uest.ntua.gr - unit of environmental science and...

I.

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEURO-MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP

Development of Tools and Guidelines for the Promotion of the Sustainable Urban

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Agricultural Production in the Mediterranean

Countries

(MEDAWARE)

Task 2: Evaluation of the Existing Situation related to the operation of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants and the Effluent Disposal

Practices with emphasis on the Reuse in the Agricultural Production

MEDAWAREMEDAWARE ME8/AIDCO/2001/0515/59341-P033ME8/AIDCO/2001/0515/59341-P033

March 2004

2

Working Groups

Responsible persons for the preparation of the report:Prof. Maria Loizidou (Project Coordinator)Dr. Despo Fatta

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus(Former position: Researcher of the National Technical Univeristy of Athens)

Ms. Irene SkoulaSchool of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens

Cyprus: 1. Dr Ioannis Papadopoulos, Agricultural Research Institute 2. Ms Stalo Anayiotou, Agricultural Research Institute

Jordan: 1. Prof. Khalid Hameed, Jordan University of Sciences and Technology 2. Prof. Munir Rusan, Jordan University of Sciences and Technology

Lebanon:

1. Prof. George M. Ayoub, American University of Beirut2. Prof. Mutasem El Fadel, American University of Beirut3. Engineer Loai Naamani, American University of Beirut4. Mr. Rabih Fayyad, American University of Beirut5. Miss Layale Abi Esber, American University of Beirut

Morocco:1. Prof. Mohammed Mountadar, Université Chouaib Doukkali2. Prof. Omar Assobhei, Université Chouaib Doukkali3. B. Lekhlif, Université Chouaib Doukkali 4. Drs N. Brine, Université Chouaib Doukkali5. H. Garmes, Université Chouaib Doukkali6. B. Daraaoui, Université Chouaib Doukkali7. A. Hamdani, Université Chouaib Doukkali

Palestine: 1. Dr Zaher Salem, Environmental Quality Authority

3

2. Dr Yunes Mogheir, Environmental Quality Authority3. MSc. Mohamed Eila, Environmental Quality Authority 4. MSc. Ahmed Abu Thaher, Environmental Quality Authority5. MSc. Taysir Abu Hujair, Environmental Quality Authority6. MSc. Mohamed keshta, Environmental Quality Authority7. Mr. Mohamed Tubail, Environment Quality Authority 8. Ms Nyvine Abu-Shammallah, Environment Quality Authority9. MSc. Zainab Zomlot, Environmental Quality Authority10. MSc. Adam Ahmad, Environmental Quality Authority 11. Ms. Aleya Shahin, Environmental Quality Authority 12. Mr. Karam Abu Jalala, Environmental Quality Authority13. Mr Yousef Mahallawi, Environmental Quality Authority 14. Ms. Heba Al-Agha, Environmental Quality Au

Turkey: 1. Prof. Derin Orhon2. Dr. Idil Arslan Alaton, Istanbul Technical University 3. Dr. Gulen Eremektar, Istanbul Technical University 4. Prof. Aysegul Tanik, Istanbul Technical University 5. Dr. Melike Gurel, Istanbul Technical University 6. Dr. Suleyman Ovez, Istanbul Technical University 7. Engineer Pelin Ongan Torunoglu, Istanbul Technical University 8. Prof. Dr. Celal F Gokcay, Middle East Technical University 9. Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yetiş, Middle East Technical University10. Prof. Dr. Filiz Dilek, Middle East Technical University11. Doç. Dr. Dilek Sanin, Middle East Technical University12. Dr. İpek İmamoglu, Middle East Technical University13. Dr. Ayşegül Aksoy, Middle East Technical University14. Hande Yukseler, Middle East Technical University15. Serkan Girgin, Middle East Technical University16. Ozge Yilmaz, Middle East Technical University17. Ipek Turtin, Middle East Technical University

4

INDEX

Acronyms 81. CYPRUS 11

1.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 11

1.1.1 Number of plants in big cities 11

1.1.2 Number of plants in municipalities 11

1.1.3 Number of plants in communities 12

1.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 13

1.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment plants

16

1.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants 22

1.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices 28

1.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied

28

1.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

29

2. JORDAN 30



2.3 Technologies applied in wastewater treatment plants 31

2.4 Collection of data of the existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants in each country

32



36


36

3. LEBANON 37


3.1.1 Summary of operating wastewater treatment plants 37

3.1.2 Status of proposed wastewater treatment plants

38

3.1.3 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant 40

3.1.4 Community-based Wastewater treatment plants

41

5



45

3.3.1 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant 46

3.3.2 Technologies applied at community-based WWTPs 47

3.3.3 Technologies used at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)-Funded Plants

47

3.3.4 Technologies used at the Pontifical Mission (PM)-Funded Plants

47

3.3.5 Technologies used at the Creative Associates International-Funded Plants

48

3.3.6 Technologies used at the Mercy Corps-Funded Plants 48


3.4.1 Untreated Wastewater characteristics 48

3.4.2 GHADIR Plant Influent and Effluent Quantity and Quality 49

3.5 Prevailing Effluent Disposal Methods and Practices 50

3.5.1 Wastewater Collection and Disposal 50

3.5.1.1 The Beirut and Mount Lebanon Systems 51

3.5.1.2 Systems in Northern Lebanon 51

3.5.1.3 Systems in Southern Lebanon 51

3.5.1.4 Systems in the Bekaa 52

3.5.2 Coastal Collection System for the Greater Beirut Area 52

3.5.3 Number and Location of Sea Outfalls 53


54

3.6.1 Marine Pollution 54

3.6.2 Surface freshwater quality 56

3.6.3 Rivers 56

3.6.4 Springs and Wells 57

3.7 Pollutant removal efficiency and needs for upgrading 59

4. MOROCCO 61




64


6



75

4.7 Pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

77

5. PALESTINE 79

5.1 Number, Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants and Population served

79

5.2 The Main Wastewater Treatment Plants in Palestine 83

5.2.1 Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine 83

5.2.2 Communities’ treatment plants in Palestine 90

5.3 Planned Waste Water Treatment Plants in Palestine 92

5.4 Impacts caused by the operation of the Palestinian wastewater treatment plants

94

5.4.1 Impacts caused by the operation of Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant

95

5.4.2 Impacts caused by the operation of Beit Lahia Wastewater Treatment Plant

95

5.4.3 Impacts caused by Israeli colonies 97

5.5 Needs assessment for removal efficiencies and reuse criteria 98

5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 101

5.6.1 Conclusions 101

5.6.2 Recommendations 101

6. TURKEY 103




107



6.5.1 Effluent Discharge 110

6.5.2 Wastewater Reuse 110

6.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied with respect to the environment, the employees, farmers and public health

112

6.6.1 Pollution Status and Impacts on the Receiving Bodies 112

6.6.2 Health Impacts 112

7

6.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities and assessment of the needs for upgrading to comply with reuse criteria

114

6.7.1 Removal Efficiencies of UWWTPs 114

6.7.2 Assessment for reuse potential 115

6.8 Concluding Remarks 118

References 120

8

ACRONYMS

1. Cyprus

BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen DemandCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandNH3 Ammonia-NitrogenNO2 NitriteNO3 NitratePE Population EquivalentPO4 PhosphateSS Suspended SolidsTDS Total Dissolve Solids TSS Total Suspended SolidsWDD Water Development Department WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

2. Lebanon

AS Activated SludgeAUB American University of BeirutBOD Biochemical Oxygen DemandCAS Central Administration for StatisticsCDR Council for Development and ReconstructionCEC Commission of the European CommunitiesCHF Cooperative Housing FoundationCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandDDT DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneEA Extended AerationEIB European Investment BankELV Environmental Limit ValuesEC European CommunityFAO Food and Agricultural OrganizationGBA Greater Beirut AreaGoL Government of LebanonIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentIDB Islamic Development BankLACECO

Lebanese Arab Contracting and Engineering Company

LEDO Lebanese Environment and Development ObservatoryLRA Litany River AuthorityMETAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance ProgramMHER Ministry of Hydrology and Electrical ResourcesMIM Ministry of Interior and MunicipalitiesMLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended SolidsMOA Ministry of AgricultureMOE Ministry of EnvironmentMOEW Ministry of Energy and WaterMOH Ministry of HousingMOPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

9

MOSA Ministry of Social AffairsMSC-IPP

Management Support Consultant and Investment Planning Project

NERP National Emergency Reconstruction ProjectNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylsPM Pontifical MissionSAFEGE

Société Anonyme Francaise D’Etudes at de Gestion

SOER State of the Environment ReportSPASI Strengthening the Permitting and Auditing System for IndustriesSS Suspended SolidsTSS Total Suspended SolidsVSS Volatile Suspended SolidsUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyWB World BankWHO World Health OrganizationWWTP Wastewater Treatment PlantYMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

3. Morocco AGR Administration du Génie RuralAH Administration de l’HydrauliqueBO Bulletin OfficielCEE Communauté Economique EuropéenneCNS Comités Normes et StandardsCSEC Conseil Supérieur de l’Eau et du ClimatDDGI Direction du Développement et de la Gestion de l’IrrigationDEA Direction de l’Eau et de l’AssainissementDGCL Direction Générale des Collectivités LocalesDGH Direction Général de l’HydrauliqueDPA Direction provinciale de l’AgricultureEU Eau UséeEUE Eaux Usées EpuréesGTZ Deutsche Gesennschaft fur Technische Zusannenarbeit (Coopération

Technique Marocco -Allemande)Hab. HabitantLPEE Laboratoire Public d’Essais et d’EtudesMES Matière En SuspensionMILD Société privé chargée de la gestion du Golf de Ben SlimaneOADA Organisation Arabe du Développement de l’AgricultureOCP Office Chérifien des phosphatesOMS Organisation Mondiale de la SantéONEP Office National de l’Eau PotableONGs Organisations Non GouvernementalesPREM Pérennité des Ressources en Eau au Maroc

10

RAMSA Régie Autonome Multi-Services d’AgadirREU Réutilisation des Eaux UséesSNDAL Schéma National Directeur de l’Assainissement LiquideSTEP Station d’épuration des Eaux Usées

4. PalestineArea A According to Oslo agreement 1993, the Palestinian Authority has

responsibility for public order and internal security. Area B The Palestinian Authority assumes responsibility for public order for

Palestinians, while Israel controls internal security. Area C Israel maintains exclusive controlARIJ Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen DemandBr BoronCa CalciumCl ChlorideCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandEC Electrical ConductivityEQA Environmental Quality AuthorityK PotassiumMg MagnesiumMEnA Ministry of Environmental Affairs MOFAJ Ministry of foreign affairs of JapanNa SodiumNH3 Ammonia-NitrogenN-Kjd Kjeldahl NitrogenNO2 NitriteNO3 NitrateO&V Organic and Volatile matterPCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development and ReconstructionpH Negative Log of Hydrogen Ion ConcentrationPHG Palestinian Hydrologic GroupPNA Palestinian National Authority PO4 PhosphatePWA Palestinian Water AuthorityS.A.R Sodium Adsorption RatioSO4 SulfateSS Suspended SolidsTDS Total Dissolved Solids TP Total Phosphorus TS Total Solids TSS Total Suspended SolidsTVSS Total Volatile Suspended SolidsUNDP United Nation Development ProgramUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSD US DollarUV Ultraviolet

11

WWT Wastewater Treatment WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

1. CYPRUS

1.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants

The total number of the main Wastewater Treatment Plants currently in operation is 25. Apart from these treatment plants, which serve the big cities some municipalities and rural communities, there are also some smaller WWTP, (around 175) located in hotels, Military Bases and Hospitals.

During the 90’s, a large number (approximately 400) of private Wastewater Treatment Plants at the tourist establishments (hotels/ hotel apartments) was operating. By placing the Wastewater Treatment Plants in the big cities, this number has been reduced.

1.1.1 Number of plants in big cities

Centralized Sewerage Networks and Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) cover part of the broader areas of Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca, Pafos, Agia Napa and Paralimni, serving 45% of the total urban population.

The existing sewerage system of Nicosia covers completely the Municipality of Nicosia and Agios Dometios, an important part of the Municipality of Strovolos and a small part of the Municipalities of Aglantzia and Egkomi. Wastewater treatment takes place in two Treatment Plants with stabilization ponds. The largest plant, which serves over 100000 Population Equivalent (PE), is in the occupied part of Nicosia (Mia Milia), while the second one is in Anthoupolis, serving mainly the refugee settlement in the area, with 25000 PE.

In Limassol, the whole tourist and coastal area and the city centre are served by WWTP, covering the 40% of total needs (70000 PE). Larnaca’s WWTP covers 50% of total needs with 36000 PE and serving 100% of the needs in tourist areas. In Pafos, approximately 60% of total needs of residential and tourist areas are covered, with a WWTP of 55000 PE.

The WWTP mentioned above, serve a large number of hotels in the vicinity of the urban areas

1.1.2 Number of plants in municipalities

For the areas of Paralimni and Agia Napa, there is a common WWTP for both municipalities. The sewerage needs of 65% of Agia Napa’s Municipality (25000 PE), as well as 70% of of Paralimni’s Municipality (50000 PE) are covered.

12

1.1.3 Number of plants in communities

The rural population represents 30% of the total island population. This population resides in 370 communities, most of them having a population less than 2000 of residents. Centralized Sewerage Networks, now serve 12% of the rural population. In the remaining rural areas the traditional methods for Sewage disposal are absorption pits and septic tanks.

Table 1 shows the capability of Wastewater Treatment Plants, serving at the current stage urban and rural areas.

Table 1: Capability of existing Wastewater Treatment Plants

Location and name of the Treatment Plants

No of Treatment Plants

Population Served

CitiesNicosia 2 125000Limassol 1 70000Larnaca 1 36000Pafos 1 55000

Total No = 5 Total population = 286000MunicipalitiesParalimni Agia Napa

1 5000025000

Total No = 1 Total population = 75000CommunitiesAskas 1 300Apostolos Lukas 1 1250Zinon Kamares 1 6500Livadia 1 3960Agros 1 2500Palaixori 1 3000Dali- Pera Chorio Nisou 1 5000 Kiperounta 1 3000Apliki 1 100Kakopetria 1 2500Agklisides 1Kofinou 1Alassa 1P.Kivides 1Gerasa 1Tersefanou 1Choletria 1

Total No = 17 Total population = 27510

13

Location and name of the Treatment Plants

No of Treatment Plants

Population Served

Under constructionPlatres 1 2000Pelentri 1

Total No = 2 Total population = 2000Grand Total =25 Grand Total = 309510

1.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants (Past – Present – Future)

The first WWTP in Cyprus was constructed and operated at Mia Milia before 1974. Following a 20-years gap, the Limassol WWTP was operated in 1995. All the other WWTPs described earlier, were constructed and operated after 1995. Currently the needs of 45% of the urban population and 12% of rural population are covered.

Nowadays, Cyprus promotes the construction of new Sewerage Networks and WWTP, as well as extensions at the already working systems, with reference to achieving harmonisation with European Directive 91/271/EC, according to which every area with over 2000 residents (Municipalities and big Communities), must have their own WWTP.

As already mentioned, in big cities sewerage systems and WWTP are operating and covering an important section of these areas’ needs. The future plans until the end of 2012 (ending date for harmonisation with the European Directive 91/271/EC), are given below.

NicosiaThe existing sewerage system of Nicosia and the two Treatment Plants, cover P.E. 125000 people. Until 2008, the needs of 265000 PE will be covered, and until 2012 the needs will be completely covered, serving 300000 PE. The current systems of Stabilization Ponds will be upgraded to tertiary plant while the construction of a new treatment plant at Vathia Gonia, is also scheduled.

LimassolIn Limassol with the completion of the first extension within 2004, a 90000 PE will be served, covering 50% of city’s needs. During the period 2004-2007, the remaining phases will be implemented, in order to cover all the needs of Major Limassol with an extension of the current wastewater treatment plant. These plans will serve the needs of 123000 PE (68%). By the end of 2012, the entire population of Limassol (180000 PE) will be served.

LarnacaLarnaca’s sewerage system serves 50% of city’s needs (36000 PE). The extension of the sewerage system aims to cover the needs in areas that are not currently served from Larnaca’s sewerage system (the whole city of Larnaca). The first part of the extension is expected to be complete by the end of 2006,

14

serving a total of 40000 PE (60%) while the second part will cover all needs (67000 PE) by the end of 2012.

PafosCurrently the WWTP in Pafos, is serving approximately 60% of the total needs (55000 PE). With the extension planned between 2004 and 2006, it will serve the broader area of Pafos (110000 PE).

Paralimni-Agia NapaThe sewerage needs of 65% of Agia Napa (25.000 PE), as well as 70% of the Municipality of Paralimni (50000 PE) are covered. The extension at Agia Napa WWTP, during 2004-2006, will serve 27000 PE covering 80% of the population. With the supplementary plans that are going to be completed by the end of 2012, all of the needs will be covered (31000 PE). For the Municipality of Paralimni, the extension during 2004-2006, will cover the needs of the entire Municipality (70000 PE).

In Table 2a the programming of the works in cities is given compendiously, below.

Table 2a: Future plans for the urban areas

Area

Year

Population

Equivalent (PE)

%Capacity of

the Treatment

Plant (m3/day)

Nicosia

200320082012

125000 265000 300000

22200 42000(1) 50000(1)

Limassol

2003200420062012

7000090000 123000180000

40%50%68%100%

10500 1360018500 28000

Larnaca

200320062012

36000 40000 67000

50%60%100%

8500 10000 17000

Pafos

2003

55000110000

60%100

550011000

15

2006

%

Paralimni

-Agia Nap

a

2003

2006

2012

50000 (A)25000 (B)70000 (A)27000 (B)31000 (B)

70% (A)65% (B)100 (A)80% (B)

100% (B)

12000

15500

20000

(1): Mias Milias, Anthoupolis and Vathias Gonias WWTP(A): Paralimni(B): Agia Napa

Municipalities and Communities with a population of over 2000 people will be completely served by the sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants until 2012. It is important to mention that the Government promotes the coverage of adjacent areas (groups of villages) by one common plant.

In Table 2b the plants to be built in rural areas are shown.

Table 2b: Rural areas to be served by WWTP

Area Population

Population

Equivalent

Type of project

Project’s completion

year

Evrichou 819 1371

Connection with

Kakopetria’s

Treatment Plant

After 2006

Temvria 541 805Galata 651 1413Korako

u 499 604

Sina Oros 233 398

Kalliana 187 382P.

Leukara 917 2003 Individual After 2006

Pedoulas 191 1826

Common Treatment

PlantAfter 2006

Moutoulas 294 861

Kalopanagiotis 287 1316

Oikos 187 388Aradipp

ou11459 12395 Connectio

n with the After 2006

16

Area Population

Population

Equivalent

Type of project

Project’s completion

year

current Treatment

Plant in Livadia

Kiti 3141 3642 Connection with

Larnaca’s Treatment

Plant

After 2006Pervolia 1798 5554Dromolaksia-

Meneou6191 7538

Athienou 4258 4675 Individual After 2006

Akaki 2653 2851Common Treatment

PlantAfter 2006

Astromeritis 2360 2567

Peristerona 2098 2278

Limbia 2167 2353 Individual After 2006Ipsonas 6430 7060

Common Treatment

PlantAfter 2006

Kolossi 3865 4024Episkop

i 3105 3330

Trachoni 3301 3442

Erimi 1431 1656Lithrodontas 2622 3543 Individual After 2006

Pegia 2359 5986 Individual After 2006Kornos 1862 2057 Individual After 2006Pissouri 1033 1878 Individual After 2006

Kato Pirgos 1121 2001 Individual After 2006

Poli Chrisoc

hous1892 3785 Individual After 2006

Ormidia 3941 4385

Common Treatment

Plant in Achna

Until 2006

Xilotimbou 3443 3671

Xilofagou 4981 5434

Derinia 4945 5782Sotira 4258 4939

Liopetri 3838 4123Frenaro

s 3306 3462

Augorou 4002 4524

Achna 1958 2363Acherit

ou 1649 1835

17

Upon the completion of the plants listed above, Cyprus will fulfil all the provisions of EU Directive 91/271/EC. The construction of sewerage systems in other rural Communities with a PE less than 2000 is under study from the Water Development Department.


In the following paragraphs the detailed descriptions of selected WWTPs are presented, while the rural WWTP are presented briefly.

1. Technologies applied in Urban Areas

The technologies applied at the two WWTPs of Nicosia are stabilization ponds, while Tertiary Treatment is applied in the rest remaining 4 urban WWTPs.

- Anthoupolis Wastewater Treatment PlantWaste Stabilization Ponds is the treatment applied at the Anthoupolis WWTP. The system consists of an aerated lagoon, two Facultative ponds and one Maturation pond. The one of the two Facultative ponds is used as a storage tank. The system consists also of a Chlorination and Filtration which is currently out of operation. In the near future, the current system will be upgraded to tertiary plant.

The Flow Diagramme of the Anthoulopis Treatment Plant is presented here below:

Inflow

λ

Outlet

Not in use

18

Facultative Pond FI

(15387m3)

Facultative Pond FI

(10571m3)Maturation Pond (6101

m3)

AeratedLagoon

)3080m3

(

Chlorination and Filtration

Figure 1: Anthoupolis WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Mia Milia Wastewater Treatment Plant

In the sewerage system of Mia Milia, there is not only municipal but also industrial wastewater. The industrial wastewater in some cases is inserted into the sewerage system without any pretreatment. The treatment applied at Mia Milia is Waste Stabilization ponds treating 130000 m3 of wastewater per day. The system consists of five anaerobic lagoons, five meters deep, where after retention of 9 days the removal efficiency of BOD5 is around 40%. The anaerobic lagoons are followed by aerobic lagoons where after retention of 3 days the removal efficiency of BOD5 is around 65%. Further reduction of BOD5 achieved through Facultative ponds. The Maturation pond achieves reduction of the microbiological load.

The Flow Diagramme of the Mia Milia Treatment Plant is presented below.

Inflow Outlet

AN: Anaerobic Lagoon (12.900m3) F: Facultative Ponds (510.390m3)AER: Aerated Lagoon (40.000m3) M: Maturation Ponds

Figure 2: Mia Milia WWTP Flow Diagramme

19

ΑΝ1

ΑΝ2

ΑΝ3

ΑΝ4

ΑΝ5

AER 4

ΑΕR3

ΑΕR2

ΑΕR 1

F1

F 2

F3

M1

M 2

- Limassol Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Limassol WWTP is located in Moni Area and is designed to serve 70000 PE. Today it serves around 55000. Regarding the industrial Wastewater only two industries (soft drink and milk) discharge their effluents into the Sewerage collection Network.

The facilities of the WWTP are quite modern. Firstly, the wastewater is inserted into the primary treatment unit (bar racks, grid chamber, skimmer tanks), following primary sedimentation tank, where a significant part of the solid part of the wastewater is removed.

After this stage the wastewater enters the secondary treatment unit, consisting of aeration tanks and the secondary Settlement Tanks. At this stage, the reduction of the biodegradable organic load, suspended solids as well as nitrification and denitrification through biological methods has been achieved.

Finally the biologically treated wastewater is inserted into the Tertiary Treatment unit consisting of sand filter and chlorination unit. At the Tertiary Treatment further reduction of the suspended solids and other pollutants.

The Flow Diagramme of the Limassol WWTP is presented below:

20

1 Inlet Bar racks2 Grid Chamber and Skimmer

Tank3 Flow meter5 Primary sedimentation Tanks6 Aeration Tanks8 Secondary settlement tanks10, 11 Sludge pumps12 Thickener Tank13 Sludge digestion14 Sludge Storage Tank15 Sludge dewatering17 Chlorination18 Sand filters

Figure 3: Limassol WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Larnaca Wastewater Treatment Plant

Larnacas’ WWTP serves the majority of Larnaca Municipality’s population and the tourist area. Although no industrial wastewater is discharged in the Sewerage system, the wastewater of Larnacas’ airport discharges, with high concentration in oil. The absence of a skimmer tank causes operational problems to the treatment plant.

Firstly, the wastewater is inserted into the primary treatment unit consisting of bar racks and grid chamber. The secondary treatment includes two Aerated tanks and two secondary Settlement Tanks. The Tertiary Treatment unit consists of sand filter and chlorination tank.

The Flow Diagramme of the Larnaca WWTP is presented below:

Figure 4: Larnaca WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Paphos Wastewater Treatment Plant

Paphos WWTP located at ‘Paleochorafa’ area 2 km southeast of Achelia village. No industrial wastewater is discharged in the system.

21

Mechanical and hand-raked

ScreensGrit PlantOxidation

Ditches

Settlement Tanks

Sludge Thickener

Sludge Digesters

Sludge Drying Beds

Sewage from Larnaca

Effluent Storage

Reservoir

Sand Filters Chlorination

To irrigation

Sludge Disposal

Primary Treatment consists of bar racks and grid chamber, following by two primary sedimentation tank.

At the secondary treatment, phosphorus biological removal, nitrification, denitrification and settlement take place in four tanks.

Finally, the Tertiary Treatment, consists of chemical reduction of phosphorous, sand filter and chlorination tank, follows by two anaerobic tanks.

The Flow Diagramme of the Larnaca WWTP is presented below.

Inflow Outlet

Figure 5: Paphos WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Paralimni – Agia Napa Wastewater Treatment Plant

The WWTP located at ‘Kavo Greco’ area and serves two municipalities of Agia Napa and Paralimni. No industrial wastewater is discharged in the system.

The system consist of Primary Treatment, Secondary Treatment (activated sludge) followed, finally, by and Tertiary Treatment (Sand Filter and Chlorination). The mechanical pretreatment and the secondary treatment too place in a common system for the two municipalities, while there are two tertiary treatment plants one for each municipalities followed by two storage tanks.

The Flow Diagramme of the Paralimni and Agia Napa WWTP is presented below.

22

Pre-Treatment

Primary

Sedimentation Tank

Primary

Sedimentation Tank

T 1

T 2

T 3

T 4

ΑΝ 1

ΑΝ 2

16

17

2019 5

4

18

Figure 6: Paralimni, Ayia Napa WWTP Flow Diagramme

23

1. Mechanical Pre-Treatment

2. Secondary Treatment3. Settlement Tanks of

Secondary Treatment4. Sludge Separation5. Flow

regulators/distributors to Paralimni and Agia Napa

6. Storage Tank 100000m3


8. Tertiary Treatment Paralimni Municipality




12. Tertiary Treatment of Agia Napa


14. , 15. Emergency Storage Tank 25000m3

16. Pipeline to Paralimni lake

17. Irrigation Pipe to Paralimni

18. Irrigation Pipe to Agia Napa

19. Sewage from Agia Napa

20. Sewage from Paralimni

6 7

89

12

3

14 15

10 11

1213

2. Technologies applied in Rural Areas

The rural population represents 30% of the total island population. Sewerage Networks and Treatment Plants now serve 12% of the rural population. Currently, 17 rural communities have local Wastewater Treatment Plants, while 2 more are under construction. There exist the following systems:

Secondary Treatment (Seven plants)

Tertiary Treatment (Seven plants, 2 under construction),

Stabilisation lagoons (Three plants)

Trickling Filter (One Plant)

Reed beds system (One Plant)

In the remaining rural areas, the traditional methods for Sewage disposal (Absorption Pits and Septic Tanks) are applied.

1.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants

In this section we present information on the six major Wastewater Treatment Plants serving the big cities and municipalities. The detailed data about the effluent quantity and quality are presented in Table 3a to 3j. The Tertiary Treatment Plants achieve very good quality of effluent. The BOD varies between 1.4 and 16.3 (in Paralimni and Paphos respectively) while SS varies between 1.7 and 5.9 (in Larnaca and Paphos respectively). Total E. Coli and Intestine Worms is equal to zero. Only in Larnaca does Total E. Coli reach 5 /100 ml.

On the other hand the two Wastewater Treatment Plants of Nicosia (Waste Stabilization Ponds) give BOD between 39 and 44 and TSS between 73 and 91.

Table 3a: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d

Effluent QualityRemoval efficiency

Effluent disposal methodParamet

erValue (mg/l)

Anthoupoli (Nicosia)

CY1 Waste Stabilization Ponds

350BOD5 44 92.17

Dis

posa

l in

a st

ream

COD (filtrated sample)

71 93.49

TSS 73 80.11VS 58 83.89pH 8.855 -

Total P 17.4 40.21TKN 40.2 62.98

NH3-N 16.4 -

24

Table 3b: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Mia Milia

(Nicosia)CY2

Waste Stabilization Ponds

13000

BOD5 39 92.91

Dis

posa

l in

river

Ped

iaio

s

COD 150 85.41TSS 91 83.39VS 82 82.74pH 8.435 -

Total P 10.5 50.00TKN 36.5 67.09Total

Sulfides 1.1 84.51

Table 3c: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Limassol CY3 Tertiary

12000 (winter)15000

(summer)

BOD5 5 98.57

Irrig

atio

n

COD 24 96.54SS 2 99.43pH 7.79 -

Total N 9.7 82.20NH3-N 2.9 90.82NO3-N 6.9 -1625Total P 7.5 48.28PO4-P 6.9 31.00

Table 3d: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Larnaca CY4 Tertiary 5500 BOD5 2.6 99.37

Irrig

atio

nCOD 56 93.10SS 1.7 99.46pH 7.5 -

Total N 8.5 90.22NH3-N 2.4 96.76

25

NO3-N 6.9 -N 17.8 -

Conductivity

3.4 (mS/cm)

-

Cl 555 2.97B 0.8 -P 0.6 92.04

Cd <0.01 -

Cu 0.01 -Ni 0.06 -Pb 1.87 -Zn 0.35 -

Cr III <0.01 -

Total E.Coli/10

0ml5 -

Intestinal E.Coli/10

0ml0 -

Residual Cl 0.2 -

Table 3e: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Pafos CY5 Tertiary 1000

BOD5 16.3 96.44

Irrig

atio

n

TSS 5.9 98.41

TDS 1016.7 14.92

pH 7.5 -Total N 6.3 89.29

TKN 2.6 97.34NO3 4.7 -104.35NH3 1.4 -

Grease 6.7 -P 7.5 -

26

Table 3f: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Paralimni(Summer)

CY6 Tertiary 3400

COD

52.5 92.50

Irrig

atio

n

BOD5 1.48 99.62SS 2.65 98.93

Total N 15.1 75.45NH4

+ 0.95 97.29NO2

- 52.3 -NO3

- 52.3 -Total P 6.65 34.16

pH 6.8 -T 28.9 -

Alkalinity 1.67 72.17

Conductivity 1.8 10.00

Free Cl 0.81 -Total Cl 1.72 -

Total E.Coli 0 -

Intestinal E.Coli 7 -

Intestine Worms 0 -

Table 3g: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Paralimni(Winter)

CY6 Tertiary 3400 COD

48.9 86.23

Irrig

atio

nBOD5 1.14 99.43SS 1.95 98.89

Total N 23.8 40.50NH4

+ 0.31 99.03NO2

- 84.1 -NO3

- 84.1 -Total P 6.12 29.66

27

pH 6.7 -T 16 -




Total E.Coli 0 -


Intestine Worms 0 -

Table 3h: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Agia Napa

(Summer)CY6 Tertiary 3400

COD

55 92.14

Irrig

atio

n

BOD5 1.6 99.59SS 3.1 98.74

Total N 15.1 75.45NH4

+ 0.84 97.60NO2

- 0.09 -NO3

- 58 -Total P 6.81 32.57

pH 6.71 -T 29 -




Total E.Coli 0 -


Intestine Worms 0 -

28

Table 3i: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

CityCode

Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantity

m3/d



erValue (mg/l)

Agia Napa

(Winter)CY6 Tertiary 3400

COD

50.6 85.75

Irrig

atio

n

BOD5 1.4 99.30SS 2.18 98.75

Total N 23.8 40.50NH4

+ 0.40 98.75NO2

- 0.02 -NO3

- 97.1 -Total P 7.57 12.99

pH 6.62 -T 16 -




Total E.Coli 0 -


Intestine Worms 0 -

Table 3j: Data of urban wastewater treatment plants

Communities Code Number of TP

Type of treatment

Effluent Quantit

ym3/d

Effluent disposal method

Askas CY7 Secondary Disposal in a river/ irrigation

29

Apostolos Lukas CY8 Secondary Experimental for irrigation

Zinon Kamares CY9 Secondary IrrigationLivadia CY10 Secondary Not decidedAgros CY11 Tertiary IrrigationPalaixori CY12 Tertiary Disposal in a riverDali- Pera Chorio Nisou

CY13 Tertiary Disposal in a river (Alikos)/ irrigation

Kiperounta CY14 Tertiary At tanks for irrigationApliki CY15 Aerated lagoons Disposal in a riverKakopetria CY16 Secondary IrrigationAgklisides CY17 Secondary IrrigationKofinou CY18 Secondary IrrigationAlassa CY19 Tertiary IrrigationP.Kivides CY20 Stabilization

tanksIrrigation (trees)

Gerasa CY21 Stabilization tanks

Disposal in a river

Tersefanou CY22 Stabilization tanks

Disposal in a river

Choletria CY23 Disposal in a river/ irrigation

Platres * CY24 Tertiary IrrigationPelentri * CY25 Tertiary Irrigation * Under Construction

1.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices

Recycled domestic water is presently used for the watering of football fields, parks, hotel gardens, etc. (1,5 million m3/yr) and for the irrigation of permanent crops in particular (3,5 million m3/yr). It is estimated that by the year 2012 an amount of approx. 30 million m3/yr of treated sewage effluent will be available for agriculture and landscape irrigation.

Specifically, the treated wastewater from Anthoupoli and Mia Milia WWTPs is discharged in nearby rivers. The treated wastewater from Larnaca and Agia Napa Paralimni WWTPs, is being used for direct irrigation during the summer season (agricultural land, gardens, parks and fields, and landscape irrigation). The treated wastewater from Limassol and Paphos WWTP is being used for indirect irrigation, through underground water recharge or discharge in water reservoirs.

30


According to the information gathered from the plants’ staff, the major operational problems of the plant are the following:

High concentration of oils inserted in the system (mainly from the restaurants) without any pretreatment.

The actual BOD5 concentration is much higher than the one envisaged in the plant’s design (5000 mg/l instead of 300 mg/l).

High temperature of the water in the summer (30-35oC instead of 20-25oC).

Other problems concerning the reuse of water are the following:

The demand for water exists only during the summer, thus the Sewerage Boards faces problems with the storage and or disposal of water during winter.

There is no systematic monitoring of the water use: as a result in some cases the recycled water irrespective of its analysis is used for irrigation of crops including leafy vegetables.

There is a problem of disposal of treated water at the smaller WWTPs of villages. The farmers in these areas refuse to irrigate with the recycled water their cultivations, due mainly to physiological reasons. The problem is aggravated due to the fact that these treatment plants are located in the mountain area of the island.


In the selected WWTP facilities, the pollutant removal is adequate in all modern systems. Specifically, the removal efficiency in both WWTPs of Nicosia varies between 92.17 – 92.9% for BOD5 and 80.11% - 83.39% for TSS.

For the other WWTPs the removal efficiency is much higher. BOD5 removal efficiency varies between 96.44% - 99.62% (in Pafos and Paralimni, respectively) while SS varies between 98.41% - 98.93% (in Pafos and Paralimni, respectively).

The current systems of Waste Stabilization Ponds, being used in Nicosia will be upgraded to Tertiary Treatment in order to achieve better effluent quality.

31

2. JORDAN


Number of plants in the country = 19 Number of plants in big cities = 19

Currently in Jordan, there are 19 domestic wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). These treatment plants were established in big cities that actually serve big areas surrounding these cities. Therefore, the area served by these treatment plants can not be distinguished or classified into cities or municipalities or communities. By far the largest plant is the Al Samra plant that serve, beside the capital Amman, several more relatively big cities which altogether called (Greater Amman) However, Jordan is currently planning to establish several new treatment plants that will serve the rest of the areas (areas not covered by the current 19 plants) which can be classified as communities.

Table 4 shows the number and names of the existing (WWTPs), population, cities/towns and the number of house connections. It was estimated that about 63% of the total population of Jordan has an access to wastewater collection and treatment systems.

Table 4: WWTPs, Population and house connections:

No. WWTP Cities & Towns served

Population House connections

1- As Samra AmmanZarqaRuseifaHitin Camp

181625745980523400046914

113215

2- Aqaba Aqaba 84172 27573- Madaba Madaba 73394 40414- Irbid Irbid 265106 154645- Salt Salt 70427 32116- Jarash Jarash & Souf 27061 32577- Mafraq Mafraq 52689 30218- Baqa’ Baqa’ 73053 90509- Karak Karak 23448 136010- Abu Nuseir Included with

Amman11- Tafila Tafila 26940 158512- Ramtha Ramtha 63566 316713- Ma’an Ma’an 30003 106914- Kufranja Kufranja 21158 280515- Wadi Essir Included with

Amman32

16- Fuhais Fuhais 15999 149817- Wadi Arab Wadi Arab Included with

Irbid18- Wadi Mousa Wadi Mousa 14341 90019- Wadi Hassan Azmi Mufti Camp

Nuayemeh18330

12660 Total 3,425,923 166400

* Total population of Jordan = 5,329,000 (2002).

2.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants

In 1930 wastewater collection has been practiced in Jordan, namely in Salt City which used to be the capital of Jordan. In the late sixties the first wastewater treatment plant was built at Ain Ghazal in Jordan utilizing the conventional activated sludge process. Today Jordan has (19) wastewater treatment plants serving more than (63%) of the total population of Jordan.

In order to protect the public health and the environmental elements the wastewater collection, transportation, treatment, disposal and reuse have been receiving the greatest concern by the government of Jordan. Therefore, in parallel to the plan for establishing new plants, upgrading of several plants is ongoing to replace the conventional method with the mechanical treatment in order to produce effluent more suitable for reuse in irrigation and to comply with the Jordanian Standards JS (893/2002) for the different purposed.

2.3 Technologies applied in wastewater treatment plants

Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the types of treatment, the design load (hydraulic & organic), the actual organic & hydraulic load, efficiency and the water quality of treated effluent.

The treatment method used in the As Samra plant, the largest plant in the country, is the wastewater stabilization pond (WSP). The treatment efficiency of this plant dropped significantly as a result of being overloaded due to the sudden increase in the population served by this treatment. Initially the plant was designed for a maximum load of 68000 M3/day but actually the load currently is 178903 M3/day. The effluent from this plant is entirely stored into the biggest water reservoir (King Talal Reservoir, KTR), which the main source for irrigation in the Jordan Valley. Soon the Government in Jordan is planning to invest about 200 million dollars to upgrade it and change from conventional into mechanical treatment.

The rest of the treatments are utilizing different methods of treatments, namely, activate sludge (AS), aeration ponds (AP), extended aeration (EA), trickling filter –

33

activated sludge (TF-AS), trickling filter – maturation ponds (TF-MP) or extended aeration-maturation pond as indicated in Table 5. The extended aeration and activated sludge proved to be the most efficient treatment method while the WSP was the least efficient.

2.4 Collection of data of the existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants in each country.

The quantity and the quality of the influent and effluent in each treatment plant are given in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Tables No 5, 6, and 7, show the quality of each WWTP effluent. Table 8 shows the influent and effluent quantity of each WWTP.

34

Table 5: Existing Wastewater Treatment Efficiency (%)

WWTPTreatment

TypeDesign Load Actual Load Efficiency

(%)Degree of Use %

Hydraulic(m3/d)

Organic(mg/L)

Hydraulic(m3/d)

Organic(mg/L)

Hydraulic Organic

As- Samra WSP 68000 526 178903 709 80 263 333*A. Nuseir AS 4000 1100 1977 544 97 49 24

Wadi Essir AP 4000 780 1917 658 94 48 40Wadi Arab EA 22000 995 7055 836 99 32 27

Irbid TF+AS 11000 800 7121 1174 98 65 95Ramtha WSP 1920 820 2301 852 74 120 125*

Salt EA+MP 7700 1090 3898 764 97 51 36Baqa’ TF+MP 14900 800 11768 965 96 79 95Fuhais EA+MP 2400 995 1523 679 98 63 43Ma’an WSP 1600 970 2155 688 77 135 96

W. Mousa AS 3400 500 866 701 99 25 26Mafraq WSP 1800 825 1805 696 69 103 85Jarash EA+MP 3500 1155 2743 1219 97 78 83

Kufranja TF+MP 1906 850 2222 1195 93 117 164*Madaba EA 7600 950 3700 1400 98.5 49 72Karak TF+MP 785 1080 1487 708 92 190 124*Tafila TF+MP 1600 1050 740 671 91 46 30Aqaba WSP 9000 900 9329 410 73 104 47

W.Hassan EA 1600 800 768 777 98 48 47

35

where: WSP= wastewater stabilization pondsAS=Activated sludgeAP=Aeration pondEA=Extended aerationTF=Trickling filterMP=Maturation ponds

Table 6: Treated Wastewater Effluent Quality (2002)

WWTP

BOD5(mg/L) COD (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L) TDS(mg/L)

As Samra

135* 506 130 1191

A. Nuseir 18 67 33 924Wadi Essir 40 169 48 999Wadi Arab 07 67 8 950

Irbid 22 157 55 940Ramtha 219* 254 219 952

Salt 24 105 28 568Baqa’ 41 110 46 1124Fuhais 12 63 18 799Ma’an 161* 462 176 957

W. Mousa 09 32 20 1760Mafraq 215* 527 125 946Jarash 37 131 93 500

Kufranja 90* 260 92 862Madaba 17 34 16 1407Karak 53* 238 66 838Tafila 37 142 46 736Aqaba 97* 345 553 933

W.Hassan 9 63.5 23 1082

Table 7: Heavy Metal Concentration in Treated Effluent (MG/L), 2002

WWTP Ni Zn Cr Pb Mn Cd Fe

36

Asmra

0.05 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.27

A. Nuseir 0.11 0.41 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.00 0.17Wadi Essir 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20Wadi Arab 0.13 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.22Irbid 0.03 0.108 0.026 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.09Ramtha 0.06 0.19 0.32 0.77 0.07 0.02 0.30Salt 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.08Baqa’ 0.065 0.40 0.09 0.05 0.105 0.003 0.14Fuhais 0.05 0.73 0.02 0.654 0.15 0.001 0.61Ma’an 0.01 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.001 0.28W. Mousa 0.065 0.155 0.03 0.02 0.015 0.001 0.145Mafraq 0.059 0.135 0.036 0.056 0.14 0.001 0.36Jarash 0.09 0.46 0.034 0.04 0.03 0.001 0.15Kufranja 0.13 0.74 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.002 0.34Madaba 0.05 0.21 0.35 0.05 0.24 0.004 0.21Karak 0.05 0.0277 0.008 0.01 0.023 0.0023 0.21Tafila 0.155 0.22 0.07 0.155 0.11 0.009 0.42Aqaba 0.153 0.55 0.03 0.14 0.29 0.006 0.11W.Hassan 0.078 0.298 0.167 0.095 0.09 0.004 0.159

Table 8: Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants (Influent & Effluent, MCM) 2001

No. WWTP Operation Gov. Type of Tre.

Influent MCM

Effluent MCM

1- Asmra

1985 Zarqa WSP 65.245 53.301

2- A. Nuseir 1988 Amman AS+RBC 0.722 0.6383- Wadi Essir 1996 Amman AP 0.698 0.294- Wadi Arab 1999 Irbid EA 2.579 2.5165- Irbid 1987 Irbid TF+AS 2.6 2.5476- Ramtha 1988 Irbid WSP 0.839 0.6917- Salt 1981 Balqa EA 1.425 1.2998- Baqa’ 1988 Balqa TF 4.296 3.9929- Fuhais 1996 Balqa EA 0.556 0.55610- Ma’an 1989 Ma’an WSP 0.79 0.55711- W. Mousa 2001 Ma’an AS 0.316 0.0812- Mafraq 1988 Mafraq WSP 0.659 0.50613- Jarash 1983 Jarash EA 1.062 0.983

37

14- Kufranja 1989 Ajloun TF 0.811 0.58515- Madaba 1989 Madaba EA 1.525 1.35216- Karak 1988 Karak TF 0.55 0.44917- Tafila 1988 Tafila TF 0.27 0.26518- Aqaba 1987 Aqaba WSP 3.406 2.65519- W.Hassan 2000 Irbid EA 0.155 0.132

Total 88.554 73.213


All of the effluents of the existing treatments plants in Jordan either are directly used for irrigation or be stored first in a reservoirs/dams that are used for irrigation. There is no non-sustainable disposal method for the effluent in Jordan. It is considered that the use of effluent for irrigation is sustainable since it complies with the national standards for effluent reuse. 2.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied

In 2003, a large project for evaluating the environmental impact of the past use of King Talal Dam water (which is used to store more than 2/3 of the effluent in the country) for irrigation on the soil, plant/produce quality and water was completed. No negative impact for all variable investigated was determined except for the salt level in the soil which tended to increase in some areas that was related to salinity of the wastewater and as well as to the on-farm management. Unfortunately, no investigation has been made to evaluate the impact on health issues so far.


See table 5.

38

3. LEBANON

Domestic wastewater management is one of the greatest challenges facing the Lebanese municipalities and concerned ministries. Lebanon generates an estimated 249 million m3

of wastewater per year, with a total BOD load of about 100,000 tones. Industries in Lebanon generate an estimated 43 million m3 of wastewater per year (State of the Environment Report (SOER), 2001). With the absence of industrial waste surveys and production statistics, it is difficult to estimate the composition and BOD load of the industrial wastewater. The total BOD load of the industrial wastewater is estimated at about 5,000 tones per year (SOER, 2001; MOE, 1998a, 1998b).

Lebanon has been rebuilding its water and wastewater infrastructure since 1992, setting the provision of a satisfactory level of services as the general objective of the investment program. In this respect, it aims at achieving international standards, defined by the continuous provision of potable water as well as wastewater services extending to all households by the year 2015. Over the past few years, considerable progress has characterized this ambitious program as several projects have been implemented under the National Emergency Reconstruction Program (NERP) and the level of services has improved in most regions. However, water supply projects have been given priority over wastewater projects.

Delays in wastewater works in several regions in the country have prompted several municipalities, and local and international NGOs to individually contribute to the improvement of the wastewater collection and treatment facilities, with lead technical and financial support from USAID community cluster program. That’s why the majority of the plants that are currently operational are small-scale community-based wastewater treatment plants.


3.1.1 Summary of operating wastewater treatment plants

The wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) of the National Emergency Reconstruction program are either operational, under construction, or planned. The only large-scale preliminary WWTP that is currently in operation is the Ghadir plant, located to the south of Beirut. It was designed to serve a population of 977,000 persons and a maximum flow of 146,600 m3/day. The Baalbeck plant, designed to serve 130,600 persons and a maximum flow of 19,600 m3/day, has been completed but still not operational, because the work on the sewer networks in the region was not completed and might require another year before completion (Personal Interview 1, 2003). Consequently, the majority of the operating treatment plants are small community-based, NGO-funded plants (Figure 7).

39

In total, Lebanon has 31 operational wastewater treatment plants; one single plant is serving the Southern Greater Beirut city, 19 are serving municipalities, and 11 are regional plants serving groups of municipalities. Table 9 provides a summary of these results.

3.1.2 Status of proposed wastewater treatment plants

The planning of the NERP in Lebanon is based on the topography (drainage basins) and demographic distribution especially along the coast and the western mountain range. The program proposed the construction of twelve WWTPs along the coast. Most of the wastewater reaching the plants will be transported by gravity. This will help in reducing the cost of pumping the wastewater to these facilities. The proposed plants are located in: Abdeh, Tripoli, Chekka, Batroun, Jbeil, Kesrouan, Dora (North Beirut), Ghadir (South Beirut), Chouf (coastal area), Saida, Sour, with the possibility of constructing a WWTP between Saida and Sour. With the execution of these coastal wastewater plants, more than 65% of the wastewater problem in Lebanon will be solved by the year 2020.

In addition to the coastal plants, twenty major inland WWTP are proposed. The plants will be located near major cities, such as Zahleh, Baalbeck, Nabatiyah, and other areas where protecting water sources from pollution is considered a priority, such as the Litani River. With the construction of these twenty WWTP, Lebanon will achieve around 80% wastewater treatment by the year 2020. The remaining areas that house 20% of the population will require around 100 small WWTPs. Appendix A presents more detailed information about the proposed wastewater plants in Lebanon, and includes the location, capacity, treatment level, population served and cost.

As mentioned, the WWTPs proposed by NERP are either in operation, under construction, or currently planned. Besides the Ghadir plant and the Baalbeck plant (this latter is illustrated in Figure 7), two other WWTPs are currently under construction which include Chekka, and Saida, while construction on four other plants namely; Batroun, Jbeil, Chouf (coastal area), Nabatiyeh, is expected to start soon. Construction contracts have been awarded for the Tripoli and Zahleh plants. The Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR) has issued an invitation to tender for the Dora wastewater treatment plant specifying that the contractor should finance the design and construction of the plant. CDR is also working now on raising funds for the execution of Kesrouan, Sour and Abdeh in addition to several inland WWTPs especially the ones needed to protect the Litani River. There are also several small community-level wastewater treatment plants that are under construction or in operation.

40

Table 9: Location and Number of Operational Wastewater Treatment Plants*

Location and Name of the Treatment Plants Number of Plants

CitiesCaza Region Aley Ghadir 1

Total No = 1Regional (Group of Municipalities in Villages)Caza Region Baabda Hammana 1Chouf Bchetfine 1Hasbaya Ain Jarfa 1Hasbaya Hasbaya 1Hasbaya Ain Qanya 3Hasbaya Hebbarieh 1Hermel Hmaire 1Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk 1Nabatieh Kfarfila 1 Total No = 11MunicipalitiesCaza Region Akkar Andket/Qobayat 1Akkar Bqerzla 1Akkar Charbila 1Akkar Karm Asfour 1Akkar Kawss Akkar 1Akkar Mrahat 1Akkar Wadi El Jamous 1Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar 1Baalbeck Jabbouleh 1Dinnyeh Markibta 1Hasbaya Marj El Zouhour 1Hasbaya Mymess 2Jezzine Barteh 1Marjayoun Deir Mymess 1Marjayoun Wazzani Village 1Rashaiya Ain Harcha 1Rashaiya Yanta 2 Total No = 19

Grand Total = 31 * Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4,5, 2003

41

Figure 7: Baalbeck Wastewater Treatment Plant (CDR, 2002)

3.1.3 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant

The Ghadir Outfall pre-treatment works (Figure 8) serve the Greater Beirut Southern Wastewater Collection Basin with a present population estimated at 977,000. The Plant is designed for a maximum instantaneous flow of 2.6 m3/s while the average is around 1.6 m3/s and the expected minimum around 1.1 m3/s. A preliminary treatment is applied to wastewater, including screening and grit removal. In addition to wastewater, the plant accepts septic tank septage and leachate from the Naameh landfill. The effluent from the plant is discharged into the sea at a distance of 2.6 km away from the shore and at a depth of approximately 60 m through a 1200 mm diameter outfall. However, in periods of overflow, the plant partially or completely shuts down, and the effluent is routed to the 1500 mm diameter overflow line that discharges into the sea at a distance of 500 m from the shore (Monthly Report 23, Ghadir Plant, 2003).

Figure 8: Ghadir Pre-Treatment Plant

42

3.1.4 Community-based Wastewater treatment plants

Delays in wastewater works in several regions in the country have prompted several municipalities, local and international NGOs to take measures directed at improving wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Some of these local wastewater treatment facilities coincide with the plans envisioned by the national program, such in Qobayat. In other instances, local wastewater treatment projects were not consistent with existing regional wastewater management plans and were either stopped or implemented without acquiring central government approval/permit. Some of these wastewater plants are designed to treat wastewater for irrigation purposes, as is the case in Hasbaya. Table 10 provides an inventory of all the constructed and operating small-scale plants. The disposal of the effluent from the operating plants is shown in Appendix B.

43

Table 10: Community Based Wastewater Treatment Plants*Caza Village NGO Status Population

served (design year)

Technology Remarks

Baalbeck Jabbouleh CHF Operational in 2000 600 (2020) AS; EA; Tertiary treatment

Design for 80 m3/day

Chouf Bcheftine Creative Assoc Operational in 2002 3,500 (2022) AS1

Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar Creative Assoc Operational in 2003 3,500 (2022) ASNabatieh Jbaa 1 Creative Assoc Ongoing 2003 3,500 (2023) ASNabatieh Jbaa 2 Creative Assoc Start construction 2003 3,500 (2023) ASNabatieh KfarKila Creative Assoc Operational in 2003 3,500 (2023) AS

Marjayoun Debbine Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 NA2 AnaerobicHasbaya Chebaa Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2015) AnaerobicHasbaya Hasbaya & Ain Qanya Mercy Corp Completed 14,000 (2015) Anaerobic

Marjayoun El Khiam Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2015) AnaerobicMarjayoun Wazzani Village Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 175 AnaerobicHasbaya Ain Jerfa Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 2,500 (2015) AnaerobicHasbaya Abou Qamha Mercy Corp Completed in 2002 600 (2015) AnaerobicHasbaya Ain Qanya Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 7,500 (2015) AnaerobicHasbaya Hebbaryeh Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 5,000 (2015) AnaerobicJezzine Rihane Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 NA AnaerobicAkkar Wadi El Jamous Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 109 AnaerobicAkkar Bqerzla Mercy Corp Operational in 2000 2,310 AerobicHermel Hmaire Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 840 Anaerobic

Karm Asfour NA Completed 840Akkar Charbila Mercy Corp Operational in 1999 1,000 AnaerobicAkkar Kaws Akkar YMCA Operational in 1998 1,125 EA3 Design capacity 155 m3/dayAkkar Akkar Atika (Mrahat) YMCA Operational in 2000 550 EA Design capacity 64 m3/dayAkkar Akkar Atika (Maakouda) YMCA Ongoing 2003 650 AS Design capacity 120 m3/day

Rashaiya Ain Harcha YMCA Operational 750 EA Design capacity 120 m3/day

44

Hasbaya Marj El Zohour YMCA Operational in 2001 1,000 EA Design capacity 168 m3/dayRashaiya Yanta 1 YMCA Operational in 2003 1,250 AS Design capacity 240 m3/dayRashaiya Yanta 2 YMCA Operational in 2003 750 EA Design capacity 120 m3/day

Marjayoun Mymess 1 YMCA Operational in 2003 375 AS Design capacity 60 m3/dayMarjayoun Mymess 2 YMCA Operational in 2003 750 AS Design capacity 120 m3/dayHasbaya Kfair YMCA Ongoing 2003 2,750 AS Design capacity 447 m3/dayDinnyeh Markibta PM Operational in 2001 1,300 (2020) EA Design capacity 195 m3/dayAkkar Andket/Qobayat PM Operational in 2003 9,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 1350 m3/dayBaabda Hammana PM Operational in 2001 7,000 (2020) EA+AS Design capacity 1050 m3/dayBaabda Kornayel PM Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 900 m3/daySaida Barteh PM Operational 2002 1,300 (2020) EA Design capacity 195 m3/day

Marjayoun Deir Mymess PM Operational 2003 1,250 (2020) EA Design capacity 200 m3/dayMarjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk

1PM Operational in 2003 4,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 825 m3/day

Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk 2

PM Ongoing 2003 1250 (2020) EA NA

* Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4,5 20031AS: activated sludge2NA: not available3EA: extended aeration

45

II.


The population currently served by operational wastewater treatment plants is estimated at 1,050,300 persons, of whom 977,000 are in cities, 45,400 are served by regional plants, and 27,900 are in municipalities (Table 11).

The proposed WWTPs are designed according to the estimated number of persons each facility will serve. According to CDR the population to be served by individual WWTPs range between 1,205,800 and a few hundred persons. According to the list of proposed WWTPs in Lebanon provided by CDR, the largest facilities in terms of population served are: (1) the Dora plant which is designed to serve the largest section of the population in Lebanon (The expected number of persons to be served was originally set at around 1,205,800 persons (Jaber, 1997), however, the design was recently upgraded to cater for a maximum population of 3,000,000 persons); (2) the Ghadir plant which serves the second largest population in the country estimated at around 977,000 persons (Monthly Report 23, Ghadir Plant, 2003). This plant is limited to preliminary treatment and its expansion to secondary is yet unknown. To the north of Beirut, the Abdeh plant and Tripoli plant will serve about 174,000 and 723,900 persons, respectively, while the Kesrouan plant is designed to serve around 505,200 persons. To the south, the Saida and Sour plants will serve about 262,500 and 324,400 persons, respectively. All the above-mentioned WWTPs are located on the Lebanese coast where the highest concentration of population in the country is encountered. One major inland WWTP that is worth noting in terms of the population to be served is the Baalbeck plant. This plant is completed and expected to be operational sometime in the year 2004 and it is designed to serve 130,600 persons. Refer to Appendix A for more information on the population served by the Government-planned WWTPs in Lebanon.

Table 11: Location and Number of Operational Wastewater Treatment Plants, and Overall Population Served*

Location and Name of the Treatment Plants

Number of Plants Population Served (Design Year)

CitiesCaza Region Aley Ghadir 1 977,000

Total No = 1 Total Population = 977,000

Regional (Group of Municipalities in Villages)Caza Region Baabda Hammana 1 7,000 (2020)Chouf Bchetfine 1 3,500 (2022)Hasbaya Ain Jarfa 1 2,500 (2015)Hasbaya Hasbaya 1 5,000 (2015)Hasbaya Ain Qanya 3 14,000 (2015)Hasbaya Hebbarieh 1 5,000 (2015)Hermel Hmaire 1 840Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk 1 4,000 (2020)Nabatieh Kfarfila 1 3,500 (2023) Total No = 11 Total Population = 45,340

MunicipalitiesCaza Region Akkar Andket/Qobayat 1 9,000 (2020)Akkar Bqerzla 1 2,310Akkar Charbila 1 1,000Akkar Karm Asfour 1 840Akkar Kawss Akkar 1 1,125Akkar Mrahat 1 550Akkar Wadi El Jamous 1 109Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar 1 3,500 (2022)Baalbeck Jabbouleh 1 600 (2020)Dinnyeh Markibta 1 1,300 (2020)Hasbaya Marj El Zouhour 1 1,000Hasbaya Mymess 2 1,125Jezzine Barteh 1 1,300 (2020)Marjayoun Deir Mymess 1 1,250 (2020)Marjayoun Wazzani Village 1 175Rashaiya Ain Harcha 1 750Rashaiya Yanta 2 2,000 Total No = 19 Total Population = 27,934

Grand Total = 31 Grand Total = 1,050,274 * Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4, and 5, 2003


Almost all the proposed wastewater treatment plants related to the NERP will be secondary treatment plants, except for Saida WWTP which is designed for preliminary treatment but expected to be upgraded to a secondary treatment plant. Most of the plants will adopt the “Activated Sludge” technology, and only two will adopt the “Biofilter” technology, namely the Tabarja and Jbeil WWTPs. Furthermore, the Dora and Sour plants already include disinfection units in their design, which is an important requirement for sea disposal. The Zahleh plant is designed to use activated sludge, nutrient removal, filtration and disinfection technologies. Four plants in the Jbeil caza will use the Activated Sludge technology, while the Kesrouan plant is designed as a preliminary treatment plant that will use screens and aerated grit chambers (Personal Interview 1, 2003). As for the completed and/or operational plants, the technologies applied in these plants are discussed in the following sections, and are summarized in Appendix B. From here on, operational plants will be referenced by using their corresponding codes which are outlined in Appendix B.

47

3.3.1 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant

At the Ghadir pre-treatment Plant and during normal operation, the wastewater flow is lifted by screw pumps to the screening system where five mechanically-raked bar screens remove all solids larger than 40mm. The screenings are conveyed to a screw compactor while the main flow is directed to the degritting and scum removal tanks where fine sized solid particles settle and are removed by grit pumps. The lighter than water substances will float on the surface and are removed by scraping the water surface of the degritting tank. The flow is then transferred to the main pumping station which discharges the effluent into the sea at a distance 2.6 km away from the shore. Figures 9, 10, 11 show respectively the lifting pumps, the screens and the grit chamber inside the Ghadir Plant.

Figure 9: Lifting Area inside Ghadir Plant

Figure 10: Screening Area inside Ghadir Plant

Figure 11: Grit Chamber inside Ghadir Plant

48

3.3.2 Technologies applied at community-based WWTPs

Community based WWTPs use different wastewater treatment technologies, ranging from low-cost low-tech approaches, such as anaerobic treatment and stabilization ponds (Mercy Corps, YMCA), to mechanical aeration systems (CHF, PM). The secondary treatment level is either anaerobic or aerobic, some facilities are using activated sludge technology others are using the extended aeration technology, in few cases a combination of EA and AS was used (plant B1, Hammana).

In Akkar Al-Atiqa (Kawss Akkar, plant Ak6), population growth and a rapid increase in household connections to the sewer network have led to increased plant influent and overloading the plant, less than two years after starting the operation. This has necessitated the installation of a makeshift aeration system the efficiency of which remains to be tested (Personal Interview 2, 2003).

As for plant H3, Hasbaya, the treatment level adopted by this facility is a secondary treatment. The plant was modified to accept wastewater released by an olive press in a separate unit. The major treatment process is anaerobic biological treatment, the treated water will be used to irrigate nearby agricultural areas, and the sludge will be collected and dewatered by the use of sludge drying beds. The municipality will collect the sludge twice a year; which will either be disposed of at solid waste landfills or used as soil conditioner. A gas recovery system is installed in the facility to capture the methane generated as a result of the anaerobic digestion.

3.3.3 Technologies used at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)-Funded Plants

Plants funded by YMCA use the extended aeration (EA) system or activated sludge system (AS). Plants H6a, H6b located in Hasbaya and R2a, R2b in Rashaiya use a mechanical aeration system, while all the remaining plants use ponds. Plants R2a, H6a, H6b (Rashaiya, Hasbaya) use the activated sludge treatment system which consists of screening, oil and grease trapping, aeration (Hans Reactor), and clarification (concrete clarifier). Plants Ak6, Ak7, R1, H5 (Akkar, Rashaiya, and Hasbaya) use the extended aeration treatment system which consists of screening, oil and grease trapping, aeration, clarification, further aeration (flowing over gravel beds or into open-air ponds) (Personal Interview 2, 2003).

3.3.4 Technologies used at the Pontifical Mission (PM)-Funded Plants

Almost all the plants designed by the PM use extended aeration treatment, except for Hammana (B1) that uses a combination of extended aeration and activated sludge

49

treatment systems. Plants D1, Ak1, J1, M1, M2 (Dinnyeh, Akkar, Jezzine, and Marjayoun) treatment system consists of screening, oil and grease trapping, equalization tanks, aeration, clarification, sludge digestion, and disinfection (chlorination) (Personal Interview 3, 2003).

3.3.5 Technologies used at the Creative Associates International-Funded Plants

All plants constructed by Creative Associates use activated sludge treatment consisting of the “Hans Bioshaft Systems”. The process is described by the following: Liquid sewage flows into the shaft through a screen filter installed before the tank. Air being pumped via an aerator forces the sewage that has descended to the bottom of the Hans Bioshaft, upward to the surface filter. Rapid growth of microorganism at the surface filter develops bacterial biomass that stabilizes organic matter in the sewage. Purified water flows to a final sedimentation compartment where the settled bacterial mass is recycled back. When the sludge storage compartment becomes filled with the sludge to about 50% of its capacity, it requires to be emptied. The time to empty it is estimated between 6-12 months. Plants C1, Bk1, and N1 (Chouf, Baalbeck, and Nabatieh) use this technique (Personal Interview 4, 2003).

3.3.6 Technologies used at the Mercy Corps-Funded Plants

Plants H1, H2a, H2b, H2c, H3, H4, He1, Ak3, Ak4, and M3 in Hasbaya, Hermel, Akkar, and Marjayoun constructed by the Mercy Corps use secondary anaerobic treatment; except for wastewater treatment plant Ak2 in Akkar, which uses aerobic treatment. The anaerobic treatment consists of an anaerobic digestion system followed by a trickling filter, using plastic media, and by a sand and gravel filtration bed and terminates by open disposal (Personal Interview 5, 2003).


Information on effluent quantity and quality as well as removal efficiencies in all operational plants are provided in Appendix B. Other important aspects are discussed in the following sections.

3.4.1 Untreated Wastewater characteristics

The quality of the wastewater discharged directly into the environment without any treatment is provided in Table 12. Most of the results in the table are based on old

50

studies; none of the studies included a correlation between the wastewater characteristics and the characteristics of the service area such as population, water supply, industrial flows, and infiltration/inflow.

Table 12: Wastewater Quality in Lebanon*

Year Location No. of Samples

BOD (mg/l) SS (mg/l)

Avg. Range Average Range1963 Beirut 9 940 420-2650 430 245-6701971 Beirut 72 369 20-990 417 40-28001975 Hammana 70 448 440-470 766 565-9811965 Zahleh 70 350 100-950 705 294-20301980 Rabieh 4 145 NA1 465 NA1980 Kaifoun 1 400 NA 610 NA

1981 Beirut/Project Jouneh 1 500 320-614 360 130-631

2003 Ghadir plant 4 222 185-257 526 422-893 * Modified table adopted from Khatib and Alami, 1994 1 NA: Not available

3.4.2 GHADIR Plant Influent and Effluent Quantity and Quality

The Ghadir plant is designed for a maximum flow of 2.6 m3/s, an average flow of 1.6 m3/s and a minimum flow of around 1.1 m3/s (Monthly Report 23, Ghadir Plant, 2003). The plant discharges its effluent into the sea through a 2.6 km long outfall, at a depth of about 60 m. A current study is exploring the economic feasibility of upgrading the Ghadir wastewater treatment plant to provide secondary treatment before discharge into the sea through the outfall (for more information on the characteristics of the outfall, refer to section 1.3). Table 13 presents the average flow rates and BOD levels of wastewater pumped through the Ghadir sea outfall (SOER, 2001). Table 14 provides the overall effluent quality of the Ghadir WWTP.

Table 13: Average flow rate and BOD5 level in Ghadir WWTP*

Month Flow rate (m3/day) BOD5 (mg/l)June, 2000 24,419 371July, 2000 30,348 527

August, 2000 39247 494September, 2000 41,612 418

October, 2000 41,000 445November, 2000 40,967 411

June 22, 2003 to July 21, 200326,297 222

Average 34,841 412.8571

51

* Modified table adopted from SOER, 2001

Table 14: Wastewater Effluent Quality, Ghadir WWTP, (June through July 2003)*

Parameter After screen After Aerated De-gritting

Removal efficiency (%)

Temp. (°C) 27.9 28.2 1.1PH 7.91 7.71 2.5

DO (mg/l) 1.75 2.19 25.1TSS (mg/l) 526 410 22.1VSS (mg/l) 342 266 22.2COD (mg/l) 1040 793 23.75BOD5 (mg/l) 222 NA1 NA

Ammonia (mg/l) 116 NA NAPhosphate (mg/l) 30 NA NA

Bicarbonate Alkalinity (mg/l) 485 NA NA

Total Alkalinity (mg/l)525 NA NA

* Source: Monthly report No. 11 submitted to CDR, Ghadir Laboratory, 2003 1 NA: Not Available

3.5 Prevailing Effluent Disposal Methods and Practices

Information on effluent disposal methods of the operating wastewater treatment plants is provided in Appendix B. This latter shows that the majority of the plants discharge their effluent into the Mediterranean Sea, river bodies or on land. Although all community-based plants were designed to generate an effluent that is suitable for irrigation, however, only the effluent from plants H3, R2a and R2b is being partially used for irrigation of agricultural areas in Hasbaya and Rashaiya (Yanta). The reason being that the effluent needs to be pumped in order to reach the agricultural areas, and this operation is usually costly.

3.5.1 Wastewater Collection and Disposal

According to the CAS census of building and establishment (1996-97), about 37 % of nearly half-a-million buildings are connected to sewer networks, the remaining 64 % either use cesspools, septic tanks, or simply release raw sewage directly into the environment, including sea, rivers, streams, valleys, and dry wells. The sewer systems

52

that survived the war were badly damaged; as a result there is wide clogging and silting occurred in these systems. Furthermore, the great increase in population of the coastal cities left the sewer systems undersized in relation to the areas they serve. These cities are the largest in the country and represent about 70 % of the total population. Since the publishing of the census in 1997, significant changes in the status of the systems have taken place, as a good number of these systems have been upgraded, however, there are no specific statistics that quantify these changes.

3.5.1.1 The Beirut and Mount Lebanon Systems

The Beirut municipal system serves the city and portions of the adjacent southern suburbs, and discharges into the sea through 15 short outfalls located along the shore. In a number of cases, the discharge occurs above the seawater level. Two lift stations located at Minet-El-Hosn and Sarba areas provide drainage for these low-lying areas. The Ghadir system caters for communities south of Beirut in the Aley and Baabda Cazas. It is served by a preliminary treatment plant (Ghadir Treatment Plant) followed by an outfall, from which water discharges at a depth ample to achieve reasonable dilution of the disposed wastewater. An emergency outfall, which allows discharge by gravity and operates in the event that the discharge pumps are shutdown, was constructed along its side.

In Mount-Lebanon part of the communities discharge the sewage into the GBA system, while others discharge directly into rivers used by downstream communities for water supply, or into seasonal streams, or along the shore.

The North Metn system serves 65 % of the population inhabiting the northeast and east of Beirut sections. Some individual systems in the area serve inland communities which discharge raw sewage into local streams (MOE, 1998c).

3.5.1.2 Systems in Northern Lebanon

In the North, the Tripoli sewer system is old (recently upgraded) and terminates in a relatively short sea outfall. Part of the sewage is diverted to an open storm water channel from which the flow is used for irrigation (in Tripoli). In Akkar two communities are provided with sewer networks which discharge into a local stream used for irrigation. In Bcharre, six of the seven communities, provided with sewer networks, discharge their raw sewage into the Kadisha/Abu Ali river from which water is tapped for domestic use by downstream communities. A Large portion of the sewer system in Koura and Zgharta is made of open channels (MOE, 1998c).

3.5.1.3 Systems in Southern Lebanon

In the South, 343 communities are not served by sewers, and depend on cesspools and septic tanks for the disposal of their sewage. The sewer system in Jezzine terminates at an outfall that discharges in the Aariye River, which is used for irrigation. The sewer system in Saida discharges along the shore at more than 15 locations, pollution by sewage is very evident in open irrigation channels. The Sour system is served by three short outfalls and a lift station that is out of operation at present (MOE, 1998c).

53

3.5.1.4 Systems in the Bekaa

The Bekaa raw sewage is discharged into the Ras El-Ain stream; some of the sewers are purposely blocked to allow sewage to be diverted for irrigation (MOH, 1994). Raw sewage from Zahleh and other nearby villages discharge into the Berdawni River, which flows through a touristic area with many restaurants located along its banks. Appendices C and D presents the disposal methods for sewered and non-sewered areas in Lebanon (MOE, 1998c). In Baalbeck the sewer networks have been upgraded and expanded and the treatment plant constructed but still nonoperational.

3.5.2 Coastal Collection System for the Greater Beirut Area

In the GBA, wastewater from Beirut as well as parts of the Cazas of Metn (Baabda and Aley) are collected and transported to a series of coastal collectors. The northern main collectors comprise two lines that converge on Dora, where a wastewater treatment plant and associated outfall will be constructed. Specifically, these lines extend from the Manara area in Ras Beirut to Dora, and from Dbaye to Dora. Together, these northern collectors extend about 17 kilometers and are designed to serve a future population of 891,000 people (SOER, 2001).

Figure 12: Direction of Coastal Collectors for GBA (SOER, 2001)

Likewise, the southern collectors comprise two lines converging on Ghadir, where a preliminary wastewater treatment plant already exists. These converging lines originate from the Manara area and Naameh, respectively. The two southern collectors are about 9 km long and will serve an estimated population of 977,000 (Figure 12).

54

Although works on the northern coastal collectors were completed in 2001, the collectors will not be put into operation before the proposed Dora wastewater treatment plant is constructed. To date, no funding has been secured for the construction of the Dora plant, which means that the collectors will remain idle for several years. Meanwhile, the newly built collectors will require repair and routine maintenance works (e.g., flushing). CDR is currently contracting out the construction of the southern coastal collector from Ras Beirut to Ghadir. Beyond the Greater Beirut Area, wastewater collection systems are under preparation for major coastal cities including Tripoli, Jounieh/Kesrouan, Saida and Tyre. Wastewater collectors are under construction in Akkar, Beddawi, Laboue and Baalbeck (SOER, 2001).

3.5.3 Number and location of sea outfalls

The number of existing sea outfalls has been surveyed; however, there is no information on the state of all of these outfalls (i.e., length, dimensions, loading volume, etc.). There are approximately 53 outfalls along the coast 16 of which are located between Dbayeh (North of Beirut) and Ghadir (South of Beirut) (SOER, 2001). Most outfalls extend only a few meters or terminate at the surface of the water (i.e., no submersed outfall and therefore no effective dilution of wastewater). The sites of the sea outfalls were located on a map using Geographical Information System software (GIS) based on Global Positioning system (GPS). Table 15 shows the number of sea outfalls in each Caza as reported by the MOE (SOER, 2001; CDR, June 2000). Table 16 delineates the characteristics of the planned outfalls.

Table 15: Distribution of existing short Sea Outfalls in each Caza*Caza Number of sea outfallsAkkar 2Tripoli 5Koura 1

Batroun 4Jbeil 5

Kesrouan 6Metn 7Aley 1

Chouf 3Saida 6Sour 3

* Source: SOER, 2001

55

Table 16: Planned Sea Outfalls*Caza Locality Status Features Study managed by Financer

Beirut Dora Existing-to be rehabilitated Main: L=2500m Diam=1700mm CDRSelf-

financedBeirut Ghadir Existing-rehabilitated Main: L=2600m Diam=1200mm CDRSaida Sainek Studied L=2100m Diam=900mm CDR JapanSour Sour Studied L=1500m Diam=800mm CDR World Bank

Kesrouan Tabarja Studied L=1400m Diam=1000mm CDR World BankTripoli Tripoli Proposed CDR EIBAkkar Abdeh ProposedJbeil Amchit Proposed

Batroun Selaata ProposedBatroun Chekka Proposed L = 650m Diam= 300mm

Chouf Ras Nabi Younis Proposed * Source: Jaber, 1997

3.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied Domestic wastewater in Lebanon is mostly being discharged into the Mediterranean Sea, as well as into the river system, with no prior treatment. Moreover, while most of the operating plants are accomplishing relatively good removal efficiencies, these efficiencies are not adequate to comply with the set Lebanese standards. Bacterial and organic contamination of coastal waters, rivers and surface water sources are well documented, which result in a negative impact on the environment, and poses potential public health related hazards.

3.6.1 Marine Pollution

Conclusive evidence is available indicating bacterial contamination of the coastal waters resulting from the discharge of wastewater through a number of sea outfalls along the coast. Data collected by MOE in 1993, shown in Table 17, demonstrate that some beaches are unsafe for bathing. Recent tests on microbiological concentrations at the Bay of Jounieh and Kesrouan coastal areas showed that between 4 % to 29 % of tested samples exceeded the WHO limits of 100 faecal coliform/100 ml. Furthermore, it is indicated that the Bay of Jounieh, with a stretch of 6 km, is substantially used by about 30 official beach clubs, six public beaches, and two unofficial ports all of which have direct access to unacceptably polluted bathing waters (Chammas, 2003).

56

Table 17: Bacterial Count along the Coast*Location Bacterial Count (# per 100ml)Ras El-Saker 35Al-Buhsas 1,100Jbeil 1,100Dbayeh 93Ramlet El-Baydah 11,000 (Cholera organism found)

* Source: Commission of the European Communities, UNDP, EIB, WB; “Lebanon: Assessment of the State of the Environment”, Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Report, 1995.

Effluent sampling results at the Ghadir pre-treatment plant (30 samples collected between 22/6/2003 and 21/7/2003) are compared, in Table 18, to standards proposed by the Ministry of Environment (1996) while attempting to dictate the level of wastewater treatment required. It is obvious that the wastewater discharged into the sea is of inferior quality.

Table 18: Evaluation of Ghadir Pre-Treatment Plant Quality*

Parameter Existing Value Limiting Value

Temperature, °C 28.18 35pH, unit 7.7 6-9TSS, mg/l 335.2 60COD, mg/l 792.5 100BOD5, mg/l 222 60Phosphate, mg/l 29.75 5Iron, mg/l 0.12 1.5Zinc, mg/l 0.04 5Nickel, mg/l 0.014 0.1Cadmium, mg/l <0.002 0.05

* Source: Al Ghadir Laboratory analysis, 2003; B/ MOE, 1996

Moreover, several local studies reported the presence of metals (mercury 10-250 µg/kg, copper 120-900 µg/kg, cadmium 2-25 µg/kg) and pesticides (DDT 3-150 µg/kg, PCB 0-90 µg/kg) in several types of fish (El Fadel et al., 2000; Keyomjian and Safa, 1993).

The discharge of wastewater into the sea in Lebanon has, among others, two important possible impacts on the local population. One aspect is that all seafood catchments are affected by the contaminants dispersed into the Mediterranean since marine creatures, especially fish, have a tendency of accumulating heavy metals. This phenomenon is termed as bio-magnification and has significant implications on health. Another aspect is the bathing of individuals along the seacoast. The presence of fecal coliforms along the coastline is a threat to public health.

57

3.6.2 Surface freshwater quality

As stated earlier, most operating plants are accomplishing relatively good removal efficiencies, however, the effluent quality still does not meet the Lebanese standards that impose limits of BOD5 of 25 mg/l, COD of 125 mg/l, TSS of 60 mg/l and pH of 2-9 for discharge into surface water. Furthermore, the bulk of the wastewater is being discharged into the sea or rivers prior to any form of treatment, leading subsequently to the contamination of lakes, springs and wells used for water supply.

3.6.3 Rivers

At present, the river system of Lebanon is facing great stresses due to concentrated urban development, resulting in industrial and agricultural activities along the coast, that have affected rivers running to the sea from Mount Lebanon. Moreover, discharge of raw wastewater, as well as treated wastewater that does not comply with the standards is taking place in several rivers and natural drainage areas that ultimately reach the river bodies. Nahr Antelias is believed to have high bacterial concentrations along its course, and Nahr El Kalb, Nahr El Assal, and Nahr El Laban all show dangerously high bacterial populations during certain periods of the year (MOE, 1998c).

Figure 13: Wastewater Discharge into the Berdaouni River, Tributary of the Litani River, Zahleh

Furthermore, rigorous agricultural and industrial activity within the Bekaa has adversely influenced the Litani River, Nahr Ibrahim, and Nahr Sainiq. The water generated from tanneries in the Northern Bekaa and disposed into the Litani River mixes with the drinking water used at Jabal Aamil and is not treated for poisonous chemicals, like arsenic, before use.

Several studies aiming at evaluating the contamination level of the Litani river were performed (Jurdi, 2001; Swedish Study, 2000; AUB, 2003) and all studies showed high levels of Coliforms at many locations along the river, indicating severe pollution incurred

58

by wastewater discharges into the river. Table 19 summarizes the results of the AUB study with respect to Coliforms Test at the Litani river.

Table 19: Total and Faecal Coliform Count at different locations along the Litani River*

Sample Location Total Coliforms in 100 ml

Faecal Coliforms in 100 ml

Hawsh Al Refka: near Stone Cutting Industry

NC1 776

Temnine El Tahta: before Tile Producing Factory

NC 752

Temnine El Tahta : after Tile Producing Factory

NC NC

River near Mimosa 710 480

Effluent tunnel from MimosaNC 370

Joub Jinnine river NC 424

Karaoun Lake 44 2Karaoun: near Dam 50 0Tanmia: chicken poultry NC NCAl Marj: near Uniceramic Factory NC NC

Wastewater from Taalabaya NC NC

1 NC: Non-Countable * Source: AUB Project, 2003

These results indicate that the Litani River is not suitable for drinking or for irrigation, and using its water constitutes a potential hazard to public health. Despite its bad quality, people still use the river water for bathing and irrigation, including the irrigation of vegetable plants.

3.6.4 Springs and Wells

Bacteriological analyses conducted on water samples taken from various springs and wells in the Kesrouan area are shown in Tables 20 and 21. These sources are used for drinking water purposes without undergoing any treatment, and as shown from the results, contain coliform concentrations that surpass established permissible drinking water concentrations (set at 0 Coliform/100 ml by USEPA and WHO).

59

Jaber (1997) reported a contamination accident at Racheine Spring which is the principal water source that supplies Zghorta and the whole city of Tripoli in North Lebanon. The spring water was contaminated in autumn 1997 which resulted in having the Zghorta and Tripoli areas infected by typhoid, and water analyses showed high concentration of Coliforms. After several site visits, specialists found, at an area 8 km to the South of Racheine Spring, a village named Deir Nbouh where some dwellings were discharging their wastewater in a valley between Racheine and the village. A geological fault passes through the said valley with some karstic holes, one of which is about 4 m diameter and 5 m deep with a sink at the bottom. With the fall of heavy rains, torrential streams carry all wastes and pollutants stored in the valley, which infiltrate through the karstic formations of the underground aquifer located at less than 50 m depth. As a result, pills were distributed to the inhabitants to disinfect the water before use, and the Racheine Source and reservoir were equipped with chlorinators. The MOEW also carried out works to deviate the wastewater flow from the above-mentioned valley to Biader Racheine, an area located downstream from the source (Jaber, 1997).

Table 20: Bacteriological Analyses of some springs*

Springs Aquifer Geology

Faecal Coliforms in 100 ml water

Total Coliforms in 100 ml water

Faecal Streptococcus in 100 ml water

Dbayeh Lab

Ghorra Lab Ghorra Lab

Nabaa El Maghara (Hrajel) Limestones of

J6 >80 >80 260 100

Nabaa El Assal Limestones and Dolomites of C4

0 9 2 0

Nabaa El Laban0 42 5 0

Jiita CavernLimestones J4 17 >80 35 10

* Source: Chammas, 2003; CDR, MHER: “Water and Wastewater Feasibility Studies in Saida Drainage Zone”, Beirut, January 1995

Table 21: Bacteriological Seasonal Analyses of Jiita Waters, and other Water Locations (laboratory at Dbayeh Station)*

Spring or Well Date of Sample Extraction

Total Coliforms in 100 ml of water

Faecal Coliform in 100 ml of water

Cavern Source 28/07/92 >80 012/10/92 17 0

60

27/10/92 20 213/01/93 0 014/04/93 25 03/8/93 >80 17

Nabaa Kachkouch 28/07/92 >80 >803/8/93 >80 5

Upstream of Jiita Nabaa El Assal 12/10/93 >80 027/01/93 4 05/4/93 6 029/07/93 9 04/8/93 4 0

Well at Dar Ali (Faraya) 12/10/92 >80 025/01/93 >80 022/07/93 >80 2

Well at Coin Vert (Faraya) 12/10/92 35 025/01/93 524 0

* Source: Chammas, 2003; CDR, MHER: “Water and Wastewater Feasibility Studies in Saida Drainage Zone”, Beirut, January 1995

3.7 Pollutant removal efficiency and needs for upgrading

Wastewater management in Lebanon is still in its very early stages. Plans are well underway to expand the current Ghadir wastewater treatment plant and implementation was expected to commence during 2002, however due to lack of funding the expansion program is postponed. Meanwhile, many other relatively small treatments plants are under construction. While sewage pollution discharged to the sea and rivers will decrease in the coming years, the operation of wastewater treatment plants also will generate large quantities of sludge that will require adequate management to prevent environmental degradation.

Community-based WWTPs adopt secondary treatment level; however, removal efficiencies vary between 35 % and 99 % for BOD, 36 % and 89 % for COD, and 22 % and 95 % for TSS (Appendix B). Despite the good removal efficiencies in some plants, upgrading of technology and infrastructure is essential for improving the effluent quality to comply with Lebanese standards. According to a study assessing the operation of the WWTPs funded by USAID through the NGO Mercy Corps (El-Fadel and Alameddine, 2002), several wastewater plants suffer from lack of maintenance and monitoring, and from inadequate management that are affecting their performance.

As for the Ghadir pre-treatment plant, removal efficiency was discussed in a previous section (Table 14). If water generated from wastewater treatment plants is to be used for irrigation, then it has to comply with the international standards for irrigation. Appendix E shows the WHO recommended quality guidelines for wastewater use in agriculture.

61

A feasibility study for expanding and upgrading the Ghadir wastewater treatment plant was undertaken to determine the most suitable and cost-effective treatment alternatives (SOER, 2001). Initial project screening indicated that the plant should be located on land reclaimed from the sea at a site opposite to the existing preliminary wastewater treatment facility. Specifically, the study then examined two technical alternatives:

Activated sludge process with primary treatment Activated sludge process with anaerobic pre-treatment

The first alternative would need to reclaim a large area from the sea and the total project cost was estimated at US$ 168 million for a capacity of 1.3 million people equivalent. Land reclamation works alone were evaluated at more than US$ 25 million.

The study found that the second alternative was more feasible as it could be implemented in several stages, requires less offshore land reclamation, produces less sludge and would be energy self-sufficient (biogas generation would provide sufficient energy for on-site uses). This alternative would cost an estimated US$ 52 million to serve one million people and an additional US$52 million to be upgraded with an aerobic treatment system.

To minimize costs further and eliminate the need to reclaim land offshore, a subalternative was then elaborated. This sub-alternative would eliminate the activated sludge process altogether and thereby consist only of an anaerobic treatment and a sea outfall, while at the same time fulfilling environmental requirements under the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP). The first stage of implementation (up to one million people-equivalent) would cost an estimated US$ 52 million. The plant could then be upgraded to serve 1.3, 1.6 and 1.8 million people, respectively, in three additional stages. By the end of the third stage, the plant would have incurred additional costs worth a total of US$ 32 million.

Land reclamation would be required during the third and fourth phases only. Using this alternative, the final cost of treating wastewater was estimated at 12 cents per cubic meter, down from 33 cents and 20 cents for the first and second alternatives, respectively.

62

4. MOROCCO


The following table shows the inventory and the state of urban wastewater treatment plants in Morocco. The 72 registered UWTP are divided in the following way:

- Number of UMTP in municipalities (from which only 4 are located in cities where the population exceeds 100.000 inhabitants (i.e Agadir, Beni Mellal, Khouribga et Nador)

49

- Number of UMTP in communities or rural centres 23

Table 22: UWTPs in Morocco

UWTP

Province or Prefecture Community type Opening year Operating status Connection

Aïn Jemaâ Al Ismailia C 1984 - Aïn Sebaâ Ain Sbaa CR - Béni Bouayach Al Hoceima M 1982 - Ait Youssef OuAli Al Hoceima CR 1977 - Al Hoceima Al Hoceima M 1997 +Aït Ourir Al Haouz CR 1958 - Oukaïmeofn Al Haouz CR ° NAmizmiz Al Haouz C 1965 -

Lamzar Agadir M +/-

Drarga Agadir Ida Outanane CR 2000 +

Ben Sergao- DHR Agadir M 1989 + Ouaouizerth Azilal C 1976 - Ofmnate Azilal M 1984 + Nouacer-ONDA Ain Chok Hay Hassani M + Bouznika-ONEP BenSlimane M 1981 + Ben Slimane Ben Slimane M 1997 + Béni Mellal Beni Mellal M ° +/- NEl Aïoun Sidi Mellouk Berkane Taourirt M 1982 + Missour Boulmane M 1983 - Outat El Haj Boulmane M - Boulmane Boulmane M 1984 NImin Tanout Chichaoua CR -

63

Chefchaouen Chefchaouen M 1981 ° NEl Jadida-NESTLE (I) El Jadida M + El Jadida-Golf (T) El Jadida CR - Zemamra El Jadida M - Benguérir-OCP El Kalaa Sraghna M + El Attaouia El Kalaa Sraghna M + El Kelaa (T) El Kalaa Sraghna M 1990 + Sidi Rahal El Kalaa Sraghna M - Tamelelt El Kalaa Sraghna M 1989 - Sidi Harazem Fes Medina CR 1987 - Sidi Allal El Bahraoui Khemisset C 1985 - Boujaâd-DHR Khouribga M 1992 + Boujniba Khouribga M 1961 + Bir Mezoui Khouribga CR 1991 - Hattane Khouribga M + Khouribga Khouribga M 1984 + Boufekrane Meknès M 1987 + Marrakech Marrakech M -Marrakech (T) Marrakech M 1991 + Driouch Nador C - Nador Nador M 1978-1991 + Zaïo Nador M -

Ouarzazate 1 Ouarzazate M 1989 +Ouarzazate 2 Ouarzazate M 1989 +Sidi Boulanouar Oujda Angad CR +

Béni DrarOujda Angad M 1976 -

Rissani-ONEP Rachidia CR 1993 + Jorf Rachidia M - IAV-Hassan II Rabat M 1985 +Rabat-Takkadoum Rabat M NYoussoufia Safi M 1962 + Sebt El Gzoula Safi M 1981 NOulad Abbou Settat M + El Gara Settat M 1976 - Berrechid Settat M 1981 - Aïn Cheggag Sefrou C - Immouzer Kanofr Sefrou M - Ribat El Kheir Sefrou M 1965 - Imzouren Sefrou M 1976 -

Skhirate Skhirate M 2003 +Cabo Negro (T) Tetouan CR 1982 + Cabo Negro (T) Tetouan CR 1993 + Kabila (T) Tetouan CR + Mdiq (T) Tetouan M 1991 +

64

Restinga (T) Tetouan CR + Oued Amlil Taza M 1976 - Aknoul Taza M 1980 - Tizi Ouasli Taza C 1982 - Dar Chaoui Tanger C - Tiznit Tiznit M 1979 -

where:

M Municipality CR Rural community C Centre+ Operating UWTP - : Non-Operating UWTP +/- Opening in progressN Not connected with the treatment network


Nowadays, approximately 31 UWTP are in function. The population served by these UWTP and their treatment capacity can be seen in Table 23.

Table 23: Population Served by the UWTPs in Morocco

LocalisationNumber of inhabitants served

Incoming Flow m3/day

Quantity of treated wastewater m3/ y

Activated

NADOR 100 000 10 000 3 650 000KHOURIBGA 75 000 7 500 2 737 500AL HOCEIMA 84 000 8 400 3 066 000M’DIQ (T) 3 000 300 109 500CABO NEGRO (T) 22 000 2 200 803 000BENGUERIR - OCP 5 000 1 260 459 900BENI MELLAL 110 000 11 890 4 339 850

65

Sludge

PA*

NOUACER Airport 550 200 750NESTLE EL JADIDA Industry 503 183 595

Lagoons

BENSLIMANE 37 000 5 600 2 044 000BOUJAAD 20 000 2 500 912 500BOUZNIKA 12 000 1 400 511 000OUARZAZATE 1 4 300 430 156 950OUARZAZATE 2 4 300 430 156 950MARRAKECH 3 000 380 138 700EL ATTAOUIA 13 500 780 284 700IAV- HASSAN II 1 400 85 31 025

Infiltration-Percolation

BEN SERGAO 5 000 750 273 750DRAGA 8 000 1 000 365 000MARRAKECH (T) 750 225 82 125AGADIR 350 000 43 000 15 695 000

Bacterial Bed

HATTANE- OCP 3 600 375 136 875BOUJNIBA -OCP 3 600 225 82 125YOUSSOUFIA-OCP 25 000 27 500 10 037 500

(T) : touristic sector * AP = prolonged aeration Sources : ONEP for all stations except OCP stationsOCP : for OCP stations

The whole of the UWTP serve a population of approximately 900000 inhabitants, out of a total of 13, 4 millions. The operating units for which data are not available, are found in touristic (Kabila, Restinga) or industrials areas, or in rural communities with very low population (Bouferkane : 4 368 Hab ; Rissani : 5 047 Hab ; Ofmnate : 18 866 Hab ; El Aioun : 32 030 Hab ; Immouzer Kandar : 12 042 Hab ; Skhirate : 32 458Hab).

66


Table 24a

AreaType of treatment

Effluent quantitym3/day

Quality Treatment method

Treatmentefficiency %

Town of Benslimane :

Municipality

Tertiary5 600

BOD5 mg O2/l

135

Aerated lagoon

78

COD mg O2/l 365 83- 79SS mg/l 148 91NTK mN/l 56,11 56 -75Total phosporus mgP/l

6,71 40 -41

CF germ/100ml

106 100

Eggsd’helminthes nb/l

9 100

Table 24b





Bouznika :

Municipality of town of Benslimane

Tertiary 1404-2910

BOD5 mg O2/l 168

Lagoon

66 - 75COD mg O2/l 493 57 - 71SS mg/l 269 65 - 76NTK mN/l 68,7 12,5 - 14Ptot mgP/l 11,4 7,55 - 18CF germe/100ml 1,9 107 87,4 - 99,9SF germe/100ml - 102 – 4,3 106

Eggs d’helminthes nb/l 5,8 100

67

Table 24c





Boujaâd :

Municipality of town ofKhouribga

Secondary 2500

BOD5 mg O2/l

Lagoon

85SS mg/l 81NTK mN/l 85Pt mg P/l - 81CF germe/100ml

0,3 103

Table 24d





Hattane :

Municipalityof townKhouribga

Secondary 375

BOD5 mg O2/l

Activated Sludge

40mg/l

SS mg/l 30 mg/l

Table 24e





Town of Khouribga : Municipality

Secondary 7500

BOD5 mg O2/l 73 Activated

Sludge

70

COD mg O2/l

126 77

SS mg/l32

83,6

Table 24f





Boujniba :

Municipalityof Khouribga

Secondary 310,5BOD5 mg O2/l

582,5 Activated Sludge

93 mg/l

SS mg/l 83 mg/l

68

Table 24g





Town of Ouarzazate1:

Municipality

Tertiary430

BOD5 mg O2/l

300-336

Lagoon(stabilisation basin)

80 COD mg O2/l 422-607 72SS mg/l 306-336 28NTK mN/l 31,5Pt mg P/l 48,5P-PO4

3-mg/l 27,9-30 48NH4

+ mg/l 31,2-35,2 44CF germe/100ml

3,7 105-2,3 106

<103

SF germe/100ml

1,7 105-3,7 105

Eggs d’helminthes nb/l

8,7-11,5 100

Table 24h





Town of Ouarzazate2 :

MunicipalityTertiary 430

BOD5 mg O2/l

300-336

Algae channel

65 - 82

COD mg O2/l 422-607 61-77 SS mg/l 306-336 25-49P-PO4

3-mg/l 27,9-30 40-72Pt mg/l 54NH4

+ mg/l 31,2-35,2 23-78 NTK mg/l 48CF germe/100ml

3,7 105-2,3 106

98,6 - 99,6

SF germe/100ml

1,7 105-3,7 105

69-93,5


8,7-11,5 100

69

Table 24i





Ben Sergao :

Municipality

Province d’Agadir

Tertiary 750

BOD5 mg O2/l 454

Infiltration- Percolation

92

COD mg O2/l

1239 90-95

SS mg/l 327 100NTK mN/l 196 85-100Ptot mgP/l 35 50-75N tot mgN/l 53 20-50CF germe/100ml

2,6 106-7 107

99,9-100

SF germe/100ml

1,6 105-3,6 106

99,9-100


- 100

Table 24j





Drarga :

Commune rurale of la Province d’Agadir

Tertiary 1 000

BOD5 mg O2/l

886

Infiltration-percolation

97

COD mg O2/l

1306 96 - 92

SS mg/l 1102 96,6 - 100NTK mN/l 110 65 - 85Pt mg P/l - 72 -36NH4

+ mg/l 51 100CF germe/100ml

1,5 108 99 - 99,5

SF germe/100ml

2,1 108 99


241 100

70

Table 24k





Lamzar

Municipality d’Agadir:

Tertiary 43 000BOD5 mg O2/lCOD mg O2/l SS mg/l


Opening in 2003-2004

Table 24l





Municipality of Marrakech :

(Experimental stage)

Tertiary 380

BOD5 mg O2/l

Lagoon

65

COD mg O2/l

53

SS mg/l 58NH4

+ mg/l 38CF germe/100ml

98


100

Table 24m





El Attaouia :

Province of El Kalaa Sraghna

Tertiary 780

BOD5 mg O2/l

340Algae channel

85 mg/l

CF germe/100ml

108 103

Table 24n





Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire HASSAN II Tertiary 85

BOD5 mg O2/l

365.4

Aerated lagoon

-

COD mg O2/l

692.5 58

NTK mg/l 68 37Pt mg/l 8.5 13

71

Municipality of Rabat

NH4+ mg/l - 51

P-PO4 12CF germe/100ml

2.15 102

concentration à la sortie

Table 24o





Nouasser :

Province Ain Chok

Wilaya of Casablanca

(Aéroport)

Secondary 1600

BOD5 mg O2/l

400

Imhoff Cone

82,5

SS mg/l 269 64,7PO4

3- mg/l 1,82 49NH4

+ mg/l 46,6 96,5CF germe/100ml

133 106 46

SF germe/100ml

33,6 106 71


2 > 50

Table 24p





Nestlé –El Jadida

Municipality of El Jadida

Tertiary 500

BOD5 mg O2/l

1270Activated Sludge

94,5COD mg O2/l 2036 83,3

Table 24q





Town of Béni Mellal : Municipality Tertiary 9 386

BOD5 mg O2/l 818 Activated

Sludge Opening in 2004SS mg/l 861

72

Table 24r





NadorMunicipality

Tertiary 10 000

BOD5 mg O2/l

Activated Sludge

61,8

COD mg O2/l

- 178

SS mg/l 120,8Ptot mg/l 9,17NTK mg/l 56,7

Table 24s





Al Hoceima:

Municipality Secondary 8 400

BOD5 mg O2/l

512,5

Activated Sludge

26,1

COD mg O2/l 1082,5 71,4SS mg/l 566,25 32,13Pt mg/l 17,17 7,44NTK mg/l 88,1 46,5


In Morocco, 4 UWTPs were designed in the conception of wastewater reuse in irrigation. Two of them are in experimental stage (Ouarzazate: lagoon and Ben Sergao: infiltration-percolation) and the other two are currently operating as pilot stations (Plant of Benslimane: aerated lagoon and of Drarga: infiltration-percolation). The characteristics of these plants are shown in the Table 25.

Table 25: The characteristics of the effluents of the UWTP plants

UWTP Ouarzazate Ben Sergao Ben Slimane DrargaOpening year 1989 1990 1997 2000Treatment capacity 430m3/d 750 m3/d 5 600 m3/d 1 000 m³/dServed population (p.e.) 4 300 15 000 37 000 8 000

73

Treatment method Lagoon Aerated

lagoonInfiltration-percolation

Aerated lagoon


Retention time (days) 25 21.9 - 30-40 -BOD5 (mg/l) 81.7 65.3 98 78 98.5COD (mg/l) 72 65.4 92 79 96SS (mg/l) 28 - 100 - 96.6NTK (mg/l) 31.5 48 85 75 96.8Ptot (mg/l) 48.5 54 36 41 95.9CF germs/100ml 99.9 99.9 99.9 100 99.9O. Helminthes oeufs/l 100 100 100 100 100

Source: ONEP-FAO (2001)


Examples of successful projects of “Treatment – Reuse”

UWTP Treatment Method Opening Year Treatment Capacity Population

Ben Slimane Aerated Lagoon 1997 5 600 m3/d 37 000

Drargua Infiltration –percolation 1999 600 m3/d 5 700

- CASE OF BENSLIMANE Geographical Location: 80Km north-west of RabatPopulation 40000 habitantsConnection to the treatment network: 80%Canadian financial support

Treatment StagesThe sequence of urban wastewater treatment includes 4 stages of water decontamination:

PRE-TREATMENT + PRIMARY TREATMENT + SECONDARY TREATMENT + TERTIARY TREATMENT

UWTP characteristics Treatment capacity: 5600 m3 / day

74

The method is based on a combination of techniques of natural lagoons improved by a light ventilation

- Primary treatment: wastewater passes through a filter and ends up in anaerobic basins- Secondary Treatment: wastewater is treated in aerobic basins - Tertiary Treatment: Wastewater is transferred to optional basins before being stored in the deep and tight basins for the refining of the pollutants.

Treated wastewater is used for the irrigation of golf areas, after being decontaminated by chlorine. Treating Performance of Benslimane Station during 2000-2002Parameters Entering Exiting Reduction in % Prescription CEE1991BOD5 (mg O2/L) 135 23 83 79-90COD (mg O2/L) 365 63 83 75SS (mg /L) 148 14 91 90NTK (mg N/L) 56.11 24.43 56 70-80P tot (mg P/L) 6.71 4.02 40 80Coliforms 6Ulog 220 100 -Fecal (germs/100m) Eggs of helminthes 9 0 100 -(number/L)

Reuse of Treated wastewater for irrigation

- Irrigation techniques: Irrigation by spraying- Irrigation Zones: Terrains of Golf (100 ha)- Results: the quality of treated wastewater is in accordance with the WHO directives - Important fertilising value: approximately 308kg/ha of nitrogen- Expression of interest on behalf of administrator to reuse the treated wastewater

Costs estimation

- Investment Cost: 96.44 MDH (~ 10 M US DOLLARS)- Exploitation Cost: 935, 784 DH/ an (~ 97,322 US DOLLARS)- Cost of the generated treated wastewater: ~1.45 DH/m3 (~0.1508 US DOLLARS)- Sale price of treated wastewater: 2 DH/m3 (~ 0.208US DOLLARS)- Price of drinking water: 4 DH/m3 (~ 0.416 US DOLLARS)

- THE CASE OF THE UWTP OF DRARGUA

USAID – Morocco Experience in the reuse of treated wastewater in Morocco

75

In the framework of the Project “Sustainability of Water resources of Morocco (PREM), USAID has financed the treatment station and the reuse of treated wastewater in Drarga

The Drarga Community Drarga is a community that grows rapidly in Souss-Massa (8 .000 inhabitants) Drarga has installed drinking water and the collection of wastewater Wastewater which was rejected untreated to the natural recipients created great pressuresStages of the project 1997: Feasibility study1997: Environmental impact assessment1998: Signature of an agreement of partnership1998: Observation tour in USA1998: Design of the UWTP1999 - 2000: ConstructionOctober 2000: Opening May 2001: Start of the reuse

UWTP characteristics Treatment capacity: 1000 m3 / day Method of infiltration – percolation by recirculation of the wastewater - Primary Treatment : wastewater goes through a filtering system and ends up into the anaerobic basins- Secondary Treatment: it consists of wastewater spreading over the sand filters - Tertiary treatment: wastewater is transferred in reed beds before it ends up in impermeable basins in order to be reused.- Denitrification basins are installed in order to reduce the nitrate content of wastewater Drying beds for sewage sludge treatmentTreating performance in the case of DRARGUA (2000)Parameters Reduction in % Entering Prescription CEE

(1991)

BOD5(mg O2/L) 98 625 79-90COD (mg O2/L) 94 1825 75SS (mg /L) 99 651 90NTK(mg N/L) 96 317 70-80P tot (mg P/L) 72 - 80

Coliforms 99,.9 1.6x107 -Fecal (germes/100m)

Eggs of helminthes 100 - -(number/L)

Project costs

76

The total cost of the project is $2 million –Studies: $300,000–Conception: $200,000–Construction: $800,000–Equipment: $500,000–Transport: $200,000Operating costs : $2,000 per month

Recovery of costs-The methane generated in the anaerobic basins is recovered and converted to energy- Treated wastewater is sold to farmers for irrigation purposes.- The reeds are cut and sold -Sewage sludge is dried and composted with other organic solid wastes in order to produce compost

Wastewater ReuseTreated wastewater is sold to farmers through an association of water usersTreated wastewater contain compounds of fertilising value (nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus)The sell price of treated wastewater is competitive with that of alternatives waters resources.

Reuse perimeterSurface: 6 hectaresFarmers: 12Soil type : sandy (risk of nitrate infiltration) Irrigation system: surface, micro jet and “drop by drop”


1. Impact of the UWTP of DRARGUA

Reuse impactBiomass yield

Yield of the first crops

(T/ha)

Discount yield(T/ha)

Mean yield(T/ha)

Yield of California-

Davis (T/ha)

77

Alfalfa

2.85 28.5 14 31

Ray-Grass Italien

9.75 48.7 21 -

Profit in Fertiliser Tomato Courgette Alfalfa Ray

Grass (Italien)

wheat Corn

Water need (m3/ha)

8 000 5 000 12 000 10 000 4 000 4 800

Nitrogen)kg/ha(

248 155 372 310 124 149

Phosphorus)kg/ha(

352 220 528 440 176 211

Potassium)kg/ha(

408 255 612 510 204 245

Project impacts

- The village of Draga is totally cleaned up and there is more available water for irrigation- The yield has been increased and the farmers spare with the use of fertilizer.- The value of land has been increased in Drarga.- The project provoked the interest of others places to apply similar technologiesAgronomical and economic aspect:

-Net water profit: approximately 61 – 159 Euro/ha

-Fertiliser profit: 120- 361 Euro/ ha

-Increase of the yield (Double)

The wastewater treatment and reuse plant of Drarga demonstrates the use of non-conventional water resources in a context of drought. The project and the experience derived from it can serve as a model in order to make such systems popular in other regions as well. The treating performances comply with the recommendations of OMS for the irrigation of crops (cereals, braid and vegetables). 2. Impact of the UWTP of BENSLIMANE

- Economy of 1000m3/d (98-2000) and 3000 - 5000 m3/d (2000-2005).- Contribution of approximately 308 kg/ha of nitrogen.- The purifying performance complies with the recommendations of the OMS for

78

the irrigation of Golf and allows for an efficient protection of the environment and the public health - Development of the touristic potential of the area.

ConclusionThe application of this method in a wider scale can provide a viable alternative for water management in areas facing similar problems

3. Impact of the UWTP of OUARZAZATE (experimental stage)

An analytical study was carried out for a period of six months after the substitution of treated wastewater with untreated wastewater, thus permitting the evaluation of the risks posed on the population within the perimeter of controlled wastewater reuse in comparison with the ones posed on the pilot population using conventional wastewater.

The results showed that it is three times more probable for a person having used untreated wastewater for many years to suffer from helminthiasis than for a person that has used conventional water.

After the replacement of untreated wastewater with treated wastewater for a period of six months (in the perimeter of A Ait Kdif), there was a clear reduction in the incidents of helminthiasis.

A positive effect on animals was also noticed. In fact, at the end of the six-month period, all the animals within the pilot zone (using untreated wastewater) were found infected in contrast with only 3 out of 10 within the substitution zone (using treated wastewater).

Conclusion: It is evident from this study that eliminating the parasites in the UWTP provides many advantages. This precaution measure remains the best way of mitigating the negative effects of parasitic diseases on public health, animals and vegetables.

4.7 Pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

Wastewater in some UWTPs in Morocco undergoes only secondary treatment and hence treated wastewater does not comply with the standards for wastewater reuse in agriculture. UWTP of important size equipped with systems of tertiary treatment are rare. Only in the case of tertiary treatment, the reuse of wastewater in agriculture can be implemented without major risk. In Table 26, the performance level of two selected UWTPs is shown.

Table 26: Performance level of two selected UWTPs

79

UWTP of Drarga UWTP of Benslimane :

Standards for the reuse of wastewater in irrigation

Area Province of Agadir MunicipalityTreatment type Infiltration-percolation Aerated lagoonsQuantity of effluents 1 000 m3/d 5 600 m3/d

ParametersQuality (entry of the plant)

Quality (exit of the plant)

Quality (entry of the plant)

Quality (exit of the plant)

Morocco

CEE1991

BOD5 mg O2/l 886 26,6 135 30 - 79-90COD mg O2/l 1306 78,4 365 69,7 - 75SS mg/l 1102 0-37,5 148 13,3 100-

200090

NTK mN/l 110 16,5-38,5 56,11 24,7 70-80Pt mg P/l - 36-72 % 6,71 4 80NH4

+ mg/l 51 0CF germs/100ml 1,5 108 241 106 220 200-

1000SF germs/100ml 2,1 108 <1000 <1000Eggs of helminthes nb/l

241 0 9 0 0

It should be noticed that in the majority of UWTPs built in Morocco, the treatment processes are not adapted to the socio-economic context of the areas concerned. This partly fact justifies the improper operation of this UWTPS. The wastewater network of the majority of the local communities is of unit type. Industrial, domestic and rain wastewater is transferred to the WTP via the same collector thus affecting the treatment efficiency of the plants.

The improvement of the efficiency of the Moroccan WTPs requires among other:- the installation of separate networks for the collection of wastewater- the installation of tertiary treatment for certain WTPs- the initial and continuous training of the personnel charged with the management of the WTPs

80

5. PALESTINE

5.1 Number, Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants and Population served Due to the chronic political unrest in the Palestinian Territories, wastewater sector has been suffering from many factors, such as weak financing, inadequate planning and management. Accordingly, there is a serious need for concerted efforts to improve the wastewater status in Palestine; furthermore, the international community-headed by European Union-must actively assist the Palestinian Authority in attaining this goal.

In spite of the hard circumstances that the Palestinians are living, some significant achievements in wastewater issue has been accomplished since the establishments of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

There are eight main wastewater treatment plants in the Palestinian Territories; three are located in Gaza Strip while, five in the West Bank. In addition there are small scale wastewater treatment facilities exist in Palestine. Table 27 illustrates the municipalities and communities wastewater treatment plants in Palestine. Table 27: Wastewater treatment plants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Location Name No of Treatment Plants

Population served

(Capita)Municipalities

Gaza stripBeit lahia one 250,000*Gaza one 300,000Rafah one 80,000

Sub total (a) Three 630,000

West Bank

Al- Beirah one 50,000Hebron one 328,700*Jenin one 20,000Ramallah one 47,500Tulkarem one 114,400*

Sub total (b) Five 560,600Communities

Birzeit university-Ramallah one 6,000

Deir-Samit/Hebron one 400Ijnisnya - Nabuls one 250Kharas-Hebron one 2,000Sarha- Nabuls one 600

Sub total (c) Five 9,250Total (a+b+c) 13 1,199,850

81

* 2003 estimation (PCBS)

Complied by EQA, Dec. 2003To gain a good knowledge about the wastewater status in Palestine, remind that, Palestine occupied territories consists of two geographical entities – the West Bank and Gaza Strip – with an estimated population of 3.52 million. About 2,237,194 live in the West Bank, and the remainder in Gaza Strip. Approximately 52% of the population of the West Bank lives in 12 urban areas, 42% in over 500 villages and around 6% in 19 refugee camps. In Gaza Strip, approximately 64% of the population lives in the five main urban areas, 5% in rural areas and the remaining 32% in eight refugee camps (PCBS, Children Statistics No. 5, 2002).

Appropriate management of wastewater in Palestine has been neglected since the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967. There were insufficient financial resources within the Palestinian community to pay for new wastewater collection, disposal and treatment systems. Israel was collecting taxes from Palestinians through the Israeli Civil Administration, but they never employed the money for improving the infrastructure systems in the Palestinian territories. The situation is worsened by the discharge of untreated wastewater from Israeli colonies (Annex 1). As mentioned above the situation of wastewater collection in the Palestinian territories is extremely critical. The percentage of population connected to sewer networks in Palestine counts for approximately 33% distributed as around 46 % in Gaza Strip and about 24 % in the West Bank. Notice, these percentages present mainly the collected wastewater in the major cities through the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Environmental Quality Authority, 2002).

The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is acting strenuously in the field of water and wastewater management in terms of legislation, policies and strategies, seeking funds, design and implementation of several projects. The wastewater reuse is regulated by the Environmental law-1999 (Article 29) and by one of the policies of Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). The Environmental law states: “The Ministry(MEnA), in coordination with the competent agencies, shall set standards and norms for collecting, treating, reusing, or disposing wastewater and storm water in a sound manner, which comply with the preservation of the environment and public health”. The policy of PWA regulates the construction of any new treatment plant to be associated with reuse project. As an enforcement of these regulations, draft of the Palestinian Standard for reuse of treated wastewater has been established (Annex 3). Most of the ongoing and planed treatment projects are designed for reuse of treated wastewater, such as Al Bireh, Hebron, Salfit, Nablus, and Gaza Northern Governorate treatment plants (EQA, 2000).

The information provided in Tables 28 and 29 was gathered mainly through questionnaires, field visits and literature searches. The questionnaire (Annex 4), was distributed over three municipalities in Gaza Srip (Beit Lahia, Gaza, and Rafah) and four municipalities in the West Bank (Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus, and Hebron).

Table28: General Characteristics of Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine.

82

1: Common Services Council –North Gaza 2003.2: Gaza municipality, 2003.3: Rafah municipality, 2002.

Table 28: continued

83

pH= 7.65 -

TDS=1078 mg/L 0.50%

Settle Solids= 0.1 mg/L 98.60%

TSS=87 mg/L 81%

Primary Sedimentation TS= 1157 mg/L 29%

Anaerobic lagoon BOD5= 87 mg/L 83.50%

COD=223 mg/L 77%

TVSS=65 mg/L 83%Ammonia= 60 mg/l 18%N-Kjd= 71 mg/l 27%Fecal Coliform/100 mL = 3.28*106

99%

pH= 7.8 -

TDS = 1700 mg/L -11%

SS=0.0 mg/L 100%

TSS= 28.5 mg/L 92.50%

Primary Sedimentation TS= 1727 mg/L 12%

Anaerobic lagoon BOD5= 22.5 mg/L 93%

Aerobic lagoon COD=81 mg/L 86% Irrigation

Trickling filter TVSS = 17 mg/L 94.70% Infiltration

Secondary Sedimentation Ammonia= 46 mg/L -21%

Drying bed for sludge N-Kjd= 56 mg/L 12.50%

Fecal Coliform/100 ml = 9*106

95%

NO3- =0.8 mg/L -

CL = 600 mg/L -

PO4 -3

= 13 mg/L -

pH= 7.45 -

TDS = 1528 mg/L 4.30%

SS =0.53 mg/L 96.25%

TSS= 152 mg/L 73.30%

TS= 1680 mg/L 22.40%

BOD5= 259 mg/L 69%

COD=635 mg/L 57%TVSS = 122 mg/L 75%

Ammonia= 66 ppm 35%N-Kjd= 94 ppm 33%Fecal Coliform/100 mL = 7.5*107

95.70%

Location

Gaz

a St

rip

Bai

t lah

ia 1

Raf

ah3

Mediterranean Sea

Effluent Quantity Effluent Quality

50,000m3 /day

10,000m3/day

Effluent Disposal method

Removal Efficiency

To sand dunes

Mediterranean Sea

8,000m3 /dayAerated lagoons

Type of treatmentMunicipalities

Gaz

a 2

4 :Al-Bireh municipality, 2003.5: Jenin municipality, 1999.6: Environmental Quality Authority, 2002.

Table29: General characteristics of communities’ treatment plants in Palestine

84

Settle Solids=10 mg/L

screening TSS= 152 mg/L

Aeration tanks TS= 1680 mg/LBOD5= 259 mg/LCOD=635 mg/L

pH= 6.924 -BOD5= 593 mg/L 50%

SS = 220 mg/L 83%

Oil and grease= 10.3 mg/L.

92%

Nitrates =0.22 mg/L -83%

N-Kjd= 242 mg/L 22%pH= 7.3 -COD=2000 mg/L 40%DO = 0.1mg/L -N-Kjd= 45.6 mg/L 32%Fecal cloiform/100 mL =4x105 99.90%

Wadis on the outdistrict of Hebron

Al

- Bir

eh

4H

ebro

n 6

Three Stablization ponds

Valleys

Two aerated lagoons

Not available

3200m3/ day

760m3/ day Not available 15%

1650 m3/dayCurrently the plant not

functioning -

Wadi Bitunia

Aerated lagoon

Wes

t Ban

k

Location Removal Efficiency


99% Irrigation

Effluent QualityEffluent Quantity

1370 m3/day

Municipalities Type of treatment

disinfection by UV radiation

1500m3/day

Jeni

n 5

Tulk

arem

6

Stabilization ponds.

Ram

alla

h 6

pH = 8 -TDS = 1476 mg/L -BOD5= <20 mg/L -COD=<50 mg/L >70 %pH = 8.3 -TDS = 900 mg/L -BOD5= <20 mg/L -

Aeration tank COD=20-30 mg/L 80%Screen. pH=7.4 -Equalization Tank. BOD5 =<50 mg/L 88%Activated sludge COD =<100 mg/L 85%Sand Filters. SS=45 mg/L 85%

N-Kjd= 28 mg/L 53%Sedimentation tank COD= 250mg/L -bio-filters BOD5 =100mg/L -Septic tank.Anaerobic filter.Anaerobic stage. COD = 150 mg/L 95.80%Wetlands. NH4= 20 mg/L -Sludge drying beds.Effluent storage tank .Septic tank. COD = 324 mg/L 70%Constructed wetland. TSS= 84 mg/L 95%

Removal Efficiency

Location

Wes

t Ban

k

Small-scale biochemical system (JOHKASOU system)

Deir-Samit- Hebron 1

Kharas - Hebron 1

Sarha- Nabuls3

Al Aroub agriculture

school 1

Duckweed-based pond system

Effluent Quantity

-

40m3/day

Ijnsnya- Nabuls 3 30m3/day Not available

Valleys

Valleys

40m3/day Valleys


Irrigation

The effluent is used for producing

seedling in a forest-tree nursery

constructed for reuse in irrigation or

groundwater recharge.

12-15 m3/day

Valleys120m3/day

Birzeit University2 100m3/day

Effluent QualityCommunities Type of treatment

1: Environmental Quality Authority,2002.2: Birzet University, 2003.3: Nablus municipality, 2003.

5.2 The Main Wastewater Treatment Plants in Palestine

5.2.1 Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine

Beit Lahia Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Beit Lahia wastewater treatment plant is located some 1.5 km east of the town center of Beit Lahia in the northern part of Gaza. It was constructed in stages, commencing in 1976 and modifications were made in 1996 as a result of increased sewage inflow, and it served about 250,000 inhabitants. The plant was designed such that effluent could be used for irrigation. Although the project was partially completed, was not successful as farmers refused to accept the product, as they were worried about the sociocultural acceptability of their produce.

The treatment plant had been designed for a certain capacity to serve up 50,000 inhabi-tants. It was not taken into account that this treatment plant will serve the Jabalia refugee camp in the Northern Governorate (the most dense refugee camp in the area). Therefore, the plant was expanded in 1991 with the help of UNDP funding to increase its capacity to 5,000 m3 per day. Today the plant receives a daily average of 10,000 m3 (or 3.6 million m3 per year), even though there are still areas in the Northern Governorate that are not connected to the sewage system. The daily amount of sewage exceeds the plant’s capacity by far; for many years the plant has been overloaded. Even more problematic is the fact, that this treatment plant has no outlet for the effluent, even though the sea is only 4.5 km away.

The flow of wastewater to the Beit Lahia WWTP is currently directed to the two anaerobic lagoons.There is no either any screening or grit/sand settlement facilities at the site of the treatment plant. The two anaerobic lagoons have a total capacity of 26,053 m³ giving a retention time of 3.72 days at the estimated average daily flow. The two lagoons are equipped with four mixer type jet aerators. However, they are currently not used, and they are not required for the lagoons to operate as anaerobic lagoons. The flow from the anaerobic lagoons passes to two aerobic lagoons. The daily pollution load is 2,934.6 Kg BOD/day. The combined volume of the two lagoons is 26,388 m³ giving a retention time of 3.77 days at average daily flow. The two aerobic lagoons are equipped with eight floating type surface aerators.

85

From the aerobic lagoons the flow passes to the three final lagoons. These lagoons have a total volume of 215,078 m³ giving a retention time of 30.7 days retention at average daily flow.

The original design of the Wastewater treatment plant included four original effluent ponds that would recharge the aquifer or evaporate. However as time passed and the volume of effluent increased, the effluent overflow has formed a lake covering 40 hectares, which has become a significant pollutant of the aquifer and a major environmental health problem for the population surrounding the lake. As a result 14 groundwater wells are no longer being used.

Figure 14 shows that most of the surrounding area in Beit Lahia WWTP is used for agricultural purposes. The trees in the east and north-east area are mainly citrus with some mixed horticultural. The area to the west is mainly greenhouses, which would have crops that would be eaten uncooked. It is recommended to improve the quality of the treated effluent as well as adapt local standards for citrus irrigation. In Figure 14, The yellow area indicates the sewage treatment pools as they appeared on a 1978 satellite image. The treatment pools are not able to handle the growing volumes of influent sewage, and a 40 hectare lake has formed as a result of the overflow.

Figure 14: Beit Lahia Wastewater Treatment Plant, (UNEP Desk study January 2003)

Gaza City Wastewater Treatment PlantGaza Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is mainly serving the municipality of Gaza. The plant is located in an elevated position to the south of the city (in the area of Sheikh Ajleen). The plant covers an area of 130,000 m2. Originally the plant was constructed in 1977 as a two-pond treatment system. It was expanded in 1986 by UNDP when two additional ponds were constructed. Part of this expansion, reuse facilities consisting of three large recharge basins, a booster pumping stations, a 5,000 m³ storage tank, a distribution piping system and an overflow pipeline to the Wadi Gaza were constructed.

86

Recent modifications were made in 1996 with total cost of 15 million US$. The present influent flow rate is 50,000 m3 per day and the population served by plant is 300,000 capita. The plant is still receiving more wastewater exceeds its capacity.

The treatment process at Gaza WWTP, as shown in Figure 15, started with pumping the wastewater to a single inlet chamber. There is no division of flows resulting in unequal distribution to the two anaerobic lagoons. Flows from the inlet chamber pass to sedimentation tank, then it pass to two anaerobic lagoons. The two anaerobic lagoons have a combined capacity of 46,400 m³. The retention time at average daily flow is 2.9 days. From the anaerobic lagoons flow passes to a single aerobic lagoon of capacity 43,700 m³ (Figure 16), at average daily flow the retention time in this lagoon is 2.73 days.

Figure 15: Treatment Process System of Gaza WWTP

From the aerobic lagoons flow passes to two trickling filter, then to secondary sedimentation tank, then to the pumping station where flows are transferred to the disinfection unit (chlorination), which is currently is not working. The trickling filter had faced a local damage from Israil military action as indicated in Figure 17.

87

About 70% of the treated effluent flows to the sea, 26% infiltrates to the ground water, and 4% is used to irrigate a small scale agriculture land located near the WWTP (a farm of 2 hectare consists of olive tress and citrus). The potential for reuse of wastewater is high if restricted use is applied for both agricultural and aquifer recharge.

Figure 16: View of the aerobic lagoon in the Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant (MOFAJ, 1999)

Figure 17: Damage sustained to the Wastewater Treatment Plant in Gaza from Israel Military Action (UNEP Desk study January 2003)

Rafah Wastewater Treatment Plant:The existing Rafah Wastewater Treatment Plant (Rafah WWTP) is serving the municipality of Rafah and it is located to the northeast of the town between Tul El-Sultan and the border with Egypt. The plant was constructed in 1987 with total cost of around 1.3 million US$, and an area of 30,000 m2. It is designed for a capacity of 40,000 m3/day,

88

while the present total inflow is 8000 m3/day, and it servers a population of 80,000 inhabitants.

Originally the site of Rafah WWTP was intended for use as a lagoon for retention only. The site became a breeding ground for mosquitoes; therefore a number of improvements were added in 1992. The improvements included the addition of a microstrainer type screen on the inlet to the site, mechanical aerators to the lagoon, disinfection and pump discharge to the sea. These measures overcame the immediate problems of the site.

Microstrainer type screen was added to reduce solids loading on the plant. The screen is no longer functional and is not considered as an appropriate technology for the situation. The flow bypasses the screen and enters the single lagoon. The lagoon has an estimated capacity of 31,200 m³ and is provided with 4 mechanical floating aerators and 2 mixing type jet aerators. The aerators in the lagoon are not functionlised that leads to operate the lagoon as an aerobic lagoon with a retention time 6.96 days.

Currently the performance of the existing plant does not have an effective treatment process and can only be considered to give a basic settlement process. The only current viable use for treated wastewater in Rafah area is for agricultural irrigation. The area close to the Rafah WWTP is used the treated wastewater for greenhouses, citrus and mixed horticulture. These include crops eaten uncooked and therefore require an effluent for reuse to be of a quality suitable for unrestricted use.

A large area in the west of the WWTP, which is cultivated by dates, almonds and rainfed crops is not yet fully utilized due to lack of water resource. This area may utilize treated wastewater for restricted or unrestricted use according to the reused wastewater stanandard.

Al- Bireh Wastewater Treatment PlantAl Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant (Al Bireh WWTP) is located in Wadi Al-Ein (south of Al-Bireh city) over 2.2 ha area. The plant was constructed in 2000 with a total cost of € 7 million. The plant is designed to serve more than 100,000 inhabitants. The connected population to sewers system in Al-Bireh city is about 60%, (50,000 inhabitants). Al-Bireh WWTP is designed to treat 5750 m3/day with an overall retention time of 20 days. The present total inflow is 3200 m3/day. The treatment system is extended aeration with mechanical solids handling (Figure 18).

Preliminary treatment of wastewater influent is accomplished by grit removal and screening. After that it is diverted equally to two parallel aeration tanks, each of them has capacity volume of 7000 m3, surface area of 1000 m2 and 6 m depth. The effluent of aeration tank is diverted to two parallel final clarifies, and then most of the sludge goes to the thickener for dewatering. After passing through the clarifiers the effluent is disinfected by a UV- disinfection system for enhancing the pathogen removal.

89

The effluent is discharged to a storage basin of 1200 m3 from where it is disposed in Wadi Al-Ein and partially pumped in the non-potable water system of WWTP. The reclaimed water has aproven water quality of 10/10/20 mg/l BOD/TSS/N and a fecal coliform level lower than 100 CPU/100 ml.

The final treated wastewater effluent planed to be used for the agricultural purposes in Dir-Dabwan land where large uncultivated areas existed. About 2% of the treated wastewater (60 m3/day) is suppose to be used to irrigate 0.54 ha open area and 600 m2

plastic houses. This plan is not yet implemented.

Figure 18: Al-Bireh Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Palestine, (2001 Consulting Engineering Center)

Jenin wastewater treatment plantJenin city has a small wastewater treatment plant located at Al-Basateen area. The plant was constructed in 1972 and modified in 1993. It has an area of 2.3 ha and a capacity of 760 m3/day.

The existing treatment facility consists of three ponds with a total surface area of 10,500 m2 and a depth of 3 meters. The serial pond system are aerated, facultative and maturation ponds. The system suffers from overloading and poor maintenance due to the Israeli closure to the city. The facultative ponds are full of sludge and garbage, inlet and outlet are clogged, and mechanical facilities are destroyed (Figure 19).

90

Figure 19: Broken Aerator at Jenin Wastewater Treatment Plant: (Desk study, UNEP, 2003)

Ramallah wastewater treatment plantRamallah Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1974, covering an area of 1.33 ha (Figure 20) with a capacity of 5,700 m3/day and one-week retention time. New rehabilitation work financed by KFW is going on in Ramallah WWTP since September 2003. The rehabilitation intends to increase the capacity and treatment efficiency of these units for the expected year 2008 flow conditions This rehabilitation works includes: reconstructing of tow-aerated lagoons and tow stabilization bonds, constructing a new guard, laboratory, blower’s room, maintenance works at the chlorination and generator room. New electrical and mechanical system has been installed to meet the requirement of the new system. A new headwork facility, which contains septage-unloading facility, mechanical and manual screens, grit removal unit and flow measurement unit, is provided at the entrance to the treatment plant. All of these facilities were designed for the year 2015 flow condition.

The plant biological system consists of two aerated lagoons operated in parallel (previous mode), each with a volume of 3800 m3. The aerated lagoons followed by two serial facultative lagoons: first one has 5400 m2 surface area, 5400 m3 volume and 36 hours retention time, while the second lagoon is of 4500 m2 surface area, 4500 m3 volume and 60 hours retention time. The rehabilitated aerated lagoons are designed in series with overall retention time of 3.1 day instead of the previous in-parallel mode.

The final stage of treatment was supposed to be chlorination of the effluent. A chlorination building was constructed for this purpose. However, and for “security reasons claims” the Israeil authorities strongly rejected the chlorination and the building was left abandoned. Maintenance works has been executed in the chlorination room during the new rehabilitation project, but chlorine is not allowed to use for the final treatment till now.

91

Ramallah wastewater treatment plant effluent finally discharged in closed conduit 2 Km to Wadi Betunia. Effluent quality is expected to achieve the following average values after the rehabilitation works at the treatment plant.

Parameter Effluent Quality*

BOD 16 mg/lTSS 30 mg/lTN 20 mg/lTP 6.2 mg/lFecal Coliform 937 Helminth Egg Removal Efficiency 95

*This effluent quality is reported during the summer season for year 2003.

Figure 20: Ramallah Wastewater Treatment Plant under Rehabilitation, 2004)

5.2.2 Communities’ treatment plants in Palestine

Al-Aroub agriculture school wastewater treatment plant Al-Aroub Wastewater Treatment Plant as showen in Figure 21 was constructed in 1997. A proper infrastructure were added to the plant such as sewer line, manholes and three small ponds with a dimension of 2*3*0.5 m. Plastic sheet were installed at the bottom of the ponds to prevent seepage. Duckweed (Lemna gibba) fronds were brought and installed in a mixture with wastewater and tap water for cultivation and adaptation, and then it was installed in the ponds (Figure 22). Duckweed-based pond system treats 12-15 m3/day of wastewater from the agriculture school that composed of Al –Aroub College and the adjacent stable of the cows. The effluent water is used for producing seedling in a forest-tree nursery constructed for reuse in irrigation or groundwater recharge.

92

Beside the Duckweed-based system, there is adjacent small-scale biochemical system (JOHKASOU system donated by the Government of Japan) for research investigation. This system consists of anaerobic filter followed by aerated filter (Aeration tank). The system performeds well and the effluent is disinfected. The effluent is also for producing seedlings.

Figure 21: Al-Aroub Wastewater Treatment Facilities, (MOFAJ, 1999)

93

Figure 22: Wastewater treatment plant using duckweed at Al-Aroub School(Palestinian Environmental Authority, 1999)

Birzeit University wastewater treatment plantBirzeit University campus and Wastewater Teatment Plant were established since 1980. The plant has designed for a peak flow 600 m3/day, while the total daily inflow is 100 m3/day. Domestic wastewater from all buildings including the main restaurants and cafeterias as well as various laboratories of Birzeit campus is collected with a central sewerage network.

This plant consists of: screen, and equalization tank (preliminary stage), activated sludge system (secondary stage) and sand filters (advanced stage). The treatment process of the wastewater influent is accomplished in the holding tank to freshen the sewage and control odor problems. From the holding tank the influent is pumped to the aeration basin, where a long period of aeration is combined with a high sludge biomass resulting in a low organic load.

After the biological unit the treated effluent is separated from the suspended solids in an integrated circular secondary tank. The treated effluent is further treated in a slow filter to remove suspended solids. Excess sludge is pumped from the sludge stabilization tank. The treated effluent is used for orchard and landscape irrigation within the university campus.

94

InfluentReservoir Effluent

Setting TankCoarse

Screen

Duckweed Pond

5.3 Planned Waste Water Treatment Plants in Palestine

Several Wastewater Treatment Plants projects that being supported by international donors had planned to be constructed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; however the ongoing conflict has effectively led to the suspension of the implementation of these projects since September 2000.

All planned or proposed treatment plants considered the issue of reuse as a major component, however it was localized solution. Reasons behind the local approach were based on the effluent in the locality, availability of other water resources, expected pumping costs, the public acceptance and the possibility of groundwater or surface water pollution (PECDAR, 1994). The planned WWTP projects are:

Beit-Lahia Wastewater Treatment PlantA new Wastewater Treatment Plant for the Northern Governorate is planned some five km from the existing plant. The Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) completed an environmental impact assessment and a feasibility study for this new plant. The first phase of construction is to be completed by 2012. Transfer of the sewage from the old plant may start as early as 2005, if construction could be started now.

The new sewage collection system will be located in the South-Eastern part of the Northern Governorate far from populated areas. It is designed to provide a capacity of 36,000 m3/day by the completion of phase 1 in 2012 and 62,000 m3/day by 2025. It will be equipped with the most advanced technology, producing water of higher quality than the groundwater in the area.

The Palestinian Cabinet session on 12 January 2004 in Ramallah, approved to allocate one million USD for financing the construction of sewer network to transfer the Beit Lahia treated wastewater to a suitable place taking into account the environmental constrains (Palestine News Agency - WAFA, 2004).

Gaza Palestinian Water Authority and Gaza Municipality prepared a study to expand the capacity of the plant to receive around 75,000 m3/day by year 2007. It was supposed to be funded by USA to cover Gaza Governorate and the middle region. The expansion of Gaza WWTP is terminated since PWA decided to built a main WWTP for the area ( Gaza and Middel Governorates). The plant will be located in east of Bureij camp (Gaza Strip) and it will funded by Germany with a total cost of 60 million US$.

Khan YunisThe Japanese government concluded a feasibility study and a master plan on the construction of sewage network in Khan Yunis City in 1997. A basic design study mission was dispatched in April, 1998, and discussion on the technical problems is now under way to implement the project as promptly as possible. Proposed WWTP location is in Al Fukhary area in the eastern part of Khan Yunis Governorate

95

http://www.wafa.pna.net/

JeninThere is a proposal for a new wastewater treatment plant within Area B on the outskirts of Jenin. This will also include construction of 130 km of sewerage lines, and envisages reuse of effluent for irrigation.

RamallahThere are few plans for construction a new Wastewater Treatment Plant for Ramallah. The plant may be located in Area C, meaning that Israeli approval of the plant is required. Notice that oral approval was reported.

NablusA major investment project for Wastewater Treatment and disposal of Nablus sewage was initiated in 1995. Based on the completed Conceptual Masterplan, the German Government through the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) allocated € 22 millions for the construction of the Nablus-West WWTP including the construction of the main trunk and interceptor. So far, the design and tender documents are completed; the pre-qualification process of contractors is progressing well and the construction activities are due to commence in few months. The German Government also expressed genuine interest in funding the Eastern Treatment Plant. While the current situation in Nablus including the Israeli occupation and the continuous military operation do not encourage for the initiation of plant’s construction.

HebronA detailed design supported by USAID has been established for Hebron Wastewater Treatment Plant. A Biological Nitrogen Removal (BNR) process, which is based on the activated sludge process, has been proposed for meeting effluent design objectives. The plant and associated facilities including the proposed reuse areas and the sludge monofill are planned to be located southeast of the town of Bani Naim in the West Bank.

The regional Hebron WWTP is planned to be constructed in separate phases. The first phase will only provide service for the Hebron Municipality. Future phases of development and construction will provide service to most of towns and villages of the Hebron Governorate. It is expected that the town of Adh-Dahiriyah will be serviced by a separate WWTP. Political and social reasons are causing a temporary stoppage in the project. The capital cost of the project is estimated as US$ 45 million.

Salfeet A detailed feasibility study, preliminary design report and final design have been prepared for Salfeet wastewater collection system, WWTP, and disposal of sewage and the reuse of the treated water in irrigation. Supervision of construction is also rendered. The project involves the design and supervision of construction of a 35 Km wastewater collection system, and a 900 m3/day average flow sewage treatment plant. The project is financed by KFW/GTZ and the construction cost is € 8 million.

96

Rural and Small Communities According to the integrated study and evaluation, a small scale WWTP will be constructed at selected villages in the West Bank. EQA will test the performance of these small WWTP to ensure that the system will work effectively before introducing the system to a large scale There are several small treatment plants are under construction held by the Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG): Nuba and Kharas (Hebron), Hajja and Qaliqilia and Zeita in Tulkaram. It is also developing a full scale wastewater collection, treatment and reuse in the town of Bani Zaid, north of Ramallah.

Hebron City Wastewater Treatment PlantUSAID is financing an ongoing sewerage system project and planned to construct two wastewater treatment plants to be located at Bani-Naim and Adh Dhahiriya. The total project cost is estimated at US$45 million. Treated Wastewater will be used for agricultural purposes, thus providing water to farmers in a drought-prone area.

5.4 Impacts caused by the operation of the Palestinian wastewater treatment plants

There are major real potential health, environmental and economic impacts as a result of poor sanitation, improper disposal of treated and untreated wastewater, and use of raw or partially treated wastewater to irrigate edible crops. These impacts are described below.

Health Impacts:

Irrigation with raw wastewater in the West Bank and to a limited degree in Gaza Strip presents a major health hazard to consumers of vegetables, farm workers and farm workers families. Undersized, poorly planned designed and poorly maintained combined/drainage collection system presents major health hazards in the urban areas of overflow and system surcharging. Raw and partially treated wastewater discharge to groundwater, wadis, and nearshore marine environments presents major potential health hazards. Potential hazards are through direct skin and eye contact, ingestion of water, and consumption of marine animals exposed to the effluent.

Economic Impacts

A healthy community is more productive as measured directly by reduced health costs and minimal time lost on the job. It is measured indirectly, for example, in education where healthy children miss less school.

Ability to produce exportable vegetables and fruits, which meet international standards by not using raw or partially treated wastewater.

97

By not polluting the nearshore environment, the tourist industry is protected from any potentially damaging public health episode.

Environmental Impact

Discharge of poorly treated effluent into the near shore and estuaries is adversely affecting the marine environment.

Irrigation of arid lands will increase the organic content of these lands reducing erosion and increasing water retention, within the salinity limitations.

The reclaimed water contained in the storage reservoirs and treatment ponds will attract and support migratory and resident bird populations. In the same manner these reservoirs will serve as a water source for a wide variety of terrestrial animals.

Use of reclaimed wastewater in maintaining trees in arid regions will reduce the effect of wide erosion (desertification).

5.4.1 Impacts caused by the operation of Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant

The residential area is spreading closer to the plant; the inhabitants are suffering from the odor and mosquito problems. Moreover the WWTP is discharging the partially treated wastewater to the sea, causing marine pollution along the Gaza coastline.

Other important issue is that frequently groundwater quality deterioration was detected. High nitrate levels in drinking water wells were observed due to infiltration of sewage wastewater, from the poorly treated municipal effluent, through the sandy soil.

5.4.2 Impacts caused by the operation of Beit Lahia Wastewater Treatment Plant

Beit Lahia treatment plant could be considered as the main environmental problem in the North of Gaza. The high probability of a sewage spill threatens the entire North Area with a population of 250,000 inhabitants. It is the cause for severe health problems, and economic losses. Due to the contamination of groundwater, the entire North Area of Gaza experiences an unusual high number of water-borne diseases. In January 2003 alone, the Palestinian Ministry of Health recorded the following diseases in North Gaza:

Table 30: Water-borne diseases reported in North Gaza, 2003Disease New Cases in

JanuaryI. Meningococcal Meningitis 3Hepatitis A 7

98

Typhus 2Aerial Diseases 182Pneumonia 16Ascariasis 47Enuresis 75Giardiasis 83(Diarrhea (children under 3 years) 231

Source: Al-Mezan center for human rights, 2003

Living at the very edges of the treatment plant and its overflow, the surrounding population is the most affected group in the North Area. They suffer from the contamination of their groundwater sources, from the foul gases produced by the effluent lake and the sewage pools, and from millions of mosquitoes that find an ideal breeding environment in and around the lake.

The most common and problematic health hazard is parasites and helminths, transmitted by the mosquitoes. The second kind of health problems prevalent in this area is skin infections and allergies. Villagers suffer from ulcers, itching, and rashes. With thousands of mosquitoes swamping the area, especially at the beginning of summer, many people have developed allergies.

Theoretically, the aquifer in this area makes this land suitable for agriculture. In reality, the contamination of groundwater and soil by the sewage has made it very difficult to use the land for agricultural purposes. Also, the harvest had to be destroyed by the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, because sewage spills had wasted the crops.

The pools have direct economic impact that is connected with the notorious health problems of many community members. Respiratory and digestive diseases impair people’s physical abilities to work, in some cases they force workers to give up their jobs completely.

Beside the permanent hazards to the environment and to people’s health, the treatment pools also present a significant security threat to the surrounding areas. The consequences of spills and floodings affect not only the surrounding area, but the entire area, including Beit Lahia’s population of around 55,000. On two occasions, in 1989 and 1992, the sand barriers already collapsed under the pressure of the overflow. As a result, the sewage flooded houses and land in Beit Lahia, causing severe environmental, economic and health problems.

5.4.3 Impacts caused by Israeli colonies

99

Many Jewish colonies located within the Palestinians Territories freely release their sewage onto the surrounding lands, destroying crops and polluting water supplies. In a recent survey of 170 Palestinian villages, 70 suffered directly from their location close to colonies, and of these villages, 60% reported health problems directly related to settlement polluting activity, (ARIJ, 1999).

The total number of the Israeli colonies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is 185, and the total surface area of these colonies measures 10183.5 hectare. Table 31 demonstrates the distribution of the Israeli colonies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

Table 31: distribution of the Israeli colonies in the West Bank and Gaza StripArea Number of colonies Area (Hectare)West Bank 167 8419.9

Gaza Strip 18 1763.6

Total 185 10183.5PASSIA,2000

Also, there are areas under the Israeli control that are bigger than the area on which these colonies are built. They are built on agricultural lands and woodlands leading to negative effects on the environmental conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip due to its wide spread from the south to the north. Remarkable effects on the environmental conditions are:

Precluding the Palestinian people from using the groundwater reservoir because these colonies are constructed over their lands.

Contaminating groundwater by discharging wastewater into the areas of sand dunes and valleys where the best-quality water is available.

Polluting the marine water Erecting sewage-processing stations over the best-quality groundwater reservoir.

Detailed information about threats to the Palestinian environment fro the Israeli colonies are presented in Annex 3.

5.5 Needs assessment for removal efficiencies and reuse criteria

The reuse of wastewater as a valuable commodity is becoming increasingly more important in areas where water is at a premium. This particularly applies to the Palestinian Territories where demand is exceeding resources. Use of wastewater in lieu of natural water supplies can alleviate demand upon potable water resources. Here are several acceptable applications for reuse of treated effluent. These include: Agricultural Irrigation, Landscape Irrigation, Non-potable Urban Uses, Industrial Reuse, Groundwater Recharge and Recreational uses.

100

Agricultural and landscape irrigation is the most commonly used application for reuse of treated effluent. This includes growth of food-chain crops as well as maintenance of landscaping at parks and roadsides. Recreational /Environmental uses include fisheries, feeding of lakes and ponds and stream flow augmentation.

Non-potable uses include industrial reuse and other urban applications. Industrial reuse options include cooling, boiler and process make-up waters. Other urban uses include fire protection, air conditioning and toilet flushing.

Groundwater recharge is also an acceptable reuse alternative, but it begins the consideration of direct effects on the public health.

While each of the above alternatives is acceptable, each comes with its own set of concerns and considerations for treatment. Issues include the level of required treatment, public health effects and public acceptance. Since no demand currently exists for industrial reuse, criteria for such uses are not addressed herein. The use of wastewater for irrigation and aquifer recharge are both relevant to Palestine. A discussion of criteria for these issues is included.

Irrigation Different organizations throughout the world have reviewed the above alternatives and developed guidelines for reuse of treated effluent. One of the most prominent authorities is the World Health Organization (WHO). Many local authorities have developed their own guidelines based either on independent reviews of data and/or adaptation of WHO guidelines. This is particularly true in the Middle East where reuse is an accepted practice.

The WHO guidelines are primarily applicable to agriculture, aquaculture and unrestricted irrigation purposes. They are not as stringent as United States, some EU Countries and Japanese regulations developed for urban applications where the public health of large populations is a concern. However, many countries in the world refer to the WHO recommendations for minimum criteria.

According to the World Health Organization, the prime objective in treating wastewater for agricultural reuse is removal of pathogens. Quality standards for wastewater reuse are often expressed in terms of maximum permissible number of fecal coliform bacteria and helminths. Fecal coliforms are less satisfactory as indicators of excreted virusus in relation to protozoa and helminths so the latter are recommended (Table32).

Standards or guidelines for the quality of wastewater to be used for unrestricted crop irrigation, including that for salad and vegetable crops eaten raw, have generally specified (a) explicit standards (e.g. maximum numbers of coliforms) and (b) minimum treatment requirements (primary, secondary or tertiary) according to the class of crop to be irrigated (consumable or non-consumable). The standards developed in the past have tended to be very strict as they were based on a theoretical evaluation of the potential health risks

101

associated with pathogen survival in wastewater and soil and crops rather than on firm epidemiological evidence of actual risk. New guidelines are less stringent standards for fecal coliforms; however, they are stricter than previous standards in respect of helminth eggs (Ascaris and Trichuris species and hookworms). In effluents, to a level of one or less per liter, appropriate treatment processes must remove 99.9% of all helminth eggs.

Table 32: Recommended Microbiological Quality Guidelines for Wastewater Use in AgricultureCategory Reuse

ConditionsExposedGroup

Intestinalnematodes (arthmeticmean no. of eggs per liter)

Fecal coliforms(geometric no. per 100 ml)

Wastewater treatment expected to achieve the required microbiological quality

A

Irrigation or crops likely to be eaten uncooked, sports fields, public parks

Workers, consumers,

public< 1

< 1000( 2 (for

public lawns)

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

B

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

Workers <1 No standardrecommended

Retention in stablization ponds for 8-10 days or

equivalent helminth and faecal coliform removal

C

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

None Not applicable Not applicable Pretreatment as required

Source: World Health Organization, 1989.

Stabilization ponds with a retention time of 8-10 days are considered effective in achieving this, but other technologies are also available.

Tertiary treatment is used to upgrade effluents from conventional secondary treatment for helminth eggs as well as to reduce fecal coliforms. An appropriate tertiary treatment is to add one or more ponds in series to a conventional treatment plant. As per WHO recommendations, the addition of such “polishing” ponds is a suitable means of upgrading an existing wastewater treatment plant so that the effluent can be used for irrigation of agricultural crops. It should be pointed out that treated effluent must also comply with international standards regarding biological and chemical parameter quality limits (BOD, COD, SS, etc.).

In general, wastewater treatment in industrialized countries requires a higher level of quality prior to reuse. In most cases, advanced secondary or tertiary treatment is required.

102

The higher level of treatment is also being required in developed and developing countries where the standards of living are high. This represents an effort on the part of local governments to protect public health while both maintaining the standard of living and conscientiously working to conserve water resources.

Examples of other Middle Eastern country water reuse requirements include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia and Jordan. (Annex 2) present treatment requirements for these respective countries.

In comparison with the WHO and International guidelines for treated wastewater reuse, the Palestinian draft of guidelines, which apply mainly to agricultural applications for unrestricted irrigation, considerably differs from the International and neighboring countries' standards, for example; BOD value for landscape lawns and parks irrigation in the Palestinian draft is 40 mg/l, while in Tunisia 30 mg/l and in Saudi Arabia 10 mg/l. (for detailed information see Annex 2 and 3).

5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.6.1 Conclusions

The evaluation of the existing situation related to Wastewater Treatment Plants in Palestine, can be concluded as:

Most of the existing wastewater treatment plants in Palestine are overloaded with low removal efficiency.

Insufficient financing and the lack of qualified engineers, scientists and technicians inversely affects the removal efficiency.

Continuous Israeli closures disable and prevent conducting regular maintenance for WWTPs.

