Innovation Water

The KICP Annual Strategic Study
Promoting Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse

in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
Technology Trends, Innovation Needs,
and Business Opportunities
2010-2011
KAUST Industry Collaboration Program (KICP)
Managed By,
KAUST Industry Collaboration Program (KICP)

Prepared by,
Confidentiality Statement
All content included in this report, such as
text, logos, small icons and images, is the
property of King Abdullah University for
Science and Technology (KAUST). No part of
this report may be reproduced in any form
without the prior written permission of
KAUST.
DISCLAIMER
The study in this report was conducted by a
third-party consultant and, as such, does not
express the opinion of KAUST. KAUST does not
take any responsibility for the contents of this
report, does not make any representation as
to its accuracy or completeness, and expressly
disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss
arising from, or incurred in reliance upon, any
part of this report.
Acknowledgements
This Strategic Study was prepared with published and unpublished information and
assistance from individuals within universities, agencies, and private companies. At King
Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), information and technical input
were received from the following groups and individuals:
KAUST Center for Water Desalination and Reuse

Dr. Gary Amy, Professor and Director
Dr. Jorg E. Drewes, Visiting Professor and Associate Director
Dr. Thomas Missimer, Visiting Professor
KAUST Red Sea Research Center

Dr. James Luyten, Professor and Director
KAUST Coastal and Marine Resources Core Laboratory

Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Suwailem, Manager
Information was also received from many ministries and outside organizations, including:
National Water Company
Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE)
Saudi Geological Survey
Presidency of Meteorology and Environment
The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and
Gulf of Aden
In particular, the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports provided by representatives of that
agency were an extremely valuable source of base information that helped in framing the
Strategic Study.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support from the KAUST Industrial Collaboration
Program (KICP). KICP members provided funding for this Strategic Study, part of an annual
series at KAUST, and many organizations provided technical input regarding technologies
as well as technical review of draft portions of the study. In addition, KICP staff provided
continual support and input as the study proceeded that significantly improved the overall
Strategic Study.
Preface
This Strategic Study is intended for use among a diverse group of readers from the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and abroad. Accordingly, Systeme Internationale (SI) units are used in most
parts of this report. However, for projects where results have been published previously
using non-SI units, no conversions to SI units were made.
The Strategic Study includes nine chapters that have been put together by a combination of
authors within CH2M HILL, with subcontractors, and through an independent contract with
the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). The Executive Summary
and Summary Report were developed by CH2M HILL based on the chapter content. The
following is a list of the companies primarily responsible for the chapters:
Chapter Number and Title
Responsible Firm
1 Current Status of Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia
CH2M HILL
2 Technology Overview
CH2M HILL
3 Public Education and Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use
Moya Bushnak
4 Business Opportunities
CH2M HILL
5 Aquifer Recharge and Recovery
Schlumberger Water Services
6 Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal Impacts
CH2M HILL
7 Regulatory Considerations
CH2M HILL
8 Septage Handling and Treatment
CH2M HILL
9 Patent Landscape
RTI International (under separate

contract to KAUST)
As this document was prepared, review comments were received from KAUST staff, from
members of the KAUST Industrial Collaboration Program, and from outside reviewers. In
this type of comprehensive review, it is often not possible to access all available information
for any specific topic. The authors have tried to provide appropriate and comprehensive
references for available sources of information.
STRATEGIC STUDY
Executive
ExecutiveSummary
Summary
Promoting Wastewater Reclamation & Reuse in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
Technology Trends, Innovation Needs, and Business Opportunities
Study Background and Context
Water reclamation and reuse has become an important worldwide total water management topic
as the limitations of freshwater resources have come into sharp focus. In the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA), potable water is produced from either non- or very slowly renewable water
resources such as groundwater, or capital- and energy-intensive seawater desalination. The KSA
also lacks sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacity to meet future demands. In
response, the KSA is developing reclaimed water sources to help meet future demands.
Key public and private KSA organizations are working in partnership to expand the application of
reclaimed water. Among these are the National Water Company (NWC), the Ministry of Water
and Electricity (MOWE), and the King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST)
Industry Collaboration Program (KICP). These organizations have been responsible for actions to
promote reuse in the KSA, highlighted in Figure 1, and will oversee and promote the
implementation process to meet the aggressive new goals.
FIGURE 1
Timeline of KSA Actions to Promote Reuse
Study Goals and Organization

KAUSTs Annual Strategic Studies are part of its overall collaborative research program, This
years Strategic Study, Promoting Wastewater Reclamation & Reuse in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia: Technology Trends, Innovation Needs, and Business Opportunities, assesses
opportunities for water reuse in the KSA and reports findings related to: identifying specific uses
for reclaimed water now and in the future; identifying gaps in technology, education, and
business opportunities related to wastewater treatment and reuse; and increasing the integration
of water reclamation in KSA into overall water resources management.
The Strategic Study report is organized into nine chapters. This Executive Summary provides
at-a-glance highlights of each chapters key findings and recommendations (denoted by italics)
and concludes with a recommended path forward in support of reuse.
Chapter 1: Overview of Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia
Water demands are expected to double over the next two decades with rapid population
growth and increased urbanizationa shortfall already exists in the six major cities; today,
over 80 percent of the KSA water supply is from groundwater aquifers, but this source is
expected to last only another 15 to 25 years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
A current barrier to reuse is the lack of sufficient infrastructurecollection network and/or

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacityto treat all wastewater.
In some places with WWTPs, agricultural and industrial reuse is already occurring. Other
opportunities for reuse include landscaping, recreation, and aquifer recharge.
With demand outpacing current water and wastewater treatment capacities, the KSA has
aggressive national goals for reuse: for example, by 2025, cities over 5,000 people should
be reclaiming nearly 100 percent of their water.
Significant improvements in water usage and wastewater treatment data quality and quantity
are needed for a comprehensive and integrated water resources management program.
Although developing reuse programs for cities over 5,000 people is a monumental
undertaking, thought should be given to how wastewater can best be managed in rural areas
and smaller cities as well. New strategies and business opportunities for reuse in these
areas would be valuable.
Chapter 2: Technology Overview
Many readily available current technologies are highly effective in reliably producing reuse
quality treated sewage effluent (RQTSE), which can be used for many purposes.
Other emerging and developmental technologies will soon be more widely available to
further increase the benefits of reuse by using less energy, or satisfying energy needs from
renewable sources or waste heat, creating less reject stream and unwanted byproducts.
It also is possible to recover and beneficially use other outputs of the wastewater treatment
process, such as biogas, biosolids, and nutrients.
Continued collaboration among the research, industrial, and governmental communities is

needed to support the process of bringing to market new energy-efficient and costeffective technologies.
Chapter 3: Public Education and Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use
Reaching the KSAs goals for reuse will depend on meeting the challenge of securing public
acceptance and endorsement for the expanded water reuse program.
A successful public education and awareness program will provide credible information
about the types of treatment processes available and the quality of recycled water.
Key program components include using mass media, promoting publicly accessible
research, launching a National Steering Committee with respected community leaders, and
providing onsite learning and demonstration opportunities.
The program should engage leading religious scholars, believed to be essential in gaining
support and acceptance for reuse, and secure their help in branding reclaimed water as
Tahir, meaning water without any smell, color, or taste that can even be used for any
religious purpose.
Chapter 4: Business Opportunities
Reuse provides business opportunities and supports economic development when recycled
water is less expensive than first use water, especially desalinated water.
The Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports project proposals and other reviewed case
studies demonstrate that reuse can be profitable, often showing that investments in
recovering and treating wastewater for reuse can be recouped in less than 5 years.
VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Five reuse portfolio scenarios developed for this Strategic Study show that reuse across
multiple sectors, including agriculture, industry, landscaping, recreation, and recharge, can
be financially viable, provided a reasonable water rate structure is established.
Reuse water providers and prospective customers should collaborate to identify

opportunities for cost-effective treatment and delivery systems. Rate structures must be
financially rational and optimized for specific user bases, including higher rates for high
quality, reuse rates competitive with first use water rates, and lower rates where needed to
encourage demand for reclaimed water.
Chapter 5: Managed Aquifer Recharge
There are several different uses for RQTSE in managed aquifer recharge (MAR) strategies
in the KSA involving storage, treatment, and recovery.
RQTSE can be used to strategically store currently available excess water for future use;
serve as a treatment step in a multiple-barrier approach to reclaimed water reuse; or be used
to establish a salinity barrier system to prevent saltwater intrusion into an aquifer.
An evaluation of MAR feasibility in four regionsGreater Riyadh area, Madinah Region,

Makkah Region, and the Greater Dammam Areashowed that each offers unique
opportunities to enhance water resources management using RQTSE for MAR.
MAR should be a component of a local or regional reuse program wherever feasible,

especially where all TSE is currently not being used. MAR will immediately preserve
precious water resources and capitalize on the energy invested to produce water with low
total dissolved solids levels.
Chapter 6: Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal Impacts

The Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf are unique bodies of water with irreplaceable resources that
the KSA economy depends on: water supply (after desalination); transportation; fisheries; oil and
gas exploration and processing; and unique and diverse intertidal and marine habitats attracting
tourism and supporting recreational uses.
From a water quality standpoint, neither the Red Sea nor the Arabian Gulf is currently
highly degraded. However, improperly treated wastewater discharges can cause localized
problems in the Red Sea, and more severe, widespread problems in the Gulf.
Comprehensive water management, including limiting TSE discharges to the Red Sea and
the Arabian Gulf, investing in water quality monitoring, and documenting pollutant loads,
combined with maximizing reuse, will aid in protecting these valuable resources.
Chapter 7: Regulatory Considerations
The KSAs RQTSE regulations mostly meet World Health Organization minimum
standards, but RQTSE monitoring and enforcement capabilities are weak.
Together, two sets of recommended requirements (when implemented) will embody

international best practices. The Draft 2010 Saudi Water Act prioritizes reuse as a matter
of policy and uses regulations as a driver for reuse promotion and market creation. The
Presidency of Meteorology and Environment draft regulations further define standards and
application limitations to protect public health.
The KSA should finalize these draft regulations as soon as possibledelays create
uncertainty, limiting potential users willingness to invest in technologies and develop a
market for reuse.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VII
Chapter 8: Septage Handling and Treatment
Septage is often treated using cesspits or soak pits where wastewater collection
systems are not available. These systems frequently are ineffective in treatment and
infiltration and require pumping and hauling to a sewage lake or WWTP by truck.
The biggest gap in dealing with septage is the lack of comprehensive information
necessary to assess the problem and develop solutions, particularly for rural areas.
Where opportunities for treating septage in existing WWTPs are limited, there is a wide
range of other potential solutions to treat septage while recovering water, nutrients, and
energy from the septage, including land application and decentralized systems.
The septage issue should be comprehensively assessed so that specific plans can be
developed to address this issue on a short-term basis for areas where infrastructure is
under development and permanent solutions can be identified for more rural communities.
Chapter 9: Patent Landscape
Patents encourage technology innovation by establishing the proper legal framework and
financial incentives to capitalize on technology opportunities critical for reuse.
Inventors and investors should review the Strategic Studys characterization of reuse
technology areas considered maturing or emerging. Maturing ones should be considered
likely to be more suitable for application today. Emerging ones should be considered
potentially attractive investments because they may be able to meet technology needs in the
future.
Recommended Path Forward to Successfully Promoting Wastewater Reclamation and

Reuse
The KSA has embraced a goal to significantly expand the availability of RQTSE for a wide variety
of uses. This study is another step forward, identifying technology and data gaps that need to be
addressed and opportunities where reuse would support sustainable and integrated water
management objectives. Implementing beneficial reuse opportunities will be critical to meeting
future water demand, both cost-effectively for users and profitably for providers. Capturing these
business opportunities and supporting overall resource sustainability goals will also depend in
large part on the following:
Instituting rational tariff structures for both first use water and RQTSE that support the
significant capital and operational investments that will be made, making RQTSE sufficiently
attractive as a source.
Recognizing differences in the ability and willingness to pay in a manner consistent with social
and cultural considerations.
Adopting regulations to support an integrated water resources planning approach.
Increasing public awareness of the need for RQTSE and gaining acceptance for its use.
Facilitating collaborative planning by instituting a system (like the proposed National Water
Data Center) to better document: water demands; wastewater treated volumes; RQTSE used;
and water quality, monitoring, and enforcement data.
Coordinating specific actions and milestones, including strengthened regulations, to ensure

that local, regional, and national goals are met.
The available data confirm that financially sound, practical, and environmentally sustainable
opportunities to expand water reuse exist in all regions and in all sectors of the KSA. Creating a
pathway to success will protect investments, ensure cost-effectiveness, and facilitate coordination
across sectors, provinces, regions, cities, and agencies.
VIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. iii
Preface ................................................................................................................................ iv
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1: Overview of Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia .................................................. 1-1
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Population Projections ................................................................................ 1-4
1.3
Water Supplies and Demands..................................................................... 1-7
1.3.1 Water Supplies in KSA .................................................................... 1-7
1.3.2 Domestic Water Demands in KSA ................................................... 1-9
1.4
Wastewater Flows..................................................................................... 1-13
1.5
Water Reuse ............................................................................................. 1-15
1.5.1 Current and Projected RQTSE Use in KSA ................................... 1-16
1.5.2 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Riyadh ................................. 1-19
1.5.3 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Jeddah ................................ 1-22
1.5.4 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Makkah ............................... 1-24
1.5.5 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Al Taif .................................. 1-25
1.5.6 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Al Madinah ......................... 1-26
1.5.7 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Dammam ............................ 1-27
1.6
Wastewater Treatment Processes Used to Produce RQTSE .................... 1-27
1.7
Treatment and Use of Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) .................................... 1-28
1.8
Industrial Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Practices.................................. 1-29
1.8.1 Riyadh ........................................................................................... 1-30
1.8.2 Jeddah and the Makkah Region .................................................... 1-30
1.8.3 Dammam....................................................................................... 1-30
1.8.4 Al Jubail and Yanbu ...................................................................... 1-31
1.9
Current Status of Reuse Regulations ........................................................ 1-31
1.9.1 Specifications ................................................................................ 1-32
1.9.2 Enforcement .................................................................................. 1-33
1.10 Public Awareness and Acceptance ........................................................... 1-33
1.11 Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Business Status ...................................... 1-34
1.12 Summary .................................................................................................. 1-35
1.13 Information Gap Analysis .......................................................................... 1-35
1.14 References ............................................................................................... 1-37
Chapter 2: Technology Overview.................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
Introduction and Objectives ......................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Current Beneficial Use Schemes and Available Technologies .................... 2-2
2.3
Innovative and Developmental Technologies for Wastewater
Treatment and Water Reuse ....................................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Innovative and Developmental PhysicalChemical Treatment
Technologies ................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Biological Treatment Technologies ................................................ 2-65
2.3.3 Innovative/Developmental Resource Recovery Technologies ....... 2-83
2.3.4 Innovative/Developmental Phosphorus and Salt Recovery
Technologies ................................................................................. 2-88
STRATEGIC STUDY
2.3.5 Natural Treatment Systems ........................................................... 2-96

Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Technologies ........................... 2-96
Impact of Wastewater Quality on Operation and Performance of
Treatment Unit Processes....................................................................... 2-101
2.6
Industries in KSA with Reuse Potential ................................................... 2-102
2.7
Summary and Path Forward ................................................................... 2-106
2.8
References ............................................................................................. 2-108
Chapter 3: Public Education and Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use ......... 3-1
3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
Barriers to Reuse Implementation in KSA ................................................... 3-2
3.1.1 Technology, Infrastructure, and Public Trust ................................... 3-2
3.1.2 Socio-Cultural Beliefs and Religious Practices ................................ 3-3
3.1.3 Public Perceptions and Terminology ............................................... 3-4
3.1.4 Water Tariffs in Middle East............................................................. 3-6
3.1.5 Water Resource Management Structure.......................................... 3-6
3.1.6 Regulations and Recycled Water Quality......................................... 3-7
3.2
Proposed Policy, Public Education, and Awareness Actions to Promote
Recycled Water Use ................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.1 Organization and Leadership........................................................... 3-8
3.2.2 Incentives and Penalties.................................................................. 3-9
3.2.3 Surveys and Research .................................................................. 3-10
3.2.4 Key Messages and Implementation Approach ............................... 3-10
3.2.5 Branding Recycled Water .............................................................. 3-11
3.2.6 Build Technical Knowledge ........................................................... 3-11
3.2.7 Demonstration Projects ................................................................. 3-14
3.2.8 Encouraging Urban Agriculture and Vertical Farming .................... 3-14
3.2.9 Exhibitions and Knowledge and Information Centers ..................... 3-16
3.2.10 Mass Media and Public Outreach .................................................. 3-16
3.2.11 Website ......................................................................................... 3-17
3.2.12 Media Relations............................................................................. 3-18
3.2.13 Social Media .................................................................................. 3-19
3.2.14 Social Events ................................................................................ 3-19
3.2.15 Road Show Materials .................................................................. 3-19
3.2.16 In-School Educational Programs ................................................... 3-21
3.3
Gaps and Conclusions .............................................................................. 3-21
3.4
References ............................................................................................... 3-22
Chapter 4: Business Opportunities ................................................................................ 4-1
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
The Macro-Case for Reuse: Energy and Sustainability ............................... 4-2
4.3
Potential RQTSE Uses, Market Size, and Growth Trends ........................... 4-3
4.4
Reuse Case Studies: Current Practices and Future Proposals .................. 4-8
4.4.1 Case Studies Drawn from Draft MOWE Regional Planning
Reports ......................................................................................... 4-10
4.4.2 Other Case Studies ....................................................................... 4-13
4.5
Formulation of Scenarios for Analysis ....................................................... 4-22
4.5.1 Introduction and Basis for Defining Scenarios ............................... 4-22
4.5.2 Evaluating Business Case by Individual User, Reuse Use
Category, and Reuse Portfolio....................................................... 4-23
4.5.3 Summary of the Five Scenarios Developed for this Analysis ......... 4-24
4.5.4 Method, Assumptions, and Inputs for Scenario Definition and
Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-25
4.6
Detailed Evaluation of the Five Defined Reuse Scenarios......................... 4-32
4.6.1 Summary of Financial Results ....................................................... 4-32
4.6.2 Summary of Non-Financial Results ............................................... 4-34
4.6.3 Summary of Overall Scenario Results ........................................... 4-36
2.4
2.5
XV
STRATEGIC STUDY
4.7
Findings and Recommendations ............................................................... 4-38

4.7.1 Highlights of Major Findings .......................................................... 4-38
4.7.2 Broader Implications and Other Findings ....................................... 4-39
4.7.3 Additional Recommendations to Support Development of
Reuse-Related Business Opportunities ......................................... 4-40
4.8
References ............................................................................................... 4-41
Chapter 5: Aquifer Recharge and Recovery................................................................... 5-1
5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Potential Benefits of RQTSE MAR and ASR in KSA ........................ 5-2
5.1.2 General Requirements for Successful RQTSE MAR and ASR ........ 5-3
5.2
MAR and ASR Concepts............................................................................. 5-4
5.2.1 MAR System Types ......................................................................... 5-4
5.2.2 System Performance Criteria........................................................... 5-9
5.2.3 KSA MAR General Opportunities .................................................. 5-11
5.3
MAR and ASR Feasibility Issues............................................................... 5-12
5.3.1 Aquifer Hydraulics and Water Quality ............................................ 5-12
5.3.2 Geochemistry ................................................................................ 5-15
5.3.3 Regulatory and Socio-Cultural Issues............................................ 5-16
5.4
Water Quality Issues Associated with MAR of RQTSE ............................. 5-17
5.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 5-17
5.4.2 Health Risks Associated with RQTSE ........................................... 5-18
5.4.3 Assessment of Health Risks Associated with RQTSE MAR........... 5-19
5.4.4 Pathogenic Attenuation in Aquifers ................................................ 5-20
5.4.5 Chemical Contaminant Attenuation in MAR Systems .................... 5-21
5.4.6 Treatment Strategies ..................................................................... 5-22
5.5
Economic and Operational Issues............................................................. 5-23
5.5.1 Site Location, Integration into Wastewater Treatment
Infrastructure, and Other Logistical Issues..................................... 5-23
5.5.2 Well Capacity and Depth ............................................................... 5-24
5.5.3 Well Clogging and Rehabilitation ................................................... 5-25
5.6
General Hydrogeology .............................................................................. 5-26
5.7
Greater Riyadh Area ................................................................................. 5-26
5.7.1 Wadi Aquifers ................................................................................ 5-28
5.8
Makkah Region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Al Taif) ......................................... 5-32
5.8.1 Jeddah .......................................................................................... 5-32
5.8.2 Makkah al Mukarramah ................................................................. 5-33
5.8.3 Al Taif ............................................................................................ 5-34
5.9
Madinah al Munnawarah ........................................................................... 5-34
5.10 Greater Dammam Area ............................................................................. 5-35
5.11 RQTSE ASR Options in KSA .................................................................... 5-40
5.11.1 Evaluation of RQTSE MAR Options .............................................. 5-41
5.11.2 Scoring of KSA MAR Options ........................................................ 5-44
5.12 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 5-46
5.13 References ............................................................................................... 5-46
Chapter 6: Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal Impacts ....................................... 6-1
6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2
Red Sea ...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 Physical and Hydrographic Characteristics...................................... 6-1
6.2.2 Uses ................................................................................................ 6-5
6.2.3 Water Quality .................................................................................. 6-5
6.2.4 Pollutant Sources and Overall Water Quality ................................. 6-10
6.3
Arabian Gulf .............................................................................................. 6-15
6.3.1 Physical and Hydrographic Characteristics.................................... 6-15
6.3.2 Uses .............................................................................................. 6-17
6.3.3 Water Quality ................................................................................ 6-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
XIV
6.3.4 Pollutant Sources and Overall Water Quality ................................. 6-20

Sewage Lakes .......................................................................................... 6-25
Gap Analysis............................................................................................. 6-26
6.5.1 Monitoring ..................................................................................... 6-26
6.5.2 Pollutant Loading........................................................................... 6-26
6.5.3 Collaborative Efforts ...................................................................... 6-26
6.6
Summary .................................................................................................. 6-27
6.7
References ............................................................................................... 6-28
Chapter 7: Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................... 7-1
7.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2
Current Status of Reuse Regulations .......................................................... 7-3
7.2.1 Treated Sanitary Wastewater and Its Reuse Regulations ................ 7-4
7.2.2 General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation . 7-4
7.2.3 MOWE Guidance: Using Treated Water for Irrigation; ControlsConditions-Offences and Penalties.................................................. 7-4
7.2.4 Compliance, Monitoring, and Enforcement ...................................... 7-7
7.3
Proposed Regulations ................................................................................. 7-8
7.3.1 Draft 2010 Saudi Water Act ............................................................. 7-8
7.3.2 Draft Implementation Regulations: Treated Wastewater and
Its Reuse ......................................................................................... 7-9
7.3.3 Summary of Proposed Regulations ............................................... 7-13
7.4
International Best Management Practices ................................................. 7-13
7.4.1 The World Health Organization ..................................................... 7-14
7.4.2 United States ................................................................................. 7-16
7.4.3 European Union ............................................................................ 7-18
7.4.4 Australia ........................................................................................ 7-18
7.4.5 Singapore ...................................................................................... 7-19
7.4.6 Biosolids ........................................................................................ 7-19
7.5
Implementation Recommendations ........................................................... 7-20
7.5.1 Coordination among Various Agencies and Private Sector ............ 7-20
7.5.2 Regulatory Efforts.......................................................................... 7-21
7.5.3 Monitoring ..................................................................................... 7-22
7.5.4 Reporting....................................................................................... 7-23
7.5.5 Enforcement .................................................................................. 7-24
7.6
Summary .................................................................................................. 7-24
7.7
References ............................................................................................... 7-25
Chapter 8: Septage Handling and Treatment ................................................................. 8-1
8.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Septage Overview ........................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Lessons Learned from the Jeddah Situation.................................... 8-2
8.2
Current Status of Septage Handling and Treatment .................................... 8-6
8.2.1 Current Methods for Handling and Transporting Septage ................ 8-6
8.1.4 Septage Treatment Needs .............................................................. 8-7
8.1.5 Potential Problems Associated with Septage Disposal .................... 8-9
8.2
Solutions for Septage Handling and Treatment ......................................... 8-10
8.2.1 Septage Handling and Treatment Options ..................................... 8-10
8.2.2 Removal of Septage Lakes ........................................................... 8-14
8.3
Summary .................................................................................................. 8-15
8.4
References ............................................................................................... 8-16
Chapter 9: Patent Landscape .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.1
Introduction and Objectives ......................................................................... 9-1
9.2
Methodology ............................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1 Distortion Caused by Trends in Japan ............................................. 9-2
9.3
Overview of Water Reuse Technology Patent Landscape........................... 9-3
6.4
6.5
XV
STRATEGIC STUDY
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
9.10
9.11
9.3.1 Technology Categories.................................................................... 9-3

9.3.2 Trends in Patenting Activity by Geography ...................................... 9-4
9.3.3 Trends in Patenting Activity Over Time ............................................ 9-5
9.3.4 Leading Patent Assignees ............................................................... 9-6
9.3.5 Key Findings at Overview Level ...................................................... 9-8
Category 1: Disinfection .............................................................................. 9-8
9.4.1 Key Findings ................................................................................... 9-8
9.4.2 Analysis of Disinfection Portfolio ...................................................... 9-9
9.4.3 Landscape: Oxidation .................................................................... 9-12
Category 2: Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical Technologies ............ 9-14
9.5.1 Key Findings ................................................................................. 9-14
9.5.2 Analysis of Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical Technologies
Portfolio ......................................................................................... 9-16
Category 3: Sludge Treatment Technologies ............................................ 9-17
9.6.1 Key findings................................................................................... 9-17
9.6.2 Analysis of Sludge Treatment Portfolio .......................................... 9-18
Category 4: Bioreactors and Microbial Technologies ................................ 9-20
9.7.1 Key Findings ................................................................................. 9-20
9.7.2 Analysis of Biological Treatment Portfolio ...................................... 9-21
9.7.3 Landscape: Bioreactors ................................................................. 9-23
9.7.4 Landscape: Anaerobic Treatment .................................................. 9-25
Category 5: Filtration, Membranes, and Solids .......................................... 9-25
9.8.1 Key Findings ................................................................................. 9-26
9.8.2 Analysis of Separation Portfolio ..................................................... 9-28
9.8.3 Landscape: Forward Osmosis ....................................................... 9-29
Category 6: Ecosystems, Domestic, and Miscellaneous ........................... 9-30
9.9.1 Key Findings ................................................................................. 9-31
9.9.2 Analysis of Ecosystems, Domestic, and Miscellaneous Portfolio ... 9-32
Summary .................................................................................................. 9-33
References ............................................................................................... 9-34
Appendixes
A-1
A-2
B
Established Physical-Chemical, Biological, and Natural Treatment Technologies

Commercially Available Resource Recovery and Biogas Generation Technologies
Additional Detail for ProjectSelectTM Assumptions: Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse Conveyance Cost Assumptions
STRATEGIC STUDY
XIV
Tables
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
XV
Overview of Regions and Major Cities .................................................................... 1-4

Population Growth Percentages from 2010 through 2035....................................... 1-5
Year 2010 Census Population and Projections for Years 2025 and 2035 ............... 1-6
Year 2010 Census Population and Projections for Years 2025 and 2035 for Six
Largest Cities in KSA.............................................................................................. 1-6
Existing Water Sources and Supplies ..................................................................... 1-8
Calculated Water Demands .................................................................................. 1-10
Water Supply and Demand in Largest Cities ........................................................ 1-12
Projected Wastewater Flows and WWTP Status in Each Region ......................... 1-14
Wastewater Flows in Largest Cities ...................................................................... 1-15
Reuse Applications by Primary and Sub-Category ............................................... 1-18
Summary of Major Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Riyadh ........................ 1-21
Future Reuse Amounts in City of Riyadha ............................................................ 1-22
Summary of Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Jeddah ................................. 1-23
Summary of Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Makkah................................. 1-25
Summary of Existing WWTP and Reuse Status in Al Taif ..................................... 1-26
Summary of WWTP and Reuse Status in Al Madinah .......................................... 1-26
Summary of Existing WWTP and Reuse Status in Dammama ............................. 1-27
Current and Projected Future Use of RQTSE in Riyadh ....................................... 1-30
Effectiveness of Combined-Disinfectant Technologies ......................................... 2-56
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Desalination
Technologies ........................................................................................................ 2-97
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Disinfection
Technologies ........................................................................................................ 2-98
Comparison of Filtration Technologies.................................................................. 2-99
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Biological Treatment
Technologies ...................................................................................................... 2-100
Summary and Comparison of Side Stream Treatment Technologies .................. 2-101
Wastewater Quality Parameters and Their Impacts on Operation and
Performance of Unit Treatment Processes ......................................................... 2-103
Energy Requirements of Commonly Used Reuse and Seawater Desalination
Technologies .......................................................................................................... 4-3
Reuse Applications by Primary and Sub-Category ................................................. 4-4
Reuse Sector Growth Rates and Associated Statistics ........................................... 4-7
Summary Data from 68 Reuse Case Studies Detailed in the Draft MOWE
Regional Planning Reports ................................................................................... 4-11
Observations about Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports Case Study
Statistics by Sub-Group Relative to the Entire Set ............................................... 4-12
Phase I (Wastewater Quality and Treated Water Quality Objectives) ................... 4-14
Phase II (Wastewater Quality and Treated Water Quality Objectives) .................. 4-15
Summary of Economic Evaluation Results: SABIC Water Reuse Study ............... 4-15
Summary of Economic Evaluation Results: Jeddah Industrial City Textile
Processing Industry .............................................................................................. 4-16
Summary of Capital Investment and Payback Period for Water Recycling at
MEPCO Paper Facility in Jeddah City .................................................................. 4-18
Summary of Capital Investment and Payback Period for ARAMCO
Refinery Reuse..................................................................................................... 4-18
Scenario Scoring System ..................................................................................... 4-31
RQTSE MAR Techniques ....................................................................................... 5-1
General Geological Structure of the Greater Riyadh Area .................................... 5-29
General Geological Structure of the Greater Dammam Area ................................ 5-36
RQTSE ASR and MAR Feasibility Scoring System Summary .............................. 5-42
Feasibility Scoring of RQTSE MAR Options ......................................................... 5-44
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-7
8-1
8-2
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-8
9-9
9-10
9-11
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-15
Marine Pollution Emissions from Red Sea Coastal Provinces in KSA ................... 6-11
Estimated Red Sea Pollutants Generated by Saudi Arabias Municipal
Sewage Treatment ............................................................................................... 6-12
Artisanal Ports of Landing in Saudi Arabia (2000) ................................................ 6-17
Estimated Wastewater Discharges from Saudi Arabia to the Arabian Gulf ........... 6-21
Major Port and Other Industry Pollutant Sources .................................................. 6-24
Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse ..................... 7-3
Maximum Chemical Criteria for Sludge Application in Agriculture ........................... 7-6
Maximum Biological Criteria for Sludge Application in Agriculture .......................... 7-7
Proposed Monitoring Requirements for WWTPs .................................................. 7-10
Maximum Containment Levels for RQTSE Contaminants in Wastewater
Receiving Secondary and Tertiary Treatment ....................................................... 7-11
International Examples of Reuse Standards ......................................................... 7-15
California Reuse Application Rules by Treatment Category.................................. 7-17
Definitions of Monitoring Functions ....................................................................... 7-22
Criteria for Evaluating Acceptability of Trucked Wastewater at NWC Facilities ...... 8-7
2010 Untreated Wastewater Flows in KSA, by Region ........................................... 8-8
Categories within Patent Portfolio ........................................................................... 9-3
Top Assignees of Patents and Published Applications ........................................... 9-7
Leading Patent Assignees, by Geography and Technology Category .................. 9-11
Leading Patent Inventors, by Geography and Technology Category .................... 9-11
Leading Patent Assignees, by Geography and Technology Subcategory ............. 9-15
Leading Patent Inventors, by Geography and Technology Subcategory ............... 9-16
Status of Key Technology Areas Relevant to KSA Water Treatment for
Reuse Applications Implied by Patent Analysis .................................................... 9-34
Figures
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
Existing Urban Water Cycle in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia .................................. 1-1
KSA and Political Regions ...................................................................................... 1-3
Major Water Provinces in KSA ............................................................................... 1-7
Total Existing Water Sources by Region................................................................. 1-8
Domestic Water Usage in Select Countries ............................................................ 1-9
Locations of Major Desalination Facilities in KSA ................................................. 1-11
Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Production by Region in 2010,
2025, and 2035 .................................................................................................... 1-16
Proposed RQTSE Use Amounts by Region by Type in Year 2025
Shown as Percent of Total.................................................................................... 1-17
Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Use by Type in KSA ................................. 1-17
Total Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Use by Type in KSA ........................ 1-18
City of Riyadh Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities .......................................... 1-19
Aerial View of the Wadi Hanifa, 2009 / A series of natural stone weirs built to
introduce oxygen into the water ............................................................................ 1-20
Projections of Future Reuse by Sector and Estimates of Available
RQTSE in the City of Riyadh ................................................................................ 1-22
City of Jeddah Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities ......................................... 1-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
XIV
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
1-19
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
2-31
2-32
2-33
2-34
2-35
2-36
2-37
2-38
2-39
2-40
2-41
2-42
2-43
2-44
2-45
2-46
2-47
2-48
XV
City of Makkah Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities ........................................ 1-25

City of Al Madinah Major Wastewater Treatment Facility ...................................... 1-26
Process Schematic of BNR CAS and Integrated Filtration and Disinfection
Facilities to Produce RQTSE ................................................................................ 1-28
Process Schematic of BNR MBR and Integrated Disinfection
Facilities to Produce RQTSE ................................................................................ 1-28
Agricultural Reuse Categories .............................................................................. 1-32
Examples of Reclaimed Water Schemes ................................................................ 2-2
Examples of Reclaimed Water Schemes for High-Quality Uses ............................. 2-3
Examples of Intended Use with Full Treatment....................................................... 2-4
CD Operation and Regeneration ............................................................................ 2-6
Schematic Illustration of FO and RO ...................................................................... 2-9
Simplified Process Schematic of FO ..................................................................... 2-10
ARROW Process Schematic ................................................................................ 2-14
New Jersey ARROW Project for Reject Recovery ................................................ 2-15
OPUSTM Process Schematic (Courtesy of N.A. Water Systems) ......................... 2-16
SPARRO Process Schematic (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2009) ......................... 2-19
Illustration of Tubular Membranes Used in SPARRO............................................ 2-20
Operating Principles of ZDD ................................................................................. 2-21
ZDD Process Schematic (Courtesy of Veolia Water Solutions) ......................... 2-22
Simplified Process Schematic of HDH (Adapted from Narayan et al., 2010) ......... 2-23
Simplified Process Schematic of Multi Effect HDH................................................ 2-24
Dewvaporation Process Schematic ...................................................................... 2-25
Altela Rain Dewvaporation System ....................................................................... 2-26
HIX-NF Process Schematic .................................................................................. 2-29
Schematic of Air-Cathode MDCs .......................................................................... 2-31
Schematic of Air Gap MD ..................................................................................... 2-33
Schematic of Nanotechnologically Advanced RO Membrane ............................... 2-38
Schematic of Four-Bed Adsorption Desalination................................................... 2-39
Schematic of Solar Desalination ........................................................................... 2-41
Solar Desalination Options ................................................................................... 2-42
Schematic Illustration of Ferrate Production ......................................................... 2-45
Schematic of Pasteurization ................................................................................. 2-49
Layout of Field Experiments ................................................................................. 2-57
Process Schematic of Ceramic Membrane Filtration ............................................ 2-60
CoMag Process Schematic .................................................................................. 2-62
Ecosphere OzonixTM System ................................................................................ 2-64
Simplified Process Schematic of AnMBR ............................................................. 2-66
Simplified Process Schematic of AMBR ............................................................... 2-68
Process Schematic of MBfR ................................................................................. 2-71
Pilot MSABP ......................................................................................................... 2-74
Process Schematic of SHARONTM........................................................................ 2-76
Process Schematic of SHARONTM /ANOMMOX ................................................. 2-79
Process Schematic of DEMONTM ......................................................................... 2-80
Process Schematic of Huber VRM Module ........................................................... 2-82
Process Schematic of Algae Biodiesel (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2007) ............ 2-84
Algae Biodiesel Reactor Examples (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2007) ................. 2-84
Schematic of (Courtesy of Columbia University, Dr. Chandran) ........................... 2-86
Schematic Illustration of Microbial Fuel Cell ......................................................... 2-87
Process Schematic of Crystalactor (www.dhv.com) ........................................... 2-89
Process Schematic of the P-RoC Technology (Berg et al., 2005) ......................... 2-90
OSTARAs Struvite Recovery Process ................................................................. 2-91
SAL-PROC Process Schematic ............................................................................ 2-93
Process Schematic of Greenhouse Drying Process (Huber Technology) ............. 2-95
Luggage Point Potable Reuse Plant Schematic.................................................. 2-107
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
4-26
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
6-1
Total Existing and Projected Future Reuse Use by Type in KSA ............................ 3-2
Water Cycle as Typically Depicted ....................................................................... 3-12
What the Future Might Hold with Enhanced Urban Water Reuse.......................... 3-13
Screen Captures from NEWater Computer Program (PUB, 2011) ........................ 3-17
Reuse Projections, Country-Wide by Use Type ...................................................... 4-5
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Regions, 2025 .......................................... 4-5
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Regions as a Percent of
Regional Total, 2025 .............................................................................................. 4-6
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Cities with Industrial Reuse, 2025 ............. 4-6
Proposed Reuse Amounts: By Type for Cities with Industrial Reuse as
Percent of City Group Total, 2025 .......................................................................... 4-7
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Agriculture, Imputed Annual Growth
Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035 ........................................................................ 4-8
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Landscaping, Imputed Annual Growth
Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035 ........................................................................ 4-9
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Industry, Imputed Annual Growth
Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035 ........................................................................ 4-9
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Recreation, Imputed Annual Growth
Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035 ...................................................................... 4-10
Cost-Benefit Ratios for 64 Project Examples from the Draft MOWE Regional
Planning Reports .................................................................................................. 4-12
Cost-Benefit Ratios for 55 Project Examples from the Draft MOWE Regional
Planning Reports .................................................................................................. 4-12
MEPCOs Approach for Wastewater Treatment and Recycling in
Jeddah City Facility .............................................................................................. 4-17
PEARL 500 Reactors in Durham AWTF (Courtesy of Ostara Nutrient Recovery
Technologies) ....................................................................................................... 4-20
Specification of Scenario Flows, Existing Infrastructure, Reuse Quality, and
Reuse Allocations ................................................................................................. 4-26
Projected Flows, Rates, and Revenues for the Five Scenarios ............................. 4-27
Wastewater Treatment Costs for 50,000 m 3/d of Reuse Capacity for Different
Pre-Existing Infrastructure Assumptions ............................................................... 4-29
Reuse Conveyance Cost Assumptions ................................................................. 4-29
Total Costs for Reuse Scenarios .......................................................................... 4-30
Narrative Rating for Each Criterion and Each Scenario and Corresponding Raw
Numerical Score ................................................................................................... 4-31
Summary of Financial Results for the Scenarios .................................................. 4-32
Graphic Presentation of Financial Parameters for Each Scenario......................... 4-33
Net Cash Flows for the Reuse Scenarios ............................................................. 4-33
Net Cash Flows Charts for the Individual Scenarios Also Showing Capital
Investments, Operating Costs, and Revenues ...................................................... 4-34
Component Weighted Scores for Non-Financial Criteria ....................................... 4-35
Graphic Presentation of Component Weighted Scores for Non-Financial Criteria. 4-35
Summary of Financial and Non-Financial Results for the Scenarios ..................... 4-37
Conceptual Diagram of ASR Using Brackish Storage Zone .................................... 5-5
Conceptual Diagram of Physical Storage ASR System .......................................... 5-6
Conceptual Diagram of ASTR System .................................................................... 5-7
Conceptual Diagram of Salinity Barrier System ...................................................... 5-8
Conceptual Diagram of SAT System ...................................................................... 5-9
Conceptual Diagram of Wadi ASTR System ......................................................... 5-12
Conceptual Diagram of Density-driven Movement of Freshwater Injected into
Saline Water in ASR System ................................................................................ 5-13
Conceptual Diagram of Matrix-dominated versus Conduit Flow ............................ 5-14
Geological map of the Arabian Peninsula ............................................................. 5-27
Bathymetry of the Red Sea..................................................................................... 6-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
XIV
6-2
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-7
8-8
8-9
8-10
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-8
9-9
9-10
9-11
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-15
9-16
9-17
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-22
Bathymetry of the Arabian Gulf ............................................................................. 6-16

Timeline of KSA Actions to Promote Reuse ............................................................ 7-1
Typical Parameters of Concern for Reuse Applications .......................................... 7-2
Agricultural Reuse Categories ................................................................................ 7-5
Potable Water Augmentation ................................................................................ 7-18
Estimated Wastewater Balance for Jeddah in 2005 Highlighting Lack of
Wastewater Collection System ............................................................................... 8-2
Location of Jeddah Sewage Lake Relative to Municipality of Jeddah ..................... 8-3
Trucks in Line and Dumping Wastewater Near Jeddah Sewage Lake .................... 8-4
Views of the Jeddah Sewage Lake on 25 July 2010 When Evacuation Effort had
been Underway 2 Weeks and on 5 October 2010 ................................................. 8-5
Views of Former Jeddah Sewage Lake in July 2011.............................................. 8-5
Septage Handling Options ...................................................................................... 8-6
Wastewater Truck that had been Turned Away from WWTP Dumping
Wastewater along Roadside ................................................................................... 8-7
Projected Wastewater Treatment Capacity Shortfalls in KSA Regions .................. 8-9
Photographs of Reed Bed Effluent Polishing System Followed by Storage
Basin for RQTSE ................................................................................................. 8-12
Process Flow Diagram of North Shouneh Septage Treatment Facility .................. 8-14
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Category ......................................... 9-4
Overlap between Technology Categories ............................................................... 9-4
Patenting Activity (Published Applications and Granted Patents) by Geography .... 9-5
Patent Pipeline Published Applications versus Granted Patents, by Geography,
2000-09 ..................................................................................................................9-5
Patent Filings over Time by Geography .................................................................. 9-6
Change in Patenting Activity over Time by Technology Category and
Geography ............................................................................................................. 9-7
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Subcategory, 2000-09 ................... 9-10
Change in Patenting Activity over Time by Technology Subcategory and
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-10
Landscape of Oxidation-Related Technologies 2005-2010 ................................... 9-13
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Subcategory.................................. 9-16
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-17
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-19
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-22
Landscape of Bioreactor-Related Technologies 2005-2010.................................. 9-24
Landscape of Anaerobic-Related Technologies 2005-2010 .................................. 9-26
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-28
Landscape of Forward Osmosis-Related Technologies 2005-2010 ...................... 9-30
Geography ........................................................................................................... 9-32
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................
XV
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 1: Overview of Water Reuse in

Saudi Arabia
1.1 Introduction
Water reclamation and reuse
has become an important
worldwide total water
management topic over the
last 30 years as the
limitations of freshwater
resources have come into
sharp focus. In the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia (KSA),
potable water is produced
from either non-renewable or
very slowly renewable water
resources such as
groundwater or capital- and
energy-intensive seawater
desalinations. Much of the
potable water produced from
these costly and nonrenewable sources is used
for non-potable purposes,
and these existing sources
and treatment methods will
not sustainably meet the
future potable and nonpotable water demands in
most regions of KSA.
FIGURE 1-1
Existing Urban Water Cycle in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Reserving the use of

Modified Water Cycle [Adapted and used from Talking About Water (WRF07-03), Copyright 2011, with permission from the WateReuse Research
expensive potable water for
Foundation.
truly potable needs will
extend the life of these
valuable resources. Fortunately, non-potable demands can be met by using a sustainable
resource that is available in KSA reclaimed water. Considering strategies that include water
reuse as an essential component of integrated water resources management to ensure that
present water needs and future demands are met cost-effectively and in a sustainable manner is
a rapidly growing trend especially in water-scarce regions. Figure 1-1 depicts the urban water
cycle that is currently in place in many of the largest cities in KSA; water is reclaimed by
advanced treatment and then used in urban settings primarily for landscaping and irrigation. The
use of reclaimed water in industrial settings is increasing, and additional markets are developing.
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF WATER REUSE IN SAUDI ARABIA
Reclaimed water is produced by treating wastewater so

that it can be safely reused for non-potable needs such
as industrial processes and cooling, agricultural
irrigation, landscaping, groundwater recharge, and
ecosystem creation or restoration. The primary drivers
for reuse are:
Increasing populations create water demands that

cannot sustainably be met using only the existing
water sources and treatment technologies.
Meeting new demands will require very significant

capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)
investment in new desalination plants and
groundwater wells.
The use of alternative water resources such as

reclaimed water can reduce the infrastructure
needed for new potable water supplies.
The need to prevent seawater intrusion and

replenish groundwater sources.
Benefits of Water Reuse
Reduces demand on nonrenewable water resources or

resources that renew very slowly
such as groundwater
Allows the initial high cost of
purifying water for drinking to be
recouped since the water is
beneficially reused
Reduces energy used for
treatment and conveyance
Minimizes discharge to surface
waters, thus minimizing pollutant
discharges
Less expensive for cooling than
highly treated desalinated water for
industries, commercial enterprises,
and possibly public buildings
Lowers the cost of infrastructure
for new potable supplies
Helps prevent saltwater intrusion
and replenish groundwater
resources
Increasingly stringent wastewater quality discharge

requirements will necessitate significant capital and
O&M investments to meet new discharge standards.
By discharging highly treated wastewater to the sea or other surface waters, the return on
the investments made in purifying the water for drinking and then treating it to stringent levels
to discharge is lost because the water is not reused.
Reduces energy used for treatment and conveyance.
Using the reclaimed water, rather than discharging it to surface waters, minimizes the
discharge of pollutants to surface waters.
Reuse water that has been treated to meet the standards adopted by the KSA Ministry of Water
and Electricity (MOWE) is typically referred to as reuse quality treated sewage effluent (RQTSE).
In this Strategic Study, other terms such as recycled water and reclaimed water are also used
in certain contexts to refer to this highly treated product. Depending on its level of treatment,
RQTSE may be used for either restricted or unrestricted uses, as defined in Section 1.9. Other
wastewater that receives lower levels of treatment is referred to as treated wastewater or treated
sewage effluent (TSE).
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the current status of water reuse in KSA as well as
information about water demands and wastewater treatment, reuse, and disposal. Water
demands and wastewater flow projections have been developed based on the 2010 census
population, as described in this chapter. In addition, information about water, wastewater,
and reuse was provided by MOWE for the purposes of this Strategic Study. At the time of
this writing, MOWEs 13 Regional Planning Reports were considered drafts under review
(ItalConsult, 2009-2010).
This chapter also provides an overview of existing regulations that are applicable to reuse
and biosolids management, as well as an assessment of major barriers to more
comprehensive water reuse and biosolids use in KSA. In addition, this chapter identifies
gaps in information and policy that should be addressed to achieve KSAs goals.
KSA has a number of goals for providing infrastructure for water, wastewater, and reuse in
cities with populations greater than 5,000 people. In general, it is planned that the
1-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
coverage for water supply and sewage collection will

be nearly 100 percent in these cities by the Year
2025. It is also planned that nearly all of the sewage
collection systems will be connected to wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) by the Year 2025.
Further, it is planned that all RQTSE will be
beneficially reused (ItalConsult, 2009-2010).
MOWE Infrastructure Goals for

Cities >5,000 People
Cities will be nearly 100%

served with water supply and
sewage collection systems by
2025.
Nearly all sewage collection
systems will be connected to
WWTPs by 2025.
All RQTSE will be beneficially
reused.
It is important to understand the role of the National

Water Company (NWC) in meeting these
infrastructure goals. The NWC was created by Royal
Decree in January 2008 and is a public company

owned by the government. The NWC Board is
chaired by the Minister of Water and Electricity.
NWCs mission is to restructure and provide drinking water and wastewater services in
accordance with the latest international standards through privatization and working with
various international operators. The NWC is described further in Section 1.11. MOWE
maintains its strategic role in establishing the National Water Plan and introducing laws and
legislation that regulate water and wastewater services in the Kingdom. MOWE also
continues to provide water and wastewater services in cities yet to be privatized.
Planning efforts for water, wastewater, and reuse infrastructure are generally more
developed for the six largest cities in KSA: Riyadh, Jeddah, the Holy City of Makkah, Al Taif,
the Holy City of Madinah, and Dammam. This chapter presents detailed information about
water, wastewater, and reuse in these six cities and more generalized information about the
remaining regions. The NWC is currently responsible for water and wastewater services in
Riyadh, Jeddah, Makkah and Al Taif. It will soon become responsible for services in Al
Madinah and Dammam.
KSA consists of 13 regions,
as shown in Figure 1-2. An
overview of each region,
including the primary
activities of the region and the
largest cities in KSA, is
provided in Table 1-1. Based
on the Year 2010 census,
there were over 27 million
people within the 13 regions
of KSA, ranging from over
320,000 in the Northern
Borders Region to 4.1 million
in the Eastern Province, and
nearly 7 million in both the
Makkah and Riyadh Regions.
Riyadh is the national capital
and largest city in KSA.
Three of the other largest
cities in the country Jeddah,
Makkah, and Al Taif are
FIGURE 1-2
located within the Makkah
Region. According to the
KSA and Political Regions
2010 census, the population
in the Kingdoms six largest cities totaled nearly 13.5 million people, which was half of the
total KSA population.
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-3
TABLE 1-1
Overview of Regions and Major Cities

Region
Al Baha
Al Jouf
Assir
Total Area
2 a,b
(km )
9,900
100,200
76,700
Eastern
Province
672,500
Hail
103,900
Jizan
Madinah
11,700
152,000
Classification
2010 Census
a,b
Population
Tourism
411,900
Desert
440,000
Agriculture
1,913,400
Industry, Empty
Quarter Desert
4,105,800
Desert
Major Cities
a,b,c
Dammam
Population: 904,000
Activities: Agriculture; Port; Industry
597,100
Agriculture
1,365,100
Agriculture, Tourism
1,777,900
Al Madinah
Population: 1,181,000
Activities: Agriculture, Tourism
Makkah
153,100
Tourism, Industry,
Business Center,
Port, Agriculture
6,915,000
Najran
149,500
Agriculture
505,700
Northern
Borders
111,800
Desert
320,500
Qaseem
58,000
Riyadh
Tabouk
Totals
404,200
146,000
Agriculture
1,215,900
National Capital,
Industry, Desert
6,777,100
Agriculture
2,149,500
Jeddah
Makkah
Al Taif
Population:
3,456,000
Population:
1,675,000
Population:
988,000
Activities:
Industry; Port
Activities:
Tourism
Activities:
Agriculture
Riyadh
Population: 5,255,000
Activities: National Capital
791,500
27,136,900
www.geohive.com; 2010 Census Population

Numbers have been rounded
c
ItalConsult (2009-2010)
2
km = square kilometer
b
1.2 Population Projections

The KSA Central Department of Statistics and Information (CDSI) published the results of
the 2010 population census (www.cdsi.gov.sa) listing the population of the Kingdom as
27,136,900. Another source (www.geohive.com) reported the same total population and
also provided population information by regions and cities. The 2004 census population was
22,678,300. In the 6 years between 2004 and 2010, the population of KSA increased at
approximately 3.2 percent per year.
The KSA Ministry of Planning, Statistics Department prepared population projections from
Year 2010 through Year 2021 by region, in 5-year increments (ItalConsult 2009-2010). The
growth percentages were calculated from the Ministrys population projections and are
presented in the first two columns of Table 1-2.
1-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
The population growth projection from 2010 to

2015 is approximately 2 percent per year; this
rate is supported in the Global Water Market
2011 Report (Global Water Intelligence, 2011).
Based on the information contained in the Draft
MOWE Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult,
2009-2010), the percentages shown in the last
three columns of Table 1-2 were applied to
project population growth through 2035.
Population, Growth and RQTSE
Nearly half of the Kingdoms

population lives in the six largest
cities.
In 2035, nearly half of the population
is projected to live in the six largest
cities.
Nearly 20 percent of KSAs population
is projected to live in Riyadh in 2035.
The projected growth will increase
wastewater flows but will also provide
important opportunities for reuse of
RQTSE to offset large future water
demands.
To calculate population projections for 2025 and
2035, the percentages presented in Table 1-2

were applied to the 2010 census population
figures. The populations for 2025 and 2035 are
presented in Table 1-3. The growth in population
in KSA and particularly in the six largest cities will
significantly increase water demands, as
described in the next section. In addition, the projected growth will increase wastewater flows
but will also provide important opportunities for reuse of RQTSE to offset water demands.
The population of the six largest cities in the Kingdom, as shown in Table 1-4, is projected to
increase by approximately 55 percent from 13.5 million in 2010 to nearly 21 million in 2035.
Nearly half of the Kingdoms population is projected to live in the six largest cities in 2035 and
nearly 20 percent of the KSAs population is projected to live in Riyadh in that year.
TABLE 1-2
Population Growth Percentages from 2010 through 2035

Population Growth Percentages in 5-Year Increments
Region
20102015
20152020
20202025
20252030
20302035
Al Baha
9.5
9.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
Al Jouf
10.7
9.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
Assir
10.5
9.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
Eastern Province
10.4
9.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
Hail
10.7
9.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
Jizan
12.1
9.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
Madinah
11.5
9.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
Makkah
10.4
9.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Najran
9.2
9.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
Northern Borders
12.4
9.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Qaseem
10.9
9.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
Riyadh
11.4
9.0
9.0
8.6
8.6
Tabouk
12.1
9.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
a Calculated percentages from KSA Ministry of Planning, Statistics Department information as reported in the
Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult 2009-2010)
b Percentages calculated from information as reported in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
(ItalConsult 2009-2010)
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-5
TABLE 1-3
Year 2010 Census Population and Projections for Years 2025 and 2035
Region
2010 Census
a,b
Population
Population Projections
b,c
2025
2035
Al Baha
411,900
536,000
631,000
Al Jouf
440,000
577,000
677,000
Assir
1,913,400
2,512,000
2,957,000
Eastern Province
4,105,800
5,374,000
6,309,000
597,100
786,000
925,000
Jizan
1,365,100
1,817,000
2,137,000
Madinah
1,777,900
2,355,000
2,769,000
Makkah
6,915,000
9,067,000
10,667,000
Najran
505,700
654,000
767,000
Northern Borders
320,500
428,000
503,000
Qaseem
1,215,900
1,600,000
1,882,000
Riyadh
6,777,100
8,974,000
10,588,000
Tabouk
791,500
1,054,000
1,241,000
27,136,900
35,734,000
42,053,000
Hail
Totals
a

c
Calculated by CH2M HILL based on percentages presented in Table 1-2
b
TABLE 1-4
Year 2010 Census Population and Projections for Years 2025 and 2035 for Six Largest Cities in KSA
Population Projections
City
2010 Census
b,c
Population
2025
a,b
2035
Riyadh
5,255,000
6,958,000
8,205,000
Jeddah
3,456,000
4,532,000
5,331,000
Makkah
1,675,000
2,197,000
2,584,000
988,000
1,295,000
1,524,000
1,181,000
1,564,000
1,839,000
904,000
1,183,000
1,388,000
13,459,000
17,729,000
20,871,000
Al Taif
Al Madinah
Dammam
Totals
a

Calculated by CH2M HILL based on percentages presented in Table 1-2
c
b
1-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
1.3 Water Supplies and Demands

1.3.1 Water Supplies in KSA
Water supplies in KSA consist primarily of groundwater and desalinated water and vary by
region, as shown in Figure 1-3. The water resources in each province are described in
Table 1-5. In general, slightly more desalinated water is used than groundwater, but this
varies greatly by region as shown in Figure 1-4.
FIGURE 1-3
Major Water Provinces in KSA

Adapted from Dr. Mohammed Al-Saud (31-05-2011)
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-7
TABLE 1-5
Existing Water Sources and Supplies (Does not include all water used for agriculture or industrial purposes)
Groundwater Supplya,b
Region
% of Supply
Qty (m3/day)
Desalinated Water Supplya,b

Depth (m)
% of Supply
Qty (m3/day)
Al Baha
100
24,000
10 - 50
Al Jouf
100
65,000
150 - 450
Assir
23
24,000
50 - 100
77
78,000
Eastern Province
61
675,000
100 - 200
39
433,000
Hail
100
61,000
150 - 400
Jizan
98
62,000
10 - 70
2,000
Madinah
18
72,000
150 - 200
82
332,000
Makkah
48,000
15 - 50
96
1,059,000
Najran
100
9,000
50 - 100
Northern Borders
75
39,000
50 - 100
25
13,000
Qaseem
95
265,000
200 - 1400
15,000
Riyadh
54
993,000
1200 - 1500
46
854,000
Tabouk
86
98,000
400 - 600
14
16,000
Individual Total
Combined Total
2,435,000
2,802,000
5,237,000 m3/day
Numbers rounded
ItalConsult (2009-2010) with information from regional General Water Directorates
m3/day = cubic meters per day
b
2,000,000
1,800,000
Existing Water Sources (m3/day)
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Desalinated
Water Supply
Groundwater
Supply
400,000
200,000
0
FIGURE 1-4
Total Existing Water Sources by Region

Note: Reference: ItalConsult (2009-2010) with information from regional General Water
Directorates
1-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
Table 1-5 provides information about existing water supplies, including supply sources and
depth to groundwater by region. The water supply source information was provided by the
General Directorate of Water in each region and was summarized in the Draft MOWE
Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult 2009-2010). Since these values are generalized for
each region, it will be important to rely upon specific master planning information when
developing plans for infrastructure, including capital and other types of expenditures.
In the Madinah and Makkah regions, desalinated water provides 82 percent and 96 percent,
respectively, of the regions demands, while in the Riyadh region, more of the water supply is
from groundwater than desalinated water. In most of the Kingdom, the depth to groundwater
is generally 100 meters (m) to 600 m, but in the Riyadh region, the groundwater is at depths
of 1,200 m to 1,500 m.
With the exception of the larger cities, it should be noted that currently many cities have only a
small percentage of their service area provided with water distribution systems. The larger cities
tend to have a higher percentage of distribution system coverage. According to MOWE plans, in
general, coverage for water supply systems will be nearly 100 percent in cities greater than
5,000 people by the Year 2025.
1.3.2 Domestic Water Demands in KSA

The domestic water demand per capita per day has been established by MOWE, based upon
city size as follows:
250 liters (L)/capita/day for cities with populations > 85,000 (large cities)
200L/capita/day for cities with populations < 85,000 (medium and small cities)
These values are supported by information in the Global Water Market 2011 Report and noted
to be rather high by international standards (Global Water Intelligence, 2011). Figure 1-5 depicts
the domestic water usage for several countries around the world for comparison.
Domestic Water Usage (L/capita/day)
700
666
600
500
431
400
286
300
228
200
100
99
100
118
130
136
136
151
155
166
FIGURE 1-5
Domestic Water Usage in Select Countries

Source: Loay Al-Musallam, 2010
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-9
Future Water Demands

These demands (250 L/capita/day and 200
L/capita/day respectively) were applied to the 2010
census population and the projected population as
presented in Section 1.2. The resulting water
demands are presented in Table 1-6. Water
demand is projected to increase by approximately
3,800,000 m3/day or about 56 percent between
2010 and 2035. It is important to note that the
projected future water demands cannot sustainably
be met using only the 5,200,000 m3/day existing
water supplies as presented in Table 1-5. Meeting
new demands will require very significant capital
and O&M investment in new desalination plants
and groundwater wells. However, the use of
alternative water resources such as RQTSE can
provide water to meet non-potable demands. Its
use will help reduce the need for new potable
water supplies and associated infrastructure, as
well as reducing the energy required for treatment
and conveyance. Promoting water conservation
will also reduce the need for new supplies.
Water demand is projected to increase

by 3,800,000 m3/day or about 56
percent between 2010 and 2035.
Future demands cannot be met
sustainably based solely on existing
sources and treatment technologies.
Meeting future demands will require
very significant capital and O&M
investments.
RQTSE can provide water to meet
non-potable demands and its use will
help reduce the need for new potable
water supplies.
Use of RQTSE also reduces the
energy required for treatment and
conveyance.
Promoting water conservation will also
reduce the need for new supplies.
TABLE 1-6
Calculated Water Demands

Calculated Water Demand (m3/day)
Region
a,b
2010
2025
2035
Al Baha
88,000
119,000
149,000
Al Jouf
108,000
141,000
165,000
Assir
459,000
616,000
735,000
1,013,000
1,331,000
1,567,000
Hail
145,000
191,000
225,000
Jizan
318,000
443,000
530,000
Madinah
430,000
573,000
689,000
Makkah
1,718,000
2,253,000
2,655,000
Najran
122,000
158,000
185,000
Northern Borders
74,000
104,000
122,000
Qaseem
289,000
380,000
456,000
Riyadh
1,666,000
2,225,000
2,626,000
Tabouk
187,000
249,000
298,000
6,617,000
8,783,000
10,402,000
Eastern Province
Totals
a

Calculated by CH2M HILL based on population projections and MOWE demands of 250L/capita/day for cities
with populations > 85,000, and 200L/capita/day for cities with populations < 85,000
b
When considering water demands, it is important to note that in many areas, potable water
service is not continuously available to customers and the water demand shortfall is managed by
operating the water distribution system such that customers may receive water only periodically
1-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
which helps ensure that all customers are provided with at least some level of service. When
supplies are continuous, some areas report water demands of up to 400 L/capita/day. The
MOWE water demand estimate of approximately 250 L/capita/day may not reflect the actual
quantity of water that may be used if access were not restricted.
Since the values presented in Tables 1-5 and 1-6 are generalized for the regions and cities,
it will be important to rely upon specific master planning information when developing plans
for infrastructure and other capital expenditures.
The six largest cities in KSA comprise over 50 percent of the total 2010 water demand in the
Kingdom and are projected to comprise the same percentage of the total demand in 2035.
Table 1-7 summarizes information for the six largest cities. Three of the cities Riyadh,
Dammam, and Al Madinah have 90 percent or greater coverage with water distribution
system networks. Al Taif and Jeddah have greater than 75 percent coverage, while Makkah
has only 56 percent coverage.
Two cities in the Makkah region, Jeddah and Makkah, rely on desalinated water for nearly
100 percent of their water supply, while desalinated water supplies 83 percent of the needs
of Al Taif and Al Madinah. Water supplies for Riyadh and Dammam are approximately 50
percent groundwater and 50 percent desalinated water.
Figure 1-6 shows the locations of the five major desalination water facilities in KSA.
FIGURE 1-6
Locations of Major Desalination Facilities in KSA
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-11
TABLE 1-7
Water Supply and Demand in Largest Citiesa
City
% of City with
Water
Distribution
Systemc
Existing Water Supplyb

Total
Supply
(m3/day)
Calculated Water Demand (m3/day)d
Groundwater
Desalinated Water
m3/day
m3/day
2010
2025
2035
52%
1,314,000
1,740,000
2,052,000
<1% 630,000
99%
864,000
1,133,000
1,333,000
0%
280,000
100%
419,000
549,000
646,000
745,000 48% 812,000

Jeddah
80%
633,000
3,000
Makkah
56%
280,000
Al Taif
78%
137,000
23,000
17% 114,000
83%
247,000
324,000
381,000
Al
Madinah
98%
327,000
55,000
17% 272,000
83%
295,000
391,000
460,000
Dammam
95%
345,000
190,000 55% 155,000
45%
226,000
296,000
347,000
3,365,000
4,433,000
5,219,000
Totals
3,279,000
1,016,000
2,263,000

ItalConsult (2009-2010); Numbers provided for 2009 with information from regional General Water Directorates
c
ItalConsult (2009-2010); Numbers provided for 2009
b
Calculated by CH2M HILL based on population projections and MOWE demands of 250L/capita/day for cities
with populations > 85,000
Riyadh
Desalinated water is supplied to the city of Riyadh from the Al Jubail Desalination Plant
located on the Arabian Gulf in the Eastern Province. Approximately 812,000 m3/day of
desalinated water is transferred in three 1,500-millimeter (mm) diameter pipelines for a
distance of about 450 km and amounts to approximately 52 percent of the citys water
supply. Groundwater comprises 48 percent of the city of Riyadh water supply and is
supplied from nine wellfields. Seven of the wellfields are located within the city and supply
250,000 m3/day. However, the groundwater table in Riyadh has declined significantly due to
an increase in withdrawals, causing the piezometric level to fall from 45 m in 1956 to 170 m
below ground in 1980, and to more than 250 m in 2008. Two wellfields, located
approximately 70 km and 200 km outside the city, provide a total of 495,000 m3/day of
groundwater to the city. In Riyadh, the water supply and distribution systems are the
responsibility of the NWC.
Jeddah
The city of Jeddahs water supply is almost all desalinated water produced by two plants on
the Red Sea: the Jeddah Plant, which provides about 400,000 m3/day, and the Shoaibah
Plant, which provides approximately 230,000 m3/day. The combined total was 630,000
m3/day in 2009. A small additional amount of water (3,000 m3/day) was provided by
groundwater. There are plans to increase the capacity of both the Jeddah Plant and the
Shoaibah Plant to meet future water demands. The water supply and distribution systems
are the responsibility of the NWC.
Makkah and Al Taif

The city of Makkahs water supply consists entirely of desalinated water produced by the
Shoaibah Plant located near Jeddah; approximately 280,000 m3/day was provided to Makkah in
2009. In Makkah, the water supply and distribution systems are the responsibility of the NWC.
1-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
The desalinated water supply for the city of Al Taif is transferred from the city of Makkah. It
is supplied by the Shoaibah Plant located near Jeddah and comprises 83 percent of the
water supply of Al Taif. The remaining 17 percent of the citys supply is groundwater from
wellfields located several hundred km from the city. The water supply and distribution
systems are the responsibility of the NWC.
Al Madinah
The city of Al Madinahs water supply is primarily desalinated water (272,000 m3/day)
produced by the Yanbu Desalination Plant, which has been in operation since 1981. It is
located on the Red Sea and water is transferred approximately 250 km to Al Madinah
through two transmission lines. Groundwater (55,000 m3/day) is provided from wellfields
located south of Al Madinah, which include approximately 90 production wells. In Al
Madinah, the water supply and distribution system will be under the responsibility of the
NWC in the near future.
Dammam
The water supply for Dammam is approximately 55 percent groundwater and 45 percent
desalinated water. The Al Aziziyah (Khobar) Desalination Plant on the Arabian Gulf supplies
155,000 m3/day of water to Dammam. Due to heavy groundwater pumping to provide an
additional 190,000 m3/day of water, most of the wells show a significant drop in the water
table, especially in the Dammam area. In Dammam, the water supply and distribution
system will be under the responsibility of the NWC in the near future.
1.4 Wastewater Flows

WWTPs are located in nearly every region and
primarily serve the large and medium cities. Many
more plants throughout the Kingdom are under
construction or planned. It should be noted that
currently many cities have only a small percentage of
their service area provided with sewage collection.
The larger cities tend to have a higher percentage of
sewage system coverage. According to MOWE
plans, the percent coverage for sewage collection
systems will be nearly 100 percent in cities greater
than 5,000 people by the Year 2025 (ItalConsult,
2009-2010).
Future Wastewater Flows
Wastewater flows are projected to

increase by approximately
3,200,000 m3/day or about 76
percent between 2010 and 2035.
Increased wastewater flows will
provide important opportunities for
reuse of RQTSE to offset large
future water demands.
Table 1-8 summarizes the 2010 and projected wastewater flows for Years 2025 and 2035.
Future wastewater flows were calculated from the water projections based on the following
assumptions used in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult 2009-2010):
The amount of return flow to the sanitary sewage system is 80 percent.

Current leakage in the collection system is 20 percent.
Leakage will decrease to 15 percent by the Year 2025 and to 10 percent by the Year
2035.
Because wastewater flows are calculated from the water demands (which are calculated
from the population projections), the flows are not directly related to the percentage of cities
that are served with sanitary sewage services.
Based on the 2010 census, it will be necessary for MOWE to review its plans for future
WWTP capacities to determine if additional capacity may be needed to accommodate
growth patterns that may have changed since previous projections.
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-13
TABLE 1-8
Projected Wastewater Flows and WWTP Status in Each Regiona

WWTPs and Capacities (m3/day)
Calculated Wastewater Flows (m3/day)
Region
2010
2025
Al Baha
56,000
Al Jouf
Existing
Under Construction
81,000
107,000
16,200
72,600
88,800
69,000
96,000
119,000
38,000
57,500
22,000
117,500
Assir
294,000
419,000
529,000
82,500
172,500
255,000
Eastern Province
648,000
905,000
1,128,000
13
527,300
251,000
400,000
1,178,300
93,000
130,000
162,000
19,200
87,600
55,800
162,600
Jizan
203,000
301,000
381,000
20,000
22
112,000
132,000
Madinah
275,000
390,000
496,000
351,000
34,000
385,000
1,100,000
1,532,000
1,911,000
15
888,000
902,000
113,000
1,903,000
Najran
78,000
107,000
133,000
60,000
170,000
230,000
Northern Borders
47,000
71,000
88,000
24,000
24,000
25,000
73,000
185,000
258,000
328,000
131,500
125,000
256,600
Riyadh
1,066,000
1,513,000
1,890,000
10
993,500
443,500
530,000
1,967,000
Tabouk
120,000
169,000
214,000
60,000
15,000
75,000
4,234,000
5,972,000
7,486,000
1,500,400
6,823,700
Qaseem
Totals
3,135,000
Capacity
2,188,300
No.
Capacity
Total Planned
e
Future Capacity
No.
Makkah
No.
Planned
2035
Hail
Capacity

Calculated by CH2M HILL based on population projections, calculated water demands and the amount of return flow to the sanitary sewage system. The amount of return flow, per
MOWE, is 80 percent; in 2010, leakage in the collection system was 20 percent; leakage will decrease to 15 percent by the Year 2025 and to 10 percent by the Year 2035
c
d
Under Construction includes both new plants and expansions to existing plants
e
No timeframe was provided for the total planned future capacity values included in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult, 2009-2010)
b
1-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
Most of the wastewater is generated in the six largest cities and receives tertiary or
secondary treatment, as shown in Table 1-9. More details about wastewater and reuse in
these cities are provided in Section 1.5.
As shown in Table 1-8, three plants are nearing or have exceeded their design capacity.
The Airport 1 WWTP project has recently been completed in Jeddah to significantly increase
capacity. Projects are currently under construction in Riyadh, Jeddah, Makkah, and
Dammam to provide additional capacity. Additional projects are planned for Riyadh, Jeddah,
Al Taif, and Al Madinah.
The values presented in Tables 1-8 and 1-9 are generalized for the regions and cities, and it
will be important to rely upon specific master planning information when developing plans for
infrastructure and other capital expenditures.
TABLE 1-9
Wastewater Flows in Largest Cities

Total
Existing
Treatment
Capacity
(m3/day)b,c
Number of
Major
WWTPs
Percent of
City
Seweredc,d
55%
5 Tertiary
1 no information
832,000
11
50%
10 Secondary
1 Tertiary
Makkah
45%
1 Primary
2 Secondary
Al Taif
50%
Secondary
Al
Madinah
68%
Dammam
78%
City
Riyadh
Jeddah
Calculated Wastewater Flows (m3/day)a,b
2025
2035
841,000
1,183,000
1,478,000
621,000
553,000
770,000
960,000
195,000
268,000
373,000
465,000
67,000
158,000
220,000
274,000
Tertiary
240,000
189,000
266,000
331,000
Secondary
209,000
145,000
201,000
250,000
2,164,000
2,154,000
3,013,000
3,758,000
Treatment Levelc,e
Totals
2010
Calculated by CH2M HILL based on population projections, calculated water demands and the amount of
return flow to the sanitary sewage system. The amount of return flow, per MOWE, is 80 percent; in 2010,
leakage in the collection system is 20 percent; leakage will decrease to 15 percent by the Year 2025 and to 10
percent by the Year 2035
b
Percentages provided for 2008-2009
Primary treatment removes a portion of suspended solids and organic material. Secondary treatment
removes biodegradable organic matter (in solution or suspension) and suspended solids. Disinfection is
typically included in the definition of conventional secondary treatment. Tertiary treatment removes residual
suspended solids (after secondary treatment) using granular media, surface or membrane filtration.
Disinfection is typically part of tertiary treatment. Nutrient removal is often included in tertiary treatment.
Includes Airport 1 WWTP
1.5 Water Reuse

The term reuse disposal water is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms
wastewater recycling and wastewater reclamation. Because the public often does not
generally understand the quality difference between treated and untreated wastewater,
many communities have shortened the term to water reuse, which creates a more positive
image. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines wastewater reuse as
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-15
using wastewater or treated wastewater from one

application for another application. The deliberate
use of wastewater or treated wastewater must be in
compliance with applicable rules for a beneficial
purpose, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural
irrigation, aesthetic uses, groundwater recharge, and
industrial uses.
Current RQTSE Uses in KSA
Agricultural irrigation.
Landscaping in urban areas.
Landscaping on WWTP sites.
Industrial use for processing and
cooling.
Recreation.
Aquifer recharge.
KSA is committed to beneficially using all RQTSE in
the future. This section describes existing RQTSE

uses as well as projections that have been made for future RQTSE uses in KSA. This
section also includes a more detailed discussion of the current and future RQTSE situation
in the Kingdoms six largest cities.
1.5.1 Current and Projected RQTSE Use in KSA

A number of WWTPs in several regions of KSA are producing RQTSE that is being reused.
Existing and projected RQTSE production by region through 2035 is shown in Figure 1-7.
Use of RQTSE is projected to be greatest in the Riyadh, Makkah, Al Madinah, and Eastern
Province regions, which are home to the six largest cities in KSA.
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
RQSTE Production
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
2025-2035
2010-2025
2010
400,000
200,000
FIGURE 1-7
Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Production by Region in 2010, 2025, and 2035
Reference: ItalConsult (2009-2010)
Figure 1-8 shows the percentage of RQTSE use by type projected for the year 2025; it is
clear that agricultural RQTSE use is the largest percentage in every region of KSA.
Figures 1-9 and 1-10 also demonstrate that the greatest use of RQTSE now and anticipated
in the future is for agricultural purposes. Landscaping in urban areas and around the
WWTPs is also a significant use. The most common use of RQTSE by industries is for
processing and cooling for power stations. By comparison, only small quantities are used for
recreational purposes and for aquifer recharge. Note that Figures 1-9 and 1-10 are based
on the same data; the data are just displayed differently in the two figures. Table 1-10
presents more detail about each type of RQTSE use.
1-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
100%
0%
4%
0%
10%
0%
7%
19%
90%
80%
0%
29%
20%
0%
0%
0%
3%
16%
20%
0%
10%
0%
0%
3%
0%
16%
30%
30%
0%
4%
0%
6%
17%
26%
31%
30%
23%
70%
RQSTE Use by Type
0%
11%
9%
21%
45%
30%
60%
30%
Aquifer Recharge
50%
Recreation
81%
40%
67%
67%
63%
30%
62%
50%
20%
70%
70%
60%
Industry
68%
Landscaping
60%
Agriculture
43%
40%
10%
0%
FIGURE 1-8
Proposed RQTSE Use Amounts by Region by Type in Year 2025 Shown as Percent of Total
RQSTE Use by Type (m 3 /day)
6,000,000
Total
5,000,000
Agriculture
Landscaping
4,000,000
Industry
3,000,000
Recreation
2,000,000
Aquifer Recharge
1,000,000
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
FIGURE 1-9
Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Use by Type in KSA

Reference: ItalConsult (2009-2010
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-17
7,000
6,000
RQSTE Use by Type (1,000 m3/day)
5,000
4,000
Aquifer Recharge
Agriculture
Recreation
3,000
Landscaping
Industry
2,000
1,000
0
2010
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
FIGURE 1-10
Total Existing and Projected Future RQTSE Use by Type in KSA

TABLE 1-10
Reuse Applications by Primary and Sub-Category

Primary Categories
Agriculture
Landscaping
Industrial
Recreation
Aquifer Recharge
1-18
Sub-Categories/Examples
Tertiary treatment is required to meet unrestricted agricultural irrigation, which

includes salad crops and vegetables eaten raw, and restricted, other crops; winter
and summer cultivation.
Crop examples include: cereal, vegetables, melons, watermelon, fruits, citrus,

grapes, dates, fodder, alfalfa.
Secondary treated and disinfected water suitable for most landscaping in areas
without direct human contact. Tertiary treatment is required for use in public parks or
other areas where direct human contact is likely.
Applications include: green areas in the cities, such as planting trees along roads,
turf and grass areas, and public parks.
Secondary treated and disinfected water in some cases (cooling towers, irrigating
nurseries and plants surrounding industrial areas).
Very high quality water for some uses (high pressure boiler feed); even higher quality
may be needed for other uses.
Not regulated in KSA yet. However, in most cases, tertiary treatment is required for
unrestricted recreation.
In Al Jouf Region: small lakes or parks
In Riyadh Region: development of Wadi Hanifa, maintenance of Al Hayer Lakes
Not regulated in KSA yet. The requirements vary depending upon recharge type
(direct recharge or sub-surface spreading, etc.).
Used to reduce the scale of drop in water table.
In Qaseem Region: allocated amounts flow through a wadi and mix with stored water
from stormwater for aquifer recharge.
STRATEGIC STUDY
In 2025, approximately 4,700,000 m3/day of RQTSE is anticipated to be used (ItalConsult,

2009-2010.) However, other sources predict that reuse demands will occur more quickly.
For example, according to the NWC, RQTSE demand is expected to be approximately
5,200,000 m3/day in 2020 (Loay Al-Musallam, 2010).
1.5.2 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Riyadh

Riyadh is the national capital and largest city in
KSA. The 2010 census population was 5,255,000,
and only about 55 percent of the city has sanitary
sewer service. Currently, there are five major
wastewater systems that collect and treat municipal
wastewater in the city and one system that collects
and treats industrial wastewater (Figure 1-11).
However, there are many other small private
WWTPs serving other entities such as airports,
military camps, and hospitals. According to the
General Water Directorates statistics for Riyadh,
there are about 62 operating WWTPs in the city.
Riyadh Wastewater Facts
2010 Population: 5,255,000

Major WWTPs: 6
Percent of City Sewered: 55%
2010 Flows at Major WWTPs:
671,700 m3/day
Existing Major WWTP Capacity:
832,000 m3/day
Amount Reused: 327,200 m3/day
Percent Reused: 49%
FIGURE 1-11
City of Riyadh Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The city of Riyadh has been very successful in reusing nearly 50% of its RQTSE, primarily in
these four categories:
Discharged into wadis or pumped to farms for agricultural uses; an example is RQTSE reuse
from the Manfouha plants (East, North, and South) for the Wadi Hanifa project.
Used for landscaping activities; an example is the RQTSE reuse from the Al Jazira plant,
which is used by Riyadh Municipality.
Used by industries; examples include reuse from the Manfouha East Plant and the 2nd
Industrial City Plant.
Used for natural recharge; an example is the RQTSE from the Al Heet Treatment Plant,
which is discharged through a canal 40 km to the south in the Al Kharj area, where it is
stored in a pond and then infiltrates through the sandy soil to groundwater.
A large amount of RQTSE from the Manfouha WWTPs is being discharged to Wadi Hanifa
(Figure 1-12), which is located in Riyadh and extends beyond the city into the surrounding rural
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-19
areas. The vision for Wadi Hanifa is to use RQTSE to transform an urbanized wadi into a ribbon
of naturalized parkland for recreation that extends through the city and to promote the area as a
green, safe, and healthy environment that connects residential development, farming, recreation,
cultural activities, and tourism.
FIGURE 1-12
Top: Aerial View of the Wadi Hanifa, 2009

Bottom: A series of natural stone weirs were built to introduce oxygen into the water
Reference: Wadi Hanifa Wetlands, 2010 On-Site Report
The NWC is responsible for wastewater collection and treatment services in Riyadh. Table 1-11
provides a summary of information about each of the six major WWTPs in Riyadh. In addition,
the many small private plants treat a total of approximately 100,000 m3/day.
Only approximately 23,000 m3/day of RQTSE is used by industries of the 327,200 m3/day of
RQTSE produced. The use of reclaimed water for cooling by industries or commercial
enterprises, and possibly by public buildings, could increase due to the high cost of using
desalinated water.
In the future, with expected growth and increased sanitary sewer service, there will be a
significant additional quantity of treated wastewater that could be treated to RQTSE
standards and then reused. Plans for increased future reuse in Riyadh are summarized in
Table 1-12. The priority is expected to change from agricultural to industrial, with an
increased proportion of RQTSE used for industrial/cooling and proportionally less being used
for agriculture.
1-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 1-11
Summary of Major Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Riyadha

b
Major Existing WWTPs

Facility
Name
Treatment Level
Wastewater Discharges
Design
Capacity
(m3/day)
Treated
Amount
(m3/day)
Percent
Discharged
(m3/day)
Discharged
Amount
(m3/day)
Discharge
d
Location
61%
344,500
NI
Wastewater Reuse
Percent
Reused
(m3/day)
Reused
Amount
(m3/day)
Reuse Type
223,000
Industry /
Reuse Location
13,000 m3/day to
ARAMCO; remainder
to agricultural use in
Wadi Hanifa and
Wadi Al Batin
Tertiary Oxidation Ditch
200,000
173,500
Tertiary - Aerated
Basins
200,000
151,000
Manfouha S
Tertiary - Trickling
Filter
200,000
243,000
Al Jazira
Tertiary Activated Sludge
4,000
4,200
0%
NI
100%
4,200
Landscaping
Landscaping by
Riyadh Municipality
Al Heet (Al
Kharj Road)
Tertiary Activated Sludge extended aeration
200,000
75,000
0%
NI
100%
75,000
Natural
Recharge
Quarry Storage pond

in Al Kharj area
NI
28,000
25,000
0%
NI
100%
25,000
Industry /
10,000 m3/day to Al
Ebekan Paper
Factory; remainder to
landscaping
Manfouha E
Manfouha N
nd
2 Industrial
City
Totals
39%
Agriculture
Landscaping
832,000
671,700
344,500
327,200
Major WWTPs only; there are an additional 62 small private plants that treat approximately 100,000 m3/day
c
Numbers provided for 2009
d
NI = No information available
e
Treated Amount information for the Manfouha East, North, and South WWTPs is presented separately although the facility is essentially one treatment plant
b
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-21
TABLE 1-12
Future Reuse Amounts in City of Riyadha

2015
2025
2035
Percent
Amount
(m3/day)
Percent
Industrial/Cooling
10
65,000
20
215,000
30
400,000
Agricultural Reuse
80
520,000
70
760,000
50
800,000
Recreation
35,000
55,000
10
135,000
Landscaping
35,000
55,000
10
135,000
100
655,000
100
1,085,000
100
1,470,000
Reuse Type
Totals
a
Amount
(m3/day)
Percent
Amount
(m3/day)
Other projections of RQTSE reuse in the City of Riyadh have been developed by NWC as
shown in Figure 1-13. These projections are significantly higher than those presented above
and provide more details about future sector use.
FIGURE 1-13
Projections of Future Reuse by Sector and Estimates of Available RQTSE in the City of Riyadh
Reference: Nasser Al-aamry, 2010-2011
1.5.3 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Jeddah

Jeddah is located in the Makkah Region and is the second largest city in KSA. The 2010
census population was 3,456,000, and only about 50 percent of the city has sanitary sewer
service. Wastewater is treated in 12 major WWTPs with a total capacity of approximately
681,000 m3/day. The estimated 2010 wastewater flows were 370,400 m3/day. Most treated
wastewater is discharged to the Red Sea, but approximately 15 to 20 percent was reused for
landscaping in the 2008-2009 timeframe.
Table 1-13 provides information about each of the 12 existing WWTPs and the status of
wastewater reuse from each plant. Figure 1-14 shows the locations of the major plants. The
Briman WWTP is east of the area shown on this map near the Jeddah Sewage Lake.
1-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 1-13
Summary of Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Jeddaha

Wastewater Discharges
Facility
Name
Treatment
Level
Design
Capacity
(m3/day)
Treated
Amount
(m3/day)
Percent
Discharged
(m3/day)
Discharged
Amount
(m3/day)
Discharge
Location
Wastewater Reuse
Percent
Reused
(m3/day)
Reused
Amount
(m3/day)
Reuse Type
and Location
Al Balad
Secondary
40,000
34,500
42%
14,500
Red Sea
58%
20,000
Landscape
Al Rowais
Secondary
32,000
19,700
24%
4,700
Red Sea
76%
15,000
Landscape
Bani Malik
Secondary
8,000
11,100
37%
4,100
Red Sea
63%
7,000
Landscape
Al Eskan Old
Secondary
8,000
2,400
16%
400
Red Sea
84%
2,000
Landscape
Al Eskan New
Secondary
8,000
6,300
79%
5,000
Red Sea
21%
1,300
Landscape
Al Jamea
Secondary
11,000
3,400
41%
1,400
Red Sea
59%
2,000
Landscape
Airport
Tertiary
24,000
24,000
100%
24,000
Red Sea
0%
No Reuse
Airport 1
Tertiary
250,000
60,000
100%
60,000
Red Sea
0%
No Reuse
Al Khumra 1
Secondary
40,000
35,000
100%
35,000
Red Sea
0%
No Reuse
Al Khumra 2
Secondary
60,000
42,000
100%
42,000
Red Sea
Unknown
Al Khumra 3
Secondary
140,000
108,000
100%
108,000
Red Sea
0%
No Reuse
Briman
WWTP
Tertiary
60,000
24,000
0%
Red Sea
100%
24,000
Landscape
681,000
370,400
Totals
a
b
299,100
Industry
73,300
Personal communication with NWC Jeddah City Business Unit (JCBU), 2011
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-23
A significant percentage of RQTSE

generated could be reused. Plans
for future reuse of RQTSE include
using approximately:
30 percent for agriculture

50 percent for landscaping
20 percent for industrial reuse
The approximately 50 percent of

the city that does not have sanitary
sewer uses septic tanks, which are
emptied by tanker trucks. The
trucks have disposed of the
septage at the Al Misk Lake (now
referred to as the Jeddah Sewage
Lake) located approximately 18 km
east of the city. In early 2010,
emptying of trucks directly to the
lake was halted and all trucks
emptied directly to the tertiary
WWTP located at the lake. This
WWTP has a capacity of 60,000
m3/day. Approximately 20,000
m3/day of the RQTSE is used for
irrigation of planted forests in the
FIGURE 1-14
City of Jeddah Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities
vicinity of the lake and an
3
additional approximately 5,000 m /day is hauled by tanker for use for irrigation around the
municipality and region. The remaining RQTSE is discharged to a pipeline that leads to a
drainage canal that goes to the sea (CH2M Olayan, 2011). Also in 2010 and early 2011, a
new Airport 1 WWTP was completed and it has a treatment capacity of 250,000 m3/day.
As of April 2011, the Airport plant was treating
approximately 60,000 m3/day of wastewater entirely
delivered by tankers since the sewage network is
not yet connected to the facility (personal
communication with NWC JCBU, 2011).
The NWC is responsible for wastewater collection
and treatment services in Jeddah. It is planning to
privatize one industrial WWTP that is under
construction and is designed to treat 50,000 m3/day
of sanitary and industrial wastewater.
Jeddah Wastewater Facts
2010 Population: 3,456,000

Major WWTPs: 11
Percent of City Sewered: 50%
2010 WW Flows: 346,400
m3/day
Existing WWTP Capacity:
621,000 m3/day
Amount of WW Reused:
47,300 m3/day
Percent of WW Reused: 14%
The NWC will manage the sale of the RQTSE for

industrial purposes in the industrial zones located south of Jeddah and is responsible for
constructing the reuse distribution system to that area.
1.5.4 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Makkah

Makkah is located in the Makkah Region and is the third largest city in KSA. The 2010
census population was 1,675,000, and only approximately 45 percent of the city has sanitary
sewer service. Makkah is unique in that the population in the city increases by 300 percent
during the annual Hajj period according to the Central Department of Statistics. One WWTP,
the Aziziah Plant, is used only during the Hajj period and provides only primary level of
treatment. Most of the year, wastewater is treated in two WWTPs with secondary levels of
treatment and a total combined capacity of approximately 70,000 m3/day.
1-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
The estimated 2010 wastewater

flows were 175,000 m3/day,
including seasonal flows from the
Aziziah Plant. The treated
volume is discharged to a wadi
and none was reportedly reused
in the 2008-2009 timeframe. The
locations of the plants are shown
in Figure 1-15. Table 1-14
provides information about the
three existing WWTPs.
FIGURE 1-15
City of Makkah Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities

TABLE 1-14
Summary of Existing WWTPs and Reuse Status in Makkaha

Treatment Level
Akashiya No 1
Akashiya No 2
Aziziah
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
(m3/day)
30,000
40,000
125,000
Treated Amount (m3/day)
10,000
40,000
125,000
Percent Discharged (m3/day)
100%
100%
100%
(m3/day)
10,000
40,000
125,000
Wadi
Wadi
Wadi
0%
0%
0%
No Reuse
No Reuse
No Reuse
Design Capacity
Discharged Amount
Discharge Location
Percent Reused (m3/day)

Reused Amount
(m3/day)
Reuse Type and Location

a
Operates only during Hajj period
Treated wastewater from the two plants providing secondary treatment, Akashiya No. 1 and
Akashiya No. 2, could be used as RQTSE assuming the effluent meets the water quality
requirements. Plans for future reuse of RQTSE include using approximately:

50 percent for landscaping, especially for trees along streets and at pilgrim sites
The NWC is responsible for wastewater collection and treatment services in Makkah.
1.5.5 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Al Taif

One WWTP serves Al Taif, which is located in the Makkah Region. The 2010 census
population of Al Taif was 988,000, and only approximately 50 percent of the city has sanitary
sewer service. The estimated 2010 wastewater flows were 70,000 m3/day.
Approximately 90 percent of the TSE from WWTPs is reused for agricultural irrigation and
the remaining 10 percent is discharged to a wadi.
Table 1-15 provides information about the existing WWTP. Most of the RQTSE is reused.
In the future, with expected growth and increased sanitary sewer service, there will be a
significant additional quantity of RQTSE that could be reused. Plans for future reuse of
RQTSE include using approximately:

STRATEGIC STUDY
1-25
The NWC is responsible for wastewater

collection and treatment services in Al Taif.
1.5.6 Wastewater and Reuse

in the City of Al Madinah
One WWTP serves the city of Al Madinah,
which is the fourth largest city in KSA. The
2010 census population of Al Madinah was
1,181,000, and approximately 68 percent of
the city has sanitary sewer service. The
estimated 2010 wastewater flows are
238,000 m3/day. Almost 100 percent of the
TSE is reused for agricultural irrigation and
landscaping by the municipality.
Table 1-16 provides information about the
existing WWTP. The location of the plant is
shown in Figure 1-16.
TABLE 1-15
Summary of Existing WWTP and Reuse Status in Al Taif

Facility Name
Al Taif (Al Hawiyyah)
Treatment Level
Secondary
Design Capacity (m3/day)
67,000
47,000
10%
Discharged Amount (m3/day)
4,700
Discharge Location
Wadi
90%
Reused Amount (m3/day)
42,300
Reuse Type
Agriculture
TABLE 1-16
Summary of WWTP and Reuse Status in Al Madinaha

Facility Name
Madinah
Treatment Level
Tertiary
240,000
225,000
< 1%
1,000
Discharge Location
100%
224,000
Irrigation of cultivated
areas around the
plant and landscaping
activities by Al
Madinah municipality
FIGURE 1-16
City of Al Madinah Major Wastewater Treatment Facility
Most of the existing TSE is reused. In the future, with expected growth and increased
sanitary sewer service, there will be a significant additional quantity of TSE that could be
reused. Plans for future reuse of RQTSE include using approximately:

The NWC will be responsible for wastewater collection and treatment services in Al Madinah
in the near future. There are plans for the NWC to privatize the 240,000-m3/day plant, as
well as a new 200,000-m3/day plant to be constructed.
1-26
STRATEGIC STUDY
1.5.7 Wastewater and Reuse in the City of Dammam

The Dammam WWTP serves only
Dammam city. It is located within the city
and receives collected wastewater from
the city through four large sewers. It also
receives wastewater from Dammam 1st
Industrial City.
TABLE 1-17
Summary of Existing WWTP and Reuse Status in Dammama

Facility Name
Dammam
Treatment Level
Secondary - Activated
Sludge
The 2010 population of Dammam was

904,000. Approximately 78 percent of
the city has sanitary sewer service. The
estimated 2010 wastewater flows were
240,000 m3/day. Table 1-17 provides
information about the existing WWTP.
208,800
240,000
97%
233,600
Discharge Location
Arabian Gulf
Most RQTSE is discharged to the

Arabian Gulf and very little is reused.
The small quantity that is reused is for
landscaping within the plant. In the
future, with expected growth and
increased sanitary sewer service, a
significant quantity of TSE could be
reused. Plans for future reuse of RQTSE
include using approximately:
3%
6,400
Landscape inside the plant

property

The NWC will be responsible for wastewater collection and treatment services in Dammam.
1.6 Wastewater Treatment Processes Used to Produce RQTSE

The most commonly used secondary
treatment technology in KSA is conventional
activated sludge (CAS) systems, while
filtration and disinfection provided by media
filtration and chlorination are the most
common tertiary treatment technologies
used to produce RQTSE.
Existing Treatment Processes used in KSA
Activated sludge facilities appear to be the

most common secondary treatment
technology in KSA.
Tertiary facilities are operating in some of the
larger cities, particularly in Riyadh.
A few advanced wastewater treatment facilities utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) have been
identified in KSA.
Activated sludge systems incorporate biological treatment processes that involve the
conversion of organic matter and/or other constituents in wastewater to cell tissue and final
products (i.e., carbon dioxide, water) by a large mass of microorganisms maintained in
suspension by mixing and aeration, followed with clarification of treated water by means of
sedimentation. The microorganisms form flocculent particles that are separated from the
process effluent using secondary clarifiers and subsequently returned to the front end of the
aeration basin (referred to as return activated sludge, or RAS) or wasted (referred to as
waste activated sludge, or WAS).
Activated sludge facilities configured to remove biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS) and provide ammonia oxidation are commonly referred to as CAS
systems. Activated sludge systems configured to remove BOD, TSS, and nitrogen
simultaneously are referred to as biological nutrient removal (BNR) CAS processes. BNR
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-27
CAS processes include anoxic/aerobic stages and nitrate recycle from aerobic zones to
anoxic zones to achieve the combined removal of organics, nitrogen, and solids. Treated
wastewater from BNR CAS systems needs to be filtered and disinfected to produce RQTSE.
This process is depicted in Figure 1-17.
FIGURE 1-17
Process Schematic of BNR CAS and Integrated Filtration and Disinfection Facilities to Produce RQTSE
In addition to BNR CAS, other secondary treatment technologies used to meet unrestricted
reuse requirements (described in Section 1.9) for BOD, TSS, and nitrogen include orbal
ditches, biologically active filters, Biolac, sequencing batch reactors (SBRs), and membrane
bioreactors (MBRs). MBRs combine activated sludge biological treatment with an integrated
membrane system to provide enhanced organics stabilization and suspended solids
removal. MBR uses a low-pressure membrane system (i.e., microfiltration [MF] or
ultrafiltration [UF]) and eliminates the need for secondary clarifiers and tertiary filtration
facilities for solids-liquid separation. MBR-treated wastewater must be disinfected (using
chlorination, ultraviolet [UV] disinfection, or ozonation) to meet unrestricted reuse
requirements. Figure 1-18 presents the process flow schematic for a typical MBR system.
FIGURE 1-18
Process Schematic of BNR MBR and Integrated Disinfection Facilities to Produce RQTSE
With the exception of MBRs, all technologies require the incorporation of filtration (i.e., depth
media filtration, surface media filtration, or membrane-based filtration) and disinfection
facilities to meet unrestricted reuse requirements.
1.7 Treatment and Use of Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)

Sludge use or disposal is an important element of any sewage and sludge treatment strategy
because it determines the degree and sometimes the form of treatment required. The
primary reasons are its value as a fertilizer and as a soil conditioner for moisture retention.
Biosolids contain nutrients that are necessary for crop growth. Its organic constituents can
improve certain soils by increasing their moisture retention properties, which is of particular
value for sandy soils such as those in many parts of KSA. The municipal sewage sludge
can contain macronutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) and several micronutrients (i.e.,
1-28
STRATEGIC STUDY
potassium, calcium, iron, etc.). Biosolids can also be a source of energy, either by methane
generated by treated or as a source of fuel for energy recovery systems.
Information on sludge volumes produced by the major WWTPs in KSA has been obtained
for the Jeddah area and for the Riyadh area. The NWC JCBU reports that approximately
655 m3/day of dried (approximately 20 percent) sludge is produced at nine Jeddah area
WWTPs in 2010 from a design flow of 411,000 m3/day (NWC JCBU, 2011). The sludge is
dewatered using either belt presses of centrifuges. All of the sludge generated is being
disposed of at a sludge landfill. A recommended sludge management plan has been
developed by the JCBU that includes the following components:
Landfill Improve management of the landfill sites and investigate expansion/new area
as a contingency plan.
Plant Operations Implement increased sampling and analysis of sludges, review

facilities operations, improve equipment to monitor flow and sludge volumes, compile
data for routine reports.
Extra Laboratory Analyses Investigate laboratory operations to improve data quality so

that results conform to USEPA and Presidency of Meteorology and Environment (PME)
requirements.
Solar Drying Pilot Project Investigate the development of a pilot project for solar drying
of sludge.
Thermal Drying Investigate alternative approaches to thermal drying and potential

retrofitting of the thermal dryer at the Airport 1 WWTP.
Ecocycling Determine feasibility of this approach with high quality analytical data.
Use of Thermally Dried Sludge as a Fuel Supplement Contact cement factories and
conduct feasibility studies to assess suitability as a fuel source.
Use of Dried Sludge as a Fertilizer Obtain analytical data for both solar and thermally
dried sludge to assess value as a fertilizer. Consult with Jeddah Development and
Urban Regeneration Company and others for potential use.
Information on sludge volumes and treatment was also obtained from NWC Riyadh City
Business Unit (RCBU). WWTP facilities in Riyadh currently generate between 800 and 900
m3/day of dried (approximately 20 percent) sludge. This material is dewatered using either
belt presses or centrifuges. Approximately 200 m3/day is currently provided to a compost
facility for production of fertilizer. The remaining sludge is landfilled. NWC RCBU also
indicated that they are working on a contract so that all of the sludge will be composted in
the near future (personal communication with NWC RCBU, 2011).
Requirements for the use of biosolids in agriculture are presented in Section 1.9.
1.8 Industrial Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Practices

The main industries in Saudi Arabia are crude oil production, petroleum refining, basic
petrochemicals, ammonia, industrial gases, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), cement,
fertilizer, plastics, metals, commercial ship repair, commercial aircraft repair and
construction. The industrial water requirement in the country is estimated to be 710,000,000
m3/year (Global Water Intelligence, 2011).
This section provides a brief overview of the industrial water, wastewater and reuse
practices in several of the larger cities in KSA. Some industries have performed economic
analyses to evaluate the feasibility of implementing water reuse to reduce water
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-29
consumption and offset water purchase costs. These studies indicate that reuse is feasible
and will be a strong interest of industries in the near future, as described in Chapter 4.
1.8.1 Riyadh
The use of RQTSE by industries in Riyadh, both currently and projected in the future is
presented in Table 1-18.
TABLE 1-18
Current and Projected Future Use of RQTSE in Riyadha

Industry
Current Use (m3/day)
Future Use (m3/day)
ARAMCO
13,000 from Manfouha WWTPs
60,000
Al Ebekan Paper Factory
10,000 from 2nd Industrial City WWTP
15,000
Al Odwan Chemical Industries
45,000
ITTC
5,500
AL Olayah ST Projects
7,500
King Saud University
15,000
King Abdullah Financial City
22,000
MoWAH
50,000
SEC-PP-11
Agreement Signed
10,000
SEC Riyadh Plant
MoU signed
30,000
Industrial Gate City
Under Discussion
10,000
First Industrial City
1,500
Second Industrial City
45,000
Sudair Industrial City
55,000
Total
a
23,000
371,500
1.8.2 Jeddah and the Makkah Region

Two private desalination plants serving industrial customers in Jeddah are owned by
Kindasa Water Services; the total capacity of both plants is 29,500 m3/day (Global Water
Intelligence, 2011). The current industrial water demand in the Makkah region is around
148,000,000 m3/year. This amount is expected to increase to 163,000,000 m3/year in 2014.
The use of treated wastewater in industry is being considered from the Al Khumra treatment
plants located in the southern part of Jeddah.
1.8.3 Dammam
In Dammam, there are two industrial cities with the primary factories consisting of metal
finishing, chemical and pulp/paper. Dammam 1st Industrial City contains 120 factories.
Dammam 2nd Industrial City contains 240 factories and plans to expand to 500 factories.
Groundwater is the primary water supply and the industries avoid using RQTSE since
groundwater is available. Approximately 60,000 m3/day of wastewater from Dammam 2nd
Industrial City is discharged to a wadi without reuse.
The Saudi Industrial Property Authority, Modon, oversees the Dammam 1st and 2nd
Industrial cities and its main objective is to support industry by providing new industrial lands
1-30
STRATEGIC STUDY
and improving services. Modon is discussing with HIDA the possible transfer of treated
wastewater from Dammam 2nd Industrial City to the HIDA reuse project.
1.8.4 Al Jubail and Yanbu

Marafiq is a private enterprise whose core business is the operation, maintenance,
management, expansion and construction of seawater cooling systems, desalinated and
treated water systems, and sanitary and industrial wastewater systems to provide essential
utility services to industrial, commercial and residential customers in the industrial cities of
Jubail and Yanboa. Marafiq has planned to build new desalination plants to cover existing
and future water needs of its industrial cities.
Al Jubail is located in the Eastern Province on the Arabian Gulf and contains one industrial
city. All of the treated wastewater, approximately 12,000 m3/day, is reused for landscaping in
the industrial city.
Yanboa Industrial City is located on the Red Sea in the Madinah region. The current water
demand for industry is approximately 54,000,000 m3/year, which is expected to increase to
59,000,000 m3/year in 2014.
1.9 Current Status of Reuse Regulations

Current technologies make high-quality purified water from wastewater feasible; regulations
are used to ensure that public health and the environment are protected with the application
of RQTSE, which can be used both directly and indirectly in a variety of applications. The
regulatory framework for reuse should also work to create public trust in the ability of RQTSE
to play a major role in water resources management within KSA as demands on existing
groundwater and desalinated water supplies increase with a growing population and
favorable economic climate for industries.
KSA has recognized its water supply limitations
as its population has grown and has begun more
defined water resources planning with the
National Water Plan in 1985, now updated as
the National Water Strategy. With progress
such as KSAs plan for nearly complete reuse by
2025 in cities over 5,000 people, the current
regulatory framework under the authority of
MOWE and Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is built
on the following principles:
Private Reuse Practices

Some private entities, such as Saudi
Aramco, have established their own
engineering standards to ensure that public
safety is protected as they institute reuse
practices. In the case of Aramco, the
standards follow California (USA) Title 22
but also comply with KSA rules.
Achievement of at least minimum treatment standards

An approval and permitting process for the application of RQTSE
Monitoring of RQTSE to ensure that it meets the standards
Enforcement provisions to ensure that RQTSE practices are following requirements
The first regulation specifically focused on reuse was published in May 2000, Treated
Sanitary Wastewater and Its Reuse Regulations. Applications requiring secondary or
tertiary treatment were specified. However, water quality standards were not listed; instead,
the regulations called for the creation of Rules of Implementation (ROI). The first water
quality specifications included only BOD5, TSS, and fecal coliform. Later, specific but limited
ROI were developed and published (Saudi Aramco, 2009). These implementation rules are
typically valid for a period of 5 years, were validated in 2005 and updated in 2010, but not
yet approved. Further details regarding proposed rules are provided in Chapter 7.
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-31
The General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation (GER&R) were
adopted in October 2001 and set forth requirements for environmental protection. The
GER&R sets forth rules to protect natural resources specifying:
The basis for regulating actions having environmental impacts

Procedures for the coordination of response operations
Pollution control and compliance
Types of environmental violations and
associated penalties
The GER&R did not specifically address water

quality standards for RQTSE, groundwater aquifer
recharge, or biosolids applications and neither do
the current ROI concerning the Reuse Law. In
2006, MOWE published the booklet entitled Using
Treated Water for Irrigation; Controls-ConditionsOffences and Penalties. The adoption of these
standards was an important step in establishing and
providing for the implementation of safe reuse
practices. Treatment parameters are presented in
Chapter 7. The application requirements and
restrictions for the use of treated wastewater for
agricultural purposes are defined by two levels of
treatment as shown in Figure 1-19.
In addition, RQTSE is suitable as a water source
for animals and birds that are not designated for
human consumption.
1.9.1 Specifications
FIGURE 1-19
Agricultural Reuse Categories
The current KSA requirements for restricted irrigation meet the World Health Organization
(WHO) recommendations, as do the more stringent unrestricted irrigation requirements.
Most of the requirements for unrestricted irrigation are similar to others around the world,
including those in California, USA.
Agricultural productivity should be enhanced by reuse, not deteriorated by misapplications.
To ensure the separation of RQTSE from potable water infrastructure and wells, regulations
include separation methods such as distance, pipe labeling, and timing. Worker safety is
also a priority. The primary constituents of concern in treated wastewater for agricultural use
are:
Suspended solids, since filtration may be needed, particularly with micro-irrigation

systems
Nutrients, to adjust fertilization amounts and schedules while limiting algal growth
Salinity, to estimate the leaching fraction and to select appropriate cropping patterns
Pathogens, with precautionary health actions, such as selecting appropriate cropping

patterns and choosing the most suitable irrigation system
Metals, since high levels can be toxic to plants
Industrial reuse applications may have requirements that extend beyond regulated
parameter limits, to include lower turbidity, dissolved solids, and/or nutrient limitations
(depending on the application) compared to those required of unrestricted irrigation. Largescale industrial users may provide their own treatment.
1-32
STRATEGIC STUDY
Given the biosolids application benefits of providing nutrients and enhancing soil moisture
retention, a market for the reuse of biosolids in agriculture is present in KSA. To promote
the protection of public health and the maximum reuse benefits, testing and monitoring of
biosolids prior to application are required. Current sludge application criteria for KSA are
presented in Chapter 7. MOWEs requirements for sludge application are generally
consistent with international best practices.
Specific aquifer recharge water quality standards are not included in the current regulations;
instead, standards are assessed using a case-by-case approach for each permit.
1.9.2 Enforcement
Fines and penalties are in place for violations of the requirements. The lowest penalties are
for violations such as failing to mark the irrigation system with appropriate warning signs or
preventing site inspections. The highest fines are for using raw wastewater or sludge in
agriculture or placing raw sewage in irrigation canals or drains.
1.10 Public Awareness and Acceptance

The Saudi Water Act (Saudi Water Act, 2010) provides that MOWE, in coordination with the
MOA, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and
Ministry of Culture and Information, is responsible for preparing a water education strategy to
promote a culture in which the population is aware of water problems and challenges and is
capable of addressing them. The education strategy addresses educational decisions and
performance, textbooks, activities, speeches, lessons, religious rituals, cultural activities, and
media of all types. In addition, all water service providers and public agencies are required
to report their initiatives in water awareness and education, and the results, in their annual
reports.
Successful water management practices
Effluents May Regain their Original Pure
and policies take into account local
Character Through:
cultural and religious traditions, values,
Treatment
and beliefs. Policies and projects have
Dilution with a larger quantity of pure (tahur)
been accompanied by public education
water
programs and the issuance of a fatwa;
The passage of time
however, the public is only slowly
accepting that RQTSE is a safe water
resource and an important way to reduce demands for expensive potable water in this arid
region. As discussed previously, many urban areas do not have complete wastewater
infrastructure or wastewater treatment systems. With this knowledge, many in KSA are
concerned about the Kingdoms ability to establish reclaimed water systems and demand for
this resource (Maliva et al., 2011).
Islamic Law requires pure water for certain purposes, including ablution and defines how the
water can be made pure. In support of the use of reclaimed water, The Council of Leading
Islamic Scholars in KSA issued a fatwa in 1978, stating that reclaimed water, if treated
sufficiently to ensure good health, is considered pure because the impurities are removed
from it during the treatment process. This includes uses such as ablution, which has been
difficult to accept for many Muslims in KSA. Its use as drinking water is not recommended,
but the rationale relates to public health, not Islamic Law. Reuse treatment technologies that
can produce reclaimed water and are consistent with the ways water can be made pure
under Islamic Law are discussed in Chapter 2.
More wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure will be constructed in KSA to meet
goals for service in 2025. Improving public perceptions of the value of reusing treated
wastewater and biosolids recycling will be crucial for ensuring that the effluent and biosolids
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-33
produced will be beneficially reused. Along with the significant infrastructure capital
investment, an investment in more effectively informing the public of the value of these
resources is needed. Helping establish public recognition of the value of reclaimed water
through education and other methods is further discussed in Chapter 3.
1.11 Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Business Status

The NWC is a Saudi company fully owned by the government (specifically the Public
Investment Fund) and the NWC Board is chaired by the Minister of Water and Electricity. It
was established by Royal Decree in January 2008 to restructure and provide drinking water
and wastewater services under MOWE, as a public company under the name National
Water Company. Services are provided in accordance with the latest international standards
through working with various international operators. The NWCs operational responsibilities
include water extraction, production, purification, treatment, and distribution services, as well
as wastewater treatment and purification. NWC is focusing on making maximum use of
RQTSE. Its activities also include participation in the training and qualifying of Saudi
nationals, establishment of training programs, and research and development activities to
ensure the transfer of technology.
NWC Providing Staged Water and
The goal of the NWC is to build and
Wastewater Services
maintain a strong water and wastewater
infrastructure and provide excellent
Current service in Riyadh and Jeddah
services that meet the needs and
Recently included service to Makkah and Al Taif.
desires of customers. NWC focuses on
In near future will serve Al Madinah and
providing drinking water of high quality
Dammam
for all customers, providing all
households with water and wastewater connections, preserving natural water resources,
protecting the environment, and developing and training qualified Saudi employees in
accordance with the latest international standards.
The services of the NWC are being provided in stages dictated by MOWE according to
sound business practices. MOWE maintains its strategic role in establishing the national
water plan, and introducing laws and legislations that regulate the water and waste water
services in the Kingdom.
Currently, the NWC is preparing integrated master plans for the cities that it serves and will
serve in the future. These integrated plans will provide the detailed information necessary
for specific planning for infrastructure, capital, and other types of expenditures. The NWC is
already providing services in both Riyadh and Jeddah, the most populated and most rapidly
growing cities in the Kingdom. Makkah and Al Taif have recently been included in the NWC
services and functions, and Al Madinah and Dammam will be added in the near future.
NWC has begun the implementation of its contracts: one with the French company Veolia, to
manage water and wastewater services in Riyadh for 6 years; and the other with Suez and
ACWA Power Development, its local partner, in Jeddah for 7 years.
Recently, the NWC announced plans to privatize the following:
In Jeddah, one new industrial WWTP that is under construction and designed for the
treatment of 50,000 m3/day of sanitary and industrial wastewater. The NWC will manage
the sale of the RQTSE for industrial purposes in the industrial zones located south of
Jeddah and is responsible for constructing the system for transporting the RQTSE to that
area.
The existing 240,000-m3/day WWTP as well as a new 200,000-m3/day plant to be

constructed in Al Madinah.
1-34
STRATEGIC STUDY
1.12 Summary
KSA has a number of goals for providing water, wastewater, and reuse infrastructure in cities
with populations greater than 5,000 people. In general, it is planned that the coverage for
water supply and sewage collection will be nearly 100 percent in these cities by the year
2025. It is also planned, in general, that all of the sewage collection systems will be
connected to WWTPs by the Year 2025. With many WWTPs currently under construction,
the existing sewage treatment capacity in KSA will more than double when operational.
Further, it is planned that all RQTSE will be beneficially reused.
Current water supplies consist of desalinated water, which is expensive to produce, and
groundwater, which is a non-renewable or slowly renewable resource. The growth in
population in KSA will significantly increase both water demands and wastewater flows. The
increase in coverage by water distribution systems and sanitary sewer systems will add to
these increases. The significant amount
An investment in better informing the public of
of additional RQTSE expected to be
the value of reuse of RQTSE and biosolids is
generated provides an important
critical, along with the significant infrastructure
opportunity for reuse to offset water
capital expenditures that are planned.
demands for non-potable uses. The use
of reclaimed water for cooling by
industries or commercial enterprises, and possibly by public buildings, could increase due to
the high expense and environmental costs of using desalinated water or groundwater for
such purposes.
A large supply of TSE that is currently discharged from WWTPs is unused. Current reuse of
RQTSE in the six largest cities ranges from none in Makkah to 3 percent in Dammam and to
nearly 100 percent in Al Madinah. In Riyadh, RQTSE reuse is approximately 66 percent and
in Jeddah it is 17 percent. This resource is probably not being used for a number of
reasons, including lack of distribution infrastructure, lack of public awareness and
acceptance, and lack of financial incentives.
Biosolids are another renewable resource that can be recycled but which are currently being
disposed of by landfilling or disposal at designated locations. There is little indication that
biosolids are beneficially reused. Requirements for the use of biosolids in agriculture exist,
but there appears to be generally little awareness among farmers of the benefits of using
sludge in agriculture.
Therefore, along with the significant infrastructure capital investment planned to meet the
service goals for 2025, an investment in better informing the public of the value of these
resources is needed.
1.13 Information Gap Analysis

While significant information is available to characterize the demand for water in KSA, how
wastewater treatment is improving both in capacity and quality, and how treated wastewater
can be a valuable resource in this arid region, it appears that other important information is
currently undocumented or unaddressed. The following information would be very useful in
better defining parameters so that the wastewater, reuse and biosolids management
situation in KSA can be more accurately described.
Influent Wastewater Characterization: The measurement of influent wastewater flows,

parameters and concentrations over several years would be useful to help characterize
the influent wastewater which will impact the selection and design of appropriate
treatment technologies as well as the estimation of capital and O&M investments
required for new facilities. This information would provide important details for the
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-35
Technology Overview (Chapter 2) and Business Opportunities (Chapter 4) portions of

this Strategic Study.
Wastewater Treatment Processes and Treated Flows: Measurements of treated

wastewater flows over several years to establish a baseline would provide important
information for facility planning. Most WWTPs are defined as having secondary or
tertiary levels of treatment. However, details of the treatment processes as well as the
technologies used for filtration and disinfection would provide a better understanding of
the degree of treatment provided.
Wastewater Biosolids: Very little information appears to be available about whether

WWTPs have biosolids management facilities, the quantities of biosolids generated, and
how they are handled, processed and disposed. To better characterize the biosolids
situation in general, information regarding the amount of biosolids generated along with the
associated influent wastewater flows and influent parameters is needed. It appears that
current disposal methods include landfilling or disposal at designated locations but more
information regarding these or other practices being employed, such as reuse, would help
better define current activities. Biosolids from the Madinah WWTP are being reused but
there are few details regarding how they are reused.
Unsewered City Areas: Only portions of cities are currently provided with sewage
collection systems (for example Riyadh has only 50 percent coverage). Information
regarding how sewage generated in the remaining area of the cities (not served by an
existing collection system) is collected and treated is needed to provide a more complete
understanding of the quantities of wastewater generated and treated. This information
would also provide further insight into the Septage Handling and Treatment issues presented
in Chapter 8.
Wastewater Flow Calculation Methodology: It would be useful to revisit the methods

used to develop wastewater flow projections especially because decisions regarding large
capital projects are based on the projections. Information reviewed for this study indicates
that potentially different data sources and different assumptions may have been used by
different agencies to develop flow projections. An agreed-upon methodology could serve as
a valuable common basis for future planning. In addition, measuring treated wastewater
flows and correlating those over time to actual populations served would help establish a per
capita wastewater flow baseline.
Strategies for Cities < 5,000 People: Although management of wastewater in cities >
5,000 people is a monumental first task being undertaken, thought should be given to how
wastewater can be best managed in the future in very rural areas and smaller cities. There
may be new strategies and business opportunities for reuse in these smaller locations.
Water Conservation Strategies: Reducing water demands by promoting water

conservation could help reduce the quantity of needed new water supplies. A review of
water conservation in KSA would identify the current practices, how widespread
conservation is, how the concepts of conservation are communicated, and successes that
may have been achieved. Setting conservation targets is a method that is frequently used to
communicate the need for and benefits of conservation.
In addition, there are needs for:
1-36
Conducting public education and branding of RQTSE as a resource; this is discussed in

Chapter 3 Public Education and Awareness. Addressing the gaps listed above will
further improve public education efforts, as more trust can be gained with the availability
of RQTSE quality data.
STRATEGIC STUDY
Identifying business opportunities not just for RQTSE but also for biosolids reuse; these
are discussed in Chapter 4 Business Opportunities
Establishing an updated/expanded regulatory framework; this is discussed in Chapter 7

Regulatory Considerations
1.14 References
Dr. Mohammed Al-Saud. The Importance of Developing Sustainable Water Resources in the
Kingdom: Strategies for the Future. Jeddah. 31-05-2011.
Geohive. 2010 Census Population. www.geohive.com. Accessed June 2011.
Global Water Intelligence. Global Water Market 2011; Volume 3; Middle East and Asia Pacific.
2011.
ItalConsult Draft Wastewater Reuse Planning Reports prepared for the Ministry of Water and
Electricity (MOWE) for each of the 13 Regions:
Al Baha; February 2010

Al Jouf; July 2009
Assir; December 2009
Eastern Province; January 2010
Hail; July 2009
Jizan; March 2010
Al Madinah; January 2010
Makkah; October 2009

Najran; August 2009
Northern Borders; June 2009
Qaseem; October 2009
Riyadh; December 2010
Tabouk; July 2009
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE). 2006. Using Treated
Water for Irrigation; Controls-Conditions-Offences and Penalties.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Presidency of Meteorology and Environment; General Environmental
Regulations And Rules for Implementation (Translated From the Official Arabic Version); 15
October 2001.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Central Department of Statistics and Information (CDSI). 2010
Census Population. www.cdsi.gov.sa. Accessed June 2011.
Loay Al-Musallam, CEO, National Water Company, Presentation at 6th WEPOWER
Conference, Dammam, 7 June 2010.
Malvia, Robert G.; Missimer, Thomas M.; Winslow, Frank P.; Herrmann, Rolf. 2011. Aquifer
Storage and Recovery of Treated Sewage Effluent in the Middle East. Arabian Journal for
Science and Engineering; ISSN 1319-8025; Volume 36, Number 1, 2011.
Metcalf & Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse; Fourth Edition.
Nasser Al-aamry, Sr. Manager, Business Development, National Water Company, New
Development Initiatives at a Glance, 2010-2011.
National Water Company Jeddah City Business Unit. Wastewater Sludge Management. May
2011.
Personal Communication with National Water Company Jeddah City Business Unit. Bill
Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL with NWC. April 2011.
Personal Communication with National Water Company Riyadh City Business Unit. Bill
Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL with NWC. June 2011.
STRATEGIC STUDY
1-37
Saudi Aramco. 2009. Water Reuse Regulations in Saudi Arabia presented at Water Arabia,
March 2009.
Saudi Water Act. 2010. English Translation of March 2010 Arabic Version.
Samhouri, Wael. Wadi Hanifa Wetlands, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2010 On Site Review Report.
Zanoni, A.E. and Rutkowski, R.J. 1972. Per Capita Loadings of Domestic Wastewater.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation; Vol. 44, No. 9, Sept., 1972.
1-38
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 2: Technology Overview

2.1 Introduction and Objectives
Current technologies are highly effective in treating wastewaters to produce purified water
which can be used for high-quality industrial purposes as well as direct and indirect potable
reuse purposes. Providing reliable wastewater service and safe drinking water are highly
energyintensive processes. Wastewater pumping and aeration processes for treatment
typically account for the largest energy demand among the various operations at most
wastewater treatment facilities. Although the demand is sitespecific and can vary widely
from plant to plant, the fraction of energy used for aeration ranges from 25 to as much as
60 percent of the total plant energy use in the USA (USEPA, 2010). Use of advanced
treatment processes such as low- and high-pressure membranes, or advanced oxidation
using UV light, further increases energy use at the treatment plants.
Sustainable wastewater treatment and reuse practices with reduced carbon footprint are
becoming a goal of a number of visionary leaders in the industry. Numerous innovative
technologies that can offer sustainable, low carbon footprint wastewater treatment and reuse
have been recently demonstrated, or are in developmental stages. This chapter identifies
technologies that can be applicable for wastewater treatment, reclaimed water, and
beneficial reuse in KSA. The central focus of this chapter is the innovative and
developmental technologies that show promise in one or more of the following areas:
Reduce energy use and carbon footprint without sacrificing treatment efficiency
Use waste or low grade heat to achieve treatment while reducing energy demand and
O&M costs
Generate energy using wastewater or wastewater solids
Recover resources from wastewater, biosolids, or concentrate streams
Effectively inactivate/remove pathogenic organisms without producing disinfection

byproducts (DBPs)
Because descriptions and capabilities of established and emerging technologies can be found
elsewhere (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003, Metcalf and Eddy, 2007, USEPA, 2008, etc.), those
technologies are not covered in depth; rather, summary tables are provided in Appendix A.
Technologies used for water reclamation and reuse have been categorized as being
established, emerging, and innovative/developmental and are described as follows:
Established Technologies: Have been used at more than 30 full-scale facilities across the
world or have been available and implemented for more than 5 years (e.g., membrane
bioreactor [MBR], granular media filtration, chlorine disinfection). A technology that represents
an innovative use of an established technology (e.g., established technologies used in drinking
water applications and for industrial wastewater treatment such as electro-dialysis reversal
[EDR], ballasted flocculation) is also considered as established technology.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
CHAPTER 2: TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Emerging Technologies: Technologies that have been tested at demonstration scale, have
been implemented at fewer than 30 full-scale facilities, or have been available and
implemented for less than 5 years.
Innovative/Developmental Technologies: Technologies that have been tested at bench or
pilot scale, with no full-scale applications (forward osmosis [FO], anaerobic membrane
bioreactor, membrane biofilm reactor, etc.).
Information presented on these technologies includes the objectives, application area(s),
state of development, where and when the technology has been tested or implemented (if
applicable), testing results, state of development, and implementability of the technology.
The above information is organized in this chapter as follows:
Current Beneficial Use Schemes and Available Technologies
Innovative and Developmental Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and Water Reuse
Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Products and Technologies
Impact of Wastewater Quality on Operation and Performance of Unit Treatment

Processes
Industries in KSA with Reuse Potential
Summary and Path Forward
2.2 Current Beneficial Use Schemes and Available

Technologies
The need for alternative water resources, coupled with increasingly stringent water quality
discharge requirements, are the driving forces for developing water reuse strategies in the
world today. The growing trend is to consider water reuse as an essential component of
integrated water resources management and sustainable development, not only in dry and
water-deficient areas, but in water-abundant regions as well. Depending upon the intended
use (landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation for edible crops, industrial reuse, indirect
potable reuse, etc.), an appropriate wastewater treatment technology can be coupled with
disinfection only, whereas some in cases it is coupled with filtration and disinfection or
advanced treatment technologies (i.e., MF, RO) to meet water quality requirements for the
intended reuse options. For example, conventional treatment technologies presented in
Figure 2-1 can satisfy reclaimed water treatment requirements for restricted and landscape
irrigation, whereas more advanced technologies are required for higher-quality reuse
schemes (such as agricultural irrigation for hydroponics, some industrial reuse, and indirect
potable reuse). Some examples are depicted in Figure 2-2.
FIGURE 2-1
Examples of Reclaimed Water Schemes (Filtration can be performed using a range of approaches including granular [top]
and cloth media [bottom])
2-2
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-2
Examples of Reclaimed Water Schemes for High-Quality Uses
Because of the importance of water quality in wastewater treatment and reuse applications,
different technologies can be used to achieve the desired degree of contaminant removal.
The principal unit operations and processes, along with the capabilities of unit treatment
processes used in wastewater treatment and water reuse applications, are presented in
Appendix A. The most commonly used secondary treatment technology in KSA is the CAS
systems, while filtration and disinfection provided by media filtration and chlorination are the
most common tertiary treatment technologies. Only a few advanced wastewater treatment
facilities utilizing RO have been identified. The details on current wastewater and reuse
technologies used in KSA are provided in Chapters 1 and 4. Technology selection involves
careful consideration and evaluation of numerous factors to meet current and future
reclamation requirements and regulations. The key factors include type(s) of water reuse
application, wastewater characteristics of the process feed stream, water quality goals,
energy requirements, chemical requirements, process flexibility, O&M requirements,
personnel requirements, and site-specific constraints (Metcalf and Eddy, 2007).
As the regulations for treated effluent quality become more stringent, energy consumption by
the treatment facilities will increase. As depicted in Figure 2-2, many RO facilities located in
coastal areas discharge RO concentrate to large water bodies (sea, ocean, etc.). Although
this approach may be the only feasible and cost-effective solution at present, there is an
increasing interest in treating RO concentrate to reduce pollution and recover nutrients,
metals, and salts from the concentrate streams.
The prospect of depleting the worlds mineral rock phosphate reserves is of great concern to
the food and agriculture industry and is increasingly being compared to the concerns
regarding depleting the worlds oil supply. While total global phosphorus reserves remain
unknown, statistics on deposits found in recent decades indicate that more phosphate is
being extracted than discovered. Despite technological and methodological advances, new
deposits are fewer and of lower quality than previously predicted. Unlike carbon and
nitrogen, which can be fixed from the atmosphere, phosphorus cannot be fixed. On the
other hand, there is always excess phosphorus present in municipal wastewater. In the
USA, water quality based regulatory initiatives have been implemented to reduce
phosphorus discharge to receiving waters. Two primary regulatory approaches have been
used in both the municipal and industrial sectors to meet this goal: restrictions on the use of
phosphorus-based products such as phosphate-based detergents (source control) and strict
control of phosphorus discharges (effluent treatment limits). Phosphorus recovery methods
have not been used to any significant extent.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-3
New developments in microbial fuel cell technologies (Liu et al., 2004; Love, 2007) are
making progress in capturing the energy from liquid wastewater, but the research is still in
the early stages. While there is opportunity for the wastewater industry to meet its own
energy demand in the future, only energy in the solids can be extracted with current
technologies.
Sustainable wastewater treatment, with a reduced carbon footprint, is becoming a goal of
major interest. Such interest has shifted the view of municipal sewage from a waste to be
treated and disposed of, to a valuable resource that can be processed for recovery of
energy, nutrients, salts or other constituents. Long-term trends indicate the potential for
increased interest in resource recovery from wastewater. Figure 2-3 presents intended use
examples with full treatment.
FIGURE 2-3
Examples of Intended Use with Full Treatment
Currently, a diverse group of technologies are available for wastewater treatment and reuse.
While some technologies have been proven (such as CAS systems, MBRs, media filtration,
chlorine disinfection, RO), some technologies are yet to be developed (FO, membrane
distillation, microbial fuel cell, algae biofuel, etc.) to meet energy reduction, resource
recovery, and full-treatment goals. As noted above, descriptions and capabilities of proven,
commercialized, and widely used technologies can be found elsewhere (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003, Metcalf and Eddy, 2007, USEPA, 2008, etc.). Therefore, this chapter covers only
innovative and developmental technologies in detail. Summary tables are included in
Appendix A-1 to show the primary use and capabilities of established and emerging
technologies. Appendix A-2 summarizes commercially available resource recovery and
biogas generation technologies.
2-4
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2.3 Innovative and Developmental Technologies for Wastewater

Treatment and Water Reuse
As noted above, providing reliable wastewater service and safe drinking water are highly
energyintensive processes. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), located in the
USA, has estimated annual energy usage at approximately 100 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh)
in the USA for providing safe drinking water and effective wastewater treatment. Assuming
an average energy cost of $0.075 per kWh, the energy cost for providing water/wastewater
treatment is approximately $7.5 billion per year (USEPA, 2010); conveyance costs are not
included in these estimates. Numerous research/demonstration studies have been
performed in recent years to explore energy-efficient, low carbon footprint, resource recovery
technologies. While some of these technologies have been successfully demonstrated and
have already been commercialized (such as FO and DEMON), some technologies need
further demonstrations and advancements before they can be successfully commercialized.
This section summarizes innovative and developmental technologies that are applicable to
wastewater treatment and wastewater reuse. This section also summarizes, for each
technology discussed, the specific application area, treatment objective, development status,
description of technology, and advantages and disadvantages compared to the established
technologies. Additional discussion is provided on potential implementation, scalability, and
advancement needs for each technology. Limited cost data are available for the majority of
the technologies, because of the immature development status of emerging technologies.
The innovative/developmental treatment technologies are classified based on the following:
Physical-chemical: these technologies use physical and/or chemical means to remove

pollutants and/or recover resources.
Biological: these technologies use microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants

from wastewater and/or recover resources.
Natural: these technologies may incorporate either physical-chemical or biological

treatment; however, they use minimal external energy input to achieve the treatment
objectives.
Resource Recovery Technologies: these technologies uses physical chemical and/or

biological treatment principles to recover resources from wastewater in the form of
nutrient, salt, biogas and electricity
2.3.1 Innovative and Developmental PhysicalChemical Treatment Technologies

Innovative Desalination Technologies
Wastewater agencies are implementing advanced treatment technologies in response to
increasingly stringent treatment requirements, as well as concerns over contaminants (such
as pharmaceutically active compounds, personal care products, and endocrine-disrupting
compounds) and other pollutants in their systems. One such technology is desalination, a
process that removes dissolved compounds such as salts and organic compounds. Despite
the advances in desalination technology in the past three decades and wide acceptance of
conventional membrane and thermal desalination technologies for effectively treating various
source of waters, concerns associated with cost, energy consumption, and environmental
impacts (such as impingement and entrainment, concentrate discharges, greenhouse gas
[GHG] emissions) are limiting their implementation in various treatment applications. To
address one or more of the concerns mentioned above, numerous research studies have
been conducted to develop energy-efficient technologies and technologies that use
renewable energy and low grade and waste heat to desalinate wastewater. The majority of
these technologies have been developed for brackish water or seawater desalination; the
same technologies can also be applicable to wastewater if proper pretreatment is provided.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-5
The innovative/developmental technologies reviewed in this chapter are described below in

alphabetical order.
Capacitive Deionization (CD)

Application Area
Desalination of brackish water and wastewater. Treatment and recovery of RO concentrate
streams.
Objective
To lower the carbon footprint of desalination.
Status
Developmental.
Description of the Technology

The original CD process was developed and patented at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in the late 1980s.
CD is a low-pressure, non-membrane desalination technology that uses electrostatic forces
to remove dissolved ions from solution. An aqueous solution of soluble salts is passed
through pairs of electrodes held at a potential difference of 1.2 volts (v). The electrodes
consist of porous carbon aerogel, with a specific surface area of 400 to 1,100 square meters
per gram [m2/g] and with very low electrical resistivity (less than 40 kilohm-meters). Ions are
adsorbed to the electrode of opposing charge in a semi-batch process. Eventually, the
electrodes become saturated with ions and must be regenerated. To regenerate CD, the
applied potential is removed, and the ions attached to the electrodes are released and
flushed from the system. Flushing of cells using a small quantity of product water generates
a concentrate stream, as shown in Figure 2-4. Unlike ion exchange processes, no additional
chemicals are required for regeneration of the electrosorbent in this system.
FIGURE 2-4
CD Operation (top) and Regeneration (Bottom)
Carbon aerogel is an ideal electrode material because of its high electrical conductivity, high
specific surface area, and controllable pore size distribution. However, despite recent
advancements, carbon aerogel electrodes are still expensive and their ion storage capacity
is relatively low.
Original designs of CD systems were limited to the treatment of relatively low ionic strength
solutions (total dissolved solids [TDS] < 3,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L]). The reason for
2-6
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
their limited application has been identified as the high pore volume to surface area
characteristic of the carbon electrode material. The high pore volume of the material traps
salts like a sponge, resulting in coulombic inefficiencies (Seed et al., 2006).
The technology has been investigated in several academic and research institutions. In the
USA, Colorado Schools of Mine researchers concluded that this technology could yield
results comparable to those of conventional RO for desalination of streams with TDS of less
than 3,000 mg/L (Kristen, 2006). This is mainly due to the high cost of CD modules with
increased feed water TDS concentrations.
Capacitive Deionization Technology Systems, Inc. (CDT Inc.) is the worldwide licensee for
the patented CD technology for water purification and desalination applications. CDT Inc.
had a manufacturing and marketing license with TDA Research, Inc. and obtained
worldwide rights to TDA Research's patented Porous Carbons from Carbohydrates for the
manufacture of electrodes for use in CD systems. CDT Inc. filed bankruptcy in 2008.
Independently, ENPAR Technologies Inc. of Canada has developed its DesEL System,
which uses principles of CD to remove TDS.
Comparison to Established Technologies

Potential Advantages over Established Technologies
CD requires less energy than EDR, nanofiltration (NF)/RO, and mechanical/thermal

processes
Membrane technologies require more advanced operation and construction

considerations for high-pressure pumps and clean-in-place (CIP) systems. The CD
operates at ambient conditions, and there are no requirements for high-pressure pumps
and CIP systems
CD uses electrostatic regeneration and requires minimal or no chemicals for electrode

fouling and scaling controls
Less scaling propensity compared to NF/RO
Silica does not limit the recovery compared to NF/RO
Potential Disadvantages Compared to Established Technologies
CD is still under development. Knowledge about treatment efficiencies of larger-scale

installations, economics, and short- and long-term fouling/scaling issues of CD systems
has not been established.
Lower TDS removal than RO and mechanical/thermal processes. The process cannot
remove uncharged molecules (such as boron, silica, and non-polar organic compounds).
CD recovers lower amounts of water than conventional membrane processes
Does not provide a barrier against solids and pathogens
Adsorption of total organic carbon (TOC) to the aerogel material during regeneration
when the cell is uncharged could result in electrode fouling if organic matter clogs the
pores of carbon aerogel material
Lengthy down-time period during cleaning of electrodes
Technology Tested/Implemented or Demonstrated

Currently, there is no known full-scale CD facility.
Numerous bench and/or pilot testing studies have been conducted over the last 5 years. In
a bench-scale study, Seed et al. (2006) showed that CD can achieve 80 percent TDS
removal with high water recoveries (up to 95 percent). However, the feed water TDS was
only 460 mg/L during bench-scale testing. Tao et al. (2009) used a pilot-scale CD unit to
treat and recover an RO concentrate stream generated from the Kranji NeWater Reuse RO
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-7
facility in Singapore. Biological activated carbon pretreatment followed by CD resulted in 85

percent TDS removal efficiency at approximately 85 percent recovery. Tao et al. (2009)
reported a cell energy consumption of 0.7 KWh/m3 based on the pilot CD testing results.
Similar to the previous study, the feed TDS concentration of CD was relatively low (1,250
mg/L). This is a lower level of TDS than is found in wastewaters in certain regions of KSA
(2,500 and 4,000 mg/L).
A comprehensive evaluation performed by the Colorado School of Mines (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation [USBR], 2009) concluded that the energy consumption of CD is similar to that
of RO (4 kWh/1,000 gallons [kgal], or 1.1 kWh/m3) for low flow systems (0.7 milliliter per
minute [mL/min]). The CDT designed for a 3-L/min system was reported to have much
higher energy consumption as a result of high current requirements of the electrodes. The
Colorado School of Mines study also concluded that the water treatment cost of CD was
much higher compared to membrane processes due to its lengthy down-time and low
product water recovery (USBR, 2009).
Knowledge Gaps/Future Advancements/Implementability

The efficiency and recovery of the process need to be improved before CD becomes
economically feasible to treat relatively high TDS water (>5,000 mg/L). CD could probably
be implemented within the next 5 to 10 years, if the following improvements are made
(USBR, 2009):
Higher capacitance and lower cost of electrode materials

Faster charging and discharging of electrodes
Recovery of residual electricity
Shorter regeneration time to reduce process down-time
Reduced carryover volume after regeneration
Cost-effective and low carbon footprint pretreatment technologies
According to the literature, relatively low TDS streams (<3,000 mg/L) are the potential
candidates for CD application. Similar to EDR, this modular technology can be applicable at
small- to large-scale systems. Unit investment cost ($/m3) is expected to be lower as plant
capacity increases due economies of scale.
Cost Information
Not established
Technology Supplier
ENPAR Technologies Inc.
70 Southgate Drive, Unit 4 Guelph,
Ontario, Canada N1G 4P5
Tel: 519-836-6155
Fax: 519-836-5683
info@enpar-tech.com
Forward Osmosis (FO)

Application Area
Desalination of seawater, brackish water, and wastewater. Treatment and recovery of RO
concentrate streams
Objective
To lower the carbon footprint of desalination process
Status
Developmental
2-8
STRATEGIC SUMMARY

FO is an innovative membrane-based technology that has the potential to reduce the costs
and environmental impacts of desalination. This is an osmotic process that uses a semipermeable membrane to separate salts from water. FO uses an osmotic pressure gradient
() instead of hydraulic pressure (P), which is used in RO, to create the driving force for
water transport through the membrane. No energy is needed to drive the water flux of an
FO process, as the water flux is the natural tendency of the system. Figure 2-5 illustrates a
conceptual batch FO and RO processes.
FIGURE 2-5
Schematic Illustration of FO and RO
The concentrated solution, or draw solution, is the source of the driving force in the FO
process. A selectively permeable membrane allows passage of water, but rejects solute
molecules and ions. Osmotic driving forces in FO can be significantly greater than hydraulic
driving forces in RO. This results in the potential for higher water flux rates and recoveries.
The selection of an appropriate draw solution is the key to FO performance. The draw
solution should:
Have a high osmotic efficiency (that is, have a high solubility in water and a low
molecular weight)
Be non-toxic; trace amounts of chemicals in product water might be acceptable
Be chemically compatible with the membranes
Example draw solutions include magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium chloride,
potassium chloride, ammonium carbonate, and sucrose. A simplified process schematic of
an FO process using ammonium carbonate as a draw solution is presented in Figure 2-6.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-9
FIGURE 2-6
Simplified Process Schematic of FO (Adapted from McCutcheon et al., 2007)

Operates around 1 atmosphere (atm), which results in much lower energy consumption
compared to conventional membrane and mechanical/thermal evaporative desalination
technologies
Membrane compaction is not typically an issue
Less fouling propensity compared to RO
Still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been established:
treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, and short- and long-term
performance and fouling/scaling
Requires special membranes. Existing commercially available RO membranes are not suitable for FO
because such membranes have a relatively low product water flux, which can be attributed to severe internal
concentration polarization in the porous support and fabric layers of RO membranes
Use of ammonium carbonate as draw solution may provide desired osmotic pressure.
However, diffused ammonia to the permeate stream should be removed using a low cost
technology (such as waste heat to strip ammonia)

Early applications of FO include fruit juice concentration where the concentrate becomes the
product (Huehmer and Wang, 2009). Water supply and wastewater treatment research has
historically focused on treatment of contaminated waters. CH2M HILL conducted studies on
2-10
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
the use of an FO/RO process for the treatment of landfill leachate in Oregon in the USA
(Huehmer and Wang, 2009). The University of Nevada Reno, also in the USA, has
conducted research on the use of FO for centrate dewatering and water recycling. More
recently, the USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in conjunction
with the University of Nevada, has investigated use of FO in closed-system water recycling.
Research is being conducted by the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore on the
use of osmotic membrane bioreactors. Several research studies have been or are being
conducted to identify draw solutions and membrane types and to evaluate the merits of the
FO process (McCutcheon et al., 2007; Cath et al., 2009; Hancock and Cath, 2009).
Various approaches for FO-based desalination exist. In the USA, a pilot-scale FO unit was
built and has been operated at the Yale University laboratory since 2005. The Yale pilot study
utilizes an ammonium carbonate solution as the draw solution. To recover freshwater, the
diluted ammonium carbonate solution is heated to approximately 55oC, where ammonium
carbonate undergoes thermal decomposition. The Yale research is being commercialized by
Oasys Water Inc. Modern Water PLC has constructed a 25,000-gallon-per-day (gpd) pilot
facility in Gibraltar for sea water as a desalination demonstration (Water Desalination Report,
2008). Additional facilities located in Oman are being developed by Modern Water.
FO has been investigated as a concentrate management technique. Studies have been
conducted by the Colorado School of Mines and Carollo Engineers on the use of a coupled
FO/RO process to reduce RO concentrate volumes.
Several researchers have investigated the use of FO as a potential energy source using
pressure restrained osmosis (PRO). Loeb (1998) first demonstrated the feasibility of energy
production by PRO. In 2009, Statkraft, the national energy company of Norway,
commissioned a demonstration PRO power plant in Tofte, Norway. With 2-kW capacity, the
facility is a proof of concept test bed.
Although the understanding of the principles of FO and interest in its use precede current
investigations by several decades, recent developments have greatly improved the
prospects of applying this technology for productive commercial use. The most significant of
these developments have been the:
Identification and characterization of a set of solutes which may be used to create high
osmotic pressures, a prerequisite for high rates of membrane water flux and high feed
water recoveries; these solutes may also be efficiently removed from the product water
and recycled for process reuse.
Introduction of thin, highly selective semi-permeable membranes which enable high

water flux in FO systems.
Together, these two developments, along with a number of other innovations, now show
promise of enabling researchers to design, test, and demonstrate steady-state, scalable
desalination systems based on osmotic, rather than hydraulic, pressure differences
(McGinnis et al., 2007). The King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
is currently investigating FO.

Literature studies have shown that FO is a potentially viable low carbon footprint desalination
alternative. In May 2010, Oasys Water Inc., in Massachusetts (USA), announced the
commercialization of a high performance FO membrane as a next step toward the
introduction of lower-cost desalination and water reuse technology. Unfortunately, in energy
consumption estimates presented by Yale, thermal energy requirements were not included
in the energy estimates presented in published literature. In reality, the energy associated
with FO is low, although the energy associated with recovery of water from the spent draw
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-11
solution, or the reconstitution of draw solution, is potentially as high as with the desalination
of seawater.
More recently, membrane manufacturer HTI Water, of Arizona (USA), launched large-scale
commercialization of FO as a low-energy means of treating waste flows such as hydraulic
fracturing fluids. Modern Water PLC has already established three installations using
manipulated osmosis as a desalination process. Currently, the greatest barrier associated
with FO is the lack of a cost-effective means of extracting water from spent draw solutions.
The following advancements are needed for consideration of this technology in full-scale
applications.
Identifying effective and economical draw solutions and technologies/approaches that

remove draw solutions economically (such as using waste/low-grade heat).
Developing new and additional membrane sources. Currently, a limited number of

commercially available membranes are on the market using cellulose triacetate.
Addressing mass transfer limitations resulting from concentration polarization within the
membrane support layer.
Developing new modules suitable for full-scale implementation. To date, most

applications have used flat-sheet, plate and frame elements.
FO can be applicable at small to large-scale systems in KSA for wastewater desalination,

industrial wastewater treatment, and treatment and recovery of RO concentrate streams.
Seawater is widely available and can be used as a draw solution for waste minimization in a
number of instances. Although cost is not yet established, the unit capital investment cost of
FO is expected to decrease as plant capacity increases.
Cost Information
Not established
Energy consumption using FO is estimated at one-quarter and one-third the energy
consumption of multiple effect distillation and RO, respectively.
Technology Suppliers
Oasys Water Inc.
21 Drydock Avenue, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02210, USA
www.oasyswater.com
HTI Water Sales, Marketing and Corporate Headquarters
9311 E. Via De Ventura
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
888-420-7222
www.htiwater.com
Modern Water PLC
Bramley House
The Guildway
Old Portsmouth Road
Guildford, GU3 1LR
United Kingdom
Web: /www.modernwater.co.uk/
High Recovery RO Processes

The major obstacle to operating an RO process at higher recoveries is the precipitation of
sparingly soluble inorganic salts, most notably barium sulfate (BaSO4), calcium carbonate
(CaCO3), calcium phosphate (Ca3(PO4)2), calcium sulfate (CaSO4) and silica. Inorganic salt
precipitation can be controlled at lower recoveries by using an appropriate antiscalant and by
2-12
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
acidifying feed water pH (effective for CaCO3 and (Ca3(PO4)2 control). At higher recoveries
(greater than 85 percent), the concentration of sparingly soluble salts can exceed the
effective range of antiscalants, and pH control does not prevent precipitation of some
problematic minerals such as silica, BaSO4 and CaSO4 (that may not be as effectively
removed by chemical cleaning). To improve RO recovery, one or more components of these
scale-forming salts need to be lowered. High-recovery RO processes were developed to
alter water chemistry prior to RO to allow higher water recoveries. These processes are
applicable for treating RO/EDR concentrate streams with very high recoveries, in some
cases approaching zero liquid discharge (ZLD). High-recovery RO/concentrate recovery
processes include ARROWTM, SPARRO, and ZDDTM.
Advanced Reject Recovery of Water (ARROWTM)

Application Area
Industrial wastewater treatment, high silica and scaling potential brackish water, and
wastewater and concentrate/brine treatment and water recovery applications.
Objective
Increase RO recovery using patented softening system.
Status
Developmental
ARROWTM is a high-recovery, advanced membrane system that couples a softening process

with RO to increase water recovery. This is a proprietary technology marketed by Advanced
Water Solutions and OBrien & Gere. In RO and other desalination processes such as EDR,
water recovery is limited by the concentration of scale precursors as well as by the concentration
of colloidal and fouling material in the water. These compounds settle on the membrane
surface or plates and reduce productivity. A common pretreatment to minimize scale fouling
includes acidification of the feed water and addition of an anti-scalant. While calcium and
magnesium hardness can be addressed by acidifying the feed water, acidification is ineffective
for reducing sulfate hardness. Silica also has a limited solubility, and acid addition further
reduces the solubility of silica. Increasing pH can push the solubility limit of silica, but it can
result in deposition of calcium carbonate on the RO membrane surface or EDR plates.
ARROW TM has a number of configurations that can be adjusted depending on the flow rate,
hardness, concentration of silica relative to other hardness precursors, and TDS concentration.
The ARROW process is illustrated in Figure 2-7 and includes the following steps:
Pretreatment - Dual media or membrane filtration is used to minimize colloidal fouling.

A silt density of less than 4 is targeted. Also, pretreatment includes the addition of acid
(if necessary) and anti-scalant.
First-Stage RO - ARROWTM produces a permeate stream of 60 to 75 percent of the

flow, while 40 to 25 percent of the stream is RO concentrate.
Second-Stage RO - Concentrate from the first-stage RO is treated and combined with

an appropriate flow of recycled stream from the second-stage RO concentrate.
Softening of RO Concentrate Stream from Second-Stage RO - ARROW uses either

chemical precipitation to reduce calcium, magnesium, and silica hardness or ion
exchange (IX) softening containing strongly acidic cation exchange resins, if silica
hardness is not a concern. Chemical precipitation uses caustic soda or soda ash
depending upon the ratio of alkalinity to calcium hardness.
Recovery - A small amount of flow from secondstage RO concentrate and a small

reject stream from the bottom of the clarifier or from the IX system is sent to a solar
evaporator or thermal crystallizer. The combined volume of the two reject streams is
less than 5 percent, giving an overall process recovery of greater than 95 percent.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-13
FIGURE 2-7
ARROW Process Schematic

High-quality product water compared to EDR, CD, or NF
Applicable for treating high silica content streams (such as RO concentrate)
High water recovery (90 percent according to the supplier ), which minimizes RO
concentrate generation and disposal costs
Compact skid-mounted system, which reduces not only footprint requirements but also
equipment delivery and installation time (appropriate for applications less than
0.25 million gallons per day [mgd], or 95,000 cubic meters per day [m3/d])
Process is still under development; no full-scale applications exist in municipal water or

wastewater treatment
High cost of chemicals used for pretreatment and softening of water
Combining the RO reject and ion exchange regenerate would cause a precipitate to form
that could reduce the crystallizer design and/or decrease on-line factor
ARROW is a complex operation that requires skilled operators
Pilot testing is required to determine key design criteria
Sludge from precipitative softening might require separate disposal, creating additional
challenge and expense
Technology Tested/ Demonstrated or Implemented

No full-scale operation. To date, ARROW has only one demonstration project in the
industrial water treatment field. This project is a 33-gallon-per-minute (gpm), or 7.2 m3/hr,
unit in New Jersey, USA, as pictured in Figure 2-8.
2-14
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-8
New Jersey ARROW Project for Reject Recovery (Adapted from CH2MHILL, 2009)

Knowledge about the following has not been established: treatment efficiencies, economics
(including sludge disposal and concentrate disposal costs), and long-term performance of
the system.
Existing skid-mounted units, which are easy to implement, are applicable only to very small
systems (up to 0.25 mgd, or 95,000 m3/d). Potential applications are currently limited to
small industrial treatment and small brine/concentrate recovery applications.
Process performance and robustness under varying feed water quality conditions should be
proven, and implementation costs should be comparable to those of other high recovery
technologies for this technology to be considered for wider size and purpose applications.
Cost Information
Not disclosed by supplier
Advanced Water Solutions
307 North Olive Street
Ventura, California 93001 USA
Phone: 805-641-3908
Fax: 805641-3932
E-mail: info@advancedwaterinc.com
Web: www.advancedwaterinc.com
OBrien & Gere
403 Main Street, #700
Buffalo, New York 14203-2100 USA
Phone: 716-831-9923
Web: www.obg.com
OPUS
Application Area
Desalinate water/wastewater with high concentrations of sparingly soluble solutes, organics,
and boron, including brine/concentrate streams.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-15
Objective
To achieve high recovery with high purity product water through the use of extensive
pretreatment processes prior to RO.
Status
Developmental

N.A. Water Systems, Veolia Water Solutions and Technology, France, designed the
OPUS system. OPUS is a proprietary optimized pretreatment which incorporates
unique separation processes for desalination of water with high concentrations of sparingly
soluble solutes (e.g., silica, CaSO4, and Mg(OH)2), organics, and boron. The system is able
to achieve high recovery with high purity product water through the use of extensive
pretreatment processes prior to water being processed through IX and RO subsystems
(RPSEA, 2009). A process schematic is shown in Figure 2-9.
FIGURE 2-9
OPUSTM Process Schematic (Courtesy of N.A. Water Systems)
The first step of the process includes acidification and degasification of the raw feed water.
This is followed by a conventional coagulation, flocculation, and high-rate plate settler
sedimentation process, which is termed Multiflo. After this step, the flow stream should be
devoid of nearly all high-molecular-weight organic molecules and oxidized metals
(particularly iron and manganese). Additionally, colloidal silica is partially removed by coprecipitation. Decant from the sedimentation basin is then filtered by a packed-bed media
filtration column, which removes any microflocs and most suspended solids that pass
through the plate settlers. The media filter may also achieve additional removal of low to
medium molecular weight hydrophobic organic molecules, including oil and grease
(Colorado School of Mines, 2009). Filtrate from the media filter is then processed through a
mixed, packed-bed IX column for further water softening. A cartridge filter is then used to
remove any IX resin or remaining particulate material prior to RO. The water is then
pressurized and treated by brackish water RO (BWRO) membranes at an elevated pH.
Operating the RO elements under these conditions reduces the fouling propensity of silica
and increases the rejection of both silica and boron.

2-16
Could produce very high quality water (product literature reports greater than 99 percent
rejection of TDS and most multivalent solutes and achievement of additional silica and
boron removal with high pH operation)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Pretreatment reduces fouling and scaling precursors, resulting in much higher RO

system recovery rates (e.g., 90 percent) compared to EDR, CDT, and conventional
membrane-based systems for treating high-TDS water. Pretreatment also reduces feed
pressure and energy requirements.
OPUSTM is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
established: treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, and shortand long-term performance of the system.
Despite the high water recoveries, OPUSTM generates multiple waste streams and a
concentrate stream that needs to be disposed off or treated; sludge from the
sedimentation basin requires dewatering and landfill application.
Larger footprint than conventional RO or IX systems due to inclusion of pretreatment,

chemical feed and storage, and dewatering facilities (if included).
Complex operation. Requires skilled labor and sophisticated process automation.
Multiple chemicals to handle, including acids, bases, hydrolyzing metal coagulants, and
polymer-based coagulants.
Available from only a single supplier and so does not allow for competitive bidding

Currently, there are no full-scale applications. The OPUS was field tested at a steamenhanced oil production field in San Ardo, California, USA. Field trials have demonstrated
that this system can treat feed water with TDS levels up to 10,000 mg/L. Veolia Water
Solutions Technologies claims that it could treat streams with TDS levels up to 30,000 mg/L.
The treatment process permeate quality is dependent on feed water salinity and operating
conditions. However, product literature reports greater than 99 percent rejection of TDS and
most multivalent solutes (Colorado School of Mines, 2009).

The technology is still under development by Veolia. The technology has not been pilot-tested
extensively and requires third-party independent evaluation to establish/prove the following:
Life cycle costs of the treatment

Robustness of the process under varying feed water and operating conditions
Design and operating parameters to optimize process performance and to lower
chemical usage
Existing trailer-mounted systems (30,000 m3/day) can easily be brought to the project site
and used for treating small systems. Potential applications are currently limited to small
industrial treatment and small size brine/concentrate recovery applications.
demonstrated. Project costs should be comparable to those of other high recovery
technologies before this technology could be considered for mid- to large-scale applications.
Cost Information
Cost information is not yet established.
N.A. Water Systems
Airside Business Park
250 Airside Drive
Moon Township, Pennsylvania 15108, USA
Phone: 412-809-6000
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-17
Fax: 412.809.6075
Web: www.nawatersystems.com
Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100
Cary, North Carolina 27513, USA
Phone: 919-677-8310
lisa.schilling@veoliawater.com
Web: www.veoliawaterst
Slurry Precipitation and Reverse Osmosis (SPARRO)

Application Area
Industrial wastewater treatment, treatment of high inorganic scaling potential brackish
wastewater, and RO concentrate streams
Objective
Increase RO recovery by reducing scaling precursors.
Status
Developmental

SPARRO involves circulating a slurry of seed crystals within the RO system, which serve as
preferential growth sites for calcium sulfate and other calcium salts and silicates. The
scaling compounds are precipitated on the seed crystals instead of on the membrane.
This process is confined to the use of tubular membranes due to the need to circulate the
slurry within the membranes without plugging them (CH2M HILL, 2009). Process
schematics of SPARRO are presented in Figures 2-10 and 2-11.
The water to be desalted is mixed with a stream of recycled concentrate containing the seed
crystals and fed to the RO process. The concentrate with seed crystals is processed in a
cyclone separator to separate the crystals, and the desired seed concentration is maintained
in a reactor tank by controlling the rate of wasting the upflow and/or underflow streams from
the separator. The combined recovery of the process is estimated to be greater than 90
percent (CH2M HILL, 2009).

Low energy requirement compared to RO and thermal/evaporative desalination

processes
Higher recoveries compared to EDR and RO, especially treating high scaling potential
waters (industrial, RO concentrate, etc.)
treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, and short- and long-term
performance of the system.
Larger footprint; requires large reaction tanks and large area for membrane systems due
to lower specific surface area of membranes
Tubular membranes have lower TDS rejections (TOC and TN rejections may also be
lower than with traditional RO membranes)
Requires skilled operation
Additional chemicals to handle
Relatively complex operation
2-18
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-10
SPARRO Process Schematic (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2009)
FIGURE 2-11
Illustration of Tubular Membranes Used in SPARRO (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2009)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-19

Currently there are no full-scale applications.
This technology has been tested at a pilot scale on several applications, including treating
mining wastewater in South Africa, and treating primary and secondary RO concentrate
streams from the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), California, USA, zero liquid
discharge (ZLD) pilot project. The combined recovery of the process was greater than 90
percent according to the study performed in South Africa (CH2M HILL, 2009). The results
from the EMWD study indicate 70 to 80 percent recovery. Although this recovery seems
moderate, it is in fact remarkably high considering the water quality matrix which prohibits
use of RO/EDR without extensive pretreatment (softening and IX).
Energy requirements were estimated to be 18.2 kWh/kgal (0.77 kWh/barrel [bbl]). Capital
costs are estimated to be $4.7/gpd ($199/barrel per day (bpd), while O&M costs are
currently unknown (Colorado School of Mines, 2009).

Knowledge about the following has not been established: treatment efficiencies, economics,
and long-term performance of the system.
proven and cost should be comparable to those of other high recovery technologies before
this technology could be considered in mid- to large-scale applications.
Cost Information
Reliable cost information is not yet established.
Unknown
Zero Discharge Desalination (ZDD)

Application Area
Industrial wastewater treatment, treatment of high inorganic scaling potential brackish
wastewater, and RO concentrate streams
Objective
Increase RO recovery by reducing scaling precursors.
Status
Developmental

Zero Discharge Desalination (ZDD), marketed by Veolia Water Solutions and Technology,
France, was developed to reduce concentrate volumes generated from RO facilities.
In ZDD, the concentrate stream from a conventional RO system is fed to an electrodialysis
metathesis (EDM) stack consisting of ion exchange membranes and thin solution
compartments. A direct electric potential is applied to the ends of the stack, resulting in a
direct current that is carried by ions migrating through the membranes and solution
compartments. The DC potential pushes ions through membranes from a lower concentration
to a more concentrated solution. Water flows tangentially to the membrane, while the flow of
ions is perpendicular to the membrane (Biagini et al., 2010). An electrodialysis stack consists
of anion membranes containing many fixed positive charges, usually quaternary amines, that
are loosely associated with mobile negatively charged ions that permeate the membrane, and
cation membranes with fixed negative charges, usually sulfonic acids, that allow positively
charged ions to permeate. In the ZDD technology, the calcium salts that cause scaling in a
2-20
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
high recovery RO process are removed in an EDM process that is a variant of ordinary
electrodialysis. The operating principles of ZDD are illustrated in Figure 2-12.
FIGURE 2-12
Operating Principles of ZDD
The concentrate recovery mode of operation assumes that the RO concentrate from an
existing RO system would be treated by the EDM process to produce highly concentrated
salt streams while reducing the salt concentrations and the scaling tendency of this RO
concentrate. If necessary, a silica removal system can be incorporated as a slip stream
treatment, as presented in the process flow schematic shown in Figure 2-13. From an
energy perspective, it is not practical to reduce the salt concentration to potable levels by the
EDM process, so RO would be used to further reduce the TDS of the EDM treated water.

Potentially very high recovery (97 percent recovery, including dewatering) was reported
in Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility in Alamogordo, New
Mexico (USA)
Less waste to handle compared to IX-RO or lime softening-RO-based processes
Requires less space than lime softening RO
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-21
FIGURE 2-13
ZDD Process Schematic (Courtesy of Veolia Water Solutions)
ZDDTM is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
Crystallization of sodium bicarbonate in a sodium chloride solution limits the possibility of

increasing the water recovery in waters that contain substantial quantities of chloride and
bicarbonate.
Lower TDS removal than RO and mechanical/thermal processes. The process cannot
remove uncharged molecules (such as boron, silica, and non-polar organic compounds)
and requires additional treatment, if treated water is intended to be used in high quality
reuse applications.
As in other high recovery processes, a liquid waste stream is generated and needs to be
disposed of properly.

Currently there are no full-scale applications.
A large-scale pilot test was conducted at the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination
Research Facility in Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA. The pilot testing results indicated that
a recovery of 94 percent was achievable without dewatering (97 percent with dewatering).
The cost projections performed by Veolia Water Systems indicated much lower capital and
O&M costs compared to the lime softening-RO systems.

The technology is still under development by Veolia. The technology has not been pilot-tested
extensively and requires third-party independent evaluation to establish/prove the following:
Life cycle costs of the treatment including solids disposal

Robustness of the process under varying feed water and operating conditions
Design and operating parameters to optimize process performance
Project costs should be comparable to those of other high recovery technologies before this
technology could be considered for mid- to large-scale applications.
2-22
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Cost Information
The projected costs for a 94 percent recovery ZDD are as follow:
Installed equipment cost: $15.8 per kgal ($4.2 per m3) (does not include capital cost for
treating/disposal of remaining 6 percent flow via final disposal methods (such as deep well
injection, evaporation ponds)
O&M cost: $2 per kgal ($0.53 per m3) (does not include dewatering and waste disposal
costs)
Technology Supplier
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100
Cary, North Carolina 27513, USA
Phone: 919-677-8310
lisa.schilling@veoliawater.com
Web: www.veoliawaterst
Humidification-Dehumidification Processes
Humidification-dehumidification (HDH) desalination mimics the natural water cycle to
desalinate the water. Normal atmospheric air is used as the medium to convert seawater to
freshwater. HDH desalination involves two processes. Seawater is first converted to water
vapor by evaporation into dry air in an evaporator (humidification). This water vapor is then
condensed from the air in a condenser to produce freshwater (dehumidification). Heat for
evaporation can be obtained from various sources, including solar, thermal, geothermal, and
combinations of these. A simplified process schematic of HDH is presented in Figure 2-14.
FIGURE 2-14
Simplified Process Schematic of HDH (Adapted from Narayan et al., 2010)
HDH systems can be classified under three broad categories. One is based on the form of
energy used such as solar, thermal, geothermal, or hybrid systems. This classification
highlights the most promising aspects of the HDH concept: the prospect of water production
by use of low-grade energy, especially from renewable sources. The second classification
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-23
of HDH processes is based on the cycle configuration (such as closed-water open air
[CWOA]). The third classification of the HDH systems is based on the type of heating used:
water- or air-heating systems.
Energy requirements of HDH include latent heat of vaporization, energy transport air, and
cooling energy to condense the vapor. As a result, it is an energy-intensive process.
Approximately, 650 KWh/ m3 of energy is required for vaporization, with additional energy
required for mechanical equipment (Huehmer and Wang, 2009).
To enhance heat recovery, Muller and Holst have proposed the concept of multi-effect HDH.
Figure 2-15 illustrates an example of this system. Air from the humidifier is extracted at
various points and supplied to the dehumidifier at corresponding points. This enables
continuous temperature stratification, resulting in a small temperature gap to keep the process
running. This in turn results in a higher heat recovery from the dehumidifier. In fact, most of
the energy needed for the humidification process is regained from the dehumidifier, lowering
the energy demand to a reported value of 120 kWh/m3. This system is being commercially
manufactured and marketed by a commercial water management company, Tinox GmbH.
FIGURE 2-15
Simplified Process Schematic of Multi Effect HDH (Adapted from Narayan et al., 2010)
Variants of the HDH process include Dewvaporation developed in Arizona State University,
USA and Diffusion Driven Desalination developed at the University of Florida, USA.
Dewvaporation has been extensively investigated and is being commercialized by Altela,
specifically for use in liquid waste concentration and treatment of produced water.
2-24
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Dewvaporation
Application Area
Seawater, brackish water, and wastewater desalination. Recovery and treatment of
concentrate streams.
Objective
To lower the carbon footprint and O&M cost of the desalination facilities.
Status
Innovative

Dewvaporation uses a humidification-dehumidification cycle to produce distilled product
water. Feed water is evaporated by heated air, and freshwater is condensed on the
opposite side of a heat transfer wall, as illustrated in Figure 2-16.
FIGURE 2-16
Dewvaporation Process Schematic
Each Dewvaporation tower contains a heat transfer wall made of plastic. The wall divides
the module into two compartments, one for evaporation and one for dew formation. The
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-25
energy needed for evaporation is partially supplied by the recovered energy released during
condensation. Heat sources can be combustible fuel, solar, or low-grade heat from various
sources. Using waste heat or low-grade heat can reduce O&M costs significantly, thereby
making it a very attractive desalination technology. The tower unit is built of thin plastic films
to avoid corrosion and to minimize equipment costs. Tower construction is relatively
inexpensive because the towers operate at atmospheric pressure.
The Dewvaporation concept was developed at Arizona State University, USA, in conjunction
L'Eau LLC, the company that owns the patent rights to the process. The process has been
marketed under license by Altela Inc. since mid-2006. Altela, Inc. has designed,
manufactured, and tested several AltelaRainTM prototype systems based on the
dewvaporation process. A schematic of the AltelaRainTM process is shown in Figure 2-17.
FIGURE 2-17
Altela Rain Dewvaporation System

Can treat very high TDS-containing streams (up to 60,000 mg/L)
Produces very high quality water (in one demonstration study, TDS was reduced from
approximately 41,000 mg/L to 100 mg/L, resulting 97.5 percent salt rejection)
Use of solar, waste heat, well-site gas significantly reduces operating cost.
Operates in atmospheric pressure, so there are no requirements for high-pressure

pumps and expensive sturdy towers
2-26
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Relatively high recovery (such as 90 percent, based on pilot tests conducted in New
Mexico, USA) compared to NF/RO and EDR for treating high-TDS streams
Less complex than mechanical/thermal evaporative processes.
Water quality has little impact on process performance
Plastic heat transfer walls reduce capital cost and eliminate corrosion concerns
Less fouling/scaling propensity compared to NF/RO
Silica does not limit the recovery compared to NF/RO
No chemical usage for pretreatment of feed water
Dewvaporation is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
Like other evaporative processes, the energy consumption of the dewvaporation system
is high
As in most desalination systems, post-treatment is required for stabilization and

mineralization of the water
A 5,000-gpd (~19 m3/day) Dewvaporation pilot plant was operated at the 23rd Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. The pilot plant feed was
concentrate from a Tactical Water Purification System (TWPS) RO unit with ultrafiltration
pretreatment. A 2,000-mg/L TDS wastewater RO concentrate stream was treated by the
pilot plant to more than 45,000-mg/L TDS brine and 10 mg/L TDS distillate, yielding a
recovery of up to 95 percent and salt rejection of more than 99 percent. Thermal multiple
effects varied from 2.0 to 3.5, which was less than the 5.0 effects demonstrated prior to
transport to the WWTP site. Using the average thermal multiple effect value of 3.2, and
natural gas cost of $0.80 per therm, the operating cost of water would be $20.85 per kgal
(764 kWh heat per kgal (Huehmer and Wang, 2009).
The use of waste heat or solar thermal reduced the operating cost to the cost of water
pumping and air blowing (Beckman, 2008).
Three full-scale AltelaRain ARS-4000 systems were operated at natural gas wells in the San
Juan basin near Farmington, New Mexico, USA (Colorado School of Mines, 2009). The
ARS-4000 system processed approximately 4,000 gpd of produced water. The AltelaRainTM
System produced distilled water with TDS of approximately 100 mg/L while processing a
waste stream containing approximately 42,000 mg/L TDS. One unit reduced effluent
disposal volumes by as much as 90 percent (Colorado School of Mines, 2009).

Dewvaporation is still under development. Knowledge about the economics and long-term
performance of the system has not been established. The following advancements would
enhance the attractiveness of this technology:
Effective recovery of heat of condensation

Development of inexpensive and efficient heat transfer walls
Demonstration project results are promising. Since use of Dewvaporation is especially

favorable in arid areas, it will be suitable for many locations in KSA (Riyadh, Makkah, Al
Madinah, etc.). Project locations where waste heat, low-grade heat, solar heat, or well site
gas are available are the most favorable locations for implementation of this technology.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-27
Like other evaporative processes, high energy-consumption might be a limiting factor for its
applicability if no waste heat or renewable energy sources such as solar are available.
This technology has proven to be effective for producing high-quality water from high-TDS
streams; it can be used for treating and recovering RO/EDR concentrate/reject streams.
Commercial units are already available and can be used in small applications. For largescale applications, custom design is essential to reduce the capital investment.
Project locations where waste heat or low-grade heat is available (such as refineries) are
favorable locations for implementation of this technology.
Cost Information
The projected capital cost is in the range of $8,000 per 1,000 gpd for small plants, and
$1,000 per 1,000 gpd for larger facilities. Operating costs for treating seawater and saline
solutions vary from about $0.50 per kgal to $3.50 per kgal, based on waste heat and natural
gas use as the heat source, respectively (USBR, 2008).
Technology Supplier
Altela, Inc.
7500 Meridian Pl NW, Suite B
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87121, USA
Phone: 505-923-4140
Fax: 505-923-4130
E-mail: info@altelainc.com
Web: www.altelainc.com
Diffusion Driven Desalination (DDD)

Application Area
Seawater, brackish water, and wastewater desalination. Recovery and treatment of
Objective
To lower the carbon footprint and O&M cost of the desalination facilities.
Status
Developmental

Researchers at the University of Florida, USA have patented an alternate desalination
process that works using HDH principles. DDD is similar to the closed-air open-water HDH
cycle, but it uses a direct contact dehumidifier in place of the non-contact heat exchanger
normally used for condensation in the HDH systems. DDD uses a portion of the distilled
water produced from the cycle as a coolant. A chiller is used to provide the distilled water at
a low temperature. The specific energy demand or gained-output ratio (GOR) of the DDD
process was estimated at 1.2, which is higher than for a normal HDH cycle in which the
latent heat in the dehumidifier is not recovered.
This technology provides an efficient, environmentally responsible means of putting thermal
energy discarded from existing processes to work producing freshwater. As in
Dewvaporation, it can be constructed from inexpensive material because of the low
temperature and pressure requirements.
Advantages and disadvantages of this technology are similar to those of the Dewvaporation.
One major difference between the two is that DDD is not commercialized yet.
Hybrid Ion Exchange-Nanofiltration (HIX-NF) Desalination Process

Application Area
2-28
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Seawater, brackish water, and wastewater desalination applications.
Objective
Reduce energy consumption and consequently the carbon footprint of the desalination
facilities.
Status
Developmental

Researchers at Lehigh University in the USA have been examining the use of a hybrid ion
exchange-nanofiltration (HIX-NF) process for desalination of sea and brackish water. The
researchers claim that the process can attain significant energy savings over the
conventional membrane-based pressure-driven processes. In this hybrid process, illustrated
in Figure 2-18, an ion exchange step converts monovalent chloride ions of saline water to
divalent sulfate ions and the resulting solution, having a lower osmotic pressure than the
feed, is desalinated using an NF membrane. The sulfate-rich reject stream from the NF
process is used to regenerate the anion exchanger. Results confirm that NF membranes
can desalinate sodium sulfate solution at a much lower operating pressure, compared to RO
membranes, and can yield a higher permeate flux.
FIGURE 2-18
HIX-NF Process Schematic (Adapted from Huehmer and Wang, 2009)

The NF membranes can desalinate sodium sulfate solution at a much lower operating
pressure compared to RO membranes and yield a higher permeate flux.
Anion exchangers with different sizes of amine functional groups hold the promise that
the process can be tailored for various levels of water quality.
The technology is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-29
The low through-put prior to regeneration may result in engineering challenges for
implementation.
Energy consumption and system performance are unknown under typical recovery
conditions (such as 40-50 percent).
Poor permeate water quality compared to RO and evaporative/thermal desalination

processes. Wastewater applications may require additional treatment for water reuse.

Researchers at Lehigh University in the USA have been examining the use of HIX-NF for
desalination of sea and brackish water. The HIX-NF process, as currently being studied, is
using pure solutes to simulate seawater. Studies examining operation first with simulated
seawater quality, and then with actual seawater, are required to evaluate the true efficacy.
Researchers report energy consumption in the desalination process as low as 0.89 kWh/m3;
however, the value is quoted for a process at 1 percent recovery, rather than the 40-50
percent typical in the industry, and is not representative of a full-scale installation (Huehmer
and Wang, 2009).

In order to achieve commercial success, several issues must be resolved by bench and field
testing. Among the most crucial issues are the following:
The sulfate-chloride selectivity of the anion exchangers plays an important role in the
sustainability of the process. Laboratory studies reveal that a single type of anion
exchanger cannot sustain the process for saline water with different salt concentrations.
However, anion exchangers with different sizes of amine functional groups (e.g.
quaternary-, tertiary-, secondary- and primary amine) show promise for the process to be
tailored for different water quality.
The low throughput prior to regeneration may result in engineering challenges for
implementation.
Although it is more complex than NF/RO, this technology has similar space requirements
(due to potentially increased water recovery as a result of softening). Utility requirements
are similar to those of conventional NF/RO systems.
Cost Information
Cost information is not yet established.
None
Membrane Desalination Cell (MDD)

Application Area
Wastewater desalination.
Objective
Desalinate wastewater while generating electricity.
Status
Developmental

The microbial desalination cell (MDC) includes a microbial fuel cell (MFC) that was modified
by adding a desalination compartment in a middle chamber. The saline water is placed
between an anion (AEM) and a cation exchange membrane (CEM). The AEM is placed next
to the anode and the CEM next to the cathode. Naturally occurring bacteria are used on the
anode; they grow using organic matter (acetate) and produce electrical current and release
2-30
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
protons into the water. Protons cannot move to the cathode because they cannot diffuse
through the AEM, as only negatively charged ions can pass through this membrane. In
order to maintain the charge balance, an anion (Cl) flows from the middle desalination
chamber to the anode. At the cathode, protons are removed from the water so sodium ions
(Na+) in the desalination chamber move to the cathode chamber to balance the charge. As
a consequence, sodium chloride salt (NaCl) in the middle chamber is removed; thus, water
is desalinated as depicted in Figure 2-19.
FIGURE 2-19
Schematic of Air-Cathode MDCs (Adapted from Mehanna and Logan, 2010)

This technology represents a completely new era and cannot be compared with any
established technologies. However, potential advantages of this technology are the following:
Provides an added benefit of wastewater treatment and power generation, while

achieving a noticeable degree of desalination without an external source of energy. The
additional energy can be used within the wastewater treatment facility for pumping,
driving electric motors, etc.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-31
Can be used for pretreatment in RO systems, which reduces energy requirements and
may increase recovery of the system.
Technology Pilot Tested/Demonstrated or Implemented

No full-scale facilities are in operation.
This technology has been bench-scale tested at Pennsylvania State University, USA, by
Bruce Logan and co-workers. The results showed that the type of inocula used did not
affect the performance of the MDC. Microbial community analysis of MDCs anodic
microbial populations by 16 S RNA clone library showed that the anode population was
dominated by Geobacter sulfurreducens regardless of the type of initial inocula (Mehanna et
al., 2010). This is not surprising since G. sulfurreducens is known to produce high current
densities in bioelectrochemical systems. The bench-scale MFC achieved approximately 60
percent TDS removal.

This is an embryonic but highly promising technology. Reducing TDS by 60 percent without
using energy, in fact generating some, is a remarkable achievement. Although current TDS
removal efficiency reported by Logan and co-workers is very low compared to established
technologies, such removal may be enough to justify using MDC for desalting high-TDS KSA
wastewaters for reuse applications.
Several advancements need to be made before this technology could be considered a viable
option in full-scale applications. All MDC studies are conducted in batch mode at relatively
small scales, usually less than 300 mL. A linear increase in the power density with an
increase in MDC size is not expected due to the limitations of mass transfer. The high cost
of platinum-coated cathodes limits the wide application of MDCs. Low-cost manganese
dioxide (MnO2) cathode materials have been developed and tested in lab-scale MDCs
operated at batch mode (Li et al., 2010). However, the performance of this new cathode is
yet to be investigated in large-scale continuous MDCs.
Membrane Distillation (MD)

Application Area
Desalination of seawater, brackish water, and wastewater. Treatment and recovery of RO
Objective
Reduce desalination power cost combined with low-grade or waste heat.
Status
Developmental

MD combines membrane technology and evaporation processing in a single unit. The
appeal of MD is that it functions at atmospheric pressure and requires only relatively low
feed temperatures of 70to 90C. MD transports water vapor through the pores of
hydrophobic membranes using the temperature difference across the membrane. The
membrane allows water vapor to penetrate the hydrophobic surface while repelling the
liquid. The clean vapor is carried away from the membrane and condensed as pure water,
either within the membrane package or in a separate condenser system.
MD differs from other membrane technologies in that the driving force that pushes the water
through the membrane is not feed pressure but temperature. In MD units, vapor production
is enhanced by heating the feed water, which increases the vapor pressure and penetration
rate. MD requires the same amount of energy input to heat and condense vapor as
traditional evaporation; however, it does not require boiling water and is operated at ambient
pressure. The energy requirement for MD is lower than those of conventional evaporation
2-32
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
systems. MD is most efficient on low-grade or waste heat, such as industrial heat streams
or even solar energy (Huehmer and Wang, 2009). Also, the efficiency of the unit can be
improved with heat recovery.
MD membranes must be microporous (pore diameters of 0.05 to 0.2 micrometer [m]) and
nonwettable by the feed. Thermal and chemical resistance, narrow pore-size distribution,
high porosity, and low thermal conductivity are other desirable membrane qualities.
Membrane modules have been developed in various configurations, including plate-andframe, spiral-wound, and hollow-fiber for MD applications.
A variety of arrangements and configurations can be used to induce the vapor through the
membrane and to condense penetrant gas; however, the feed water must always be in direct
contact with the membrane. Condensation is typically achieved via two major process
configurations (Salamero, 2004):
Direct-Contact Membrane Distillation: The cool condensing solution directly contacts

the membrane and flows countercurrent to the raw water. This is the simplest
configuration and is best suited for applications such as desalination and concentration
of aqueous solutions (for example, juice concentrates).
Air-Gap Membrane Distillation: An air gap is followed by a cool surface. The use of an
air gap configuration allows larger temperature differences to be applied across the
membrane, which can compensate in part for the greater transfer resistances. The air
gap configuration is the most common and can be used for any application, including
desalination.
A schematic illustration of an air

gap MD is shown in Figure 2-20.
The thermal efficiency of MD
declines with increasing salinity
(TDS levels), because highly
saline water requires a greater
temperature drop across the air
gap, leading to greater losses of
heat conduction through the air
gap. Similarly, as salinity is
increased, lower fluxes can be
achieved due to reduced heat
transfer with highly saline water.
The thermal efficiency and
operating flux are estimated as a
function of water salinity (Scott et
al., 2007). Memstill, a patented
FIGURE 2-20
MD technology of TNO
Schematic of Air Gap MD
Environment Energy and Process
Innovation, Netherlands, is an innovative concept that combines high transport of water
vapor and high transfer of evaporation heat into one membrane module. Because a
Memstill module was designed to house a continuum of evaporation stages in an almost
ideal countercurrent flow process, a very high recovery of evaporation heat is possible. The
process was intended to decrease desalination costs to well below 0.50 /m, using lowgrade waste steam or heat as the driving force (Huehmer and Wang, 2009).

Ability to utilize low-grade heat (solar collector, waste heat, etc.)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-33
Less organic fouling propensity compared to RO
Less pretreatment compared to conventional membrane desalination processes
The only membrane process that can maintain process performance (such as water flux
and solute rejection) almost independently of feed solution TDS concentration.
MD membranes are more chemically inert and resistant to oxidation than traditional RO
and NF membranes, which allows for more efficient, chemically aggressive cleaning
Produces higher-quality water than NF/RO, EDR and CD.
treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, short- and long-term
performance, and fouling/scaling of MD.
Requires special hydrophobic membranes. Existing commercially available RO

membranes are not suitable for MD because such membranes have a relatively low
product water flux, which can be attributed to severe internal concentration polarization
in the porous support and fabric layers of RO membranes.
Membrane modules for MD have not undergone extensive optimization and may require
larger footprints than a pressure-driven system with equivalent capacity.
Contamination of distillate occurs when the membrane fouls and wets the membrane
pores.
Use of multiple stages can reduce energy requirements but increases capital cost
associated with membrane contactor.

A pilot test of MD using RO concentrate generated from a groundwater desalination facility
operated by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), California, USA was performed in
2009. The pilot test showed that the operating flux was between 1.2 and 2.4 gallons per
square foot per day (gfd) at feed and permeate temperatures of 40 and 20 degrees Celsius
(C), respectively. Increasing feed temperature to 60C increased flux to 6.0 gfd. The water
recoveries were between 60 and 81 percent, with an average of 70 percent during pilot
testing. The pilot MD exhibited excellent salt rejections (that is, 99 percent or greater) during
pilot testing.

No known full-scale application of MD. Pilot Memstill units are available for demonstration
studies.
A 2010 desalination market survey completed by Global Water Intelligence (GWI) notes that
three areas of new technology are likely to be the focus of commercialization over the next
four years. MD was one of them. The market interest captured by the recent survey is a
critical support for commercial success. The availability of low-grade or waste heat source
or renewable energy is another important factor that favors implementation of MD in
desalination projects.
Knowledge about the following has not been established: treatment efficiencies of largerscale installations, economics, short- and long-term performance, and fouling/scaling of MD.
The following advances are required for commercial success:
Development of micro-porous membranes that have the desired porosity, hydrophobicity,

low thermal conductivity, and low potential for fouling.
Development of membrane modules to reduce footprint.
2-34
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
As with many membrane technologies, MD systems are highly modular and can be
applicable at small to large-scale facilities. Project locations where waste heat or low-grade
heat is available (such as refineries) are favorable locations for implementation of this
technology.
Cost
The projected equipment cost is $3.34/gallons (or $880/m3), with O&M costs estimated to be
$1.40/kgal (or $0.4 /m3)
TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation.
Tel: +31 (0)55 549 3199
Fax: +31 (0)55 549 3410
Netherlands
infodesk@tno.nl
Memsys GmbH
Zwingenbergstr, 90a
47802 Krefeld, Germany.
Tel: +49 (0) 2151-3603127
Netherlands
www.memsys.eu
Nanofiltration (NF)
Application Area
Desalination of brackish water and wastewater.
Objective
To reduce operating pressure for energy savings and increase water recoveries.
Status
Innovative

NF is generally used as an alternative to lime softening for reducing the level of calcium and
magnesium in hard water when TDS reduction is not typically a primary goal. The recent
developments in the membrane field have made NF a candidate for TDS removal (such as
50 to 90 percent TDS removals were demonstrated). In addition, recent studies (Xu et al.,
2005, Mansell et al., 2011, Bellona et al., 2011) have consistently shown that the degree to
which NF membranes can remove most emerging contaminants is similar to that of RO
membranes.

Lower energy requirements compared to RO

Higher water recoveries compared to RO
Less chemical addition for scale control compared to RO
Lower permeate quality than RO. Not very effective for removing monovalent ions, such
as sodium, chloride, and nitrate.
Very poor nitrate removal. If nitrate or nitrogen removal is of interest, this technology
alone may not be suitable.
Rougher surface of NF membranes increases fouling tendency of the membranes,

especially in reuse applications.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-35

No full-scale facility in wastewater applications.
A commercially available NF membrane (NF 270, Dow Filmtec, USA) was pilot-tested at the
Long Beach Water Reclamation Facility, Long Beach, California, USA in 2010. One key
objective of the testing was to evaluate the efficacy of the NF and RO membranes for
removing conventional and emerging pollutants. With the exception of nitrate (in this study
nitrate removal was not required due to highly efficient upstream nitrogen removal practices),
the NF membranes effectively removed TOC, TDS, and emerging contaminants. The
emerging contaminant removals via NF were comparable to removals via RO. The study
clearly indicated that NF was an equally efficient technology that can be used instead of RO
in groundwater recharge projects. The study also projected an average energy savings of
more than 50 percent with NF use.

One major hurdle is to obtain regulatory approval for using NF in groundwater recharge
projects. The consistent results obtained from independent studies and the database
formed are encouraging factors that should warrant regulatory and public acceptance in near
future. This technology is very mature. NF membranes, pressure vessels, pumps, and
instrumentation and control (I&C) systems are widely and commercially available.
Cost
The capital cost is very similar to those of conventional RO systems. O&M costs are lower
due to reduced energy requirements.
Dow Water and Process Solutions
7600 Metro Boulevard
Edina, MN 55439 USA
Tel: 952-897-4311
Fax: 952-914-1009
Web: www.dow.com
Nitto Denko
Corporate Headquarters
401 Jones Road
Oceanside, CA 92058, USA
Tel: +760-901-2500
Fax: +760-901-2578
info@hydranautics.com
Nanotechnology Applications
Application Area
Desalination of brackish water, seawater, and wastewater. Treatment and recovery of RO
Objective
To increase membrane fouling resistance, membrane permeability, and flux by impregnating
nanomaterial or nanoparticles into thin film composite membranes.
Status
Developmental

Over the last three decades, advanced water treatment processes have adapted the use of
RO or NF membranes for salt removal. Thin-film composite polyamide membrane has been
the dominant membrane used for RO and NF since its development. However, for
2-36
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
desalination (including desalting of treated municipal wastewater), fouling and scaling of

RO/NF membranes pose a major challenge to increasing process efficiency. When RO/NF
processes are operated in the high-permeate recovery regime, the level of concentration
polarization rises, thus increasing the propensity for membrane fouling. Membrane fouling
can lead to a significant reduction in membrane performance (reduction in flux and salt
rejection impairment) and shortening of membrane life. To minimize membrane fouling and
improve membrane permeability and flux, development of nano-tubes and nanotechnology
membranes recently began (Huehmer and Wang, 2009).
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA, have been studying the use
of membranes fabricated from carbon nano-tubes for desalination. The nanotubes, with
diameters of approximately 2 nm, permit water transport while rejecting ions. The initial
findings indicate liquid transfers several times greater than conventional seawater RO
membranes. Advancements involving carbon nano-tubes may be applicable to RO, FO,
MD, and other membrane technologies (Huehmer and Wang, 2009).
The membrane consists of super-hydrophilic nanoparticles dispersed in a conventional
polyamide RO membrane by Dr. Eric Hoek and co-workers. These nano-composite
membranes allow dramatically better water permeability than is possible with conventional
RO membranes while maintaining highly comparable salt rejection.
A class of RO membranes with an active polyamide layer that is surface structured with
terminally grafted polymer chains was developed to offer low fouling and mineral scaling
propensity by University of California Los Angeles (USA) researchers (Lin et al., 2010).
These membranes were synthesized by free-radical graft polymerization of either
methacrylic acid (MAA) or acrylamide (AA) monomers onto the active polyamide layer of a
base NF membrane, post-surface activation with an impinging atmospheric pressure plasma
source, to yield nano-structured (SNS) RO membranes (SNS-PA-TFC). Gypsum scaling
tests demonstrated that the SNS-PA-TFC membranes had significantly lower scaling
propensity compared to an LFC1 membrane.
An example of a nanoparticle-impregnated RO membrane is illustrated in Figure 2-21.

Improved permeability and flux while maintaining comparable salt rejection (based on
bench-scale demonstrations)
Uses same manufacturing process and same spiral-wound element as conventional RO

systems
treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, short- and long-term
performance, and fouling/scaling of this technology.

No known full-scale application.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-37
FIGURE 2-21
Schematic of Nanotechnologically Advanced RO Membrane (Courtesy of NanoH2O LCC, USA)
The technology has been bench- and pilot-tested at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, USA, and the University of California Los Angeles, USA. The bench/pilot test
results are presented in the Description of Technology section; advanced thin film
nanocomposite (TFN) membranes are currently marketed by NanoH2O LLC, USA.

Finding a cost-effective solution to mitigate membrane fouling is of primary interest. Due to
the earlier onset of thermodynamic restrictions, it is anticipated that engineering changes to
RO plant design will be required to accommodate the membranes, including a reversion to
two-stage design for seawater applications. If the added cost due to nano-technology
inclusion remains within 5 percent of the capital investment as forecasted by NanoH2O
LCC, full-scale demonstrations and implementations could likely occur in the near future.
Implementation is very easy, considering that no additional upgrade is needed to the existing
infrastructure. Scalability of this technology is identical to that of the NF/RO systems.
Cost
Not established.
According to the NanoH2O, the added cost to the existing NF/RO is about 5 percent.
Technology Supplier
NanoH2O, Inc.
750 Lairport Street
El Segundo, CA, USA, 90245-5006
Phone: 424-218-4000
Fax: 424-218-4001
E-mail: info@nanoh2o.com
Web: www.nanoh2o.com
Silica Gel Based Adsorption Desalination (AD)

Application Area
Seawater, brackish water, and wastewater desalination. Treatment of concentrate streams.
Objective
To reduce scaling and corrosion issues associated with thermal processes, lower the carbon
footprint of desalination using solar energy, reduce waste heat, etc.
2-38
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Status
Innovative

Silica gel based adsorption technology was developed in the National University of
Singapore (NUS). Currently, NUS and KAUST are collaborating to optimize system
performance and evaluate fouling/scaling behavior of the technology in a large
demonstration unit (35 kW) using actual seawater. The technology uses
adsorption/desorption cycles to desalinate seawater or brackish water without the need for
chemical pretreatment.
The silica gel adsorption desalination and cooling unit comprises a host of stationary units,
namely an evaporator, condenser, and adsorber/desorber beds. After de-aeration, saline or
brackish water is fed intermittently into the evaporator where desalting is achieved at low
system pressure (15 kiloPascals [kPa]) and temperatures (5-10oC), which mitigates
problems associated with scaling and corrosion. During adsorption processes, water vapor
is adsorbed by the silica gel due to its high affinity to water at low temperatures.
Concomitantly, a heat source such as hot water (typically from 50 to 80oC) is supplied to the
desorption beds, containing the saturated silica gel from the previous cycle, to expel the
water vapor from the adsorbent. The desorbed vapor condenses on the cooler surfaces of
the condenser, cooled by re-circulating coolant from a seawater cooling tower. Highly
purified potable water is produced at low temperatures (50-80oC), enabling the technology to
have a cooling application. The heat to drive desorption can be obtained from waste heat as
well as renewable sources, including solar and geothermal. Figure 2-22 presents a process
schematic of the process.
FIGURE 2-22
Schematic of Four-Bed Adsorption Desalination (Adapted from Wang and Ng, 2005)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-39

Very low specific energy cost. (It is reported to be 1.38 kWh/m3, which is very close to
the lowest theoretical amount (1.0 kWh/m3) achieved by any desalination system (Thu et
al., 2010)
Cost-effective when a low temperature waste heat source is available
Higher water recoveries than RO
Capability to use solar energy results in great flexibility to locate the AD facilities
Does not require pretreatment and post-treatment chemicals
Low temperature operation minimizes scaling and corrosion problems
Low maintenance requirement
Silica is cheap and abundant in KSA
Requires large space

Availability of low temperature waste heat sources is important but finding these sources
may be a challenge for siting large-scale AD facilities

A four-bed small-scale demonstration unit has been successfully operated in Singapore for
more than 6 years (Wang and Ng, 2005). Currently, Prof. Ng of NUS and Tawfiq AlGhasham of KAUST are co-investigating fouling/scaling behavior and optimizing operating
parameters using actual seawater.
Knowledge Gaps/Future Advancements and Implementability

The low electricity consumption and low O&M requirements are the two major attractive
features of this technology. In addition, this technology can be retrofitted into an existing
multieffect distillation (MED) plant to increase efficiency of the system as reflected in the
GOR value. This technology is potentially best suited to locations where there is a need for
desalination, demand for cooling, and waste heat sources are available. The feasibility of
this technology therefore depends on case-specific conditions. Use of tall silos can reduce
the footprint but increases the capital cost of the facility.
Cost Information
Thu et al. (2010) compared capital and O&M costs of AD and RO. They reported a total
annualized cost of $0.46/m3 for AD and of $0.94/m3 for RO. Thu and co-workers assumed
free waste heat in their estimation.
Technology Supplier
Advon Singapore Pte Ltd.
20 Tuas Street, Singapore 638457
Tel: (65) 6349 2714
Fax: (65) 6863 8033
Email: enquiry@advon.sg
Website: www.advon.sg
Solar Desalination
Application Area
Seawater, brackish water, and wastewater desalination. Treatment of concentrate streams.
Objective
Lower the carbon footprint of desalination using solar energy.
2-40
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Status
Developmental

Among the energy sources that are suitable to drive desalination processes, solar energy is
one of the most promising options, due to availability of solar radiation with water supply
requirements in many locations. Among low capacity production systems, solar ponds
represent the best alternative in cases with both low freshwater demand and low land price.
For higher desalting capacities, it is necessary to choose conventional distillation plants
coupled to a solar thermal system, which is known as indirect solar desalination (Garca
Rodrguez and GomezCamacho, 2001).
Solar desalination uses thermal solar energy to evaporate and condense water as distillate.
Distillation methods used in indirect solar desalination plants are multistage flash (MSF)
and MED. An example process schematic of solar desalination is illustrated in Figure 2-23.
FIGURE 2-23
Schematic of Solar Desalination
Concentrating solar power first creates heat. This heat can then be used either to generate
electricity or directly to desalinate water. Properly configured, concentrating solar power can
switch back and forth from creating electricity to water. RO can also be used for desalinating
water if the generated energy via concentrated solar power is directed to the RO. As an
alternative, the concentrated solar power, photovoltaic solar panel can also be used to
generate energy to drive the desalination process. Figure 2-24 shows heat, power, and
combined heat and power options for solar heat coupled with the MED and RO options.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-41
FIGURE 2-24
Solar Desalination Options
Given that concentrating solar power can create temperatures of 400-1,000+ degrees
Celsius, the thermal energy can be used as a direct input to desalination as in the MED
option (left on Figure 2-14).
There are four main technologies for concentrating solar power: parabolic troughs, solar
dishes, solar towers, and compact linear fresnel reflectors. Of the four, parabolic troughs are
the most widely used in plants operating in Spain and the USA (California and Nevada).
Solar thermal energy storage allows excess solar heat gathered during morning hours to be
stored for use during afternoon electricity demand peak periods. Adding a combined cycle
natural gas turbine provides redundancy and the ability to increase power production when
needed, for instance on hot afternoons when grid demand spikes.

