-power
generating applications (EU, 2001) 590
Table 22.4 Technical characteristics of different cooling water systems: (2) power generating
plants (Lens et al., 2002) 590
Table 22.5 Treatment technology for the use of reclaimed water for industrial cooling
(Asano and Visvanathan, 2001) 594
Table 22.6 Indicative minimum objectives for the cooling water make-up with reclaimed
water (WPCF, 1989) vs. secondary effluent 594
Table 22.7 Indicative minimum objectives at point of use for cooling in heat exchangers
(NAS, 1972) 595
Table 22.8 Influent and effluent water quality at WWTP Tienen (2003-2005) 597
Table 22.9 Indicative minimum objectives for industrial boiler-feed water quality
(adapted from US EPA, 1992) 599
Table 22.10 Minimum objectives for industrial boiler-feed water after APAVE 600
Table 22.11 Water use in textile finishing as indicated by US EPA (1996) 602
Table 22.12 Water quality concerns in the textile finishing industry 602
Table 22.13 Indicative minimum objectives for different types of fabric 603
Table 22.14 Water quality characteristics at Bulgarogasso and Fino Mornasco reclamation
schemes, Italy (adapted from Mattioli et al., 2002) 604
Table 22.14a Comparison of Water Quality Values for Constituents of Concern for
Dye Processes (Water 3 Eng, 2005) 605
Table 22.15 Water use in pulp and paper wet processes according to the standards NCPI
(Degremont, 1991) 606
Table 22.16 Specifications of process water quality for manufacture of various papers
NCPI (1) and TAPPI (2) 607
Table 22.17 Specifications of process water quality for manufacture of various papers,
McKee & Wolf (OWR, 1982) 607
Table 22.18 Process water requirements for paper production and WWTP effluent quality
(Office of Water Recycling, 1982) 608
Table 22.19 Selected feed water parameters and projected RO performance at
Brittannia Zinc ltd, Bristol (Threlfall et al., 2003) 609
Table 22.20 Process water quality requirements (WPCF, 1989& USEPA, 2004) 611
Table 22.21 Specifications of the process water for the electronic industry (integrated
circuits and sensitive surfaces) (Lens et al., 2002) 612
Table 23.1 Elements of framework for managing drinking water quality and comparison of
features in various management frameworks (from NWQMS, 2004) 627
Table 23.2 (continued) Elements of framework for managing drinking water quality and
comparison of features in various management frameworks (from NWQMS, 2004) 628
Table 23.3 Resource management and environmental protection policies that are invoked in the
licensing of MAR operations. 631
Table 23.4 Environmental values for Victorian Groundwaters (from Victorian EPA, 1997) 632
Table 23.5 ASR operational sites in Adelaide in 2004, classified by aquifer type 639
European Commission
Water Reuse System Management Manual - AQUAREC
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2006 — 676 pp. — 17.6 x 25.0 cm
ISBN 92-79-01934-1
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 50

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 25
41FG11_pageslim 31-08-2006 13:27 Pagina 5

Water Reuse System Management Manual-Gp Daily WEB KI7606016ENC 002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Water Reuse System Management Manual-Gp Daily WEB KI7606016ENC 002

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

Water Reuse System Management Manual-Gp Daily WEB KI7606016ENC 002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

41FG11_cover

Water Reuse System - Management Manual - AQUAREC

Interested in European research?

Water Reuse System

edited by Davide Bixio and Thomas Wintgens

Directorate-General for Research

AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130 Water Reuse System Management Manual

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez

Water Reuse System Management Manual AQUAREC – EVK1-CT-2002-00130

WATER REUSE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT MANUAL

Coordinator - AQUAREC Project

ALDO RAVAZZINI, VIVIANE MISKA AND JAAP DE KONING

HAIM CIKUREL AND AVI AHARONI

MICHAEL MUSTON, STUART KHAN(a), PETER DILLON(b) AND ANDREA SCHÄFER

DARKO JOKSIMOVIC AND DRAGAN SAVIC

THOMAS WINTGENS, ANGELA TINGS,

Figure 1 Structure, application contexts, evaluation criteria and

1. WP4 focuses on the development of a sustainable planning methodology,

2. WP5 focuses on the methodologies for public acceptance and consultation,

3. WP6 focus on the management of water reuse schemes.

Davide Bixio and Thomas Wintgens

2 INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND, ORGANISATIONAL

3 COST MANAGEMENT AND OPTIMISATION 45

5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS 91

7 DISINFECTION TECHNIQUES 135

8 DISINFECTION WITH CHLORINE COMPOUNDS 151

9 ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION 177

10 DISINFECTION WITH OZONE 205

11 “TITLE 22” BENCHMARK TECHNOLOGY 231

12 HIGH-QUALITY BENCHMARK: DOUBLE MEMBRANE SYSTEM 263

13 CENTRALISED MBR 303

14 SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT AS POLISHING 341

15 MATURATION PONDS AND EFFLUENT RESERVOIRS 363

16 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR POLISHING SECONDARY

17 RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 423

18 MONITORING TECHNIQUES 453

19 FAILURE AND FAILURE MANAGEMENT 481

20 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS: AGRICULTURE 501

21 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS : URBAN APPLICATIONS 555

22 END-USE SPECIFICATIONS: INDUSTRIAL USES 585

23 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 617

• Clear references are needed to support decision-makers. A lot of information is available

1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MANUAL

For each of these conditions:

• reference principles are outlined,

1.3 TARGETED READER

1.4 WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE – WHAT DO WE MEAN?

1.5 HOW THIS MANUAL IS ORGANIZED

The manual is divided into three parts:

PART 1 Management of organisational aspects, including economics and financing

Chapter 4 Financial sustainability: summarises principles applicable in economically developed

PART 2 Management of social and environmental aspects

PART 3 Management of technical aspects

Chapter 7 to 17 depicts reference technologies used to reclaim secondary effluent of municipal

Chapter 12 “High-quality” benchmark (secondary + MF/UF + RO + disinfection)a: membrane processes

Chapter 13 Membrane bioreactors (centralised systems): membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is

Chapter 15 Maturation ponds and effluent reservoirs: