further information 1 wateadrfar reuse and recycling in eureau countries

Three Valleys Water Witness Session: Further Information 1

EUREAU EU 1/2 RECYCLING & REUSE WORKING GROUP EU1/2-07-WR-40(1) January 2007

WASTEWATER RECYCLING AND REUSE IN EUREAU COUNTRIES: With Emphasis on Criteria Used

A.N. Angelakis1, B. Durham2, M.H.F. Marecos do Monte3, M. Salgot4, T. Wintgens5 and C.Thoeye 6 1 Hellenic Union of Municipal Enter. for Water Supply and Sewerage, 41200 Larissa and National Foundation for Agricultural Research, Institute of Iraklio, 711 10 Iraklio, Greece 2Technical Secretary, EUREAU Water Recycling and Reuse Working Group, Veolia Water, 52 rue d’Anjou, 75384 Paris. 3 SANEST - Saneamento da Costa do Estoril S.A., Rua Flor da Murta, 2770-064 Paço

de Arcos, Portugal 4 Edafologia. Facultat de Farmacia, Universitat de Barcelona, Joan XXIII s/n. 08028

Barcelona, Spain. 5 RWTH Aachen, Turmstrasse 46, 52056 Aachen, Germany 6 AQUAFIN,Dijkstraat 8,B-2630 Aartselaar, Belgium

SUMMARY

Among Eureau countries, most of the northern ones traditionally have abundant water resources, stringent environmental standards and higher water prices. Until the drought of 2003, 2005 and 2006 the need for additional water supply through the reuse of treated wastewater is not always seen as a priority, but the protection of the receiving environment is considered important. However many large cities such as London and other conurbations in large river basins are dependent upon appropriately treated wastewater to recharge the surface and groundwater bodies so that a reliable source of freshwater is available. During dry weather conditions London and Berlin are dependent on appropriately treated recycled water for 70% of the freshwater source for potable treatment enabling London to operate with a water availability of 265m3/inhab.yr (Planet Water). Unplanned treated wastewater reuse is common place as the prime use of treated wastewater is surface water recharge. This surface water with dilution recharges the groundwater from which most of the water for potable treatment is abstracted. The southern Eureau countries with reduced water resources available have benefited from the additional resources brought by wastewater reuse. This brings significant advantages to agriculture (e.g. crop irrigation), industry (e.g. cooling water) and tourism (e.g. wetlands, landscape and golf course irrigation) and through potable substitution increases the availability of water for potable treatment. There, wastewater is reused but under very diverse regulatory environments. Therefore, considering its various potential benefits (protection of water resources, prevention of coastal pollution, recovery of nutrients for agriculture, augmentation of river-flow, savings in wastewater treatment, groundwater recharge, source for industry and sustainability of water resource management, etc.) wastewater reuse can be applied to



the advantage of both northern and southern Eureau countries. The importance of wastewater reuse has been clearly prioritised in the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control legislation (IPPC) for industry as described in the best available techniques Reference documents (BREF) (IPPC http://eippcb.jrc.es) In order to take advantage of its full potential in a planned and sustainable way, Eureau would like to be involved in setting up international good practices and guidelines related to the reuse of treated wastewater. Such criteria and/or guidelines would contribute to improved management of water resources, increased protection of public health and of the environment and sustainable development. This would also support IPPC legislation, which is included in the legislation covered by the Water Framework Directive. (WFD 2000/60/EC) Reclaimed wastewater is a reliable, valuable, drought proof source of water that must be taken into account in formulating a sustainable water policy. There is a need to encourage planned and appropriate wastewater reclamation and reuse in all countries and to establish safe reuse practice European guidelines for most applications must be developed. KEYWORDS EU; reuse guidelines and good practice; water resources management; water availability; wastewater reclamation; wastewater treatment; water reuse criteria;. INTRODUCTION

Europeans have a long history on water reuse. There are examples of rainwater reuse since the Minoan time, ca. 3,500-1,100 B.C. Wastewater reuse has been practiced since the Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations (Angelakis and Spyridakis, 1996). Land application of wastewater is an old and common practice, which has gone through different development stages with time, knowledge of the processes, treatment technology, and regulations evolution (Angelakis et al., 2005). Wastewater has also been used by the Mediterranean civilizations, for example in the 14th and 15th centuries in the Milanese Marcites and in the Valencia huerta and the North European ones, like in Great Britain, Germany, France, and Poland (Soulié and Tréméa, 1992). Raw or partially treated, wastewater has been used for agriculture in many locations all over the world not without causing serious public health consequences and adverse environmental impacts, but improving the yield of several crops. This has been generating the existence of endemic, and quite epidemic diseases. Slow rate (SR) systems have a long history in the treatment and disposal of municipal wastewater. These systems have been widely employed in the treatment/disposal of municipal wastewater since 1850 (Folsom, 1876). In the recent history, the expansion of mechanical wastewater treatment plants had as consequence the application and development of SR systems to decline. During the last two decades, there has been renewed interest in the use of SR systems due to their significant advantages such as



low construction, operation, and maintenance costs especially in small rural communities. Treated wastewater has been an important means of augmenting river flows in many countries and the subsequent use of such water for all the applications constitutes indirect reuse of wastewater. The developments in technology for wastewater and drinking water treatment have ensured that the indirect recycling that has been common place for many years is not only safe but can be demonstrated to be safe. (UKWIR Reuse framework 2005) Regulatory control is provided by environmental and drinking water legislation without including best available techniques or quality guidelines for all the different reuse applications. Raw or partially treated wastewater has been inappropriately applied in many locations all over the world and has caused serious public health consequences with endemic and epidemic diseases as well as damage to the environment. In Europe, particularly in south region, the volume of wastewater is increasing. Consequently, there is a major opportunity to use recycled water in the region. The need for alternative sources of water was emphasized in the 2003 drought which resulted in a 30% reduction in agricultural production. The 2003 drought was a dramatic example of the measured 20% reduction in annual precipitation from 1900 to 2000 (EEA 2/2004). It is essential that the development of water reuse in agriculture and other sectors be based on scientific evidences of its effects on environment and public health (Kamizoulis et al., 2005). Although several studies have been conducted on wastewater quality and for different purposes, at this time, there are no guidelines, good practice or regulations of water reuse at an EU level other than the Urban Wastewater Directive which states that “treated wastewater should be reused whenever appropriate”. However, reclaimed water is of fundamental importance to European environment and economy for: (a). Stimulating of economic growth by providing an additional supply of water. (b). Providing a reliable source for cooling and boiler feed for industry. (c). Providing an appropriate and nutrient rich source for agricultural and landscape irrigation. (d). Reducing the demand on the limited fresh water resources, reducing the discharge of pollutants to the environment, and energy consumption. The beneficial use of treated municipal and industrial wastewater as well as the increasing demands on finite water resources has prompted the emergence of wastewater reclamation and reuse as an integral component of water resources management. The inherent benefits associated with reclaiming treated wastewater for supplemental applications instead of discharge or disposal include preservation of higher quality water resources, environmental protection, and economic advantages. A major catalyst for the evolution of wastewater reclamation and reuse has been the need to provide alternative water resources to satisfy water requirements for irrigation, industry, urban non-potable and potable water applications due to unprecedented growth and development in many regions of the world. Water shortages, particularly during periods of drought, have necessitated stricter control measures on rates of water consumption and development of alternative water sources (Asano, 1998).



Advances in the effectiveness and reliability of wastewater treatment technologies have improved the capacity to produce reclaimed wastewater that can serve as a supplemental water source in addition to meeting water quality protection and pollution abatement requirements. In developing countries, particularly those in arid parts of the world, reliable low-cost technologies (both for water and wastewater treatment and reuse) are needed for acquiring new water supplies and protecting existing water sources from pollution. The implementation of wastewater recycling and reuse promotes the preservation of limited water resources in conjunction with water conservation and watershed protection programs (Asano, 1998). In most developed areas of the world, wastewater reclamation and reuse is recognized as a means to augment existing water resources against the spectre of continued droughts and water supply shortages, as well as to provide water supply reliability to operating systems. Characteristic examples are California, Singapore, Australia, Japan, and China; where legislation and technologies and good practice on wastewater recycling and reuse have improved markedly and are more developed than in Europe. However, in some EUREAU countries there is limited technology and long term experience has been gained (Angelakis et al., 2001). This paper summarises the Eureau experience and investigation on wastewater recycling and reuse practices of various member countries. In addition, water resources status, national or regional legislation and guidelines on wastewater reuse and a variety of approaches in regulating wastewater reuse are briefly presented. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN EUREAU COUNTRIES According to current European Population Committee the total population of the Eureau countries is expected to remain stable until 2030 after which it will decline due to the reduction in birth rates. (European population papers). The planned enlargement of the EU to 28 member states will increase the population to around 470 million. Although the population is ageing and declining the following problems need to be addressed: (a) long-term pollution is affecting an increasing number of drinking water supplies (e.g. by nitrates, pesticide residues, drugs and by products) ; (b) the protection of sensitive areas will require the reduction of discharges ; (c) irrigation is likely to increase its water consumption, in particular in the Mediterranean area (Anonymous, 1997a) ; and (d) global climate change is pushing the European climate towards more extreme seasonal variations with more droughts in the dry seasons and more floods in the wet season, calling for a more robust water resources management (Angelakis and Bontoux, 2001). Climate change is also predicted to increase migration resulting in demand management challenges in our cities. Another approach used to evaluate water scarcity is the exploitation rate of water resources (the ratio between the volume of the annual withdrawals and available renewable water resources). When the exploitation rate exceeds 20% of existing



reserves, water management becomes a vital element in a country’s economy. In the Mediterranean region, this is currently the case in Italy (22%) and Spain (28%), Malta (60%) and Cyprus (66%) (Mediterranean region exploitation rate ranges from 28 to145%). In Western Europe (Fig. 1), it is the case in Belgium (44%), the Netherlands (7%), Germany (27%) and France (16%) (Western Europe range 21 to 108%). The situation is most critical in some countries wishing to join the EU, such as the Rep. of Moldova, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Rep. of Poland (25 to 296%). Moreover, several regions and islands in Europe, especially in Bulgaria, Greece, France, Portugal and the south east of England, have already reached an exploitation rate of almost 100% of their local water resources. These data suggest that to meet future needs, many European countries will have to manage water resources far more efficiently than they do now. Over abstraction of groundwater is common place resulting in sea water intrusion and in some regions soil salinization due to irrigation with brackish water In view of the current outlook for the use of water resources over the whole Eureau area, existing policies need to be re-oriented towards an integrated water cycle management strategy to minimising health and environmental risks. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) lays the foundation for such an approach, including river basin based management and water quality objectives. This should translate in a better control of polluting discharges over the long-term. In all EU countries, hydrological plans are being drawn up. These plans can be effective tools for action but the existing ones: (a) do not include integrated water resources schemes, (b) are dominated by the significance of short-term requirements, and (c) are still mostly turned more towards increasing water availability than towards better management of the water demands in spite of recent efforts to address these new challenges. For comparison grounds, it should be noted that the river basin management strategy adopted in Australia has resulted in a reduction in the water resource available as more water is kept in the ground and surface systems to protect quality and the environment. The European WFD and its daughter directives are already reducing the availability of water through the restriction of abstraction licences by 15 to 20% in some regions to protect the ecology. In addition diffused pollution is dramatically reducing groundwater availability in some areas. Europe needs water reuse guidelines and agreed good practice to safely and economically benefit from sustainable reuse. Perhaps Europe should consider the benefits that the mediteranean climate regions of Australia have gained by introducing a directive to reuse 20% of its wastewater by 2012 (Government of Western Australia, 2003). The reuse of reclaimed treated wastewater should and must become recognized as an important part of integrated water cycle management strategy to recharge conventional water resources for indirect potable applications, to directly substitute potable applications for industry and irrigation and to reduce the environmental impact of discharges. Reuse is already a key part of water management in Europe but



a number of technical and regulatory issues remain to be addressed to make sure it has no undesirable impact on the environment or on public health. In addition, safe reuse practices require good practice, water quality guidelines and appropriate training. ADDRESSING WATER SHORTAGES Almost all Mediterranean Eureau members regularly experience severe water supply and demand imbalances, particularly in the summer months. This is due to the simultaneous occurrence of low precipitation, high evaporation and increased demands for irrigation and tourism. However, water shortages have also affected regions less used to such events, where periods of drought are becoming more frequent and long lasting as a result of global climate change, as indicated before. Numerous regions in France, Italy, Belgium, and the UK have suffered the negative impact of successive droughts over the last ten years (Angelakis and Bontoux, 2001). Same situation should be considered for Spain and Greece. Renewable water resource exploitation in European countries and water stress index for several countries are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Several strategies have been developed in order to face water shortages. One is the construction of required infrastructure for transferring water from rich watersheds to deficient areas. Such projects require very expensive investments and a large civil engineering works, potentially creating a large environmental impact due to energy demands and carbon impact. Additionally, as most of the “easy” projects have already been built (e.g. canal de Provence in France, trasvase Tajo-Segura in Spain), such an approach becomes more and more difficult as the areas likely to benefit from the water transfer become ever more remote. One must also note that this practice also raise economic, institutional, socio-cultural and political issues, as shown by the discussions surrounding the recently failed water transfer project between the Rhône river in France and Catalonia in Spain. Reuse has been demonstrated as a safe and lower cost solution to water importation in California (approximately half the energy costs) as long as the regulation and good practice is provided to ensure safety. Other solutions can be implemented such as water savings (e.g. reducing the leakage from supply networks, using more efficient irrigation techniques such as drip irrigation and small flush toilet systems), tapping other resources (e.g. desalinating seawater or brackish water), and diversification of wastewater reuse practices (Lazarova et al., 2000). Reducing demand through pricing (e.g. applying the demand elasticity) is also a possible option, but it raises many political difficulties, in particular in countries where water is either free or paid through a flat fee. Nevertheless, due to the comparatively low prices of water, such economic tool does not generate appreciable saving.