The desalination aspect of this technology uses established technologies (such as RO,
MED, and MSF). The only difference is that solar energy is used to drive the process in
solar desalination.
Use of solar energy reduces carbon footprint and GHG emissions.
Free renewable source results in low O&M cost.
Potential incentives and carbon credit may be available in the future, which makes it a
more attractive solution.
Solar intensity is high in KSA, which represents the highest potential among all
renewable energy alternatives.
2-42
Initial cost of solar energy is high due to current manufacturing and installation practices
Requires large space
Solar panel requires high-quality water for cleaning
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Technology TestedImplemented or Demonstrated

A solar desalination demonstration plant provided by Solar Water Energy, USA, has been in
operation in Ahmedabad, India since May 2008, producing pure distilled water from saline
groundwater. The production capacity is approximately 27,000 gpd (100 m3/day).
A full-scale solar desalination facility (Acquasol 1) designed by Acquasol Infrastructure Ltd,
Australia is being built near Port Augusta, Australia. It will include parabolic troughs
concentrating solar power, combined cycle gas turbines, MED, and solar salt harvesting.
The plant is being built by Acquasol Infrastructure Ltd, Australia.
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), along with IBM, is building the
world's largest solar-powered desalination plant in the city of Al-Khafji, KSA. The plant will
use a new kind of concentrated solar photovoltaic (PV) technology and new water filtration
technology. When completed at the end of 2012, the plant will produce 30,000 m3 of
desalinated water per day to meet the needs of 100,000 people.
Another solar desalination demonstration unit is being installed at KAUST to produce
distilled water from seawater.

Desalination based on concentrating solar power offers affordable, sustainable, and recover
wastewater and concentrate streams that are large enough to cope with the growing deficits
in KSA. Several large demonstration projects in KSA, Australia, and Spain and extensive
research in solar desalination technology strongly suggest that solar desalination technology
will flourish in the next 5 to 10 years. Considering KSAs high solar intensity yearround,
solar desalination is a very favorable option. Data thus far show that solar desalination is
more economical in mid- to large-scale facilities. Decentralized treatment plants that are
desalting wastewater or centralized treatment facilities that are combining and treating
brine/concentrate from multiple facilities will receive the most benefit from this technology.
The following advancements would further support this technology:
The system efficiency is governed by preferably high heat and mass transfer during
evaporation and condensation. The surfaces must be properly designed to improve heat
transfer efficiency, economy, and reliability.
The heat of condensation is valuable because it takes large amounts of solar energy to
evaporate water and generate saturated, vapor-laden hot air. This energy is transferred
to the surface of the condenser during condensation. This heat of condensation is
ejected from the system as waste heat. The challenge is to achieve the optimum
temperature difference between the solar-generated vapor and the
seawater/wastewater-cooled condenser, to make maximum reuse of the energy of
condensation, and to minimize the capital investment.
Although the cost of concentrating solar power has been reduced in recent years, new
manufacturing methods and material need to be developed to make this technology
more affordable.
Most solar desalination components are mature (such as RO, MED systems, and supporting
facilities) and commercially available around the world.
Cost Information
Not available
Technology Supplier
Solar Water Energy
12801 Auburn Street
Detroit, Michigan, 48226, USA
Tel: 313-544-7117
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-43
Fax: 313-544-7111
Email: Hammam@solarwaterenergy.net
Website: www.solarwaterenergy.com
Innovative Disinfection/Advanced Oxidation Technologies

A number of technologies have been developed in response to concerns associated with the
use of chlorine (such as DBP formation) for wastewater disinfection, the need to improve
disinfection and/or emerging contaminant removal efficiency. Although chlorine dioxide is
established for drinking water treatment, it is not used for wastewater, largely because only
limited benefits are provided relative to chlorine disinfection of wastewater and they do not
justify the additional system complexity and expense. Bromine species are proven
disinfectants, but may also react with organic materials to form unwanted trihalomethanes
(THMs). Brominated organics formed during disinfection are often considered more harmful
than the analogous chlorinated organics (Water Environment Federation [WEF], 2006).
Therefore, chlorine dioxide and bromine-based disinfection technologies are not included in
the innovative/developmental disinfection technology category in this chapter.
The technologies reviewed for this section include:
Ferrate Disinfection and Oxidation

Microwave UV Disinfection
Pasteurization
Peracetic Acid
Photocatalysis
Simultaneous Use of Two or More Disinfectants
Solar Disinfection
Ultrasonic Cavitation
The established technologies (chlorination, chloramination, UV disinfection, ozone, hydrogen

peroxide [H2O2] based ultraviolet advanced oxidation process [UV AOP] and ozone AOP)
are not included in this chapter.
Ferrate Disinfection and Oxidation

Application Area
Water/wastewater treatment
Objective
Disinfection, emerging contaminant removal, odor control, and waste stabilization
Status
Developmental

Because of concerns over the effectiveness of disinfection processes and concerns related
to the formation of DBPs, ongoing research is evaluating alternative disinfection methods.
Ferrate (FeO42-) is an innovative technology that achieves disinfection and may produce less
DBPs than chlorination.
The redox potential of ferrate is 2.2 v in acids and 0.7 v in bases, compared with redox
potentials of 1.5V for hypochlorous acid, 1.4 v for chlorine gas, and 0.8 v for hypochlorite
ions (Jiang and Lloyd, 2002). The protonated form, HFeO4-, is a stronger oxidant than the
anionic FeO42-, and the acid dissociation constant (pKa) is 7.23 (Sharma et al., 2005).
Ferrate was explored in the 1970s as an alternative chemical for chlorine, but prior
production methods made its use cost-prohibitive. With recent advances in new onsite
production methods for ferrate, the ferrate cost has decreased, making it a potential
alternative to the existing oxidation and disinfection processes. Ferrate is formed when ferric
2-44
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
chloride reacts with sodium hydroxide (caustic) and sodium hypochlorite (bleach) in a
precise combination of reaction time, mixing, and stoichiometry. Figure 2-25 illustrates the
ferrate production process.
FIGURE 2-25
Schematic Illustration of Ferrate Production (Courtesy of Ferrate Treatment Technologies LCC)
Ferrate is introduced into a water or wastewater stream as a liquid and can therefore be
pumped, metered, and retrofitted in an existing treatment plant. The byproduct of ferrate
oxidation is the ferric ion (Fe+3), which is an environmentally benign compound, but reacts
with water to form the insoluble compound ferric hydroxide, which must be settled and
removed.
The inactivation efficacy appears to be affected by ferrate dose, contact time, initial
pathogen concentration, solids, pH, buffering capacity, water quality, and temperature;
however, ferrate is affected less than chlorine by changes in organic content, pH, and
temperature (WERF, 2008).

Potentially less DBP formation than chlorine-based disinfection
Powerful oxidizing capability compared to chlorine-based disinfection
Potentially requires lower contact time than chlorine-based disinfection, which reduces
the required volume of the contact tank
Relatively easy to retrofit into existing WWTPs
May oxidize some emerging contaminants, although more research is needed.
No full-scale experience.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-45
Lack of concentration (C) and contact time (T) relationship in reuse applications. Ferrate
has not been approved yet by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) as an
alternative disinfection technology for reuse applications.
Lack of established cost data
Must be generated onsite by mixing hazardous chemicals
Decomposes and loses its strength
Not a stronger oxidant than hypochlorite in water with basic pH
Generates solids, which require proper disposal
Compared to chlorine, additional chemicals (caustic and ferric chloride) to handle onsite

Currently, there are no full-scale operating facilities. One full-scale facility is under
construction in Mississippi, USA. Waite (1979) used a dose of 10 mg/L for 3.7-log
inactivation of total coliform and 4-log inactivation of fecal coliform, while another study used
a dose of 8 mg/L ferrate in secondary effluent for 3-log inactivation of total coliform, and 1.5log inactivation of total bacteria (Jiang and Lloyd, 2002). In terms of relative resistance to
ferrate, Escherichia coli, Salmonellatyphimurium, and Shigella flexneri showed similar
susceptibility to ferrate, but Streptococcusfaecalis, Bacillus cereus, Streptococcus bovis, and
Staphylococcus aureus were more resistant (WERF, 2008).
A bench study conducted by Srisawat et al. (2010) in the USA investigated oxidation
capabilities of ferrate for reducing estrogenic activity in wastewater. The study showed that
estrogenic activity was successfully reduced by ferrate oxidation. A 54 percent reduction in
endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) was obtained when the optimum ferrate dose, 6
parts per million (ppm), was applied.

Ferrate is an oxidizing agent that shows promise for disinfection, treatment of organics and
metals, flocculation, and odor control. However, data available in literature are inconsistent
regarding dose requirements, and not sufficient to develop minimum CT (ferrate
concentration times contact time) requirements to inactivate a wider range of pathogenic
organisms. In addition, it decomposes in solution (i. e., loses activity), and the traditionally
high cost of buying or generating ferrate has limited its use. Recent advances may reduce
chemical costs, which would facilitate its use, but more research is needed to develop dose
and contact time, evaluate disinfection efficacies against a wider range of organisms, effects
of wastewater quality on disinfection efficacy and dose requirements, performance and
economics of onsite generation of ferrate, and potential for re-growth or DBP generation in
wastewater.
Cost Information
Not established
Technology Supplier
Ferrate Treatment Technologies LCC
Orlando, Florida, USA
Website: www.ferratetreatment.com
Microwave UV Disinfection
Application Area
Water/wastewater disinfection
Objective
To improve UV lamp life and provide operational flexibility.
2-46
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Status
Innovative

UV disinfection transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc lamp to wastewater.
UV lamps containing mercury vapor, which are charged by striking an electric arc, emit UV
radiation. Conventional UV lamps contain electrodes that facilitate the generation of UV
radiation. These electrodes are of delicate construction and their deterioration is one of the
sources of failure in UV disinfection systems. Microwave UV disinfection technology
eliminates the need for electrodes by using the microwave-powered electrodeless mercury
UV lamp. In this technology, microwave energy is generated by magnetrons and directed
through wave guides into the quartz lamp sleeves containing argon gas. Electrodeless
lamps operate at higher pressures than traditional medium-pressure UV lamps, in the range
of 5 to 20 atm, compared to 1 to 2 atm for traditional medium-pressure lamps.

Longer lamp life (3 years vs. 1 year)
Greater design flexibility as a result of absence of electrodes
No electrical connections in the water
Radiation is produced through the entire length of the lamp and there is no energy loss
associated with electrode
Quartz sleeve remains the same temperature of the water, leading to less fouling
Instant shut-off and quick restart capability
Knowledge about the following has not been established: optimized reactor hydraulics,
long-term performance, and cost.
Has more components than the conventional electrode-using system, including

magnetron, wave guides, and cooling fans
Requires magnetron replacement each year, which could substantially increase O&M cost
Installations
The MicroDynamics microwave UV technology provided by Severn Trent Services was
installed at Kent County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (18-mgd or 68,000 m3/day
peak flow design capacity), in Delaware, USA in October 2010.

Knowledge about the following has not been established: capital and life cycle cost
(including lamp and magnetron replacement costs and power draw) and long-term
performance of the system. This knowledge gap needs to be closed for wider use of this
technology in the future.
Cost Information
Not disclosed by the supplier
Technology Supplier
Severn Trent Services
3000 Advance Lane
Colmar, PA 18915
Telephone: 215-997-4000
Fax: 215-997-4062
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-47
Email: info@severntrentservices.com
Web site: www.severntrentservices.com
Pasteurization
Application Area
Wastewater disinfection
Objective
Reduce/eliminate formation of DBPs.
Status
Innovative

Thermal disinfection of liquids (water, milk, etc.) is termed pasteurization after L. Pasteur,
who first articulated the fundamental microbial basis of infectious diseases. Pasteurization
of water by boiling has long been practiced as a way of treating water contaminated with
enteric pathogens. In fact, pasteurization can take place at much lower temperatures,
depending on the time the water is held at the pasteurization temperature (Burch and
Thomas, 1997). Pasteurization time decreases exponentially with increasing temperature.
Above 50C, time decreases at roughly a factor of 10 for every 10C increase in
pasteurization temperature. Viruses appear the hardest to kill and essentially set the
boundary for acceptable timetemperature processes (Feachem et al., 1983). A typical
process is 75C for 10 min. The major advantage of pasteurization is that apparently all
major pathogens of concern are killed, independent of wastewater quality; turbidity, pH, and
other parameters influence the efficacy of other disinfection methods.
Pasteurization has never been considered as a water/wastewater disinfection method
because of the high energy cost in heating large volumes of water. Recently, Pasteurization
Technology Group, USA, developed an innovative pasteurization concept where disinfection
may be achieved at a reduced cost. The reduced cost of pasteurization is based upon the
capture of a waste heat source (such as turbine exhaust, solar heat, or cooling towers) and
the transfer of that heat to the water for disinfection, as depicted in Figure 2-26. The main
components of this process are commercially available and include a gas engine generator
and a set of heat exchangers.

No chemicals to handle
Generates no byproducts (such as DBPs)
Effectively kills broad spectrum of pathogens including viruses (based on pilot study
reported by Salveson et al., 2009)
Compact due to very short contact time
Availability of waste heat can further reduce the process cost
Approved by CDPH for Title 22 reuse applications
No full-scale facility; still under development. Knowledge about the following has not
been established: economics and performance optimization.
Maintenance is required to remove scaling on the heat exchangers. Hard water

increases maintenance requirements
2-48
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-26
Schematic of Pasteurization (Courtesy of Pasteurization Technology Group)
Re-growth of microorganisms is possible, which requires maintaining residual chlorine in

the distribution system
Air quality permitting may be a challenge for sensitive areas
May require relatively large heat exchangers that increase capital and O&M costs
Currently available from only a single supplier and so does not allow for competitive
bidding

No full-scale facility. Pilot studies were conducted at the City of Santa Rosas Laguna WWTP,
California (USA) for Title 22 approval. Conditional approval for reuse application was granted
to the technology by CDPH on July 25, 2007. CDPH required that pasteurization
temperatures of at least 180oF (82oC) be maintained continuously for a minimum of 10
seconds. This minimum temperature and contact time must be demonstrated to the
Department, spanning a range of flow from the lowest to the highest flow, with two
intermediate flow points. Following successful demonstration and approval, the technology
was pilot-tested in three municipal WWTPs in California, USA. One demonstration-scale (0.5mgd) facility is under construction in California to further evaluate the technology and develop
an economic analysis. All these developments make this technology attractive.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-49

The currently available data on disinfection efficacy have been obtained from short-term
bench-scale studies. More data are needed to better understand the effects of contact time,
temperature, and water quality on disinfection, and to optimize contact time and temperature
based on water quality and desired pathogen kills. Additional data on microbial re-growth
and the resistance of various organisms (e.g., spores and thermophiles) to pasteurization
will also help determine which organisms would serve as good indicators. More information
is also needed on O&M requirements and costs.
Because relevant data on design and implementation are limited, any application of this
technology should include pilot testing to determine the disinfection efficacy and system
reliability under specific wastewater quality conditions. Approval from one or more local
regulatory agencies may be needed depending on local requirements. Because the
application of pasteurization to wastewater is relatively new, public acceptance is uncertain;
however, CDPH approval, the publics familiarity with milk pasteurization, and the lack of
chemicals are likely to facilitate acceptance (WERF, 2008).
The technologies for pasteurization are fairly mature, so all the components (gas turbines,
tanks, heat exchanger, etc.) are widely available around the world. If the economic analysis
indicates implementation costs that are comparable to those of the established disinfection
technologies, full-scale applications could be expected in the near future. The operating
costs can be reduced if waste heat or digester gas can be used to drive the gas turbines
(WERF, 2008).
Due to the relatively short contact time, this technology is expected to require less space than
a chlorine contact chamber, which typically requires 90 minutes of contact time. However, to
evaluate the footprint of the facility, the space requirements for other process components,
such as the heat exchanger and waste heat recovery modules, need to be determined.
Cost
Not established, although results from a recent study indicate that pasteurization may be
cost-competitive with chlorination and UV disinfection (Salveson et al., 2009). However,
extensive work needs to be done to confirm this, especially for medium and large plants.
Technology Supplier
Pasteurization Technology Group
2995 Teagarden St.
San Leandro, CA 94577, USA
Phone: 510-357-0562
www.pastechgroup.com
Peracetic Acid (PAA)

Application Area
Wastewater disinfection
Objective
Reduce/eliminate formation of DBPs
Status
Innovative

As regulations become more stringent with respect to the use of chlorine as a disinfecting
agent for municipal wastewater, municipalities have been looking for viable alternatives.
One of the disinfecting agents that has attracted interest in recent years is peracetic acid
(PAA). PAA (CH3CO3H) is a strong disinfectant with a wide spectrum of antimicrobial
activity. It has been used in many industries including food processing, beverage, medical,
2-50
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
pharmaceutical, textile, and pulp and paper. Due to its bactericidal, fungicidal, and sporicidal
effectiveness, as demonstrated in these industries, the use of PAA as a disinfectant for
wastewater effluents has been investigated since the 1980s. Although PAA has been used
for wastewater disinfection in Finland, Italy, and Brazil, it has not yet attracted much attention
commercially around the world. It remains a new disinfection alternative in the North
American and Middle East wastewater treatment markets (CH2M HILL, 2002).
PAA is a strong oxidant and disinfectant and its oxidation potential is greater than that of
chlorine or chlorine dioxide. Commercially available PAA, also known as ethaneperoxoic
acid or peroxyacetic acid, is available in a quaternary equilibrium mixture containing acetic
acid, H2O2, PAA, and water, as shown with Equation 1 below (Metcalf and Eddy, 2007):
CH3CO2H + H2O2
CH3CO3H + H2O
(1)
Where:
CH3CO2H = acetic acid
CH3CO3H = peracetic acid
H2O2 = hydrogen peroxide
PAA solution is produced from the reaction of acetic acid or acetic anhydride with H2O2 in
the presence of sulfuric acid, which acts as a catalyst (Block, 1991). PAA combines the
active oxygen characteristics of a peroxide within an acetic acid molecule. It is a clear,
colorless liquid with no foaming capability. PAA belongs to the class of organic peroxides,
which are man-made chemicals. Organic peroxides may contain peroxide radicals (oxygenoxygen bond) that are a source of oxygen. The peroxide radical also promotes instability
and combustion. Peroxides in general are high-energy-state compounds and, as such, can
be considered thermodynamically unstable (Block, 1991).
Because of the disinfection power of the PAA mixture, PAA is a more potent antimicrobial
agent than H2O2. Research studies have shown that H2O2 requires much larger doses than
PAA for the same level of disinfection (Wagner et al., 2002)

Literature indicates that the infrastructure for chlorine disinfection can also typically be
used for PAA
Broad spectrum of activity even in the presence of heterogeneous organic matter
Produces few or no DBPs and persistent toxic or mutagenic residuals compared to

chlorine-based disinfection
May remove emerging contaminants
Provides residual as in chlorine-based disinfection to protect distribution systems in

reuse applications (WERF, 2008)
Five to 10 times more expensive than chlorine (CH2M HILL, 2002)
Increases organic content of the treated water (BOD, COD, TOC, etc.)
Does not kill or inactivate all pathogens and indicator organisms equally well; it is
effective against coliform bacteria, but is weaker against viruses, and has little effect on
spores and protozoa
May have more stringent storage, transportation, and safety requirements than chlorine;
bulk shipping of this product is not permitted by the Department of Transportation in the USA
Potential microbial re-growth
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-51

No full-scale application of PAA in North America or the Middle East.
Studies conducted at the Montreal Urban Community WWTP showed that a dose of
approximately 1 to 2 mg/L and 2-hour contact time might be able to achieve the 10,000
coliform forming units per milliliter (CFU/100 mL) fecal coliform target in the physicochemically treated primary effluents (Colgan and Gehr, 2001).
In a bench-scale study, a PAA dose of 5 to 7 mg/L with a 60-minute contact time reduced
the total coliform and fecal streptococci concentrations in secondary effluents to less than
1,000/100 mL and less than 100/100 mL, respectively (Lefevre et al., 1992).
For secondary effluent, an approximately 5-mg/L PAA residual reduced total coliform and
fecal coliform about 4 to 5 logs after 20 minutes of contact time (Morris, 1993). However,
reduction was much lower for poliovirus (less than 1 log) under the same conditions.
An approximately 4-log total coliform reduction was achieved with a PAA dose of 5 mg/L
and 60 minutes of contact time for secondary effluents (Arturo-Schaan et al., 1996).
However, although PAA disinfection effectively reduced the total coliform and E.coli strain
concentrations, it did not reduce the percentage of E.coli strains containing plasmids.
Unlike the previous studies, to achieve a 2-CFU/100 mL total coliform in tertiary effluents for
unrestricted reuse in agriculture, higher PAA doses (40 mg/L and 20 minutes of contact time)
were required under cost-prohibitive conditions (Baldry and French, 1989). The PAA CT
provided in this study (800 mg-min/L) is much higher than the CT required (450 mg-min/L)
via free chlorination to meet all-purpose recycled water criteria for coliform enforced by
CDPH. Such a high residual PAA dose would be cost-prohibitive while adding a significant
amount of BOD/COD to the treated water.
Reductions of about 3-log for total and fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci were achieved
using a 10-mg/L PAA dose with 10 minutes of contact time (Lazarova et al., 1998). Much
higher doses or contact times were required for virus removals, especially highly resistant
viruses such as F-specific bacteriophage MS2.

The important parameters for determining the dose and contact time are not yet clear and
there are few data on compliance history to establish the consistency of its performance.
More research is needed to determine whether re-growth or recovery of damaged cells is
significant under field conditions.
Because relevant data on design and implementation are limited, any application of this
technology should involve pilot tests to determine the disinfection efficacy and system
reliability under specific wastewater quality conditions. Because there is no PAA use in fullscale wastewater disinfection, the extent of public acceptance is uncertain for use of PAA as
a main disinfectant.
The O&M costs for PAA are currently high and consist entirely of the chemical costs
(including transport). However, chemical costs may decrease if PAA use and the associated
manufacturing capacity increase.
In addition to the high cost, this technology remains unattractive for disinfecting secondary
and tertiary effluents because of concerns regarding the inability to activate viruses at
reasonable CTs, the increased organic content in treated effluent, and uncertainty about
public acceptance.
The space requirement depends on the CT value required and the residual PAA
concentration at the end of the disinfection tank. Lower PAA doses are essential (requires
proof-testing) for reducing O&M costs and the organic content of the treated water but
2-52
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
require longer contact times, which in turn increase capital cost and space requirements.
For facilities that currently use chlorine, the capital costs for converting to PAA are expected
to be minimal because both chemicals can utilize the same infrastructure (WERF, 2008).
The technology is envisioned as modular, which should facilitate expansion.
Cost
Capital costs are similar to those of chlorine-based disinfection systems. At a 4- to 14-mg/L
PAA dose, the O&M cost was estimated to be 5 to 10 times that of chlorine, 4 times that of
UV, and 1.5 times that of ozone (WERF, 2008).
Suppliers
Food grade PAA is available from many suppliers located in the USA, India, China, Poland,
and other countries.
Photocatalysis
Application Area
Water and wastewater treatment
Objective
Disinfection and emerging contaminant removal
Status
Developmental

Photocatalysts were first investigated for the treatment of refractory organics, and only more
recently for disinfection (WERF, 2008). The catalyst most commonly used for disinfection is
titanium dioxide (TiO2), which is activated by radiation in the UV light range (less than 385
nm). Researchers have also developed TiO2 catalysts that are activated by visible light, by
doping the catalyst with small amounts of impurities (nitrogen, sulfur, etc.). The disinfection
mechanism has been attributed to hydroxyl radicals, which damage cell membranes, cell
walls, and internal structures (Gogniat et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2006a; Wu et al., 2006b; Yasui
and Kamiko, 2005); these radicals form from the reactions of hydroxide and water, with the
electron holes created when the photocatalyst absorbs radiation (Rincn et al., 2001).
The TiO2 technology is currently being tested at the laboratory scale, with research aimed
at increasing the rate of disinfection. As a result, no process information (design,
implementation, O&M, cost) is yet available (WERF, 2008).

Elimination of chemical use compared to many disinfection technologies (chlorine,

ozone, PAA, etc.)
Removes recalcitrant compounds and emerging contaminants
Not sensitive to pH changes between 5 and 8
Similar to UV, photocatalysts are unlikely to be effective for treating wastewater with low
UV transmittance
inactivation efficacy, design criteria (dose and time requirement), operation criteria on
various pathogenic microorganisms under varying feed water quality conditions, and cost.
Most catalysts that are currently available are too slow to be of practical use for
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-53
Catalyst can become deactivated in wastewater
Re-growth of microorganisms is possible
At low TiO2 doses (such as 0.25 mg/L), relatively high contact times (360 min for
example) were required to achieve reasonable coliform inactivation

Photocatalytic disinfection has been tested in the laboratory using a variety of feed waters
and with a number of organisms, including bacteria, bacterial and fungal spores, algae, and
coliphage (WERF, 2008). The laboratory studies indicated that photocatalysis is usually
effective for inactivating pure cultures of Enterococcus and gram negative bacteria, including
coliform and E. coli; however, it performed poorly against a mixed culture in wastewater.
Literature findings are not consistent regarding the re-growth potential of microorganisms
following treatment. However, it appears that the longer the incubation time after treatment,
the greater the potential for re-growth.

Despite its attractive features (such as elimination of chemical disinfectants, and not being
sensitive to pH changes in the typical wastewater treatment operating pH range (6.5-8.5),
UV-photocatalysts are unlikely to be effective in low transmittance turbid waters and they are
too slow to be of practical use for wastewater treatment (WERF, 2008). More importantly,
knowledge about the following has not been established: inactivation efficacy, design criteria
(dose and time requirement), operation criteria on various pathogenic microorganisms under
varying feed water quality conditions, and cost. More work is needed to clearly establish the
applicability of this technology to wastewater treatment.
Simultaneous Use of Two or More Disinfectants

Application Area
Water/wastewater treatment
Objective
Disinfection, emerging contaminant removal
Status
Innovative

Extensive research is being conducted on sequential or simultaneous use of two or more
disinfectants (chlorine/UV disinfection, ozone/UV disinfection, etc.) in water and wastewater
treatment. Disinfection technologies use different disinfection mechanisms and their
efficacies on different microbial species vary significantly. As a result, a multiple-disinfectant
system may inactivate a larger spectrum of pathogens than a single disinfectant. For
example, a combined UV/chlorine system could inactivate Cryptosporidium, which is
resistant to chlorine and chloramines but is susceptible to UV irradiation, as well as
adenovirus, which is resistant to UV but is susceptible to low doses of free chlorine. Most
technologies used in sequential disinfection demonstrations/applications are proven
technologies (such as chlorine, ozone, and UV disinfection).
Comparison to Single-Disinfectant Technologies

Potential Advantages over Single-Disinfectant Systems
Multiple-disinfectant systems may inactivate a larger spectrum of pathogens than a

single disinfectant due to the wider spectrum of inactivation effects.
May have synergistic effects on pathogen inactivation and contaminant oxidation. For
example, ozone can improve UV transmittance of wastewater while the UV dose can be
lowered, achieving the same degree of disinfection.
2-54
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Combining technologies can reduce the generation of specific DBPs. For example, the
combined use of free and combined chlorine reduces the formation of THMs and Nnitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), compared to free chlorination (which increases THMs) or
chloramination (which increases NDMA) alone.
May reduce emerging contaminants (similar to ozone/UV).
Multiple-disinfectant systems offer operational flexibility and improve plant reliability. For
example, the existing infrastructure for chlorination can be used to control biofouling of
filter media and UV equipment, to disinfect wet-weather flow, or as a backup for the UV
system (WERF, 2008).
Potential Disadvantages Compared to Single-Disinfectant Systems
More complicated process control and operations
Often more costly
Knowledge regarding process design criteria and operating conditions is not well
established.
May require lengthy field testing for regulatory approval
Material must be susceptible to two or more chemicals compared to one chemical in

single-disinfectant systems

Numerous bench- and full-scale demonstrations were conducted using combined
disinfectants. Table 2-1 summarizes effectiveness of combined disinfectants and processes
for wastewater treatment.