5.6.2 Recommendations

Urban wastewater infrastructure should be rehabilitated.

Palestinian cities should be fully covered with sewer system services, and wastewater treatment facilities.

New constructed wastewater treatment plants in the Palestinian cities should consider the reuse alternatives from the outset.

103

The conceptual Palestinian standard for reuse should be updated.

The public attitude toward the reuse of treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation requires more efforts to increase its public acceptance.

104

6. TURKEY


Most recently, there are 81 provinces in Turkey, having Governors acting as representatives of the Central Government. Sixteen of these provinces are Greater Metropolitan cities, whose municipalities are allowed to solve their problems with their own budget. However, the municipalities of the other cities do not have the freedom and financial capability to solve the problems by themselves. Concerning the construction of urban wastewater treatment plants, Iller Bank (Bank of Provinces) is in charge of tendering, design and construction of plants, whereas the operation and maintenance are under the Municipalities responsibility.

Table 33 summarizes the distribution of UWWTP in Turkey and Figure 23 shows the provinces of the country with respect to the number of UWWTP. Appendix Table A1 gives the detailed count of plants regarding to each of the provinces indicating the names of the plants. As can be observed from Table 33, 43 provinces have urban wastewater treatment plants. There are a total number of 129 urban wastewater treatment plants (UWWTP) in operation in the country according to the recent official records (Municipalities, 2003). A total number of 28 plants in cities are those that are located in 12 of the Greater Metropolitan cities. For example, Istanbul Greater Metropolitan City, being the most crowded city of the country, has 13 urban wastewater treatment plants (UWWTP) followed by 3 plants in the highly industrialized province Kocaeli, in the vicinity of Istanbul. The provinces are coded regarding to their driving plate numbers. A number of 68 plants distributed among Municipalities of provinces are those that are either constructed in the provinces that are not declared as Metropolitan Cities or in the towns of Metropolitan cities with a population >15000. Adana Province for example, is a Metropolitan city, bears 2 UWWTP under the control of Greater Municipality and 2 plants in 2 of its towns. Communities are defined within the context of this report as residential sites with population < 15000. There exist 33 plants in various communities.

Figure 23: Provinces of Turkey and distribution of UWWTP

105

Table 33: The distribution of UWWTP and population served in Turkey-Summary

No ProvinceNumber of Wastewater Treatment Plants Population Served

City Municipalities Communities Total City Municipalities Communities Total1 Adana, TR-01 2 2 0 4 1.500.000 106.000 0 1.606.0002 Adıyaman, TR-02 0 1 1 2 0 18.700 6.920 25.6203 Afyon, TR-03 0 1 0 1 0 150.000 0 150.0004 Ankara, TR-06 1 0 1 2 3.000.000 0 10.000 3.010.0005 Antalya, TR-07 1 10 3 14 250.000 454.181 17.331 721.5126 Aydin, TR-09 0 3 2 5 0 287.396 11.160 298.5567 Balikesir, TR-10 0 3 1 4 0 46.500 24.038 70.5388 Bolu, TR-14 0 1 1 2 0 23.929 6.364 30.2939 Burdur, TR-15 0 1 0 1 0 17.300 0 17.30010 Bursa, TR-16 2 2 3 7 1.194.687 190.624 19.440 1.404.75111 Canakkale, TR-17 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.950 1.95012 Corum, TR-19 0 1 0 1 0 160.000 0 160.00013 Elazig, TR-23 0 1 0 1 0 185.000 0 185.00014 Erzincan, TR-24 0 1 0 1 0 125.000 0 125.00015 Eskisehir, TR-26 1 0 0 1 300.000 0 0 300.00016 Gaziantep, TR-27 1 1 0 2 860.000 71.820 0 931.82017 Hatay, TR-31 0 1 0 1 0 438.000 0 438.00018 Isparta, TR-32 0 2 0 2 0 166.905 0 166.90519 Icel, TR-33 1 1 2 4 537.842 217.500 8.037 763.37920 Istanbul, TR-34 11 0 2 13 12.790.000 0 11.370 12.801.37021 Izmir, TR-35 2 2 2 6 2.600.000 41.163 215 2.641.37822 Kayseri, TR-38 1 0 0 1 525.000 0 0 525.00023 Kocaeli, TR-41 3 0 3 6 456.000 0 19.600 475.60024 Konya, TR-42 0 3 1 4 0 109.000 4.286 113.28625 Kutahya, TR-43 0 2 0 2 0 205.000 0 205.00026 Manisa, TR-45 0 3 1 4 0 388.600 3.001 391.601

106

Table 33: The distribution of UWWTP and population served in Turkey-Summary (continued)

No ProvinceNumber of Wastewater Treatment Plants Population Served

City Municipalities Communities Total City Municipalities Communities Total27 Kahramanmaras, TR-46 0 0 1 1 0 0 5.316 5.31628 Mugla, TR-48 0 1 4 5 0 29.004 25.100 54.10429 Nevsehir, TR-50 0 1 1 2 0 16.000 11.912 27.91230 Nigde, TR-51 0 2 0 2 0 107.900 0 107.90031 Ordu, TR-52 0 3 0 3 0 226.912 0 226.91232 Sakarya, TR-54 2 0 0 2 515.000 0 0 515.00033 Samsun, TR-55 0 2 1 3 0 106.347 10.000 116.34734 Tekirdag, TR-59 0 1 0 1 0 91.112 0 91.11235 Trabzon, TR-61 0 3 0 3 0 257.449 0 257.44936 Sanliurfa, TR-63 0 2 0 2 0 425.979 0 425.97937 Van, TR-65 0 2 0 2 0 208.352 0 208.35238 Zonguldak, TR-67 0 3 1 4 0 194.530 5.836 200.36639 Aksaray, TR-68 0 1 0 1 0 150.000 0 150.00040 Karaman, TR-70 0 1 0 1 0 74.900 0 74.90041 Igdir, TR-76 0 1 0 1 0 59.880 0 59.88042 Yalova, TR-77 0 1 1 2 0 68.716 8.863 77.57943 Duzce, TR-81 0 2 0 2 0 120.000 0 120.000 TOTAL 28 68 33 129 24.528.529 5.539.699 210.739 30.278.967

107


The population served according to the grouping of city, municipalities and communities is given in Table 33. It is observed from the table that most of the population benefiting from UWWTP is that residing in the Greater Metropolitan cities. However, the Greater Metropolitan Municipalites have still not managed to construct and operate sufficient number of UWWTP. For example, total population served account to approximately 45 % of the country’s overall population, according to ITU estimates. However, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality apperantly do not serve for the entire city, an only 6 million citizens are connected to a treatment plant according to SIS figures. Thereby, a conflict arises in that total population served according to ITU figures correspond to 45% whereas according to SIS figures this is 35%. METU group also accepts the latter figure in this report. The rate of municipal population to total population of the country has been stated as approximately 80% in year 1997 (SIS, 2000). In the years of 1995 and 1998, the number of municipalities having wastewater treatment facility has been recorded as 115 and 119, respectively (SIS, 1995 and 1998), with the expectation that this figure would increase up to a number of 129 in year 2000. Owing to the financial constraints and the economic crises faced in the period of 2001-2002, this foreseen number of plants has been realized by the end of December 2003 (Municipalities, 2003). Another reason of delays in establishing treatment facilities is due to the lack of coordination between the related institutions which highly affect the distribution of infrastructure investments. Besides, the quantitative insufficiency in municipalities’ technical personnel lead to troubles in operation of infrastructure facilities, accomplishment of repair, maintenance and renewal works. The share of infrastructure in the general budget that is gradually decreasing has increased the external credit demands of the municipalities. The financing and equipment provided from abroad are more expensive than in the domestic market that raises the costs of projects with foreign credits (SPO, 2001).

In the 8th Five year Development Plan of Turkey (SPO, 2001), it has been stated that within the term 2001-2005, effective coordination shall be ensured among the institutions operating in the sector of treatment facilities and suitable technologies shall be sought and used effectively, and the equipment requirements shall be met primarily from the domestic market. Promotion of Build-Operate or Build-Operate-Transfer models in new investments shall be encouraged. There exist some examples of that model. In the municipalities with a population over 100 000, arrangements shall be made towards the establishment of water and sewerage administration. Wastewater standards shall be re-identified according to the EU standards.

108


The type of treatment employed in each of the UWWTP is stated in detail in Appendix Table A2 based upon the updated information gathered from the municipalities. Among the total number of 129 treatment plants, 46 of them are physical treatment plants, 74 consist of biological treatment units and 9 bear advanced treatment. The distribution of existing plants according to treatment technologies applied are 36% physical, 57% biological and 7% advanced. Most of the advanced treatment practices take place in coastal Greater Metropolitan Municipalities like Istanbul, Izmir, and Antalya that discharge their effluent to the sea.


For quantitative and qualitative data collection on UWWTPs, cities having UWWTPs were divided among ITU and METU groups according to geographical regions. Survey region of METU group includes the Central, Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, whereas the survey region of ITU group covers the Marmara and Aegean regions. The cities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions were partly covered by the groups (Appendix Figure A). According to this distribution, ITU group was responsible for listing and investigating 73 UWWTPs, while METU group was responsible for 56 UWWTPs. Among these UWWTPs, the groups selected representative plants. The key factors considered during the selection are population served, satisfactory operation of the plant, proximity to agricultural land, and sufficient reuse potential.

Istanbul Technical University (ITU) has selected 22 UWWTPs. 5 of these plants discharge their effluent to coastal and marine environment whereas the others are either discharged to receiving freshwater like rivers, creeks, and reservoirs or to land. Out of the 22 selected plants, 12 of them have been visited by one of the ITU’s subcontractor. Aritim Muhendislik who has also gathered the grab samples to be further analyzed by ITU staff in the Environmental Engineering Lab of ITU. The rest was under the responsibility of the other subcontractor of ITU, TUBITAK- MAM, who has collected the grab samples and conducted the experimental analysis during November- December 2003 in their own laboratory, called ESERI. The samples were preserved and analyzed according to Standard Methods (APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1998). Table 34 gives the effluent quantity and quality of these selected plants based upon the recent experimental analyses.

METU has selected 37 UWWTPs to investigate in detail. During the inventory, data were collected from different sources by various ways. Survey forms were prepared in parallel to SIS Sewerage and Wastewater Statistics Survey forms, but with more emphasis on reuse practices, were sent out to and received from selected UWWTPs. In order to confirm the data collected, direct contact with most of the plants was established.

Appendix Table A.2. indicates effluent quantity, treatment technology and effluent disposal methods for Turkish UWWTP. The general survey results of the selected

109

UWWTP in Turkey who have responded to the questionnaires of both groups are referred in Appendix Table A3.

The current national legislation on treated wastewater discharges are specified in Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation dated 1988 (WPCR, 1988). This legislation refers to discharge limits to various receiving water bodies. The main control parameters include chemical oxygen demand, COD, suspended solids, SS, and pH especially for discharging to receiving water with limits of 140 mg/l, 45 mg/l and 6-9, respectively. Most of the selected plants are seen to obey these limits.

110

Table 34: Results of recent grab experimental analysis of selected municipal wastewater treatment plants (ITU Group)

NoCode Number of Treatment

Plant

Effluent Quantity(m3/year)

Effluent Quality

pH (-)

COD (mg/l)

TSS (mg/l)

TKN (mg/l)

TP (mg/l)

Conductivity (µS.cm)

SAR(-)

SO42-

(mg/l)Cl-

(mg/l)

Fecal Coliform

(CFU/100ml)

Boron(mg/L)

1 TR-03-01 7.300.000 7,80 130 30 22,2 3,4 1.650 41,9 145 202 43.200 0,4002 TR-16-03 23.360.000 8,15 195 50 12,7 0,7 2.200 119,4 160 325 14.500 0,2203 TR-34-04 1.095.000 7,20 40 25 4,0 1,2 620 8,0 105 45 5 0,1404 TR-34-05 23.725.000 6,60 60 15 2,2 0,9 825 17,9 105 95 3.500 0,5705 TR-34-06 82.125.000 7,40 165 35 24,3 3,0 9.250 164,9 535 2.390 12.000 0,7006 TR-34-07 1.905.665 7,30 93 20 17,9 6,2 1.700 50,1 150 410 5.000 0,5007 TR-48-02 1.241.000 7,70 170 50 1,5 0,5 13.000 168,9 684 3.740 9.600 0,6508 TR-81-01 87.600.000 7,35 107 10 8,1 2,6 700 16,7 50 98 27.000 0,4709 TR-48-03 109.500 6,80 63 15 3,9 8,0 2.500 64,9 125 690 300 0,50010 TR-35-05 87.600 7,65 107 60 31,1 7,2 1.650 24,9 65 260 17.000 0,25011 TR-54-01 36.500.000 7,05 30 15 1,2 0,9 800 12,9 60 97 26.000 0,28012 TR-32-01 13.870.000 7,50 126 30 30,7 1,7 1.125 23,6 60 110 28.800 0,45013 TR-09-03 3.942.000 7,78 248 34 60,0 63,0 1.764 20,6 223 127 106 0,06614 TR-43-02 14.892.000 7,66 32 10 48,0 7,4 941 6,6 65 44 106 0,04315 TR-45-03 10.585.000 7,98 110 50 39,2 11,4 1.119 11,1 80 76 106 0,02816 TR-45-01 3.504.000 7,33 285 50 94,0 44,0 1.902 34,7 88 472 106 0,03517 TR-45-02 1.024.920 7,40 100 60 47,3 15,0 1.289 34,7 196 69 106 0,05518 TR-07-11 8.030.000 7,33 17 2 28,5 21,3 1.074 16,3 112 132 106 0,04219 TR-07-12 3.914.625 7,45 50 15 23,1 14,2 745 17,0 37 195 106 0,03620 TR-55-03 146.000 6,90 60 55 24,2 14,3 1.319 18,4 52 104 106 0,04921 TR-35-01 144.740.240 8,03 22 7 5,0 5,1 8.590 99,1 440 3.276 0 1,18022 TR-48-01 2.190.000 7,86 30 26 11,2 12,2 7.380 153,1 308 2.380 0 0,865

111


6.5.1 Effluent Discharge

The last column of Appendix Table A2 lists the 129 UWWTPs under operation according to their final disposal methods. A breakdown of the effluent receiving bodies, the total effluent flow for each category and the respective percentages are summarized in Table 35. Treated municipal effluent is mainly discharged into flowing receiving water bodies like rivers, creeks, and coastal and deep sea environment. Those discharged to rivers and creeks are partly directly and/or indirectly used for irrigation purposes.

Table 35: Overall effluent discharge methods and practices in Turkey

Effluent Disposal Code*

Effluent Disposal Method

Number of Plants

% of Total Number of

Plants

Total Effluent

Flow(m3/year)

% of Total

Effluent Flow

1 Land (agricultural area)

17 13131,319,517 13.2

2 Dams, lakes 10 8 68,622,832 7.83 Coastal and marine 49 38 1,150,746,062 38.04 Streams, rivers and

creeks53 41

732,780,646 41.1Total 129 100 2,083,469,057 100

* As indicated in Appendix Table A2

Among the selected 59 treatment plants for which detailed data were collected, 26 discharge their effluents into streams and rivers of various sizes. Sixteen discharge their effluents into seas (Black Sea, Marmara Sea or Mediterranean); seven of them into the lakes-reservoirs; and ten of them onto the land. Impact of the wastewater discharge into these receiving bodies of water is discussed in Section 6.6 of this report.

6.5.2 Wastewater Reuse

In Turkey, domestic wastewater is used for irrigation either directly or indirectly. Direct denotes reuse of effluents directly in agricultural irrigation, whereas “indirect” indicates reuse through a receiving body. In arid areas in which irrigation activities should be increased for crop production, direct irrigation is experienced. Sustainability of irrigation in contemporary agricultural practices is being negatively affected by some constraints in Turkey that are mainly restrictions on soil, water and energy resources, changes in economic conditions, growing environmental consciousness, and wrong decisions in irrigation system management.

For the TPs studied by METU, quantity and type of reuse is indicated in Table 36. METU survey results suggest that from the surveyed UWWTPs, 12 of them use their treated wastewater for irrigation. 9 UWWTPs state indirect reuse, whereas 3 state direct reuse of the effluent in agricultural irrigation. 27 of the UWWTPs indicated no reuse for their discharges; however, the effluents discharged to rivers are presumably being indirectly used for irrigational purposes. Moreover, SIS data indicate that there are some locations where irrigational reuse of untreated effluents is practiced.

112

The three TPs where direct irrigation is practiced (Igdir, Konya-Kadinhani and Nigde-Bor) irrigated land accounts for 5250 hectares of field. The effluents from central TPs of Eskisehir and Gaziantep are used to irrigate 50,000 and 8,000 hectares, respectively, which are the largest among the reported indirect irrigation practices.

Table 36: Quantity and Type of Reuse (METU Group)

TP Code Name of Treatment Plant Discharge (m3/year)

Receiving Body Irrigation Status/Type

TR-01-03 Kozan Municipality WWTP 278.000 Kozan Stream Indirect / FieldTR-01-04 Yumurtalik Municipality Packet WWTP 11.000

(Winter) 219.000

(Summer)

Ayas Creek Indirect

TR-02-01 Adiyaman WWTP (Egricayi Stabilization) 3.153.600 Ataturk Dam NoTR-68-01 Aksaray Municipality WWTP 9.125.000 Karasu Creek IndirectTR-06-01 ASKI Ankara WWTP 192.695.545 Ankara Stream Indirect / FieldTR-07-01 Hurma Biological WWTP 16.425.000 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-02 Alanya Municipality Central WWTP 16.425.000 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-06 Kemer Municipality WWTP 3.847.392 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-03 Beldibi Municipality WWTP 4.099.680 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-04 Camyuva Municipality WWTP 4.162.752 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-05 Goynuk Municipality WWTP 3.532.032 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-07 Tekirova Municipality WWTP 2.049.840 Akdeniz (Creek) NoTR-07-10 Colakli Municipality WWTP 912.500 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-07-08 Manavgat Municipality Sewerage TP 5.500.000 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-15-01 Bucak Municipality WWTP 160.600 Kizilbucak Canal NoTR-23-01 Elazig Municipality WWTP 14.600.000 Keban Dam NoTR-24-01 Erzincan Municipality WWTP 8.760.000 Karasu River NoTR-26-01 ESKI WWTP 24.820.000 Porsuk Stream Indirect / FieldTR-27-01 GASKI WWTP 73.000.000 S. Creek Indirect / FieldTR-27-02 Nizip Domestic WWTP 3.650.000 N. Stream NoTR-31-01 Iskenderun Municipality WWTP 10.950.000 Gulf of Iskenderun NoTR-76-01 Igdir Municipality WWTP 2.185.620 Aras River DirectTR-32-01 Isparta Municipality Domestic WWTP 10.950.000 SHW Discharge Canal NoTR-38-01 Kayseri WWTP 32.850.000 Karasu Creek Indirect / Field

and Feed PlantTR-33-01 Mersin Greater Municipality WWTP 52.560.000 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-33-03 Aydincik Municipality WWTP 6.800.000 Mediterranean Sea NoTR-33-02 Tarsus Municipality WWTP 12.045.000 Berdan Stream NoTR-42-01 Aksehir Municipality Sewerage TP 3.784.320 Aksehir Lake NoTR-42-02 Ilgin Municipality WWTP 1.095.000 Bulasan Stream Indirect / FieldTR-42-03 Kadinhani Municipality WWTP 1.356.048 Drainage Canal Direct / FieldTR-50-01 Avanos Municipality Ananas WWTP 912.500 Kizilirmak River NoTR-50-02 Urgup Municipality Biological WWTP 32.850.000 Damsa Stream IndirectTR-51-02 Nigde Municipality WWTP 6.832.800 Akkaya Dam NoTR-51-01 Bor Municipality WWTP 2.828.750 Emen Plain Direct / FieldTR-52-01 Fatsa Municipality WWTP 2.000.000 Black Sea NoTR-52-03 Unye Municipality WWTP 1.780.000 Black Sea NoTR-63-01 Sanliurfa Municipality WWTP 15.833.198 Land NoTR-61-02 Moloz-Degirmen Dere-Cimenli Pumping

Station and DSD1.900.000 Black Sea No

TR-61-01 Arakli Canal 1.642.500 Black Sea NoTR-61-03 Yomra Municipality WWTP 473.040 Black Sea No

113

6.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied with respect to the environment, the employees, farmers and public health

6.6.1 Pollution Status and Impacts on the Receiving Bodies

As seen from Table 36, the majority of the TPs discharge their effluents to running water courses. Receiving body water quality classes based on the data provided by State Hydraulic Works (SHW) in some selected locations are shown in Table 37. It was not possible to judge the impacts caused by the discharges from all of the TPs on the receiving body water qualities due to lack of quality data. As seen from Table 37, although discharge water quality for Aksaray Municipality Wastewater TP which provides only primary treatment, is not available, it is obvious that there is a substantial impact on its receiving body as indicated by the water quality class variation. Relative flowrates of TP and Karasu Creek also suggest how great an impact can be expected if discharge standard compliance is not achieved.

Table 37: Receiving Body Water Quality Classes and Impacts Caused by TP discharges

Province TP name TP-Qm3/yr DSC RB RB- Q

m3/yr

RB CLASS*

(upstream)

RB CLASS (down

stream)

ImpactCaused

Adana Doğu Adana WWTP NA NA Seyhan

River 6.2x106 II II No impact

Aksaray Aksaray Municipality WWTP

9x106 NA Karasu Creek 5.3x106 II IV Very high

impact

Ankara ASKİ Ankara WWTP 192x106 Yes Ankara

Creek NA IV NA

No impact (already polluted

upstream)Eskişehir ESKİ

WWTP 24.8x106 Yes Porsuk Stream 286x106 III III Low impact

Gaziantep GASKİ WWTP 73x106 Yes S.Creek NA NA III Not known

İçel Tarsus Municipality WWTP

12x106 Yes Berdan Stream 2.8x109 II II Low impact

Kayseri Kayseri WWTP 33x106 Yes Karasu

Creek 123x106 IV IV Low impact

RB: receiving body; Q: flow rate; DSC: discharge standard compliance; NA: data not available* The RB classes refer to the Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation Quality Classes

6.6.2 Health Impacts

There are no direct records of epidemiological evidence concerning the agricultural use of wastewater in Turkey. Instead, there are statistics on the number of incidents of the waterborne diseases, which may give an idea about the situation. Appendix Table A4 presents the waterborne disease incidents according to regions, together with the sewerage system and treatment status. As seen from this table, the percentage of population having sewerage system and TP showed an increasing trend from 1994 to 2001. However, number of incidents exhibited some fluctuations depending on the regions. When the occurrences of waterborne diseases in cities between 1994-2002 are inspected, it is seen that the problem is persistent in certain locations along with some declines and improvements in others.

114

Figure 24 shows the latest incident risk which represents the number of cases per capita, in cities. As seen from this figure, the South Eastern Region (GAP) of Turkey appears as the most problematic region having the cities with the incident risk values above the average for Turkey (0.093%). Appendix Table A5 presents the incidence of some infectious diseases in the GAP Region for the year 2002. In fact, there is evidence that raw municipal wastewater is being reused directly in this region, without any treatment for irrigation purposes in Siverek, located between Diyarbakir and Sanliurfa (GAP-RDA, 2002). However; locally, few indicators demonstrate the health impact of such a situation. The only relevant element remains the disease statistics in Siverek municipality hospital (Appendix Table A6). From January to the end of October 2001, the town hospital registered a great number of positive laboratory results, specifically: 9200 cases of salmonellosis; 7600 cases of brucellosis; 4200 cases of diseases caused by parasite; 825 cases of hepatitis A and B and 9700 cases of enteritis. In one year, it was estimated that over 100,000 people have suffered from illnesses due to bad quality drinking water and sewerage services, i.e. approximately 35% of the inhabitants of the district, which is abnormally high (GAP-RDA, 2002).

Figure 24: Latest incident risk distribution related to waterborne diseases for Turkey.

115

6.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities and assessment of the needs for upgrading to comply with reuse criteria

6.7.1 Removal Efficiencies of UWWTPs

The percent removal efficiencies of the selected plants by ITU, with respect to receiving water quality standards are given in Table 38. (The results obtained for the selected UWWTP for which reuse of treated effluent is being currently practiced, will be studied in detail in the forthcoming Task). Regarding the treatment efficiencies in terms of COD parameter, a wide range of efficiencies like 19-90% are observed related to various treatment technologies.