104

77 75 7149 43 40 32 30 22 20 15 13

23

296

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Moldova R

ep.

Hungary

Bulgaria

Belgium

Netherl

ands

Ukraine

German

y

Romania

Spain Italy

France

Poland

Portugal

Denmark

Ann

ual W

ithdr

awal

s,

% o

f Ren

ewab

le W

ater

Res

ourc

es

Figure1. Renewable water resource exploitation in European countries (Angelakis et al.,

2003)

Treated wastewater reuse can have many important benefits. The most obvious is the provision of an additional dependable water resource. The second is the reduction of environmental impacts by reducing or eliminating wastewater disposal, which results in the preservation of water quality downstream. Therefore, in the framework of an integrated water management strategy at a catchment’s scale, the benefits of wastewater reuse should always been assessed taking into account that water recycling and reuse contributes to both enhancing a region's water resource and minimizing wastewater outflow. In addition, using recycled wastewater for irrigation can reduce the need for fertilizer thanks to the nutrients it contains. This may even remove the requirement for tertiary wastewater treatment in sensitive areas that is stipulated by the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Isra

el

Cyp

rus

Bul

garia

Mal

ta

Bel

gium

Spa

in

Ger

man

y

Italy

Turk

ey

Pol

and

Fran

ce

Den

mar

k

Por

tuga

l

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Gre

ece

Lith

uani

a

Est

onia UK

Net

herla

nds

Slo

veni

a

Hun

gary

Switz

erla

nd

Aus

tria

Rom

ania

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Irela

nd

Finl

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Latv

ia

Sw

eden

Nor

way

Wat

er S

tres

s In

dex

[%]

Figure 2. Water stress index (abstraction/availability ratio)



The use of recycled wastewater for irrigation has been progressively adopted by virtually all Mediterranean countries (Marecos do Monte et al., 1996). Israel was pioneer in this field, soon followed by Tunisia, Morocco, Cyprus, and Jordan. More recently, European Mediterranean countries started considering wastewater reuse for irrigation. Although irrigation with wastewater is in itself an effective purification (a sort of low-rate land treatment), appropriate treatment must be performed for the protection of public health, the prevention of nuisances during storage and the prevention of damage to the crops and soils (Asano and Levine, 1996). So far, in only a few countries worldwide (Unites States, Australia, Israel, Japan and China), wastewater recycling and reuse is well enough established to have led to the drawing of specific regulations or guidelines. In a number of other countries (Cyprus, Spain, and France,) regulations concerning the use of recycled wastewater for irrigation are under discussion, preparation and/or revision. Italy has adopted a new regulation in 2003. Notice that regulations refer to actual rules that have been enacted and are enforceable by governmental agencies. Guidelines, on the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in the development of a reuse program. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WASTEWATER RECYCLING AND REUSE IN EUREAU COUNTRIES Traditionally, most Eureau countries are characterized with abundant water resources; thus, up to now and the recognised impact of climate change we have not invested heavily in planned wastewater recycling and reuse. However indirect potable reuse is common practice in the river basins where cities have developed over the centuries and the treated waste water from the conurbations in the upper catchment are mixed with the surface drainage become the freshwater supply in the lower catchments. However, this general situation hides very diverse realities. In Southern Europe, planned wastewater reuse is still a limited, but rapidly growing source of irrigation water. In Northern Europe, it is barely practiced, but can be developed for sanitation or environmental protection purposes in response to increasingly stringent environmental regulations, even in the absence of any water shortage (see the case of Sweden for example). It should be noticed that in Eureau countries, wastewater reuse has rarely been considered as an integral component of sanitation and overall water resources management (Anonymous, 1997b) although many river basins rely on appropriately treated wastewater to maintain the availability of freshwater for the ecology and as a water source for treatment to produce potable water. In this section we review the current practices and the potential of wastewater recycling and reuse in various Eureau countries under three headings depending on the status of wastewater reuse. Countries with Regulations and/or Guidelines Concerning Wastewater Reuse Cyprus. In Cyprus the wastewater generated by the main cities, about 25 Mm3/yr, is planned to be collected and used for irrigation after tertiary treatment. Because of the high transportation cost, it is anticipated that most of the recycled water, about 55 to



60%, will be used for amenity purposes used as hotel gardens, parks, golf courses, etc. A net of about 10 Mm3 is conservatively estimated to be available for agricultural irrigation. The cost of recycled water is low, about 0.07€/m3. This will reportedly allow irrigated agriculture to be expanded by 8-10% while conserving an equivalent amount of water for other sectors (Papadopoulos, 1995). The criteria related to the use of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes in Cyprus are presented in Table 1. These criteria have been established in June 2005 (Decree no 296/03.06.05). They are stricter than the WHO guidelines and take the specific conditions of Cyprus into account. These criteria are followed by a code of practice to ensure the best possible application of the water for irrigation (Kypris, 1989). However, these criteria are someway apart from California regulations philosophy. France. France has irrigated crops with wastewater for years (close to a century), in particular around Paris because, until 1940, it was the only method of treating and disposing of the wastewater of the Greater Paris conurbation. This practice is still going on in the Achères region, where some of the wastewater is used after an advanced primary treatment. Interest in wastewater reuse rose again in the early 1990s for two main reasons: (a) local water deficits hindering the development of profitable agricultural activity, particularly in Atlantic and Mediterranean islands, and (b) the necessity to protect bathing waters, shellfish breeding areas and, also, rivers threatened by eutrophication. Even though France has an ample availability of freshwater with an average rainfall of 600mm/yr thirty municipal wastewater reuse projects have been implemented. These include 15 projects for agricultural irrigation, 9 projects for irrigation of golf and 6 projects for irrigation of urban areas. (Durham et al., 2005). The projects have been implemented to:

• overcome water stress from lack of rainfall and maintain the local agriculture industry

• overcome water stress from the increased population due to tourism • protect high quality surface water from recharge with treated wastewater • reduce the need to over abstract groundwater that has resulted in saline

intrusion • improve the attractiveness of the area through irrigation of urban landscapes

and sport facilities • increase the availability of fresh water for potable production by irrigating golf

courses (where the water demand for one golf course is equivalent to a population of 36,000

• reduce surface water eutrophication, protect bathing water quality and shell fish • help the community recognize that a responsible and sustainable approach to

water management is being taken by their local government authority Table1. Provisional quality criteria for irrigation with reclaimed wastewater in Cyprus.



Irrigation of: BOD5(mg/L)

SS (mg/L

) Fecal coliforms (MPN/100mL)

Intestinal nematodes

(No/L) Treatment required

All cropsc A) 10a

10a

5a

15b Nil Secondary, tertiary, and disinfection

Amenity areas of unlimited public access -Vegetables eaten cooked

A)

10a 15b

10a 15b

50a

100b

Nil

Secondary, tertiary and disinfection

A)

20a 30b

30a 45b

200a

1000b

Nil

Crops for human consumption - Amenity areas of limited public access

B) - -

200a 1000b

Nil

Secondary, storage >1 week and disinfection or tertiary and disinfection. Stabilization maturation ponds total retention time >30 d or secondary and storage >30 d

A)

20a 30b

30a 45b

1000a 5000b

Nil

Fodder crops

B)

- - 1000a Nil

Secondary and storage >1 week or tertiary and disinfection. Stabilization maturation ponds total retention time >30 d or secondary and storage >30 d or secondary and storage > 30 d

A)

50a 70b

- -

3000a

10000b

- -

Industrial crops

B)

- - 3000a

10000b

- -

Secondary and disinfection. Stabilization maturation ponds with total retention time >30 d or secondary and storage >30 d

a These values must not be exceeded in 80% of samples per month. b Maximum value allowed. c Irrigation of leaved vegetables, bulbs, and corns eaten uncooked is not allowed. Note: The irrigation of vegetables is not allowed. The irrigation of ornamental plants for trade purposes is not allowed. No substances accumulating in the edible parts of crops and proved to be toxic to humans or animals are allowed in the effluent.

Because of the interest for wastewater reuse, the Health Authorities issued in 1991 the “Health guidelines for reuse, after treatment, of wastewater for crop and green spaces irrigation” (CSHPF, 1991). These guidelines essentially follow the WHO guidelines, but also add restrictions for irrigation techniques and set back distances between irrigation sites and residential areas and roadways. Furthermore, each new wastewater reuse project must be authorized by the representatives of the Ministry of Health and monitored on a permanent basis (Bontoux and Courtois, 1996). In February 1996, the Association of Water Supply and Sewerage Practitioners (AGHTM) published technical recommendations about the wastewater treatments necessary to ensure compliance with the French guidelines. A review of these guidelines is being considered (Angelakis et al., 2003). Only 30 projects have in fact been carried out up to now, mainly because of the relative abundance of water resource. The projects implemented cover more than 3000 ha of land, and quite a wide variety of applications: market gardening crops, orchard fruits, cereals, tree plantations and forests, grasslands, gardens and golf courses (Faby et al, 1999). The Clermont-Ferrand recycling scheme for irrigation of over 700 ha of maize with a 40 km distribution system is today considered to be one of the largest projects in Europe. The recent development of new treatment processes, such as



membrane bioreactors (MBR) (ultrafiltration, microfiltration), produce a very high quality purified water, disinfected and with no suspended solids. This is changing the approach to municipal and industrial applications and may and open the door to recycling for domestic purposes (cleaning, toilet flushing, etc.). The reuse of industrial wastewater after purification to supply cooling water, wash water or even process water after sophisticated complementary treatment is widely developed in France. There are more than 10 MBR projects in industrial wastewater treatment in France with examples in the automotive, textile, paper, food industries of industrial wastewater. In some of these applications for the paper and food industry the treated water is reused. The applications also include rainwater catchment and reuse at a large automotive plant. The reuse of industrial wastewater after purification with conventional technology to supply cooling water, wash water or even process water after sophisticated complementary treatment is widely developed in France. Financial incentives have been available from the “Agences de Basin” (Catchment Authorities) for reuse projects in industry that demonstrate an environmental benefit. Italy. A first survey of Italian treatment plants estimated the total treated wastewater flow at 2,400 Mm3/yr of usable water. This gives an estimate of the potential resource available for reuse. In view of the regulatory obligation to achieve a high level of treatment, the medium to large-sized plants (>100,000 inh. served), accounting for approximately 60% of urban wastewater flow can provide re-usable wastewaters with a favourable cost/benefit ratio. The use of untreated wastewater has been practiced in Italy at least since the beginning of this century, especially on the outskirts of small towns and near Milan. Among the oldest cases of irrigation with wastewater is the “Marcite” where water from the Vettabia river, which receives most of the industrial and urban untreated wastewater, is used. Nowadays, treated wastewater is used mainly for agricultural irrigation covering over 4,000 ha. However, the controlled reuse of municipal wastewater in agriculture is not yet developed in most Italian regions because of a stringent normative which ignores the findings of recent research work and experiences of uncontrolled reuse so common in Southern Italy. One of the largest projects was implemented in Emilia Romagna where over 450,000 m3/yr of treated wastewater are used for irrigation of more than 250 ha. The real costs for the distribution of recycled wastewater (power, labour, network maintenance) are covered by the users. New wastewater reuse systems have been recently completed in Sicily and Sardinia for agricultural irrigation.

The use of wastewater for irrigation in Italy was regulated, since 1977 and till 2003, in the frame of the 1976 Water Protection Act (Annex 5, CITAI, 1977), being considered an extensive treatment process. The approach was in some respects1 - from an hygienic point of view - quite stringent, especially if we consider that, in many cases, Italian surface waters generally used for irrigation display a consistently lower



microbiological quality (often in the 104÷105 range for TC and 102÷103 for FC) and that waters standards for recreational uses allow 2,000 MPN/100 mL (TC) and 100 MPN/100 mL (FC). No standards were set for toxic or bio-accumulative substances and a specific evaluation of the volume of wastewater which can be yearly applied, depending on soil and crops, was required. Other guidelines dictated by the previous Italian legislation required warnings of possible hygienic dangers around the irrigated area (access had to be kept under control) and it had to be surrounded by a buffer strip of at least 80 m (without buildings or roads), regardless of the quality of the wastewater and of the irrigation system. Some other Regional Governments (e.g.: Puglia and Sicilia), using the powers given by the 1976 Water Protection Act, prepared and issued regional standards.

Finally, following the frame of Law-decree n. 152, a new legislative set of rules was promulgated on June 12th, 2003 (Ministry Decree, D.M. no 185/03). The new standards are summarised and compared with the previous ones; as it can be easily recognised, a quite different approach was used. In fact, the new standards seem to have, at least partially, accepted previous independent proposals (see for instance, Nurizzo and Mezzanotte, 1994): this is the case of electric conductivity and Boron (Table 2). In fact Boron in treated effluents (not routinely checked) can reach pretty high concentrations in some districts: a survey carried out on the effluents of 10 biological plants (Mezzanotte et al., 2003) showed an average concentration of 0.76 mg B/L (on an yearly basis)2. Some other important parameters like nematode eggs, viruses, and protozoa are, on the contrary, not taken into consideration.

The proposed standards seem to follow a quite restrictive approach, especially for some chemical compounds: in many cases the quality standards for reclaimed wastewater are the same of drinking water (see Table 2, data in bold). This approach will surely lead to some difficulties in promoting wastewater reuse, when the compliance with some very strict standards will ask for advanced treatments, with all the related consequences on the economics of the reclamation. Another negative aspect is the overabundance of parameters taken into account and their related monitoring protocols. In fact the number of parameters to be monitored exceeds 50 items and the sampling frequency can be very high, depending on the regional provisions.

It must be also considered that no distinction3 is established among various crops to be irrigated with reclaimed wastewater (restricted, unrestricted irrigation) and no attention is paid to the influence of different irrigation options (i.e.: subsurface drip irrigation, versus spray irrigation) in reducing sanitary risks. Table 2 - Reclaimed wastewater to be used for irrigation: the new national standards (D.M. 185/03, 2003), compared with the previous ones4 (CITAI, 1977).

4 If the standard is the same of that for drinking water, its value is in bold; darkened # cells indicate parameters not taken into account by drinking water standards.



# PARAMETERS NEW STANDARDS

OLD STANDARDS

NOTES

1 pH 6.0 ÷ 9.5 - 2 SAR 10.0 < 15.0 3 Coarse solids absent - 4 TSS [mg/L] 10.0 * *Low enough to avoid soil-

clogging 5 BOD5 [mg/L] 20.0 - 6 COD [mg/L] 100.0 - 7 Phosphorus [mg P/L] (total) 2.0 - 8 Total Nitrogen [mg N/L] 15.0 - 9 Ammonia [mg NH4/L] 2.0 -

10 ECW [µS/cm] 3,000 - 11 Aluminium [mg Al/L] 1.0 - 12 Arsenic [mg As/L] 0.02 - 13 Barium [mg Ba/L] 10.0 - 14 Boron [mg B/L] 1.0 - 15 Cadmium [mg Cd/L] 0.005 - 16 Cobalt [mg Co/L] 0.05 - 17 Chromium [mg Cr/L] (total) 0.1 - 18 Chromium hexavalent [mg

CrVI/L) 0.005 -

19 Iron [mg Fe/L] 2.0 - 20 Manganese [mg Mn/L] 0.2 - 21 Mercury [mg Hg/L] 0.001 - 22 Nickel [mg Ni/L] 0.2 - 23 Lead [mg Pb/L] 0.1 - 24 Copper [mg Cu/L] 1.0 - 25 Selenium [mg Se/L] 0.01 - 26 Tin [mg Sn/L] 3.0 - 27 Thallium [mg Tl/L] 0.001 - 28 Vanadium [mg V/L] 0.1 - 29 Zinc [mg Zn/L] 0.5 - 30 Cyanides[mg CN/L] (total) 0.05 - 31 Sulphides [mg H2S/L] 0.5 - 32 Sulphites [mg SO3/L] 0.5 - 33 Sulphates [mg SO4/L] 500 - 34 Chlorine residual [mg/L] 0.2 - 35 Chlorides [mg Cl/L] 250 - 36 Fluorides [mg F/L] 1.5 - 37 Animal/vegetal oils & fats

[mg/L] 10.0 -

38 Mineral oils [mg/L] 0.05 - 39 Phenols [mg/L] (total) 0,1 -



40 Pentachlorophenol [mg/L] 0.003 - 41 Aldehydes [mg/L] (total) 0.5 - 42 Tetra/tricloro-ethylene

[mg/L] 0.01 -

43 Chlorinated solvents [mg/L] (total)

0.04 -

44 TTHM [mg/L] 0.03 - 45 Aromatic solvents [mg/L]

(total) 0.001 -

46 Benzene [mg/L] 0.01 - 47 Benzo(a)pyrene [mg/L] 0.00001 - 48 Org. nitr. solvents [mg/L]

(total) 0.01 -

49 Surfactants [mg/L] (total) 0.5 - 50 Chlorinated biocides [mg/L] 0.0001 - 0.03 µg/L for Aldrin, Dieldrin,

Heptachlor epoxide Table 6 follows

51 Phosphorated pesticides [mg/L]

0.00001^ - ^ for any single item

52 Other pesticides [mg/L] (total)

0.05 -

53 E. Coli [UFC /100 mL] (80% of samples) (Constructed wetlands) (Stabilisation ponds)

10*

50 100

- * 100 CFU/100 mL will be allowed as a maximum for a single isolated sample and for the first three years of application of the new Act.

54 Salmonellae [UFC /100 mL] absent -

- Helminths eggs [n/L] (viable)

- -

- FC [UFC /100 mL] - -

- TC [MPN/100 mL] - 2 (a) ÷20 a) unrestricted irrigation.

In synthesis: in a set of 54 parameters - which is probably too large to assure an effective enforcement and monitoring - 20% of them ask for the same quality of drinking water; 37% of them are not even considered for drinking water (some of them are anyway justified), and the indication of some other parameters (for instance biocides and pesticides) is difficult to be explained in an agricultural environment.

Under these conditions, the total cost (construction, operation and maintenance) requested for reclamation, in addition to the costs for the distribution of reclaimed water and the monitoring of the whole reuse system, will be difficult to attain and will be probably tolerable only for large WWTPs, thus reducing the benefit of reclaiming



water and hampering the development of wastewater reuse practices for the smaller ones; moreover, several successful reuse activities operating since a few years in small communities of Southern Italy inland areas, will certainly be obliged to face problems difficult to cope with. Spain. The changes in March 2004 of the party in the Government, lead to the abandonment of the National Hydrological Plan commissioned and approved by the Partido Popular. Instead of the Plan, the called Programa AGUA (WATER Program) define alternative ways to the actuations implied in the old Plan, having been the most controversial with a huge infrastructure for transportation of Ebro river water 600 km to the South. Instead, the new Program relies mainly on seawater desalination. Although in its initial phases, it seems that the Plan will further support wastewater reclamation and reuse. In any case, the reuse of treated wastewater is already a reality in several Spanish regions for four main applications: golf course irrigation, agricultural irrigation, groundwater recharge (in particular to stop saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers) and river flow augmentation. There are more than 126 reuse projects that have been implemented. 86% for agriculture, 12% for municipal and golf and 2% for industry and aquifer recharge.(Cajigas) Commercial interest exists and some private water companies invest in Research and Development activities, in collaboration with the Universities (e.g. AGBAR and Canal de Isabel II). National guidelines are being developed and at least three autonomous regions (Andalucía, Catalonia and Balearic Islands) have either legal prescriptions or recommendations concerning wastewater recycling and reuse. Multiple projects have been implemented treating brackish wastewater for irrigation and seawater desalination for irrigation in water short regions. There is an initiative backed by the Ministry of the Environment, the CEDEX, AEAS (the EUREAU Spanish branch), ACA (Catalonia Water Agency), the Greater Barcelona Entity, several foundations (AGBAR, Canal de Isabel II and EMASESA) and the University of Barcelona to develop Good Reuse Practices and a Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Risk Analysis, and since the end of 2004, there is an “ad hoc” Committee analyzing the old reuse draft never issued. Countries Contemplating Regulations and/or Guidelines Concerning Wastewater Reuse Belgium. As a result of its dense population, several indicators show that Belgium can be considered as one of the most water-stressed EUREAU Countries. Amongst others, the amount of renewable water is relatively low (817m³/inh. yr). This is indirectly translated in a poor groundwater and surface water quality. Despite the fact that the amount of wastewater reuse so far remains limited (less than 2% of the total treated wastewater), the reuse of treated wastewater is becoming an essential and reliable option especially in industry, such as power plants, food



processing, and other industries with high rates of water utilization and in areas of dropping water tables of high summer water demand such as the coastal regions during the tourist season. Industrial wastewater reuse is being fostered by the Flemish Government. In general, the Government wants to restrict groundwater abstraction to these applications requiring the superior groundwater quality, and hence to promote wastewater reuse by increasing the groundwater extraction fees. Eight municipal wastewater reuse projects are now operational (Table 3). Many other projects are in a more or less advanced planning phase. In Wulpen WWTP, 2.5 million m³/yr of urban wastewater is treated by microfiltration (MF) and reverse osmosis (RO), stored for 1-2 months in the aquifer, and used for water supply augmentation. Specific infiltration consents have been introduced for this project. A similar project has been under investigation in Heist, where different options to increase the potable water supply have been considered, such as MF/RO filtration of surface water. The reuse of 10,000 m³/d WWTP wastewater after MBR and RO treatment has been rejected because of the fact that a natural treatment step through e.g. infiltration was technically impossible. A “natural” treatment step was considered imperative for safety reasons and social acceptance, although the quality obtained through MBR/RO was sufficient to be considered for direct potable reuse. In another case, in Waregem, a 3.0 M m³/yr direct WWTP reuse project for textile industry has been investigated. The technological feasibility has been demonstrated, but the ideal financing construction is still under discussion. There is a documented case of established wastewater reuse in Belgium for agricultural purpose for the irrigation of crops, mainly in summertime. Additionally, the University of Gembloux had developed a system, called “Epuvalisation”, to reuse the wastewater wastewaters in hydroculture (Xanthoulis and Guillaume, 1995). Table 3 Municipal wastewater reuse projects in Belgium Location End-use Size (m³/yr) Start-up

Liedekerke Nature enhancement/recreational (bird watching) 11,979,000 1999

Wulpen Drinking water aquifer recharge 2.500.000 2001 Tienen Industrial cooling makeup water 2.000.000 2003

Brugge Industrial cooling makeup water/process water 640.000 2000

Aartselaar Industrial cooling makeup water 80.000 1997

Roeselare Industrial cooling water/process water 70.000 2004

Houthalen Industrial cooling makeup water 35.000 2003 St. Niklaas Industrial cooling makeup water N.A. N.A. Gent/Eke Industrial washing 18.000 N.A. Leuven Industrial washing 5.000 2004 Oostende Industrial washing N.A. N.A.



Wulpen Polder irrigation N.A. N.A. The Regional Government has started the discussion on the introduction of guidelines and consents for wastewater reuse practice. Aquafin, the company responsible for the waste water treatment infrastructure in Flanders, has submitted a first proposal for consents, based on the Australian EPA guidelines. Greece. In Greece, water demand has increased tremendously over the past 50 years. Despite adequate precipitation, water imbalance is often experienced, due to temporal and regional variations of the precipitation, the increased water demand during the summer months and the difficulty of transporting water due to the mountainous terrain. In addition, in many south-eastern and island areas there is severe pressure for water demand, which is exacerbated by especially high demand of water for tourism and irrigation. Therefore, the integration of treated wastewater into water resources management master plans is a very important issue (Angelakis et al., 2003). Today, more than 65% of the Greek population is connected to over 350 centralised WWTP with a total capacity of over 1.45 Mm3/d (Tsagarakis et al., 2001). An analysis of data concerning the water balance of the areas of the treatment plants demonstrated that more than 83% of the treated effluents are produced in regions with a deficient water balance (Tchobanoglous and Angelakis, 1996). Therefore, treated wastewater reuse in these areas would satisfy an existing water demand. Several research and pilot projects dealing with wastewater reclamation and reuse are currently under way in Greece (Angelakis et al., 1999). In addition, few small projects on wastewater reclamation and reuse are in practice, such as in Archanes, Chalkida, Hersonissos, and Thessaloniki. Few other projects are under planning, such as Iraklio, Agios Nikolaos and several Aegean cities. Also, several indirect reuse projects are in use in the central Greece ( Larissa, Trikala, Karditsa, Lamia, and Tripolis). However, no guidelines or criteria for wastewater reclamation and reuse have been yet adopted beyond those for discharge (No E1b/221/65 Health Arrangement Action). A preliminary study on the necessity for establishment of criteria in Greece has been implemented (Angelakis et al., 2000). Proposed criteria are aimed to increase protection of human health and environment (Tsagarakis et al., 2003). Malta. As it has been referred, the water deficit in Malta is acute. Since agriculture is the main source of income, wastewater reuse for irrigation has been contemplated as early as 1884 in order to preserve freshwater for domestic use. Since 1983, the treated wastewater from the Sant Antnin sewage treatment plant has been used for irrigation. The current output of 10,800 m3/d is expected to be increased to 17,000 m3/d after expansion of the plant. The plant uses an activated sludge process followed by rapid sand filters (9 m3/m²·h). The water is then disinfected with gaseous chlorine (12 mg/L and contact time 30 min) and pumped into irrigation reservoirs with a free chlorine residual ranging from 0.1 to1.0 mg/L. Due to low water consumption per inhabitant, the raw sewage in Malta is strong (BOD5=530 mg/L and SS=445



mg/L) and has a high salinity (sodium and chloride) due mainly to the high levels of these ions in the domestic water supply. The recycled water is used to irrigate 600 ha of crops by furrow and spray irrigation. The water quality is suitable for unrestricted irrigation and is used to produce potatoes, tomatoes, broad and runner beans, green pepper, cabbages, cauliflower, lettuce, strawberries, clover, etc. Despite the high salinity, there are no problems with crops. This is probably associated with high permeability of the calcareous soil. Soil monitoring has shown a salt accumulation in the top soil during the irrigation season followed by leaching to the groundwater with the winter rains (Angelakis, 2003). In 1986, the possibility of industrial wastewater reuse was considered. There are two large industrial water consumers on Malta: Enemalta, a thermal power plant and Malta Drydocks, a shipyard. In the thermal power plant, 1,150 m3/d of demineralized water are needed for boiler feed make-up (de Ketelaere, 2001). Therefore, water of adequate quality for reuse in industry can be produced after extension of the Sant Antnin treatment plant. The use of the recycled water for industrial purposes depends primarily on the economic circumstances, namely on the comparison of the total costs of recycled water with other sources of water such as desalinated seawater. At the moment, recycled water is in use exclusively in industrial laundry. Portugal. In Portugal, treated wastewater is a valuable potential resource for irrigation. On the other hand, the volume of treated wastewater available today in Portugal exceeds 600 Mm3/yr. (According to Plano nacional da Agua (2002) the treated wastewater volume in 2001 was 201 Mm3/yr) Even without storage, this amount could be enough to cover about 10% of the water needs for irrigation in a dry year. The use of treated wastewater for irrigation could significantly contribute to the agricultural development in the driest Portuguese provinces (Algarve, Beja, Evora, Setubal, Lisboa and Santarem). Roughly, between 35,000 and 100,000 ha, depending on storage capacity could be irrigated with treated wastewater. Interest is also growing for the irrigation of golf courses. There are a few cases of planned irrigation with treated wastewater, especially orchards, vineyard and golf courses in the southern half of the country. There are plans to reuse the wastewater of four large WWTP in the area of great Lisbon for agriculture (1000 ha with tertiary treated wastewater from an existing 460,000 p.e. WWTP in Loures ), golf irrigation (future WWTP for 720,000 p.e. in Estoril) and landscape irrigation and urban uses (two existing WWTP in Lisbon ). Very little monitoring data is available. UK. The UK has used treated wastewater to maintain river flows (and ecosystems) and through river abstractions to contribute towards potable water and other supplies. This practice is particularly developed for the major rivers in the South and East where it is not always feasible to abstract upstream of treated wastewater discharges to surface water. This enables the London region to operate with a water availability of 265m3/person.year. (Planet Water) The Langford recycling scheme, operated by



Essex and Suffolk Water, provides 40 ML/d of reclaimed wastewater that is discharged to the river and then abstracted to augment the Hanningfield freshwater catchment reservoir prior to treatment for potable water production.(www.eswater.co.uk) (Angelakis et al., 2003). Beside this indirect reuse, there are some examples of direct treated wastewater reuse, mainly for irrigation purposes (golf courses, parks, road verges), but also for commerce uses such as process water for power generation (Flag Fenn), car washing, cooling, and fish farming. There many industrial projects where the wastewater from the manufacturing site is being reuse and thereby recovering heat, reducing potable and wastewater treatment costs. These projects include food, aerospace, paper and other industries. The projects implemented have been complicated due to lack of clear guideline on ownership of the wastewater, and of agreed quality issues. Information and guidance notes on the installation, modification and maintenance of reclaimed water systems and pipework was published by the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme in August 1999. (WRAS). Several schemes are being piloted for greywater recycling (wastewater from washing machines, baths and showers) at Loughborough University for the flushing of toilets that accounts for a third of domestic wastewater reuse. In some of these, rainwater collected from the roof of the house in question is combined with the treated wastewater. Overall, there is no consistent or extensive pattern of treated wastewater reuse in the UK. Historically, there has been sufficient water to meet demand, so relatively few schemes for reuse have been developed. After the droughts of the last few years, these are expected to increase significantly with considerable public, political and climatic pressure in the UK to use water wisely, subject to appropriate assurances about quality and costs. The government added water reuse with membranes in 2006 to the Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECA) scheme that provides financial incentive for industry to reuse wastewater through tax reductions under the previously applied for energy efficiency schemes.(Non fossil fuels etc). This ECA scheme is already operating for water saving devises and rainwater catchment. Water UK research group UKWIR with AWWA and Water Reuse Foundation published in 2005 a “ Framework for developing water reuse criteria with reference to drinking water supplies” as an aid to the decision making process and to identify the factors that need to be taken into account when planning and implementing a water reuse project. Countries with no Regulations and/or Guidelines on Wastewater Reuse Austria. Austria has a mean yearly rainfall of ca. 1,100 mm. The water consumption for drinking water corresponds to about 0.06% of rainfall, and for both agriculture and industrial purposes to about 1.5%. Due to this favourable situation, water scarcity in Austria is only a limited local problem mainly in some eastern and southern parts. Average drinking water consumption is about 159 L/inh.d, which is a moderate figure and has little changed during the last decade. About 98% of the drinking water derives from ground water and needs no or nearly no treatment. In



Austria, the reuse of wastewater is only relevant where it contributes to reduce pollution and/or costs. Due to the Water Act, Austria has a very strong precautionary principle for ground and surface water protection. For a number of industries, the specific water consumption is limited by law to a value, which can only be reached by recycling water (e.g. pulp and paper industry, sugar industry). As water is a renewable resource its reuse is only recommended if it results in overall economic and ecological advantages. Therefore, the basic goal of water protection in Austria is to make rational use of water and to minimise material flows to the receiving waters. Source control of water pollution has a high priority. Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, there have not been any specific investigations related to reuse of treated wastewater. Possible final wastewater reuse systems have been usually considered in particular cases concerning the quantity, contents and the treatment technology of industrial wastewater. Generally, the following summarization could be made.

• The cooling water in Thermal Power Plants is used after cooling in different types of cooling towers in reversible cycle;

• The cooling water from specific facilities, refrigerating installations as well as condensate water, etc. is recycled after cooling in cooling towers, cooling ponds and others

• In the food industry, wine production, machine building, metallurgy, chemical- pharmaceutical and other industries.

• Wastewater from the paper industry is reused after mechanical treatment • In processing of non-metal mineral resources (kaolin, for example) an

internal recycling of industrial wastewater after mechanical treatment is envisaged as well as external recycling through the use of the settled water in the tailings dams.

Czech Republic. (to follow) Croatia. Croatia consists generally of two climatic regions. The northern part belongs to the central European region, with typical continental climate and abundant in water resources. In this region there are no major problems related to water supply. The coastal western part belongs to the Mediterranean Region, with climate conditions characterized by long, dry summers and more humid autumn-winter periods. These conditions, together with specific karstic hydro-geological features contribute to the relatively low water resources availability. In certain parts of that region (most of the islands) the available water resources have already being exploited to their full capacity, creating water supply problems for domestic, industrial and especially agricultural use. Water supply problems in this region manifest in the fact that the largest water consumption for both the tourist resorts and the agricultural needs coincide with the dry season. Water supply problems in Croatia manifest in the fact that the largest water consumption for both the tourist resorts and the agricultural needs coincide with the dry season as it happens in most of the Mediterranean areas Treated wastewater reuse



in Croatia in any form of water supply has not been practiced so far. Water supply for population and tourists in the coastal areas has been practiced by transporting the water from the coast to the islands by submerged pipes and from locations rich in water (coastal rivers and springs) to other coastal areas. Nevertheless, future development of these systems becomes expensive, both because of investment and operation costs. Such practices do not include water supply for agricultural purposes. Then, in this area there are needs for new water supply sources like desalinisation, which have already been practiced for water supply for population and tourism on the small islands near the coast, (Margeta, 2002). Most of the towns in the coastal areas although small, are characterized with high fluctuation of population (tourists) and consequently uneven production of wastewater. The pretreated wastewater is discharged into the sea through long submerged outfalls. Prior to the wastewater discharge there is only preliminary treatment. In coastal, tourist area, there has been some private initiatives regarding reuse of waste water for irrigation. Yet, it is not a water resources policy, and no guidelines or criteria have been adopted. The main possible future use of treated wastewater could be irrigation of tree crops, vineyards, olive trees, etc. as well as landscape irrigation. Water recycling and reuse should be considered a disposal option for protection of surface and coastal waters, on national level. So far, there are no official plans or policy for reuse of treated wastewater in Croatia. Denmark. Denmark’s 5 million inhabitants can count on a freshwater availability of approximately 2500 m3/inh.yr. (1200 cbm/yr (Eurostat).The water supply almost entirely relies on groundwater resources. Thus managing groundwater quality and quantity is of paramount importance for a sustainable water supply and use. As in other Scandinavian countries, the issue of wastewater reuse has so far never been considered seriously. High water prices encourage industries to recycle process and cooling water. One of the best known examples is the industrial symbiosis of Kalundborg where several companies inter alia mutually provide and recycle wastewater. During the 1990s there were several initiatives financially supported by the Ministry of Environment to introduce in-house greywater recycling for domestic uses. But due to the inconsistency of political acting and several operational set-backs the practice was almost abandoned (Andersson, 2004). Estonia. In Estonia a lot of attention is paid to sewage treatment. In several towns new wastewater treatment plants supplied with modern technology have been implemented in the last years. In 2003 the amount of sewage to be treated was 119 M m3/yr from which the rate of untreated sewage was less than 1%. The main treatment method is biological-mechanical treatment that forms ca 50% from the total amount of sewage to be treated. Biological treatment forms 46% and mechanical treatment 4%.



Wastewater involves also mine water that consists mainly of drainage water from the oil shale mines. In 2003 the amount of mine water was 212M m3/yr. This kind of wastewater which is not typically clean wastewater is treated mainly mechanically in the sedimentation pools. Part of the mine water does not need any treatment. Thus the discharged sewage can be divided in Estonia as follows: (a) drainage water from the mines 212 mill m3 /yr from which 87% is treated in the sedimentation pools and (b) household and industrial sewage that needs treatment 119 mill m3 /yr (Jankovski, 2004). Pollution loads of the discharged sewage are almost at the same level during the last years. In 2003 the pollution loads were as follows: 1660 tons/yr acc. to BOD7, 2350 tons/yr acc. to NTOT, and 170 tons/yr acc. to PTOT. In Estonia the procedure on discharging wastewater into water bodies or soil is specified with the regulation of the Government of Estonia that harmonizes with the Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. Recycling of wastewater is not applied in Estonia except to a limited amount is some industrial enterprises. In this case it can be called recycling of conditionally clean wastewater (Jankovski, 2004). Finland. With water availability per capita of more than 20,000 m3/yr, Finland never needed to consider the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation. The consumption of drinking water is 423 Mm3/yr) and over half of that is groundwater. The industrial use of water is 1000 Mm3/yr and the use of cooling water is 5700 Mm3/yr. The need of irrigation in agriculture is quite low. The use of water for irrigation is less than 1% of the runoff and most of is high quality surface water. Germany. In Germany, the available amount of water reaches 182 billion m3/yr. Only 25.8% of this is used: 15.8% by power stations 6% by industry, 3.1% by public water supply and 0.9% by agriculture. Therefore, there is little incentive for the recycling of wastewater. Nonetheless, direct wastewater reuse is practised just in the agricultural sector. This is due to historical development where in regions with sandy soils agriculture has always only been feasible when irrigated. Formerly this was accomplished by untreated wastewater, but with the implementation of sewage treatment the method remained. The 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 denitrified and removed of phosphorus and use for groundwater replenishment. Remarkably amounts of 10 and 20 Mm³/yr are reused that way in Wolfsburg and Braunschweig. In some regions (e.g. Ruhr valley and Rhine valley) the artificial recharge of groundwater is practiced. In these cases, surface water or riverbank filtrate is used as raw water for drinking water production. In some federal states, new regulations about the seeping of collected storm water have been issued, but only when economic and ecological advantages could be achieved. The federal water act



(Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) gives Germany a high level of protection for water, the best opportunity for the reuse of wastewater is through environmental protection schemes. The City of Berlin for 120 years has relied on the recycling of appropriately treated wastewater which is mixed with the surface water. This water is subject to bank filtration as it recharges the aquifers from which 100% of the potable water source is abstracted. Under dry weather conditions 70% of the available water has been recycled through the different water bodies. Besides, there are endeavours ongoing in the sector of greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting. Four regional areas in Germany provide subsidies for rainwater reuse and rainwater catchment is included in building regulations with a fee for discharging rainwater into the sewer. This has resulted in 100,000 new rainwater reuse facilities a year. (Klaus Konig 2004). The latest research and demonstration project (DEUS 21) financed by the Federal Government establishes a decentralised sanitation infrastructure for newly built residential area of 100 houses (BMBF, 2004). Germany has one of the lowest water leakage in the EU. The main leakage focus is on water pipelines. The mean domestic daily drinking water consumption is now 128 L/inh., the same level as 20 years ago. Hungary. After Hungary’s EU accession, Directives for water and sewerage services has been adopted into Hungarian legal regulation. As a framework for this National Sewage Disposal and Water Treatment Program has been created for the period of 2000-2015. The total cost of this program was 800 billion HUF, the main goals are the following: (a) Wastewater must be disposed of safely and stored through the whole country; (b) Biological treatment must be provided in the settlements with more than 2000 inhabitants, as well as smaller territories with a sensitive hydrological environment; (c) In smaller settlements where sewerage system can be installed economically, efficient supplemental public utilities must be set up; and (d) treated wastewater has to be reused when possible. By optimal usage and division of environmental friendly sewage treatment systems and traditional treatments plants with mechanical systems, with additional supplemental public utilities the population of the whole country can be fully supplied. At this rate by the year 2015 the quality of supply requested by the EU can be achieved. In recent years the realization of the National Program progresses proportionately, but with some delays (Table 4). Table 4. Typical statistics of the National wastewater Programme. Categories 2000. 2015.



Length of the Sewerage network

20000 km 33500 km

Rate of connected houses 45% 75% Number of treatment facilities

400 1400

Capacity of treatment facilities

1,7M m3/d 3,1M m3/d

Rate of population provided with supplimental public utility

approx. 10% 25%

One part of the total amount wastewater produced in 2005 (approx 500 M m3/yr) is created by households and institutions, while the other part of it is industry originated and the rainwater collected in unified sewage systems. More than ¼ of the 3000 settlements (over 800) is connected to a sewerage network, over half of the population has a sewerage service. 15% of the wastewater gets into the soil without treatment, 85% is drained to the sewerage system. 65% of the latter goes to treatment facilities, 20% today still goes to recipients. The rate of biological treatment method in treatment plants reached 95% in 2005., this rate projected to the whole of the population is 65%, with at least biological level treatment. It will be a significant improvement when in a few years 2 new WWTP in Budapest, and biological treatment plants in Győr and Szeged will be built with EU support. During draining and treating wastewater, 660,000 tons of waste water sludge is produced annually, containing 140,000 tons of dry material (by 2015 the expected amount will be 350,000 tons). Treating and safe storing of this sludge will be especially difficult, given the stricter environmental regulations, and its energetically usage will be more expensive. The potential for reuse of treated wastewater is very limited. However, reuse of treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation, during the summer months, is possible in agricultural areas Iceland. With renewable water resources over 170km3 and water availability per capita of more than 550,000 m3/yr, Iceland never needed to consider the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation. The consumption of drinking water is 500 Mm3/yr and it is groundwater. The need of irrigation in agriculture is very low. The use of water for irrigation is less than 1% of the runoff and most of is high quality surface water. Also, the potential for industrial reuse of treated wastewater is limited. Ireland. About 75% of Irish drinking water is abstracted from surface water, the remainder being supplied by wells and boreholes. Some 1000 public water supply schemes deliver in excess of 1.2 million m3 of water per day. Because of the mild and wet Irish climate, the need of irrigation in agriculture is practically non-existent. Cooling water tends to be pumped directly from rivers or lakes. We are not aware of any voluntary reuse of wastewater in Ireland.



Latvia. (to follow) Lithuania. Before 1990, according to the currently valid regulations, the scope of wastewater treatment did not exceed 25% of the total volume of the wastewater collected. Upon restoration of the independence of the country, the state largely focused on the treatment of urban wastewater, in the field of environmental protection. Over the recent 14 years, approximately 1,2 billion LTL have been invested in the construction of wastewater treatment plants for major cities. Therefore, presently, in line with the valid requirements, about 70% of the wastewater collected by means of centralised sewer networks is subjected to a treatment (Table 5). It is only the wastewater of small towns or rural settlements, which are treated inadequately, or not treated at all, for the time being. This kind of wastewater only represents a small share in the total volume of wastewater. However, the number of facilities is high, which raises the cost of problem resolution (investment demand per capita, etc.) significantly over that in major cities of the country, related to implementation of similar solutions. There are a total of approximately 600 WWTP, which are worn down in small towns and rural settlements, which need to be rehabilitated, or new facilities must be constructed, alternatively. The service of centralised disposal and treatment of wastewater is accessible to approx. 60% of the country’s inhabitants, however, the value is much lower in countryside. By the end of 2004, the Lithuanian Water Suppliers’ Association united 47 water utilities responsible for supplying and subsequent treatment of over 90 per cent of the gross volume of potable water in Lithuania. These water utilities have been treating approx. 98% of the wastewater disposed of in centralised systems, of which 90% is treated biologically. About 2/3 of the Lithuania’s inhabitants make use of the services of centralised water supply and waste water treatment. As consumption of water shrinks, it is only a small percentage of the capacity of the treatment facilities, which is utilised. According to the 2002 data, average degree of utilisation of the treatment facilities (LWSA members) was 37.40%. Some areas had this indicator as low as 15-20%. The existing wastewater treatment plants treated 140,471 thou. m³ in 2002, including 114,334 thou. m³ treated biologically. Table 5. Non-uniformity assessment in Lithuania. Indicator

Indicator unit of measure

Year

Indicator value in Lithuania

Indicator value in EU (average)

Degree of non-uniformity

Treatment of waste water to set requirements

Share of total waste water treated to set requirements (%)

2003 69 % 492% High

So as most of the industry have their own in-house treatment facilities, and they only contribute a small part of the gross volume of wastewater, the content of trace metals in the wastewater sludge tends to stay within the allowable limits. Sludge of this quality could be utilised as a fertiliser. However, as most of the large agricultural



companies shrunk or disappeared at all, the consumption of sludge for fertilisation needs dropped many times. It is only a small share of gross quantity of the sludge, which is consumed for regeneration of gravel pits and other destroyed landscape areas. Most of the sludge generated by the treatment plants must be stored by the LWSA member companies on the sludge storage grounds, with only a tiny share used for fertilisation in agriculture, or regeneration of damaged landscape. There are a few companies who make use of the sludge for breeding forest or willow groves, or production of biological gas. Nevertheless, the problem of sludge utilisation is far from being solved for the time being. Many companies encounter the need of sludge storage, as a result. Efforts have been launched to seek solutions. Sludge composting represents one of the most prospective outlooks. As the area of arable land decreases, and the stock of waste in the landfills grows, environmental concerns become sharper, which makes composting a prospective solution. Composting technology is not a legacy tradition in Lithuania, no composting companies exist. However, pilot testing, carried out to date, suggests the sludge of wastewater could be composted successfully in an industrial, not only a laboratoric, manner. This kind of compost can be used for vegetation around urban areas, roadside lawns, gardening, etc. Reuse of treated wastewater has not been developed yet. Most of the treated domestic effluent is discharged into surface water bodies. No instances of reuse of treated wastewater in industrial factories have been publicised so far. Believably, it is only a small share of such wastewater which could be reused in auxiliary technology processes. Luxembourg. The average yearly rainfall is 785 mm (two billion m3). National consumption of drinking water is around 60 Mm3 yearly corresponding in average to 300 L/inh.d. Industry needs 25%, agriculture 30% and households 45%. Today, surface water (maximum 60,000 m3/d) covers about 1/3 of the average water consumption and up to 2/3 of the summer peaks. For more security of the surface water, complementary new groundwater wells (maximum 50,000 m3/d) were dug some years ago. As Luxembourg has no real problem in providing fresh drinking water, wastewater reuse does not rank high on the agenda of the country. Nevertheless, in order to protect its watercourses especially in summer, when the levels are low, some provisions have been made: industry generally is encouraged to recycle process and cooling water. Also, storage of rainwater is encouraged for irrigation and cleaning purposes in industry, agriculture and households. The use of treated wastewater is being considered for humidification in the compost industry. Norway. Approximately 87% of the population of Norway receives water from local watersheds and 13% from groundwater. 90% of the population is supplied with water from 1600 waterworks and the rest is supplied from small private works. 400 of the public water works produce water with quality according to EU requirements, supplying 70% of the population (including Oslo). 1200 smaller waterworks produce water not up to these standards, supplying 30% of the population. According to national statistics, Norwegian waterworks deliver nearly 600 L/inh. But only 130 L/inh. are used in private households. Industrial consumption equals to 100 L/inh., and an additional 100 L/inh. are used in business undertakings, institutions and



municipal technical works. These figures indicate a total leakage of 40-50%. The Norwegian Government has recently decided to allocate approximately 820 million € (NOK 100 million) each year for 5 years for upgrading and improving local water supplies. As Norway is blessed with an abundance of fresh water, the issue of wastewater reuse is rarely considered. Nevertheless, because of high water tariffs, in certain areas some industrial companies are recycling its process and cooling water. This represents, however, a very low percentage of the total industrial water consumption. Poland.

Water supply and sewage disposal conducted in Poland aims at both decrease of consumption of water resources and reduction of water environmental impact of sewage through reducing of the amount of sewage and pollutant load, eliminating extremely environmentally dangerous substances from sewage, application of closed circuits and water reuse as well as wastewater treatment before its discharge into the environment.

Achieving good water purity state before 2015, with accordance to the EU water policy, is implemented in Poland, in particular, by compliance with the Council’s Directive 91/271/EEC as of 21.05.1991, regarding municipal wastewater treatment, having been implemented in the Polish law in 7 acts of law. Even before the Council of European Union adopted the directive in Poland, the Polish districts were obliged, by the power of The Local Government Act (March 8, 1990), to ensure disposal and treatment of municipal wastewater. Additionally, Water Act obliged the Minister of Environment to make and submit the National Program of Municipal Wastewater Treatment (KPOSK) to the Council of Ministers, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers as of 16.12.2003. The schedule describes the acts concerning equipping agglomerations with combined sewerage systems and sewage disposal plants, which will be undertaken till the end of 2015, and also for the intermediate periods – 2005, 2010, 2013.

As of June 7, 2005, the Council of Ministers approved the KPOSK updating. The updating of annexes to the KPOSK caused the increase of investments, which will be implemented in 1577 agglomerations. The KPOSK assumes buildings of ca. 37,000 km of sewerage network and building, extension, and/or modernization of ca. 1734 sewage disposal plants. According to the Ministry of Environment report, presenting the implementation of the KPOSK in the years 2003 – 2005, 112 new sewage disposal plants were built, out of 64 assumed in the schedule. 78 sewage disposal plants were modernized, out of assumed 255, and 25 treatment plants were extended, out of 52 planned. 108 treatment plants were both modernized and extended, out of 66 planned. 62% degree of biodegradable pollutant reduction was achieved, out of 69% assumed. Generally, before the end of 2005, 323 investments were implemented and 63 of them were postponed for the next years.

According to the data of the Central Bureau for Statistics (GUS) as of 31.12.2004, the length of sewerage network in Poland amounts to 73,900 km, including: 41,500 in towns and cities, whereas 32,400 km in the country. The volume of industrial and municipal sewage discharged into water or ground amounts to 9119.7 hm³, including the sewage volume discharged directly from the plants,



amounting to 7826.1 hm³ (cooling water 6984.8 hm³), whereas sewage discharged through sewage network amounts to 1293.6 hm³. The amount of sewage requiring treatment, out of the general volume of sewage discharged into water or ground amounts to 2134.9 hm³, out of this, 1943.1 hm³ undergo treatment, including 581.5 hm³ - mechanically, 107.5 hm³ - chemically, 585.5 hm³ - biologically, 668.5 hm³ - with the raised level of bio genes removal. 191.8 hm³ remain without any treatment.

The number of industrial sewage disposal plants is 1339, including 465 mechanical, 131 chemical, 690 biological, 53 with the raised level of bio genes removal ones. The number of municipal sewage disposal plants is 2875, including 106 mechanical, 2080 biological, 689 with the raised level of bio genes removal ones. The percentage of population using sewage disposal plants amounts to 59%. Romania. Concerning the volumes of wastewater collected in Romania in 2004, it has been established that:

(a) the total volumes of collected wastewater were of 4840.944 M m3, out of which 2910.658 M m3 (60%) wastewater that needed to be treated; and

(b) out of the volume of 2910.658 M m3 wastewater, 740.403 M. m3 (25%) were treated; 1290.421M m3 (44%) were insufficiently treated and 879.834 mil. m3 (30%) remained untreated.