Table 38: Pollutant removal efficiencies for selected UWWTP and their reuse assessment according to national irrigation water quality criteria (ITU Group)

Code of Treatment

Plant

Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%)

Assessment Due to Reuse asIrrigation Water*

COD TKN TP SS SAR Fecal Coliform

Boron Conductivity Cl-

TR-03-01 66 NA 29 77 IV V I III IITR-16-03 69 35 82 71 IV V I IV IIITR-34-04 23 30 29 NA I II I II ITR-34-05 80 91 53 97 II V II III ITR-34-06 81 49 79 96 IV V II V VTR-34-07 70 7 23 86 IV V II III IVTR-48-01 81 66 NA 86 IV I II V VTR-48-02 19 86 NA 29 IV V II V VTR-48-03 74 81 NA 81 IV IV I IV IVTR-43-02 76 34 55 94 I V I III ITR-45-01 42 11 42 87 IV V I III IVTR-45-02 74 18 53 90 IV V I III ITR-45-03 10 48 NA 57 II V I III ITR-09-03 40 28 NA 95 III V I III ITR-07-11 71 NA NA 99 II V I III ITR-07-12 67 7 NA 85 II V I III IITR-35-01 90 88 83 96 IV I II V VTR-35-05 28 33 38 NA III V I III IIITR-32-01 82 7 85 89 III V I III ITR-54-01 76 88 44 79 II V I III ITR-55-03 86 55 NA 27 III V I III ITR-81-01 86 76 51 97 II V I II I

*Class of Irrigation Water NA:Not Avaliable

The national irrigation water quality standards are given in Appendix Table A7. If one compares the irrigation water quality standards given in Table A7 with the effluent values of the selected treatment plants, it can be seen that in terms of the fecal coliform parameter, most of the effluent cannot be used for irrigation purposes, indicating the necessity for upgrading the treatment facilities through adding or improving the disinfection units. Besides, some of the plants have not satisfied the irrigation limits for parameters such as chloride (Cl-), Sodium

116

Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and conductivity (EC). In some of the coastal area treatment plants, it is recognized that sea water intrusion to the effluent are being reflected to the experimental findings. Boron contaminated water that is used for irrigation indirectly in Turkey is one of the significant problems faced during irrigation. As is known, high boron in effluent will lead to reduce crop production.

The percent removal efficiencies of the selected UWWTPs surveyed by METU are presented in Table 39. An overview of METU’s study shows that effluent quality data collected from the TPs indicate over 90% organic matter removal for almost all plants.

Table 39: Pollutant removal efficiencies for selected UWWTP (METU Group)

Code of Treatment Plant

Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%)COD BOD5 SS TKN TP

TR-06-01 87,4 94,9 92,1 35,5 0TR-07-01 93,2 96,4 96,0 82,8 77,2TR-23-01 53,3 43,8 94,1 NA NATR-24-01 NA 87,5 90,6 NA NATR-26-01 77,5 81,5 87,8 NA NATR-27-01 83,8 92,0 94,0 NA NATR-38-01 91,7 91,7 97,1 73,7 93,3TR-51-02 88,5 94,0 95,0 NA NATR-07-02 93,2 96,0 96,9 94,2 82,8TR-27-02 83,3 96,7 67,2 NA 71,4TR-31-03 94,3 94,0 90,0 NA NATR-33-02 98,2 98,9 99,7 93,6 NATR-51-01 34,5 59,7 38,3 65,9 57,5

6.7.2 Assessment for reuse potential

Most Mediterranean countries have neither wastewater reuse standards nor criteria. However the ‘Technical Aspects Bulletin’ (Official Gazette dated 7.1.1991, no. 20748), linked to the Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation has been issued in 1991 to stipulate irrigation water standards for reuse of waters in agriculture in Turkey. The Turkish bulletin, which was presented in the first progress report, is a fairly advanced standard even by the current concepts, as summarized in Appendix Table A8. Therefore present evaluation of the selected TPs, where some degree of reuse in irrigation is being practiced, will be based upon both the prevailing Turkish standard and the current universally accepted standards and particularly those proposed for the Mediterranean basin countries. Water class assignments in all the standards are largely based on the microbiological quality criteria, as this is the major determinant for the direct protection of the public health.

The microbiological quality standards in the world are seen to differ significantly between countries and even within the states of a particular country. The Title 22, adopted by the green belt states of the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia, represents the strictest and technology based standards. While the WHO standard, adopted by France, Oman, and Tunisia, represents somewhat the pragmatic approach. Where <1000 FC/100 ml is purely adopted from swimming water standards and <2 NTU is based on the assumption that with a turbidity readings equal to or below 2 NTU, the likelihood of getting helminthic eggs through reused

117

water irrigation will be tolerably low. The newest standards are those adopted by Australia, Tasmania, Japan and South Africa, which are allegedly based upon the recent scientific evidence and the 100-200 FC or E. Coli /100 ml standard is adopted for freshwaters. This represents 1 to 2 % tolerable gastro-intestinal disease rate.

Attainable reuse water standards should clearly take into account the local conditions while reasonably safeguarding the population. An attempt to establish a unified guideline for the Mediterranean countries, based upon risk assessment, using epidemiological data and model studies, have been made and a guideline was proposed by Blumenthal et al. (2000). In this work, three microbiological quality criteria are proposed, namely, nematode eggs, FC or E. coli and suspended solids, as given in Table 39, along with the technology requirements. It is readily seen from this table that water is categorized into five groups, more or less corresponding to the categories implemented in the Turkish Bulletin Appendix Table A7, in reverse order. It can be seen from Appendix Table A7 and Table 40, that the main difference between the Turkish standard and the proposed standard for the Mediterranean countries, as far as the parameter types are concerned, is the absence of the helminth eggs parameter in the former. Moreover, Turkish standard does not specify a minimum technology requirement for different water classes but the proposed guideline does.

Table 40: Recommended Guidelines for Water Reuse in the Mediterranean Region (Bahri and Brissaud, 2002)

118

The selected TPs which are currently practicing some degree of reuse in irrigation or those having this potential are tabulated in Table 41. On this table conformity with the current Turkish standards are indicated by assigning water class ratings to effluent quality parameters of individual plants. However, it is readily seen that with the microbiological data lacking class assignments are not complete but only provisional.

In Table 41, conformity of the selected plant effluents to the proposed Mediterranean guidelines are investigated. Again in the absence of detailed microbiological data, conformity was checked only on the bases of suspended solids and process train configurations. As seen from this table none of the selected plants truly meet the proposed Mediterranean guidelines, neither with the availability of the microbiological quality data nor with their process train configurations. From this table it is clear that for all the plants considered, intestinal nematode data as well as F. Coli numbers are needed to be able to assign effluents to water categories of I - III. The process requirements should also be met by adding sand filtration units or their equivalents and disinfection units to the end of the existing process trains. Nevertheless all the effluents fulfill category IV requirements, which merely requires primary settling.

Another conclusion that can be drawn when comparing Turkish and proposed Mediterranean standards shown in Appendix Table A7 and Table 41, respectively, is that the current Turkish legislation is unrealistically stringent in FC parameter when describing water classes; but at the same time it lacks technology-based standards. Technology-based standards are important in ensuring compliance with standards for most of the time, and eliminate greatly the risk of mismanagement, while reducing cost of analysis. Finally, it can be concluded that the current Turkish standards seem adequate in controlling chemical pollution of soils, but seriously lack public health aspects since comprehensive and realistic microbiological values are lacking in the standard. An update of the current standard is therefore urgently needed to converge with the Mediterranean guidelines.

The most comprehensive wastewater reuse standard currently en force in agriculture, in the Middle East and in the Mediterranean region, is the Israeli standard summarized in Appendix Table A9. When the selected plants in Table 41 are evaluated by consulting the Israeli standards, it may be possible to assign a reuse utility class to the selected plants. The assigned class letters are also shown in Table 41 on the final column. From this column it is readily seen that with the available data on effluent quality, the selected plant wastewaters can only be used to irrigate the A and B group crops. For unrestricted irrigation (class D) substantial

119

reduction in coliform counts, sand filtration or equivalent, and chlorination are required. The BOD5 and SS figures for classes A and B seem attainable with the available process trains of the plants with the addition of filtration and disinfection processes.

6.8 Concluding Remarks

An overall assessment of the current situation in urban wastewater treatment for Turkey is undertaken. Publicly available information was found to be insufficient and not well documented. A survey was carried out to gather detailed information from UWWTPs serving large populations and/or with reuse potentials. Initial results indicate that 38 provinces out of 81 in Turkey do not have urban wastewater treatment plants. Currently, according to SIS figures, an estimated 35% of the total population of Turkey is being served (ITU estimates this figure as 45%) by wastewater treatment facilities. However, an increasing trend in wastewater treatment plant construction and planning is evident. For health risk assessment, limited information could be found. These illustrate high health risk in the Southeastern Anatolia region, which could be linked to the climatic conditions leading to scarcity of water resources and perhaps insufficient infrastructure.

120

Table 41: Conformity of the selected plants (METU Group) to Turkish and Israeli standards and to Mediterranean Guidelines

UWWTP Code UWWTP Name Process * SS

(mg/L)

SS Conformity class

Classificationtype

to Mediterranean Guidelines Israeli Std.

Turkish Std****

TR-06-01 ASKI, Ankara Central WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 15 2 A, B I-III(N)TR-07-02 Alanya Central WWTP 1+2+4+7+8+11+12** 8 1 A, B ITR-07-01 Antalya Hurma WWTP 1+2+4+7+8+9+11+12** 10 1 A, B I-II(N)TR-23-01 Elazığ Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12 16 2 A, B I-II(BOD5)TR-24-01 Erzincan Municipality WWTP 2+4+7+8 15 2 A I-III (BOD5)TR-26-01 ESKİ WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 12 2 A, B I-III (N)TR-27-01 GASKİ WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 15 2 A, B ITR-27-02 Nizip Municipality WWTP *** 1+2+4+5+7+8 174 none NONE IV-VTR-31-03 Iskenderun Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12** 15 2 A, B ITR-32-01 Isparta Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 25 3 A, B ITR-38-01 Kayseri WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12** 10 1 A, B I-III (EC)TR-42-03 Kadınhanı Municipality WWTP 5+12 48 none A I-III (SS)TR-33-02 Tarsus Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+7+8 3 1 A, B I-III (EC)TR-51-02 Sarıköprü WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12 20 2 A, B ITR-51-01 Bor WWTP 1+10 39,5 none A, B I-III (SS)

* 1= coarse screen 2=fine screen 3=communitor 4=grid trap 5=primary sedimentation 6=Trickling filter 7=activated sludge aeration tank 8=secondary sedimentation 9=aerated lagoon 10=oxidation ditch 11=disinfection 12=0ther

** Process 12 in these TPs indicate additional anaerobic+anoxic tanks for nutrient removal*** There is evidence that heavy industrial effluent is mixing to the municipalityeffluents**** Classification according to the Turkish standard is carried out according to the available data. With the microbiological data lacking therefore this is only a provisional classification. Parameter in parenthesis show the lowest quality parameter

121

REFERENCES

Cyprus

Personal Interview 1: Dr. Maria Dodou (Director), Ms Lia GeorgiouWater Development Department, Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment

Personal Interview 2: Mr Yiannakis Ventouris, Technical Director Larnaca Sewerage and Drainage Board

Personal Interview 3: Mr Andreas Georgiades, Technical Director and Ms Chryso Sewerage Board of Nicosia and Agia Napa

Personal Interview 4: Evgenios Nicolaou, Technical DirectorSewerage Board of Nicosia

Personal Interview 5: Mr Victoras Konstantinides Sewerage Board of Limassol and Amathounta

http://www.sbla.com.cy/

Jordan

Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Annual Reports

Robert Cardinalli, Technical Director PA Government Services Inc. 2003. Project Report. E-mail: [email protected]

Lebanon

Almouhit and Lahmeyer, Water and wastewater feasibility study-Sour Drainage, 1994

American University of Beirut AUB, Litani River Basin, Water and Wastewater Management Plan for the Litani River Basin and Karaon Lake, Class Project, May 2003

Associated Consulting Engineers, South Beirut Sea Outfall at Ghadir: Associated Consulting Engineers for the CDR, North Beirut outfall Headworks, North and West-South coastal collectors and Ras Beirut to port Collector, Including Pumping and Lift stations, Associated Consulting Engineers for the MOE, 1982

Associated Consulting Engineers, Water and Wastewater feasibility study- Kesrouan Drainage Area, 1994

Conseil du Développement et de la Reconstruction, Rapport D’Activité, République Libanaise, Mai 2002

123

Council for Development and Reconstruction, Ministry of Hydrology and Electrical Resources, Jouzy and Partners Consulting Engineering Bureau, “Water and Wastewater Feasibility Studies in Saida Drainage Zone”, Beirut, January 1995

Council for Development and Reconstruction, Environmental Impact Assessment of Bourj Hammoud Wastewater Treatment Plant, July 2003

Council for Development and Reconstruction, Protection of Coastal Areas: Study of Industrial Wastewater Discharges of Kesrouane, Saida and Sour, Draft Final Report. Prepared by Libanconsult and Cabinet Merlin, March 2000

Council for Development and Reconstruction, Coastal Pollution and Water Supply Project: Preparation of an Environmental Monitoring Plan, Volume 1/2/3: Main Report, prepared by LACECO & SAFEGE, June 2000

Chammas, D.R., Potentiality of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse in the Lebanon, AUB M.E. Thesis, Beirut, Lebanon, June 2003

El Fadel, M. and Sadek, S.; Wastewater Management along the Mediterranean Coast: A Treatment Application Decision Case Study, Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol.29, p.116-124, 2000

El Fadel, M. and Alameddine, I.; Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plants in North and South Lebanon, Mercy Corps Lebanon, December, 2002.

Jaber, B.; Water Pollution in Lebanon: Solutions-Case Studies, April 1997Jouzy and Partners, Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study-Saida drainage Area, 1994

Jurdi, M. et al, A Prototype Study for the Management of Surface Water Resources, Lebanon, Water Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1, p.41-46, 2001

Keyomjian and Safa, Characteristics of Marine Water, p.9. In Conference about the Marine Environment in Lebanon, Beirut, Lebanon. April 1993.

Khatib and Alami, Lebanon’s Staged Wastewater Program, Vol. 1, Prefeasibility report, MOE, Beirut, Lebanon, 1994

Ministry of Environment, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management Strategy for Lebanon, prepared by Tebodin and financed by the World Bank and UNIDO, 1998a

Ministry of Environment, Industrial Pollution Control, Lebanon, prepared by Tebodin and financed by the World Bank and UNIDO, 1998b

Ministry of Environment, River Pollution in Lebanon, 1998c, cited by Najib Haddad, Pollution in Lebanon, Lebanese American University, 2003

Ministry of Environment and Council for Development and Reconstruction, Environmental Master Plan for Litani River and Lake Karaoun Catchment Area, prepared by MVM Consult AB, May 2000

124

Ministry of Environment, Environmental Master Plan for Litani River and Lake Qaraoun Catchment Area, Final Project Report, “The Swedish Study”, MVM Konsult AB, Sweden, 2000

Ministry of Environment, SPASI, Decision 8/1 related to National Standards for Environmental Quality, 2001

Ministry of Environment, Free Trade and the Environment in Lebanon: Case Study on the Chemicals and Agro-Food Industries, prepared by Envirotech, funded by the UNDP/Capacity 21, 1999, in Ministry of Environment/LEDO, ECODIT, Lebanon State of the Environment Report, 2001

Ministry of Environment/LEDO, ECODIT, Lebanon State of the Environment Report, 2001

Ministry of Housing, Master Plan Study to Locate Wastewater Treatment Plants in Bekaa, Dar Al Handasah Consultants, 1994

Personal Interview 1, with Engineer Youssef Karam, Director of the water and wastewater sector, CDR, August 2003

Personal Interview 2, with Mr. Youssef Khalil Kassab, Director of the Environmental Department, Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), November 2003

Personal Interview 3, with Mr. Rabih Saba, involved directly in the Wastewater Treatment Project of the Pontifical Mission (PM), November 2003

Personal Interview 4, with Miss Diala Jawhary, Peace Project Environmental Coordinator, Creative Associates International Inc, November 2003

Personal Interview 5, with Miss Nadine Richani, employee at the Environmental Department of the Mercy Corps Organization, November 2003

Pescod, M.B.; Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1992

Morocco

Adad H. (2003). Caractérisation physico-chimique, bactériologique et parasitologique des effluents des eaux usées domestiques à l’entrée et à la sortie de la station d’épuration de Drarga – Agadir. « Mémoire de DESA » Université Mohammed V Agdal Rabat.

AGR (1998). Epuration et réutilisation des eaux usées à des fins agricoles. Projet MOR 86/018. PNUD/FAO/OMS.

AGR/DDGI (1999). Consolidations de la stratégie nationale en matière de réutilisation des eaux usées en agriculture, MADRPM/PNUD.

125

Berrady K. (1994). Contribution à l’étude du peuplement benthique de la lagune de NADOR , soumis aux apports des eaux usées brutes et épurées. Mémoire de DES. Faculté des Sciences El Jadida.

BO (1995). Loi 10-95 sur l’eau. Bulletin officiel n°4325.Bouhoum K., Ouazani N., Mandil L., Aboufirassi M., Bouarab L., Bontoux J., and

Schwartzbord J. (1995). 2end International Symposium on wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Iraklio, GREECE

Choukrallah R. (1998). Sewage Treatment and Reuse for Small Communities : Mediterranean and European Experiences.

Commune de BIR MEZOUI .

CSEC (1994). Réutilisation des eaux usées en agriculture.

CSEC (2001). Economie de l’eau. DGCL (1995). Epuration des eaux usées au Maroc.

DGCL/ DEA (1996). Réutilisation agricole des eaux usées au Maroc.

DGH (2000). Etude du plan national de protection de la qualité des ressources en eau. PGRE/ME.

Direction de contrτle de qualitι des eaux – ONEP-

Falaki K ., (2001). « Le lagunage algal à haut rendement, une solution à l’épandage non contrôlé ». Doctorat es –Sciences, Université Chouaib Doukkali . N°110.

Jemali .A et Kefati A. (2002). Ministère de l’Agriculture, du Développement Rural et des Eaux et Forets. Administration du Génie Rural. Direction du Développement et de la Gestion d’Irrigation. Forum sur la Gestion de la Demande en Eau. Mars 2002.

Jemali A. et Kerfati A. (2001). Impact de la réutilisation des eaux non conventionnelles. OADA.

Jemali A. (2001). Expérience marocaine en matière de réutilisation des eaux usées. FAO Atelier du 12 au 14 Novembre, Amman.

Jemali A. et Kerfati A. (1999). Expérience marocaine dans le domaine de la réutilisation des eaux à des fins agricoles. OADA.

Kerfati A. (2001). Amélioration des procédures de gestion et d’utilisation des ressources hydriques en agriculture dans le Royaume du Maroc. OADA.

Ministère de l’Intérieur DEA .1995.

Municipalité de BOUJAAD.

126

Municipalité de KHOURIBGA.ONEP- FAO (2001). Développement de l’alimentation en eau potable et de l’assainissement en

zone rurale. Amélioration des connaissances dans le domaine des procédés de valorisation des eaux usées épurées. Projet UTF/MOR/023.

ONEP-GTZ (1998). Approche de la typologie des eaux usées urbaines au Maroc.

PREM (2001). Document technique sur les normes et standards pour la réutilisation des eaux usées au Maroc. DE.

PREM (2001). Projet pilote de traitement et de réutilisation des eaux usées de la commune rurale de Drarga. DE

SNDAL (1998). Schéma Directeur National d’Assainissement Liquide : Réutilisation des eaux usées.

Soudi. B. Kerby et R. Choukrallah . Projet PREM. Transfert de technologie en agriculture. MADRPM /N°67. Avril 2000.

Xanthoulis D. (1995) : Réutilisation des eaux usées à des fins agricoles 1988-1992 (Ouarzazate, Maroc) PNUD - FAO – OMS, Projet MOR 86/018 ROYAUME DU MAROC, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Mise en Valeur Agricole, Administration du Génie Rural.

Palestine

Ahmed Abu Thaher, Environmental Quality Authority, 2002. Water and Wastewater status and future plan.

Al-Mezan center for human rights, 2003. On the Brink of disaster, The Beit Lahia Treatment Plant and Human Rights. Available from: http://www.mezan.org/environment.htm, [Accessed 5, Dec, 2003]

Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (ARIJ), 1999. Environmental Protection Of The Shared Israeli-Palestinian West Bank / Mountain Aquifer. Available from: http://www.arij.org/units/posters/mountainaquifer/mountainaquifer.htm, [Accessed 12, Dec, 2003]

Consulting Engineering Center. Water & Environment, Available from: http://www.cec.com.jo/w&ww.htm [Accessed 25, Dec, 2003].

Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 2003. United Nations Environmental Program.

Environmental Impact of Israeli Occupation, 1998. Available from: http://www.geocities.com/iraqpetition/env.html , [Accessed 21, Dec, 2003].

127

http://www.geocities.com/iraqpetition/env.html

http://www.cec.com.jo/w&ww.htm

http://www.arij.org/units/posters/mountainaquifer/mountainaquifer.htm

http://www.mezan.org/environment.htm

Environmental Quality Authority, 2002. Treated Wastewater and biosolids use in Palestine, Regional workshop on treated wastewater and biosolids use in dry areas CIFA, Granada, Spain.

Japan's Support for the Middle East Peace, Ministry of foreign affairs of Japan (MOFAJ), 1999. Working Group on the Environment (March 21 - 25, Jordan, WB/GS and Israel, Final Report). Available from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/peaceprocess/ewg/mission9903/gaza2.html, [Accessed 2, Dec, 2003]

Ministry of Environmental Affairs (MEnA), 2000. The initiative for collaoration to control natural resources degradation (desertification) of arid lands in the middle east-Phase II.

Nablus Municipality,2003. Water & Waste Water, Water supply and sanitation development project. Available from: http://www.nablus.org/structure/wproj.html,[Accessed 23, Dec, 2003].

PCBS, Children Statistics No. 5, 2002

Palestinian Environmental Authority, 1999. Marginal water and reuse using duckweed (lemna gibba) in Palestine.

Palestine News Agency - WAFA, 2004

Palestinian national information center, 1999. Israeli Violations of the Palestinian Environment. Available from: http://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Environment/Environment_Israeli%20Violations.html, [Accessed 15, Dec, 2003]

Robert Gearheart, Akissa Bahri & Mohammad Said Al-Hamidi, Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, 1994. Wastewater treatment reuse strategy for Gaza and West Bank, water and wastewater sector.

The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA), 2000. Available from:http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/pdf/pdf2003/sections2/4-pop.pdf., [Accessed 11, Dec, 2003]

World Health Organization, 1989.

Turkey

Angelakis A.N., Marecos Do Monte M. H. F., Bontoux L., and Asano T., 1999. “Review Paper, The status of wastewater reuse in the Mediterranean Basin: Need for guidelines”, Wat. Res. Vol. 33, (10), pp. 2201-2217.

128

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/pdf/pdf2003/sections2/4-pop.pdf

http://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Environment/Environment_Israeli%20Violations.html

http://www.wafa.pna.net/

http://www.nablus.org/structure/wproj.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/peaceprocess/ewg/mission9903/gaza2.html

APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition.

Bahri and Brissaud, 2002. Cited in presentation notes of A.N Angelakis presented in Med-Reunet Seminar on “Reuse and Reclamation of Wastewaters in Agriculture” 24-25 September 2003, Izmir.

Blumenthal, U. J., Mara, D. D., Peasey, A., Ruiz-Palacios, G. and Scott, R., 2000. Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture: recommendations for revising WHO guidelines. Bulletin of the WHO Vol.78 (9), pp.1104-1116.

Esen, S.E., 2002. Turkey’s Environmental Urban Infrastracture (Wastewater Disposal), Need for Investment, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Strategies, (2002-2023), State Planning Organization, Publication No: SPO: 2656.

GAP-RDA, 2002. Treatment and Reuse of Municipal Wastewater in the GAP Region – Final Report.

Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Report on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Ankara.

Municipalities, 2003. Personal Communication with Each of the Municipalities Having UWWTP.

SIS, 1995. Environmental Statistics, River Basins Statistics, Turkish Republic State Institute of Statistics.

SIS, 1998. Environmental Statistics, River Basins Statistics, Turkish Republic State Institute of Statistics.

SIS, 2000. General Report on Demography, Turkish Republic State Institute of Statistics Istanbul.

SIS, 2001. Summary Report, Turkish Republic State Institute of Statistics Istanbul.

SPO, 2001. 8thFive Year Development Plan (2001-2005), Chapter Eight, Turkish Prime Ministry, The State Planning Organization.

WPCR, 1988. Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation, Official Newspaper Dated September 9, 1988, Reference Number 19919.

WPCR Technical Bulletin, 1991. Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation Technical Bulletin Dated January 7, 1991, Reference Number 20748.

129

uest.ntua.gr - unit of environmental science and...

Documents