In Romania in 2002, about 75% of the wastewater that originates from the main pollution sources has reached the natural receivers (especially the water flows) untreated or insufficiently treated. The most difficult situations have been registered in the case of the hydrographic basins Prut and Arges – Vedea with 99% and the Seaside with over 98% untreated wastewater. The biggest volumes of untreated wastewater came from communal husbandries (88%), from the chemical industry (3%), from the metallurgical industry (1%), from the electric power and the thermal energy industries (8%). Only 263 municipalities and 374 rural localities have public sewerage networks, so about 53% of the Romania’s population benefits from this service. The total length of the sewerage network is 16,348 km, from which 15,092 km in the urban area. The length of the streets supplied with sewerage system is of about 12,540 km, which means only 49% of the total length of the streets and 71% of the length of the streets that are supplied with water. In order to reduce water pollution, the main works realized were based especially on purifying stations. At present, 1535 pumping stations are operating but they are generally technically and technologically out-of date, an aspect that is evidenced by their functioning mode and by the degree of water treatment obtained. Only 77% of the discharge collected through the public sewerage networks is treated in the 206 pumping stations for wastewater that exist in the municipalities. 47 urban localities, such as Bucharest, Craiova, Drobeta – Turnu Severin, Braila, Galati and



Tulcea, discharge their wastewater directly in the receiving water bodies, without water treatment. Slovenia. In Slovenia development of the technology of treatment of various types of wastewater by constructed wetlands has recently started. One of the priorities of the constructed wetlands technology is water recycling and reuse. Unfortunately, so far the constructed wetlands are only used for small communities and consequently rather limited amounts of water to be recycled are generated. It is expected, that in the very near future, that technology, including water recycling and reuse, will be used widely and mainly in tourist areas. Some relevant projects have been already implemented (Vrhovšek, 2002). Slovakia. As in Croatia treated wastewater reuse has not been used since now due to the lack of effective sewerage systems and non-existence of secondary treatment plants. Most of the towns in the coastal areas although small, are characterized with high fluctuation of population (tourists) and consequently uneven production of wastewater. Sweden. In areas where water is scarce, especially for irrigation, wastewater is considered as an obvious resource. In Sweden, wastewater has been collected in large reservoirs for up to nine months before irrigation. The benefits with these projects have been mainly two fold: (a) Wastewater treatment in a safe and financially attractive way and (b) creation of water resources for agricultural irrigation. These schemes have meant that wastewater treatment is handled in a cheap but very efficient way. Nutrients in the wastewater are recycled to farmland and the farmers are provided with cheap irrigation water. It is profitable for the Water Utility since it is selling water instead of constructing and operating expensive sewage treatment plants; and for the farmers because they secure and increase their harvests and they can also buy water cheaper than had been able to do, if they had constructed their own irrigation systems. This is also an ecological solution that avoids all discharges of more or less treated sewage water. Wastewater reuse could also provide a more direct path to sustainable wastewater treatment than is normally the case in the western world. Switzerland. Wastewater treatment in Switzerland has reached a high level: 95% of the population is connected to sewage treatment plants. All plants are equipped with mechanical and biological treatment and 75% of the wastewaters are purified with supplemental chemical treatment. Water quality in surface waters is good or very good, but in regions with intensive agriculture nitrate concentrations in groundwater are often higher than 25 mg/L, and in some cases over 40 mg/L. Groundwater from other sources (>70%) is used directly or can be processed with a single purification step to produce drinking water of good quality. For larger agglomerations, lakes serve as reservoirs for the production of drinking water. The amount of water used for irrigation is not well known: abundance of water resources does not favour tight control. Because of well-developed hydraulic infrastructure and enough rain, Switzerland has not a high demand for wastewater



reuse. However, high quality standards for surface waters and stringent concentration levels for hazardous substances in wastewater discharges favour water reuse in industrial processes in order to minimise high treatment costs. The Netherlands. Some regions in the Netherlands (in the south-west, east and north-east of the country) can experience water shortages during dry spells. Reuse of water for irrigation is only possible when the quality of the water is sufficient: for crop irrigation, chlorine and iron are the limiting substances at present. The bacteriological quality of the water is mostly too poor to meet the standards for drinking water for cattle and for bathing waters. Reuse of wastewater can be a good option for certain industrial applications such as cooling systems, water for cleaning, etc. A pilot plan for the preparation of boiler feed water was successfully run in Hoogvliet (Netherlands). It is intended to commission a full-scale plant with a flow of 2.5 Mm³/a (van Naerssen et al., 2001). So far, the total amount of wastewater recycling and reuse in the Netherlands is small. In few cases, recycled water is used for maintenance of the aquifer water level, water for fire-fighting and other urban uses. The use of recycled water depends on the local situation: availability of “good-quality” reclaimed water at a “competitive” distance, compared to surface water. In the near future, reuse will probably increase. Water reuse for industry in order to substitute drinking water prepared from groundwater is initiated by water and wastewater companies in Tilburg (Maas, 2003). The long-range perspective also foresees reuse as fire extinguishing water and industrial water. The infiltration and the use for irrigation are additional options. In agriculture, wastewater will be stored and even treated to meet the standards required for this purpose. Water boards are also considering an additional treatment (sand filtration) after tertiary treatment if the wastewater can be used for groundwater recharge in forest areas or other natural areas. For industries, the reuse of wastewater will be an option if it is cost-efficient. With the Dutch government imposing taxes and limits on aquifer abstraction to reinstate original groundwater level, industrial wastewater reuse is becoming increasingly interesting. The installation of constructed wetlands as an option to realise environmental benefits by reusing wastewater was demonstrated for several locations in the Netherlands (Claasen, 2004). GUIDELINES AND/OR REGULATIONS ON WASTEWATER RECYCLING AND REUSE Introduction Advances in the effectiveness and reliability of wastewater treatment technologies have improved the capacity to produce reclaimed wastewater that can serve as a supplemental water source, in addition to achieve water quality protection and pollution abatement requirements. In developing countries, particularly those in arid parts of the world, reliable low-cost technologies (both for treatment and reuse) are



needed for acquiring new water supplies and protecting existing water sources from pollution (Marecos do Monte et al., 1996). The implementation of wastewater reclamation, recycling, and reuse promotes the preservation of limited water resources in conjunction with water conservation and watershed protection programs. In the planning and implementation of water reclamation and reuse, the intended water reuse applications dictate the extent of wastewater treatment required, the quality of the finished water, and the method of water distribution and application (Asano, 1998). In several countries and states in the United States, water reclamation and reuse is well established and the value of reclaimed water has been fully recognized. In these countries and states, laws and regulations exist that mandate water reuse under certain conditions. In several states, regulations require that a study should be conducted to investigate the possibility of using reclaimed water for applications that currently use potable water or freshwater (Crook and Surampalli, 1996). In the United States, as of March 1992, 18 states have adopted regulations regarding the use of reclaimed water, 18 states had guidelines or design standards, and 14 states had no regulations or guidelines (US EPA, 1992 and 2004). Standards, criteria, rules, guidelines, good practices, and other; which try to regulate wastewater reclamation and reuse, can be prepared, as for any activity related with the environment, and made public before they are adopted. This generates certain number of comments from the public and subsequent modifications that can influence often decisively, the type of criteria that will be finally published and enforced (Salgot et al., 2003). Historical Developments The evolution of reuse good practice and guidelines cannot be understood completely without a historic review of the standards that have been created since 1918. In this year the legislative fever on wastewater reuse in California started. A summary of this evolution can be found in Table 6. For many years, the State of California regulations were the only legal reference for reclamation and reuse. They became the benchmark for water reuse practice everywhere in the world with the assumption that they were the truth, axiomatic and indisputable. It has even been stated that these standards were copied and recopied until they were recognized officially. During the seventies and eighties, some evolution took place and the different states in the USA, and several international agencies, like the World Bank and the WHO were extremely active. After the appearance of the US EPA recommendations in 1992, little evolution has been made anymore. In Europe, as it is referred before, there is some legislative movement for reclamation and reuse in the EU (Salgot and Angelakis, 2001). As explained before, California has been the only state that had regulation for years, so, it is considered to be the best by many technicians and scientists. Nevertheless,



the statement that this legal piece was restrictive and, as mentioned before, it was implanted in temporal, legal and socio-economic circumstances with considerable expenses should be considered. Several supranational entities have been discussing the possibility to implement new guidelines and regulations, different from California ones or suggest modifications. WHO (1989) and the World Bank (Bartone, 1991) sponsored several studies on this item. Later on, the US EPA performed also several studies and compared the existing state laws, issuing recommendations in 1992 (US EPA, 2004). At present time, both California and Israel regulations are under revision. In addition, a committee of experts has been established for an initial revision of the WHO guidelines. Finally, various studies are in progress for establishing guidelines or regulations in various countries such as UK and Belgium. Finally, in several regions and/or countries of the South of Europe (Spain), studies have been undertaken for establishing guidelines or regulations (Marecos do Monte, 1998). WHO Guidelines for Wastewater Recycling and Reuse International organizations such as the World Bank and WHO, on the other hand, call for epidemiological studies to defend the less stringent WHO quality guidelines. In contrast to the California approach, the WHO guidelines say that the microbiological water quality requirements for irrigation can be met by a series of stabilization ponds (Table 7). Microbiological monitoring requirements also vary: the WHO guidelines require monitoring of intestinal nematodes whereas the California criteria rely on the required treatment systems and the sole monitoring of the total coliform count to assess microbiological quality (Asano and Levine, 1996). Similarly, the US EPA criteria emphasize fecal coliforms removal. Table 6. Historical data of the water quality for unrestricted irrigation (Salgot and Angelakis, 2001) Year Data and quality criteria 1918 California State Board of Public Health set up the "First regulations for use of sewage for

irrigation purposes in California" 1952 First regulations of Israel 1973 WHO 100 FC/100 mL, 80% of samples 1978 State of California wastewater reclamation regulations: 2.2 TC/100 mL 1978 Israel regulations: 12 FC/100 mL in 80% of samples: 2.2 FC/100 mL in 50% of samples 1983 World Bank Report (Shuval et al., 1986) 1983 Florida State: No E. coli detection in 100 mL 1984 Arizona State: Standards for virus (1 virus/40 L) and Giardia (1 cyst / 40 L) 1985 Report of Feachem et al., 1983 1985 Engelberg report (IRCWD, 1985) 1989 WHO Recommendations for wastewater reuse: 1000 FC/100 mL < 1 nematode egg/L 1990 Texas State: 75 FC/100 mL 1991 Sanitary French recommendations: Based on WHO 1992 US EPA Guidelines for water reuse: No FC detection in 100 mL (7 d median. No more of 14

FC/100 mL in any sample) 2000 State of California Criteria (Title 22) was revised 2003 WHO State of the Art Report on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with Recycled Water



(Aertgeerts and Angelakis, 2003) 2004 Revised US EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse 2006 WHO Guidelines for using Treated Wastewater in Agriculture

Pathogens are difficult (and expensive) to monitor. Therefore, the WHO guidelines, prepared to keep the needs of developing countries in mind, only prescribe a limit for faecal coliforms (<1000/100 mL) and intestinal nematodes eggs (≤1/L). As a consequence, the whole argument about standards revolves around the validity of such limits as a sufficient guarantee of safety for the water used in irrigation (Marecos do Monte et al., 1996). A large part of the answer lies in the treatment requirements associated to the limit values. One must also realize that in the case where raw wastewater is directly reused, the WHO guidelines, merely by requiring treatment, are already a major step forward (Table 7). Based on an extensive analysis of existing guidelines worldwide, the need for developing health-related chemical criteria for land application of reclaimed wastewater has been reported by WHO (Chang et al., 1995). Table 7. 1989 WHO guidelines for using treated wastewater in agriculturea

Category Reuse conditions Exposed group

Intestinal nematodeb (arithmetic mean no.

of eggs per litrec)

Faecal coliforms (geometric mean no. per 100mf)

Wastewater treatment expected to achieve the required

microbiological guideline

A

Irrigation of crops likely to be eaten uncooked, sports fields, public parksd

Workers, consumers, public

≤ 1

≤ 1000

A series of stabilization ponds designed to achieve the microbiological quality indicated, or equivalent treatment

8

Irrigation of cereal crops, industrial crops, fodder crops, pasture and treese

Workers

≤ 1

No standard recommended

Retention in stabilization ponds for 8- 10 days or equivalent helminth and faecal coliform removal

C

Localized irrigation of crops in category Β if exposure to workers and the public does not occur

None

Not applicable

Not applicable

Pretreatment as required by irrigation technology but not less than primary sedimentation

a In specific cases, local epidemiological sociocultural and environmental factors should be taken into account and the guidelines modified accordingly.

b Ascaris and Trichuris species and hookworms. c During the irrigation period. d A more stringent guideline limit (≤ 200 faecal coliforms/100 ml) is appropriate for public lawns, such as hotel lawns, with which the

public may come into direct contact. e In the case of fruit trees, irrigation should cease two weeks before fruit is picked, and no fruit should be picked off the ground. Sprinkler

irrigation should not be used.

Blumenthal et al. (2000) using empirical epidemiological evidences and studies measuring real exposures that occur over time and based on experimental data have developed recommendations for revising WHO (1989) guidelines (Table 8). In the revised WHO guidelines, besides, reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture, urban settings, aquaculture and artificial recharge of groundwater shall be included. Recently, WHO in collaboration with EUREAU have organized a Workshop on water recycling and reuse in Mediterranean region. This workshop was held in



Iraklio, Greece on September 24, 2002; and during that workshop a draft of guidelines on water recycling and reuse in the Mediterranean region was proposed (Bahri and Brissaud, 2002). The revised 1989 WHO guidelines for using of treated wastewater for agricultural have been published (WHO, 2006). The interest in use of treated wastewater for irrigation has driven by water scarcity, lack of availability of nutrients, and concerns about health and environmental effects. In the revised guidelines emphasis is given in both relevant epidemiological studies and risk assessment. Guidelines and/or Regulations for Wastewater Recycling and Reuse in the USA Total coliform and faecal coliform organisms are often used in conjunction with specified requirements for treating wastewater, and in such cases it is assumed that the need for expensive and time-consuming monitoring of treated water for pathogenic microorganisms is eliminated. In practice, however, this approach has led to guidelines that require zero faecal coliform bacteria/100 mL for water used to irrigate crops that are eaten raw in addition to a requirement for secondary treatment, filtration and disinfection. The US EPA and the US Agency for International Development have taken this approach, and consequently have recommended strict guidelines for wastewater use (US EPA, 1992 and 2004). For unrestricted irrigation (that is, for uses that include crops likely to be eaten uncooked), no detectable faecal coliform bacteria are allowed in 100 mL (compared with the 1989 WHO guidelines of ≤ 1000 faecal coliform bacteria/100 mL), and for irrigation of commercially processed and fodder crops the guideline limit is ≤ 200 faecal coliform bacteria/100 mL (for which only a guideline limit on the presence of nematode eggs is set by WHO). In the USA, the setting of actual standards is the responsibility of individual states, and different states take different approaches (some specify treatment processes, others specify water quality standards) and a range of standards is in use (Blumenthal et al., 2000). Table 8. Recommended revised microbiological guidelines for treated wastewater use in agriculture

(Blumenthal et al., 2000) a

Category Reuse conditions Exposed group

Irrigation technique

Intestinal nematodesb (arithmetic mean no. of

eggs per litrec)

Faecal coliforms

(geometric mean no. per

100 mld)

Wastewater treatment expected to achieve required

microbiological quality

A Unrestricted irrigation

A1 For vegetable and salad crops eaten uncooked, sports fields, public parkse

Workers, consumers, public

Any

≤ 0.lf ≤ 103

Well-designed series of waste stabilization ponds (WSP), sequential batch-fed wastewater storage and treatment reservoirs (WSTR) or equivalent treatment (e.g., conventional secondary treatment supplemented by either polishing ponds or filtration and disinfection)

Β

Restricted irrigation



Cereal cops, industrial crops, fodder crops, pasture and treesg

B1 Workers (but no children < 15 years), nearby communities

Spray or sprinkler

≤ 1 ≤105

Retention in WSP series including one maturation pond or in sequential WSTR or equivalent treatment (e.g., conventional secondary treatment supplemented by either polishing ponds or filtration)

B2 as B1

Flood/furrow

≤ 1 ≤ 103 As for Category A

B3 Workers including children < 15 years, nearby communities

Any

≤ 0.1 ≤ 103

As for Category A

C

Localized irrigation of crops in category B if exposure of workers and the public does not occur

None

Trickle, drip or bubbler

Not applicable Not applicable

Pretreatment as required by the irrigation technology, but not less than primary sedimentation

a In specific cases, local epidemiological, sociocultural and environmental factors should be taken into account and the guidelines modified accordingly.

b Ascaris and Trichuris species and hookworms; the guideline limit is also intended to protect against risks from parasitic protozoa. c During the irrigation season (if the wastewater is treated in WSP or WSTR which have been designed to achieve these egg numbers, then

routine effluent quality monitoring is not required). d During the irrigation season (faecal coliform counts should preferably be done weekly, but at least monthly). e A more stringent guideline limit (≤ 200 faecal coliforms/100 ml) is appropriate for public lawns, such as hotel lawns, with which the

public may come into direct contact. f This guideline limit can be increased to ≤ 1 egg/L if (i) conditions are hot and dry and surface irrigation is not used or (ii) if wastewater

treatment is supplemented with antihelminthic chemotherapy campaigns in areas of wastewater reuse. g In the case of fruit trees, irrigation should stop two weeks before fruit is picked, and no fruit should be picked off the ground.

Spray/sprinkler irrigation should not be used. The well-known California criteria ‘California Code Regulations, Title 22, Division 4 (Dept. of Health Services, 1978)’ stipulate conventional biological wastewater treatment by tertiary treatment, filtration and chlorine disinfection to produce wastewater that is suitable for irrigation. In support of this approach, Asano and Levine (1996) have reported two major epidemiological studies that were conducted in California during the 1970s and 1980s. These studies scientifically demonstrate that food crops that were irrigated with municipal wastewater reclaimed according to the California approach could be consumed uncooked without adverse health effects. However, the nutrients removed by the tertiary treatment are not available for fertilizing. Recently, California regulations have been revised (State of California, 2000). The revised California regulations are based on establishing four basic recycling water qualities and are shown in Table 9. The area requirements by the California water recycling criteria are: (a) No irrigation with disinfected tertiary recycled water shall take place within 15 m

of any domestic water supply well without some provisions. (b) No impoundment of disinfected tertiary recycled water shall occur within 30 m of

any domestic water supply well. (c) No irrigation with or impoundment of disinfected2.2 or 23 secondary recycled

water shall take place within 30 m of any domestic water supply.



(d) No irrigation with or impoundment of, undisinfected secondary recycled water shall take place within 45 m of any domestic water supply.

(e) Any use of recycled water shall comply with the followings: (i) any irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area, unless the runoff does not pose a public health threat, (ii) spray, mist or runoff shall not enter dwellings, designed outdoor eating areas or food handling facilities, and (iii) drinking with recycled water spray, mist or runoff.

(f) No spray irrigation of any recycled water, other than disinfected tertiary recycled water shall take place within 30 m of a residence or a place where public exposure could be similar to that of a park, playground or school yard.

Legislation and Guidelines for Wastewater Recycling Reuse at European Level So far, no regulation, quality guidelines or good practice of wastewater reuse exists at European level. However reference to reuse is made in the article 12 of the European Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC) (EU, 1991) stating: “Treated wastewater shall be reused whenever appropriate”. In order to make this statement reality, common definitions of what is “appropriate” are needed. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) introductory booklet “Tap into it!” (Tap into it! ISBN 92-894-1946-6) states on page 8 “Living with water Scarcity - as water shortage increases worldwide, people are looking for ways to reuse water. This makes sense because it allows a double use for the same pumping costs and mandatory wastewater treatment costs… reuse is an important and natural method of managing water drainage”. The WFD (WFD Directive 2000/60/EC) states“ The following is a non-exclusive list of supplementary measures which Member States within each river basin district may choose to adopt as part of the programme of measures required under Article 11(4): (x) efficiency and reuse measures, inter alia, promotion of water-efficient technologies in industry and water-saving irrigation techniques(EU, 2000). Although the WFD does not include reuse in the body of the directive it introduces a quantitative dimension to water management, on top of the usual qualitative dimension, which may stimulate the consideration of wastewater reuse. It also states “water resources should be of sufficient quality and quantity to meet other economic requirements”. Wastewater reuse being a water resource often mobilised for economic reasons, such a statement does have economic implications (Angelakis et al., 1999). The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control legislation (IPPC) does encourage water reuse and is included in the legislation within the WFD Table 9. California water recycling criteria: treatment and quality requirements for nonpotable uses of

reclaimed water (State of California Title 22 Water Recycling Criteria, 2000).

Type of use Total coliform limitsa Treatment required

Irrigation of fodder, fiber, & seed crops, orchardsb and vineyardsb, processed food crops, nonfood-bearing trees, ornamental nursery stockc, and sod farmsc; flushing sanitary sewers

• None required • Secondary



Irrigation of pasture for milking animals, landscape areasd, ornamental nursery stock and sod farms where public access is not restricted; landscape impoundments; industrial or commercial cooling water where no mist is created; nonstructural fire fighting; industrial boiler feed; soil compaction; dust control; cleaning roads, sidewalks, and outdoor areas

• ≤23/100 mL • ≤240/100 mL in more

than one sample in any 30-day period

• Secondary • Disinfection

Irrigation of food cropsb; restricted recreational impoundments; fish hatcheries

• ≤2.2/100 mL • ≤23/100 mL in more


• Secondary • Disinfection

Irrigation of food cropse and open access landscape areasf; toilet and urinal flushing; industrial process water; decorative fountains; commercial laundries and car washes; snow-making; structural fire fighting; industrial or commercial cooling where mist is created

• ≤2.2/100 mL • ≤23/100 mL in more


• 240/100 mL (maximum)

• Secondary • Coagulationg • Filtrationh • Disinfection

Non restricted recreational impoundments

• ≤2.2/100 mL • ≤23/100 mL in more


• 240/100 mL (maximum)

• Secondary • Coagulation • Clarificationi • Filtrationh • Disinfection

aBased on running 7-day median. bNo contact between reclaimed water and edible portion of crop. cNo irrigation for at least 14 days prior to harvesting, sale, or allowing public access. dCemeteries, freeway landscaping, restricted access golf courses, and other controlled access areas. eContact between reclaimed water and edible portion of crop; includes edible root crops. fParks, playgrounds, schoolyards, residential landscaping, unrestricted access golf courses, and other uncontrolled access irrigation areas. gNot required if the turbidity of the influent to the filters is continuously measured, does not exceed 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes and never exceeds 10 NTU, and there is capability to automatically activate chemical addition or divert the wastewater if the filter influent turbidity exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes. hThe turbidity after filtration through filter media cannot exceed 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) within any 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5% of the time within a 24-hour period, and 10 NTU at any time. The turbidity after filtration through a membrane process cannot exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5% of the time within any 24-hour period and 0.5 NTU at any time. i Not required if reclaimed water is monitored for enteric viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium.

Treated wastewater is nowadays regarded worldwide as water resource and not as a waste for disposal. The principles of the WFD should fuel the discussion on recycled water use, management and its economic analysis which will give to the recycled water the prospective of an economic good. The WFD discusses fresh water, but as recycled water is a by-product of potable water use, it can be analogously extended to cover recycled water (as a product of wastewater treatment). This entails applying on recycled water all the principles and articles concerning other water sources management (Tsangarakis, 2005). Recycled water demand is expected be growing with time at higher rates than supply, when relevant projects being implemented. Thus, the WFD could evidently be extended to cover recycled water as water resource ( Tsagarakis, 2005).



As we have just seen, there are many different attitudes towards wastewater reuse across Europe. There is now an effort to harmonize the various approaches to wastewater reuse at European level (Angelakis et al., 2001) just as the Australians have combined their different state guidelines to produce national guidelines and best practice in 2006. Approaches in Regulating Wastewater Reuse So far, a variety of approaches have been taken by different Agencies to regulate water quality for wastewater reuse systems across Eureau countries. These differences pertain mostly to the existing irrigation practices, local soil conditions, and the desire to protect public health, the choices of irrigation and wastewater treatment technologies and the need to keep costs down. Existing wastewater reuse guidelines typically cover four areas for each application: physico-chemical standards, microbiological standards, wastewater treatment processes and use irrigation or application techniques. The degree of treatment required and the extent of monitoring necessarily depend on the specific use (e.g. groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation or crop irrigation) and crop (e.g. eaten cooked or raw). In general, irrigation/application systems are categorized according to the potential degree of human exposure (e.g. long-range exposure through spray irrigation and short exposure through drip irrigation). The highest degree of treatment is always required for irrigation of crops that are consumed uncooked (the so-called «unrestricted» irrigation) or domestic, individual, and private reuse. Health risks associated with both pathogenic microorganisms and physico-chemical constituents, including persistent organic pollutants, need to be addressed where recycled water is used for indirect potable water supply augmentation or other hazardous uses. Angelakis et al. (1999) gives a brief comparison of criteria (maximum limits) for recycled wastewater reuse. Outside of Europe, most countries, such as Israel (a notable Mediterranean exception) and South Africa, and recently Japan and Australia, shy away from accepting the 1989 WHO guidelines (WHO, 1989); considered too lenient for public health protection in industrialized countries. Around the Mediterranean however, and particularly in Europe, while the competent authorities recognize the limitations of the WHO guidelines, most existing regulations and guidelines follow them but contain additional criteria such as treatment requirements or use limitations in order to ensure proper public health protection. This is in particular the case of the French guidelines. Traditional practices and economic considerations appear to be weighing heavily on the debate. While there appears to be a wide agreement that the 1989 WHO guidelines are only a minimum requirement (i.e. insufficient), there is so far no general consensus on the best approach to follow. The California approach has developed the most data in its own support and seems to become established in some parts of the world. Its basic advantage is its “safety first” philosophy, but it is the most expensive and disregards established traditional practices and local socio-economic conditions in many areas of the world. As a result, there remain a number of experts in favour of a “Third Way”, somewhere between the California and the WHO approaches. Developing a consensus on such a “Third Way” would make a lot of sense, in particular for the areas where international tourism and the export of agricultural products are significant and the areas where



wastewater reuse is mainly performed for environmental protection (Angelakis et al., 1999). Nowadays, WHO guidelines are under revision. In addition, various studies are under way which are directed in developing minimal physicochemical and microbiological criteria for wastewater recycling and reuse in Greece, in Spain and other countries. These criteria are closest related to California regulations, however, the 1989 WHO philosophy is in some way included. An additional approach that seems to be gaining momentum is the implementation of additional tools, like Good Reuse Practices and hazard/risk based concepts leading to HACCP systems (Hazard Assessment and Critical Control Points). CONCLUSIONS Most of the northern Eureau countries have historically benefited from abundant water resources and they all give priority to the protection of water quality. In these countries, the need for extra supply through the reuse of treated wastewater has not been considered as a major issue, but the protection of the receiving environment is considered important. In all the Eureau countries, industry is generally encouraged to recycle water. The situation is more severe in the southern Eureau countries, where the additional resources brought by wastewater reuse can bring significant advantages to agriculture (e.g. crop irrigation) and tourism (e.g. golf course irrigation). Considering its various potential benefits, wastewater recycling and reuse can be applied to the advantage of both northern and southern Eureau countries (protection of water resources, prevention of coastal pollution, recovery of nutrients for agriculture, augmentation of river flow, savings in wastewater treatment, groundwater recharge, and sustainability of water resource management, etc.). Eureau would be keen to be involved in preparing international good practices and guidelines related to the reuse of treated wastewater in a similar format to the horizontal BREF documents prepared for IPPC legislation. Such criteria and/or guidelines should contribute to a better management of water resources for all applications, protection of public health, the environment and result in a more sustainable development as we all develop a better understanding of our water resources and their management under the Water Framework Directive. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work has been supported by the EU-93 AVI 076 Project. In addition the contribution of members of the Eureau Board and EU2, Dr. A. Abromavicius (Lithuania), Dr. J. Bebin (France), Dr. Costin Berevoianu (Romania) Mr. J.-P. Feller (Luxembourg), Mr. F. Folkerstsma (Netherlands), Dr. E. Glotzl (Austria), Mr. F. Johansen (Norway), Mr. A. Martinez Herrero (Spain), Mr. J. O' Connell (Ireland), Dr. U. Oehmichen (Germany), Dr. P. Romano (Italy), Mr. H.U. Schweizer (Switzerland), Mr. P. Ockier (Belgium), Dr. Maria Papp (Hungary) Dr. T. Thairs (UK), Prof. T. Peitchev (Bulgaria), Mr. H. Westerlund (Sweden) and Dr M.Tloczek (Poland) is gratefully appreciated. REFERENCES Aertgeerts R. and A. N. Angelakis (Eds.). (2003). State of the Art Report: Health Risks in Aquifer

Recharge Using Reclaimed Water. WHO, Water, Sanitation and Health Protection and the



Human Environment WHO, Genova and WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. x, 212.

Andersson, M. (2004) Greywater reuse in Denmark – experiences and rules. Presentation at Seminar “Grauwasser-Recycling – Chance für die deutsche Wirtschaft”, 24. February 2004, Hattingen, Germany.

Angelakis, A.N. (2003). Wastewater Recycling and Reuse in Malta. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. viii, 175. Angelakis, A.N., and S.V. Spyridakis. (1996) The status of water resources in Minoan times - A

preliminary study. In: Diachronic Climatic Impacts on Water Resources with Emphasis on Mediterranean Region (A. Angelakis and A. Issar, Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, p. 161-191.

Angelakis, A.N. and L. Bontoux (2001). Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse in Eureau Countries. Wat. Policy, 3: 47-59.

Angelakis, A.N., D. Koutsoyiannis, and G. Tchobanoglous. (2005). Urban Wastewater and Stormwater Technologies in the Ancient Greece. Wat. Res., 39(1): 210-220. Angelakis, A.N., M.H. Marecos do Monte, L. Bontoux, and T. Asano (1999). The status of wastewater reuse practice in the Mediterranean basin. Wat. Res., 33(10): 2201-2217.

Angelakis, A.N., T. Thairs, V. Lazarova, and T. Asano (2001). Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse in Eureau Countries. Necessity for establishing EU-guidelines. Eureau, Brussels, pp. 54.

Angelakis, A.N., L. Bontoux, and V. Lazarova (2003). Main Challenges and Prospectives for Water Recycling and Reuse in EU Countries. Wat. Sci. Tech., Wat. Supply, 3(4): 59-68.

Anonymous (1997a). Blue Plan for the Mediterranean-Regional Activity Center. Sophia Antipolis, F-06560 Valbonne, France.

Anonymous (1997b). European Wastewater Catalogue 1997. European Wastewater Group (Eureau), Brussel, Belgium.

Asano, T. (1998). (Ed.) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Water Quality Management Library Vol. 10. Technomic Publishing Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA.

Asano, T., and A.D. Levine (1996). Wastewater reclamation, recycling and reuse: Past, present, and future. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(10-11): 1-16.

Bahri, A. and F. Brissaud (2002). Guidelines for Municipal Water Reuse in the Mediterranean Countries. WHO regional Office for Europe, Euro Project Office, MAP, Athens, Greece.

Blumenthal, U.J., D.D. Mara, A. Peasey, G. Ruiz-Palacios, 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, 78 (9): 1104-1116.

BMBF (2004) Pilotprojekt für moderne Wasserversorgung gestartet, Press release 120/2004 of June 8, 2004, Federal Ministry of Research and Education

Bontoux, J., and G. Courtois (1996). Wastewater reuse for irrigation in France. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(10-11): 45-49.

Claasen. T. and Kampf, R. (2004) Water harmonica: Long-term environmental benefits of effluent polishing through constructed wetlands, Proceedings of AQUAREC International Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants, Thessaloniki, Greece 11-12 March 2004

EEA 2/2004 Impact of Europe’s changing climate European Population Papers series No2.(2002)The European population committee’s recent

democratic studies and their relevance to social cohesion ISSN 1683-2663 March 2002

CSHPF (1991). Recommandations Sanitaires Concernant L´Utilisation, Après Épuration, des Eaux Résiduaires Urbaines Pour l´irrigation des Cultures et des Espaces Verts. Circulaire DGS/SD1.D./91/Nº 51, Paris, Conseil Supérieur d´Hygiène Publique de France.

Dialynas, G.E., K.P. Tsagarakis, and A.N. Angelakis. (2002). Water resources management in Greece, including potential for wastewater recycling and reuse. The case of island. In: Proc.



of IWA-Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, (A.N. Angelakis et al., Eds). Iraklio, Greece, 26-29 September 2002, 1: 135-142.

EU (1991). Council Directive of May 21, 1991. Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment. (91/271 EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities, L135/40,May 30.

EU (2000). Council Directive of 23 October 2002. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of water Policy (2000/60/EC). Official Journal of the European Communities, L327, 22 December.

Eureau (2004) Why is water reuse so important to the EU? Eureau position paper on water reuse Faby, J.A., F. Brissaud and J. Bontoux. Wastewater reuse in France: water quality standards and

wastewater treatment technologies. Wat. Sci. Tech., 1999, 40(4/5):37-42. Government of Western Australia (2003). Securing our water future – A state water strategy for Western Australia.

Folsom, C.F., 1876. Seventh Annual Report of the State Board of the Health of Massachusetts, Wright and Potter, Boston, USA. IPPC (2005) European Industrial Pollution prevention control web site http://eippcb.jrc.es Jankovski, H. (2004). Personnal communication, e-mail: [email protected]. Kypris, D. (1989). Considerations for the quality standards for the reuse of treated effluent. In: Proc.

on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Cairo, Egypt, 11-16 Dec. Lazarova, V., B. Levine, J. Sack, H. Cikurel, H. Cirelli, P. Jeffrey, H. Muntan, M. Salgot, and F.

Brissaud (2000). Role of water reuse in enhancement of integrated water management at catchment scale. In: 1st World Water Congress of the IWA, 3-7 July, 2000, Paris, France, 8: 33-40.

Maas, J. Flowing together (Samen stromen B.V.) An example of sound ownership and financial practice, Proceedings of AQUAREC International Workshop on Implementation and Operation of Municipal Wastewater Reuse Plants, Thessaloniki, Greece 11-12 March 2004

Marecos do Monte, M.H.F., A.N. Angelakis, and T. Asano (1996). Necessity and basis for the establishment of European guidelines on wastewater reclamation and reuse in the Mediterranean region. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(10-11): 303-316.

Marecos do Monte, M.H. (1998). Agricultural Irrigation with Treated Wastewater in Portugal. Chapter 18 in Asano T. (Ed.) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Water Quality Management Library Vol. 10. Technomic Publishing Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA.

Mezzanotte V., Antonelli M., Azzelino A., Citterio S. and Nurizzo C. (2003). Secondary effluent disinfection by peracetic acid (PAA): microrganisms inactivation and re-growth, preliminary results. Water Scie. & Tech.-Water Supply, 3, n. 4, pp. 269-275.

Nurizzo C. and Mezzanotte V. (1994). Legislative, economical and technical aspects of irrigation with reclaimed wastewater in Italy. Res., Cons. & Rec., 10, pp. 301-316.

Papadopoulos, I. (1995). Present and perspective use of wastewater for irrigation in the Mediterranean basin. 2nd Int. Symp. on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse (A.N. Angelakis et al., Eds.), IAWQ, Iraklio, Greece, October, Vol. 2: 735-746.

Salgot, M., C. Verges, and A.N. Angelakis (2003). Risk Assessment in Wastewater Recycling and Reuse. Wat. Sci. Tech., Wat. Supply, 3(4): 301-310.

Salgot, M. and A.N. Angelakis. (2001). Guidelines and regulations on wastewater reuse. In: Decentralized Sanitation and Reuse, Ch. 23: 446-466. Integrated Envir. Techn. Series, IWA Publishing, London, UK.

State of California (2000). Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3. Water Recycling Criteria. Sections 60301 et seq., Dec. Berkeley, California, USA.

Soulié, M. and L. Tréméa ( 1991). Technologie pour le traitement et la réutilisation des eaux usées dans le bassin méditerranéen, Actes des 3èmes Rencontres de l'Agence Régionale pour l'Environnement, Provence - Alpes - Côte d'Azur, 24-27 September 1991, 171-255. Tap into



it ! (2002) The water framework directive. 10 page introductory booklet ISBM 92-894-1946-6

Tchobanoglous, G. and A.N. Angelakis (1996). Technologies for wastewater treatment appropriate for reuse: Potential for applications in Greece. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(10-11): 17-27.

Thoeye, C., D. Geenens, S. Vandaele, and E. Van Houtte (2000). Need and technological possibilities of wastewater reuse in Flanders. Proc. AWWA Water Reuse 2000 Conf., Jan 30-Feb 2, San Antonio, Texas, 13 pp.Tsangarakis K. P. (2005). Recycled water valuation as a corollary of the 2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive. Agric. Water Manag., 75:1-14.

Tsagarakis, K.P. (2005). Recycled water valuation as corollary of the 2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive. Agr. Water Manag. 72:1-14.

Tsagarakis, K.P., D.D. Mara, and A.N. Angelakis (1998). Evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Greece. Technica Chronica, 18 (3): 97-109 (In Greek).

Tsagarakis, K.P., G.E. Dialynas, and A.N. Angelakis (2004). Water resources management in Crete, Greece, including water recycling and reuse, and proposed quality criteria for use of recycled water in the Mediterranean region. Agr. Water Manag., 66:35-47.

UKWIR Reuse framework 2005, Framework for developing water reuse criteria with reference to drinking water supplies (UKWIR, WRF, AWWRF)

UN. Population Division (1994). World population prospects (Sustaining Water: An Update). The 1994 Revision, The UN, New York.

US EPA/US Agency for International Development. (1992). Guidelines for Water Reuse. (Technical report no. EPA/625/R-92/004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance , Washington, DC,, USA.

US EPA/US Agency for International Development. (2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse. (Technical report no. EPA/625/R-04/108). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Washington, DC, USA.van Naersen, E., Mulder, J.W., Kramer, J.F., Pluim, J. (2001). Micro- and hyperfiltration of WWTP-effluent; a new challenge in boiler feed water production. In: Membrantechnik in der Wasseraufbereitung und Abwasserbehandlung. 4. Aachener Tagung Siedlungswasserwirtschaft. Dohmann, M., Melin, T. (ed). W9.

WFD Directive 2000/60/EC (2000) establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy . Annex V1, Part B page 64

WHO, World Health Organization (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. Geneva, Switzerland.

WHO, World Health Organization (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta, and Greywater. Vol. 2, Wastewater Use in agriculture. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland.

WRAS, Water regulation advisory scheme Reclaimed water systems. Information about modifying or maintaining reclaimed water systems No 9-02-04. Marking and identification of pipework for reclaimed (greywater) systems. No 9-02-05 www.wras.co.uk

Xanthoulis, D., and Ph. Guillaume (1995). Irrigation of vegetable crops as a means of recycling waste. In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Symposium on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse (A. N. Angelakis et al., Eds.), IAWQ, 17-20 Oct., Iraklio, Greece, 2: 713-724.

further information 1 wateadrfar reuse and recycling in eureau countries

Documents