A recent trend has been to combine technologies to realize the benefits of each while
minimizing the disadvantages. For example, the use of free chlorine and chloramines may
reduce concentrations of DBPs. Implementation is fairly easy and highly cost-effective for
facilities that currently use chlorine (WERF, 2008). Increased use of UV disinfection has
prompted research on the combined use of UV with chlorine, ozone, PAA, and ultrasonic
cavitation; each of these alternatives shows promise for improving the disinfection of
wastewater, reducing DBPs, and/or decreasing the cost of disinfection (WERF, 2008).
These technologies (with the exceptions of ultrasonic cavitation and PAA) are proven. One
major hurdle for implementing multiple-disinfectant systems is to obtain regulatory approval:
knowledge gaps regarding design and operating criteria remain. It is expected that this
hurdle can be overcome with increased research efforts.
Solar Disinfection
Application Area
Objective
Using solar radiation to disinfect water/wastewater
Status
Developmental

Solar radiation is an ancient disinfection practice previously used without an understanding of
the mechanisms of the process. Solar disinfection technology uses solar radiation to
inactivate pathogenic organisms in water and wastewater. The treatment involves filling clean
and transparent containers with water or wastewater and exposing them to sunlight for several
minutes. This is a low-cost and sustainable technology for treating small quantities of water.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-55
TABLE 2-1
Effectiveness of Combined-Disinfectant Technologies

Combined
Disinfectants
Free Chlorine and
Chloramination
H2O2 and Ozone
Response
Reference
Produced less NDMA than chloramination alone

Reduced formation of halogenated DBPs compared to
chlorine alone and reduced ammonia-N concentration in
plant effluent compared to chloramines use alone
Schreiber and Mitch,

2005
WERF, 2008
No improved effectiveness
Lubello et al., 2002
Reduced disinfection efficacy of ozone
Fenton, 2005

ozone use alone
PAA and UV
Disinfection
Improved effectiveness over use of PAA or UV alone
Chen et al., 2005
PAA and Ozone
Improved effectiveness over use of PAA or ozone alone
Caretti and Lubello,

2005
PAA and H2O2
PAA and H2O2 had no effect, but addition of 1 mg/L copper

had a dramatic effect
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003
and UV
Increased effectiveness over use of UV alone
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003
UV and Chlorine
Prevented biological growth on the UV equipment
WERF, 2008
Much more effective than UV alone for inactivation of

adenovirus.
Durance et al., 2005

Kinshella et al., 2007
Reduced disinfectant doses required for adequate

treatment and synergistic effects occurred.
Reduced formation of THMs compared to chlorine use
alone
UV and H2O2
High UV doses (such as >500 mJ/cm ) improved emerging

contaminant removal efficiencies compared to UV alone
Koivunen and HeinonenTanski, 2005
No significant improvement in disinfection efficiency

compared to high UV dose operation or H2O2 alone
UV and Ozone
Improved UV transmittance of wastewater and achieved

same degree of disinfection with reduced UV dose.
Ried et al., 2004

Kinshella et al., 2007

ozone use alone
Research studies have been conducted, starting in the early 1980s, to evaluate the extent to
which sunlight can serve as a disinfectant for water and wastewater. Acra and co-workers at
the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, showed that a 75-minute sunlight exposure
achieved 3-log reduction (99.9 percent) of E. coli during field tests (Acra et al., 1984).
Portable, low-cost solar disinfection units to disinfect wastewater were designed and tested
by researchers at the Department of Chemical Engineering at Lafayette College,
Pennsylvania, USA. One unit was tested with both river water and partially treated water
from two WWTPs. In less than 30 minutes in mid-day sunlight, the unit inactivated more
than 4-log (99.99 percent) of bacteria contained in highly contaminated water samples
(Caslake et al., 1992).
2-56
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Wegelin et al. (1994) investigated the

impact of solar disinfection on virus
removal efficiencies. To achieve 3-log
inactivation of Encephalomyocarditis
virus (EMCV) a fluence (dose) of
34,000 kiloJoules per square meter
(kJ/m2) was needed, which
corresponded to a 12.5-hour midlatitude mid-day sunlight exposure.
Wegelin et al. (1994) also concluded
that water temperature of 50oC
considerably increased the bacteria
inactivation rate, whereas the
inactivation rate of viruses steadily
increased within a temperature range of
20 to 50oC. Figure 2-27depicts the
layout of the field experiments
conducted by Wegelin and co-workers.

Potential Advantages over Established
Technologies
Simple and low carbon footprint

technology
FIGURE 2-27
Low maintenance requirements
Layout of Field Experiments (Adapted from Wegelin et al., 2008)
Does not generate DBPs
May reduce photo-oxidizable compounds
Diurnal and annual variations in solar radiation flux density have significant impacts on
process performance. Requires back-up disinfection methods to improve reliability.
Only one study with wastewater and the relationship between solar radiation intensity
and contact time was not established.
Wastewater quality (turbidity, color, surfactants, etc.) may significantly reduce process
performance.
Expected to require very large space to treat even small quantity of wastewater.
No supplier of this technology even at demonstration scale. Design criteria and cost
information have not been established.

No full-scale facility and only two bench/pilot studies: Wegelin et al., 1994 and Caslake et al.,
1992.

High solar radiation flux densities that occur in KSA may make it a potential disinfection
option. However, additional field tests are necessary to evaluate the merits and efficiency of
solar disinfection before serious consideration is given to this technology. In addition, large
demonstration projects will be necessary to accurately determine project costs and to assess
regulatory and public acceptance. Contingency measures need to be incorporated into
implementation plans. Lack of design criteria, cost data, and other pertinent data contributes
to uncertainty in regulatory and public acceptance. As a result, commercialization of this
technology in the next 5 years is unlikely.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-57
Cost Information
Not established
Not available
Application Area
Water and wastewater treatment disinfection
Objective
To generate fewer DBPs
Status
Developmental

Disinfection of microorganisms by cavitation is generally attributed to high temperatures,
hydrodynamic forces, and chemical reactions (WERF, 2008). High temperatures cause
pasteurization: denaturing of proteins, which kills or inactivates cells. Hydrodynamic forces
include shear forces from micro-streaming and micro-jets, pressure gradients during bubble
collapse, and stresses on cell walls and membranes from surface resonance induced by
cavitation (Joyce et al., 2003). The combined effects of fluid shear, tensile stresses and
hydroxyl radicals can lead to the inactivation of microorganisms.
Ultrasound is the most commonly used source of cavitation for disinfection, although
hydrodynamic cavitation has also been tested for disinfection of recycled water in an
industrial cooling tower (Gaines et al., 2006). For ultrasonic disinfection, the most important
operational parameters appear to be power, exposure time, and radiation frequency. Typical
power values are in the range of 50 to 500 watts per liter (W/L), with reported values
between 10 and 1,500 W/L (WERF, 2008). Exposure times are generally in the range of
seconds to hours. Ultrasound frequencies are defined as those greater than 20 kHz, the
limit of human hearing. The term power ultrasound is sometimes used and refers to
frequencies between 20 and 100 kHz, which appear to have the highest disinfection
potential (Madge and Jensen, 2002), with the strongest hydrodynamic forces at low
frequencies (Neis and Blume, 2003). At higher frequencies, disinfection efficacies decrease
(Hua and Thompson, 2000; Joyce et al., 2003).

Requires relatively small footprint

Eliminates chemical use, which reduces DBP formation
Works more effectively in wastewater with higher solids contents (WERF, 2008)
Lack of full-scale operation. It has not been tested extensively, and knowledge about the
following has not been established: inactivation efficacy on various pathogenic
microorganisms under varying feed water quality conditions, design criteria (ultrasonic
dose and time requirement), operation criteria, and cost.
Microbial re-growth following disinfection is possible
Scalability and implementability of bench results on full-scale systems are uncertain

No full-scale facility.
Neis and Blume (2002) bench tested 20-kHz ultrasound on secondary effluent. The test
results showed that about 1 hr is required to achieve 2.9-log E. coli inactivation using an
2-58
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
average power of 400 W/L. In a laboratory study, Wong (2002) applied a 900-W/L dose for
approximately 5 minutes to achieve more than 5-log E. coli inactivation.

Ultrasonic cavitation has a unique advantage over chlorine-based disinfection technologies
in terms of generating few DBPs. However, it has not been tested extensively, so there are
significant knowledge gaps. For example, knowledge about the following has not been
established: inactivation efficacy on various pathogenic microorganisms under varying feed
water quality conditions, design criteria (ultrasonic dose and time requirement), operation
criteria, and cost. In addition, the energy requirements to achieve significant disinfection
appear to make it economically unfavorable, though this may change as the technology
improves and knowledge gaps are narrowed in the future. It is unlikely that this technology
will be seen in the marketplace in the next 5 years.
Cost
Not established
None
Comparison of innovative/disinfection technologies is provided in Table 2-2 of Section 2.4.
Other Technologies
Ceramic Membranes
Application Area
Objective
Filtration of water/wastewater and removal or organics and phosphorus with chemical
addition
Status
Innovative

Ceramic MF and UF membranes are made from oxides, nitrides, or carbides of metals such
as aluminum, titanium, or zirconium (CH2M HILL, 2008). Typically, a tubular configuration is
used with an inside-out flow path, where the feed water flows inside the membrane channels
and permeates through the support structure to the outside of the module. Depending upon
wastewater quality, coagulation is typically used for suspended solids removal. The system
is operated in dead-end filtration (deposition) mode with a backwash interval of typically 3
hours. Chemically enhanced backwash uses chlorine and mineral acid or citric acid to
remove organic and inorganic deposition. Figure 2-28 presents a process schematic of
ceramic membranes
Ceramic membranes have been used in industrial water treatment for over 20 years.
However, their high manufacturing cost has limited the extent of their use for water and
wastewater treatment applications. Within the last 5 years, a less expensive ceramic MF
product, manufactured by NGK of Japan, has emerged as a potential competitor to
polymeric hollow fiber MF and UF systems, particularly for higher solids/turbidity, oil and
grease, and more challenging applications. The use of ceramic membranes is increasing as
more research and pilot studies are conducted. The capital cost of ceramic membranes will
continue to decrease as they become more widely used.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-59
FIGURE 2-28
Process Schematic of Ceramic Membrane Filtration (Courtesy of METAWATER Co., Ltd.)
Ceramic membranes are much more resilient than polymeric membranes and are
mechanically strong, chemically and thermally stable, and can achieve high flux rates.
Research studies conducted on using ceramic membranes to treat oil-containing wastewater
and produced have shown that ceramic membranes perform better than polymeric
membranes on oil-containing waters (Faibish and Cohen, 2001; Gutierrez et al., 2008).
Ceramic membranes have a higher capital cost than polymeric membranes. The use of
ceramic membranes is increasing as more research and pilot studies are conducted. The
capital cost of ceramic membranes will continue to decrease as they become a more widely
used technology. Ceramic membranes have been implemented at more than 70 facilities
(nearly all in Japan). More recently, ceramic membranes have been coupled with powdered
activated carbon (PAC) or titanium based UV advanced oxidation (UV+TiO2) to enhance
organic and emerging contaminant removal in demonstration projects. For TiO2 based UV
applications, ceramic membranes have been placed at the end of the process to recover unreacted TiO2 slurry (Wade et al., 2008).

Mechanically strong, chemically and thermally more stable than polymeric
membranes, allowing operation in harsh wastewater quality conditions (extreme pH,
temperature, presence of oxidants, etc.)
Ability to handle higher solids loading based on more effective backwashing
Perform better than polymeric membranes for treating high oil and grease containing
wastewaters
Much higher water recoveries (98-99 percent) than polymeric membranes (90-95 percent)
Higher energy efficiency and longer membrane life, significantly reducing operating cost
Can be coupled with ozone, other oxidants, or PAC to remove organic material
2-60
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Ceramic membranes are still expensive

Ceramic membranes are heavy, which requires special housing and complicates
handling and installation
No track record outside of Japan

There are more than 70 full-scale applications of ceramic membranes in Japan (information
obtained from Meta Water).
There is an increasing interest in ceramic membranes in reuse projects in the USA. Ceramic
membranes received Title 22 approval by CDPH in 2007. A full-scale ceramic membrane
project is underway at the Corralitos Creek Water Treatment Plant (9,460 m3/day) in
Watsonville, California, USA.
Implementability/Future Advancements/Scalability
Despite the recent reduction in ceramic membrane costs, one of the major challenges for
implementing ceramic membranes is affordability. The capital cost of ceramic membranes is
expected to decrease as they become a more widely used technology and manufacturing
practices are improved. For wastewaters with high solids and organic content, ceramic
membranes may be more suitable than polymeric membranes. Ceramic membranes may
also preferable to polymeric membranes on projects requiring high recovery.
Mid-size to large projects may require pilot testing to evaluate system performance and
develop capital and O&M costs.
Similar to polymeric membranes, this is a modular technology and can be applicable at small
to large facilities.
Cost
Equipment cost was estimated as $3,171,000 for 9,460 m3/day facility ($335/ m3) (Water
Desalination Report, July 2009).
Annual O&M cost was estimated as $738,000 for treating 9,460 m3/day ($78 per year per
m3) (Water Desalination Report, July 2009).
Technology Supplier
METAWATER Co. Ltd.
Shiyorama Trust Tower
4-3-1 Toranomon Minatu-ku
Tokyo, Japan
CoMag
Application Area
Wastewater treatment
Objective
To enhance phosphorus and suspended solids removal
Status
Developmental

CoMag is a patented process of Cambridge Water Technology, Massachusetts, USA. It
uses magnetite for ballasted flocculation, solids contact, and high-gradient magnetic
separation to clarify wastewater and remove phosphorus. Metal salts are added to the
wastewater and pH is adjusted. The wastewater is mixed with fine magnetic ballast to
increase floc density and permit floc removal using a magnetic separator. The ballasted floc
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-61
settles rapidly in a small clarifier. Its magnetic properties allow the effluent to be further
polished using a magnetic separator as depicted in the process schematic (Figure 2-29).
FIGURE 2-29
CoMag Process Schematic

Smaller clarifier (magnetite is denser than sand, so it creates a heavy floc that can settle
rapidly in a small clarifier)
High-gradient magnetic separation has not been applied to wastewater treatment prior to
this technology development
Lack of long-term performance and cost data
Chemical phosphorus removal is limited by kinetic factors as well as stoichiometric

factors, and excessive inorganic precipitant requirements need to be reduced to
minimize sludge quantity
Difficulty meeting turbidity requirements of recycled water without additional filtration

step; additional filtration step reduces benefits of the technology and increases the
capital and O&M cost of the facility
Requires relatively skilled O&M personnel
Only one provider of the technology

No full-scale facility in operation.
This technology has been demonstrated at the City of Concord, Massachusetts (USEPA,
2008). No further information was available from Cambridge Water Technology regarding
performance of the demonstration study and ongoing activities.

Knowledge about treatment efficiencies of full-scale installations and economics has not
been established.
2-62
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
This technology may be used in wastewater treatment projects requiring low phosphorus or
metal discharges. It is a complex process and may have difficulty in reliably meeting reuse
turbidity criteria without an additional filtration step. As a result of these limitations, it has
very little application potential for reuse projects.
Cost Information
Not disclosed by technology supplier.
Technology Supplier
Cambridge Water Technology, Inc.
Suite 3L, 810 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Phone: 617-871-1353
Fax: 617-871-1360
www.cambridgewatertech.com
Ecosphere Ozonix
Application Area
Pretreatment for RO, reuse of frac flow-back water
Objective
To treat and reuse frac flow-back water in remote areas
Status
Developmental

Ecosphere is an advanced oxidation system that is mounted on a semi truck trailer. The
packaged system includes a large mesh particle filter for particle removal. Decanted feed
water is pumped into a reaction vessel where ozone is mixed using a flash mixer. Dual
frequency ultrasonic transducers initiate the conversion of ozone into hydroxyl radicals,
which oxidize organic material and inactivate microorganisms. Aluminum sulfate is then
dosed into water as a coagulant to assist removal of suspended material via activated
carbon cartridge filter prior to RO (Colorado School of Mines, 2009). RO is used as a final
step to remove soluble inorganic solutes. An example Ecosphere OzonixTM EF-60, 60barrel-per-minute (2,500-gpm) pilot system is presented in Figure 2-30.

Produces very high quality water; the pilot study resulted in a reported 99.1 percent TDS
rejection and 97 percent removal of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) compounds
Compact system
High level of flexibility; easily adapts to highly varying water quality and quantity
Comes with integrated pretreatment system
Technology is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
established: treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, and shortand long-term performance of the system; reliability needs to be demonstrated through
long-term operation
Requires skilled O&M personnel
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-63
FIGURE 2-30
Ecosphere OzonixTM System (Courtesy of Ecosphere)
High energy consumption (52 kWh/kgal or 13.7 kWh/m3) compared to brackish and
seawater RO desalination energy consumption of 1.0-1.5 and 4 kWh/m3, respectively
Ultrasonic transducers are expensive and require frequent replacement
Low purified water recovery (for example, 75 percent, based on pilot test conducted in
Oklahoma, USA) for treating high-TDS streams; supplier claims a 1 percent waste
stream for disposal, with the rest of the solution being retained for reuse as frac water
Generates precipitated solids which need to be disposed
Requires addition of chemicals such as aluminum sulfate for coagulation
No full-scale facility. A proof-of-concept pilot study was conducted with the OzonixTM system
in the Woodford Shale Play in November of 2008. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.,
tested the process on frac flow-back water from a field near Coalgate, Oklahoma, USA. The
frac flow-back water was characterized as having an influent TDS of 14,000 mg/L
(dominated by chloride, sodium, and potassium), total hardness of 1,000 mg/L, total
suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 65 mg/L, TOC concentration of 65 mg/L, total oil
and grease concentration of 14 mg/L, barium concentration of 35 mg/L, and total BTEX
concentration of 38 micrograms (g)/L.
The system was housed in a large mobile trailer and was used to treat 100 barrels per hour
(bph), or 16 m3 per hour (4,200 gallons per hour), of frac flow-back water for 12 to 14 hours
per day for 2 weeks. A third party consultant group was hired to provide quality assurance
and quality control for the study. A 220-kW electrical generator was used to power the
system during field trials. Assuming a 13-hour workday, this equates to 2,860 kWh of
energy consumed to treat 1,300 barrels (bbl), or 54.6 kgal (207 m3), of water. Based on
these calculations, the specific energy consumption per bbl of water treated is 2.2 kWh/bbl
(52 kWh/kgal or 13.7 kWh/m3) (Colorado School of Mines, 2009).
The pilot system achieved a reported 99.1 percent TDS rejection and 97 percent removal of
BTEX compounds.

The technology is still under development. Knowledge about the following has not been
established: treatment efficiencies of larger-scale installations, economics, and short- and
2-64
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
long-term performance of the system; reliability needs to be demonstrated through long-term

operation.
Although the capital and O&M costs were not disclosed by the supplier, both capital and
O&M costs are expected to be high. In addition, operation requires relatively skilled O&M
personnel and relatively extensive labor hours. These limitations make this technology
unsuitable for wastewater treatment and reuse. One potential application area is the
treatment of small quantities of frac flow-back water.
Cost Information
Cost information was not disclosed by the supplier.
Technology Supplier
Ecosphere Technologies, Inc.
3515 S.E. Lionel Terrace
Stuart, Florida 34997 USA
Web: www.ecospheretech.com
2.3.2 Biological Treatment Technologies

Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR)
Application Area
Objective
Reduce organic loading to the WWTP, reduce sludge generation, and potentially produce
biogas and energy.
Status
Developmental

Although the MBR is widely known for providing higher-quality effluent than CAS wastewater
treatment technologies, it requires higher energy for operation, and routine maintenance has
to be performed to manage membrane fouling. These two aspects represent the major
opportunities within the biological membrane treatment technology area for development of
innovative approaches. Development of low energy operation and more effective fouling
strategies are currently being investigated (Prieto et al., 2010). In addition, conventional
anaerobic biological treatment systems can effectively remove most of the organic
contaminants present in wastewater; however, they are typically not as effective at removing
residual levels of soluble and colloidal organic contaminants (Soubhagya et al., 2010).
One approach to reducing the energy requirements while producing reuse quality product
water is to couple membrane technology with an anaerobic operating scheme. Anaerobic
MBR (AnMBR) is similar to a conventional MBR facility except that the biological reactions
occur under anaerobic conditions. As in conventional MBR systems, suspended solids are
filtered through membranes for liquid-solids separation as depicted in Figure 2-31.
Different types of membranes (hollow fiber, tubular, flat sheet, etc.) and feed configurations
(internal, external) can be selected. AnMBRs can be used for:
Onsite wastewater treatment to reduce organic loading to the main treatment facility
As a stand-alone technology to treat low- to mid-strength municipal wastewater
To treat high-strength industrial wastewaters when coupled with another technology

such as upflow anaerobic sludge blanket flowed by AnMBR
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-65
FIGURE 2-31
Simplified Process Schematic of AnMBR
The AnMBR process recirculates biogas from the tanks headspace through the diffusers
located beneath the membrane units for mixing and scour needs, creating a sparging effect
that scours the membrane surfaces and helps manage membrane fouling.

Potential for biogas generation and energy production quantities, depending on the feed
wastewater quality
Reduced waste sludge production due to low anaerobic yield, which reduces sludge
handling and disposal costs
Elimination of air supply needs for process and membrane scouring
Commercially available membranes and membrane technologies can be used
Knowledge about the following has not been established: performance, operating flux,
and effective fouling management for various membrane types and reactor
configurations
Bench-scale tests have shown much lower fluxes than conventional counterparts,
requiring capital investment cost
Gas production in low- to medium-strength wastewater was lower than the calculated
values
Significant fouling was reported Soubhagya et al. (2010)
Operating temperatures of 35 to 37oC, which are higher than in conventional MBR

operation, are required to increase gas production

There are 14 full-scale facilities in Japan, where wastewaters from food-processing facilities
are treated using AnMBR.
In North America, one full-scale AnMBR facility has been operational since 2008 that uses
Kubotas flat sheet membranes and treats up to 420 m3/day of high-strength industrial
wastewater from potato processing. ADI Systems Inc., Canada provides the services.
According to Christian et al. (2010), the AnMBR system influent and effluent COD values
were 34,000 and 225 mg/L, respectively. The system produces effluent with a TSS value of
2-66
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
less than 1 mg/L. An overall biogas methane yield of 0.32 m3 per kg COD removed was
reported. The methane content of the biogas was reported to be 60 percent, which is similar
to the content typically found in municipal anaerobic digester biogas. Christian et al. (2008)
reported a fairly constant trans-membrane pressure (TMP) during several months of
operation without chemical cleaning, indicating a low rate of membrane fouling in the fullscale system. Preceding the AnMBR units, the system includes treatment processes that
provide oil and scum removal, screening, and partial removal of organics and solids. The
AnMBR system was operated at flux levels less than 2 gfd.
Recent pilot studies did not yield very optimistic results in terms of flux selection and fouling
control. Soubhagya et al. (2010) operated a pilot-scale submerged AnMBR system treating
low- to mid-strength municipal wastewater. The permeate flux and TMP profiles indicated a
sustainable permeate flux of 5 L/m2-hr (2.9 gfd), which was much lower than values
observed in full-scale aerobic MBR systems (15 to 25 L/m2hr).
Using a gas lift AnMBR, Prieto et al. (2010) showed that additional shear of gas lift did not
improve operation flux. A stable flux of 12 L/m2hr was obtained after a rapid initial flux
decline. However, they concluded that further testing was needed over extended periods to
evaluate the sustainability of the stable flux obtained in this study.
AnMBR is a membrane technology that may offer energy generation potential, reduce the
need for aeration, and produce less sludge than aerobic processes. Operating conditions,
fouling characteristics of sludge, and membrane management schemes must be evaluated
to determine optimal operating conditions. Effective fouling control and flux maintenance
strategies must also be developed. In addition, a full economic analysis must be performed
before this technology can be widely implemented in municipal settings. As evidenced from
the current applications, use of this technology with high-strength waste can offer greater
benefits that can justify implementation of the technology in spite of the lower flux rates.
Gas production for energy would require implementation at a large plant to justify the capital
investment for gas handling and co-generation facilities. WAS from decentralized facilities
can be transferred to a centralized AnMBR facility to maximize biogas production for energy.
Cost Information
Not established.
ADI Systems Inc.
1133 Regent Street, Suite 300
Fredericton, NB, E3B 3Z2
CANADA
Phone: (+1)506.452.9000 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: (+1)506.452.7308
E-mail: systems@adi.caend_of_the_skype_highlighting
ww.adisystemsinc.com
Veolia Biothane AnMBR
23563 W. Main St., Route 126
Plainfield, IL 60544 USA
Phone: 815-609-2054
Fax: 815-609-0490
Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor (AMBR)

Application Area
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-67
Objective
Reduce sludge generation and potential biogas generation
Status
Developmental

The AMBR is a compartmentalized system where the flow of wastewater is reversed on a
regular basis. In this process, the influent feed and the effluent withdrawal point are
changed such that the sludge blanket remains uniform in the anaerobic reactor. This helps
maintain the sludge in the system without the use of packing or settlers for solids capture
(Argenent et al., 2001). A process schematic of AMBR is shown in Figure 2-32.
FIGURE 2-32
Simplified Process Schematic of AMBR (Adapted from Argenent et al., 2001)
This technology has been applied outside of the USA to treat high soluble COD content
wastewater in the food-processing industry to demonstrate high removal efficiency. One
additional benefit of this system is that biogas can be generated in well designed and
operated systems.

Potential for biogas generation and energy production
Reduced waste sludge production due to low anaerobic yield, which reduces sludge
handling and disposal costs
Can perform at temperatures lower than mesophilic range (<35oC)
Lack of full-scale operation

Knowledge about the following has not been established: performance, cost, and
economies of scale
Mainly applicable to low solids and high strength soluble COD streams
Feasibility of gas production and energy generation has not been assessed

No full-scale or demonstration facilities. Only bench-tested in laboratory.
The bench-scale study treating medium-strength domestic wastewater showed 71 percent
and 59 percent removal efficiency for soluble and total COD, respectively (Argenent et al.,
2001). The COD removal efficiency reported in this study was much lower than removals
typically achieved in CAS systems.
2-68
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Despite some potential advantages (low sludge generation and potential gas production due
to anaerobic operation), this technology has remained a laboratory-scale concept since it
was first tested in 2000. Significant advancements need to be made before this technology
can be considered as an alternative treatment option.
Cost Information
Not established
None
Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR)

Application Area
Objective
Reduce sludge generation and energy requirement
Status
Developmental

Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactors (MABRs) use a gas-permeable membrane for oxygen
transfer to wastewater and, unlike conventional systems, do not use bubble aeration for
aeration. The ability to control the contact time between air and wastewater enables high
oxygen transfer efficiencies. The oxygen transfer at the membrane enables microbial
colonization at the membrane surface. Oxygen transfer across the membrane increases
due to microbial respiration. The biofilm formed on the membrane surface can promote
nitrogen removal in a single reactor.

Lower energy requirements

Lower capital cost
Lack of full-scale operation
Knowledge about the following has not been established: design parameters, short- and
long-term performance, and cost
High oxygen transfer efficiency was not proven during bench-scale evaluation (WERF,
2005)
Expensive hydrophobic membranes are needed to improve gas transfer

No full-scale or demonstration facility.
A 1.5- m3 pilot-scale MABR capable of treating 1 to 2 gpm of municipal wastewater was
designed, built, and installed at a Saint Paul, Minnesota (USA) municipal wastewater
treatment facility. This bioreactor was tested over a 3-year period with three different sets of
membrane modules. Each of the modules was tested to determine the effectiveness of gas
transfer before being used to treat wastewater (WERF, 2005).
All membranes were found to transfer oxygen well in clean water, but once they were
exposed to wastewater and biologically active conditions, they failed to perform as expected.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-69
The microporous membranes provided by Celgard and Mitsubishi Rayon failed because the
micropores became wet and lost their gas transfer capability.
The 3M membranes continued to transfer oxygen well but their fluorinated surface proved to
be a poor substrate for biological attachment. As a result of massive biofilm sloughing, the
nitrifying bacteria were unable to gain a foothold in the pilot study, resulting in poor nitrogen
removal performance.
Use of multi-layered biofilm structures for denitrification with nitrification has been also
demonstrated with MABRs, although full-scale application using a commercial technology
has yet to be attained (Rittman, 2007).
The detailed evaluations (WERF, 2005) showed poor nitrogen removal and oxygen transfer
efficiency. Significant advancements need to be made before this technology is considered
as an alternative treatment option. Therefore, it is unlikely that this technology will be seen in
the marketplace in next 5 to 10 years.
Cost Information
Not established
None
Membrane Biofilm Reactor (MBfR)

Application Area
Water, wastewater treatment
Objective
Reduce energy cost, sludge generation, and carbon footprint
Status
Developmental

The process reactor consists of a hollow-fiber membrane bundle with an inner and outer
microporous layer and a nonporous layer sandwiched in between. Hydrogen-based MBfR
introduces hydrogen inside and through the membrane fibers, which are sealed on one end
to prevent escape. The hydrogen is allowed to diffuse through the nonporous layer. MABRs
led to the development of the MBfRs by demonstrating that a substrate could be delivered
directly to a biofilm using the membrane technology.
Autotrophic biofilm of indigenous organisms develops on the outside of the membrane.
Autotrophic microorganisms use hydrogen as an electron donor to reduce oxidized
compounds that are serving as electron acceptors (nitrite, nitrate, chromate, perchlorate, etc.).
This technology was developed and ground-breaking research was completed by Bruce
Rittman and co-workers at Arizona State University, USA. The demonstration projects have
shown that the technology is effective in treating water with contaminants such as
perchlorate, nitrates, chlorinated solvents, selenate, bromate, chromate, and radionuclides.
Researchers have also coupled an O2-based MBfR that nitrifies influent ammonia to nitrate
with a H2-based MBfR for nitrogen removal in wastewater treatment (Rittman, 2007). A
process schematic of MBfR is presented in Figure 2-33.
2-70
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-33
Process Schematic of MBfR (Adapted from Friese et al., 2008)

Low sludge generation due to autotrophic growth
More effective than CAS systems at removing oxidized forms of compounds (bromate,
chromate, perchlorate, etc.)
Smaller footprint than CAS systems
Ability to couple different gaseous substrate-based MBfR systems in series for targeted
removal of various contaminants
Overdosing of carbon is problematic in post-denitrification systems because of the

potential for increased BOD in effluent, whereas MBfR does not increase the organic
content of the treated wastewater
Hydrogen concentration in liquid phase and mass transfer of hydrogen into the biomass
limit the system performance (WERF, 2005)
Lack of effective biomass control
Health and safety concerns regarding hydrogen handling
Off-gas treatment may be required
Excess hydrogen use may be encountered as reported in demonstration studies (Friese

et al., 2008) with poorly designed systems

No full-scale facilities. Numerous pilot and demonstration projects performed in USA (mainly
for groundwater nitrate and perchlorate treatment). One pilot project in Lake Arrowhead,
California, USA, investigated performance of the MBfR for tertiary nitrate treatment. More
than 90 percent removal of nitrate was reported. However, the major issues were the
inability to control biomass growth and the need for a high level of hydrogen usage.
Extensive bench-scale experimentation over the past 10 years has proven that the hydrogenbased MBfR can transform one or several oxidized contaminants into harmless or easily
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-71
removed compounds. In order to achieve commercial success, however, a few issues must
be resolved by bench and field testing. Among the most crucial issues are (Rittman, 2007):
Understanding interactions with mixtures of oxidized contaminants

Treating waters with a high TDS concentration
improving design to achieve bubbles (gas transfer)
Developing modules that can be use in situ to augment pre-denitrification
Developing effective operating and cleaning strategies for biological fouling control
Establishing cleaning frequency and membrane module lifespan to accurately estimate
O&M cost
Keeping the capital costs low
Based on the current interest in a low carbon footprint and low sludge generation treatment
technologies, as well as extensive research efforts, it is expected that this technology could
be commercialized within the next 5 years.
Cost Information
Not established
None
NEREDA
Application Area
Objective
Provide treatment with much more compact footprint and improve settling characteristics of
activated sludge
Status
Innovative

The Nereda, invented by Delft University, Netherlands, and commercialized by DHV,
Netherlands, is based on cultivating aerobic bacteria in conditions that cause the bacteria to
form an adhesive material that bonds the bacteria into concentrated pellets. The adhesive
material and the conditions that produce it are not disclosed by DHV. Neredas claim is that
the process of forming pellets allows large concentrations of bacteria to be contained in less
space than in CAS systems, where bacteria are more dispersed and less concentrated. The
pellets are also easier to settle in clarifiers because of their higher density. Bacteria in the
pellets are as capable of decomposing the wastewater as dispersed bacteria in CAS;
however, the advantages of higher concentrations and better settling may reduce the costs
of aeration basins and clarifiers. The pellets may also be less prone to bulking and poor
solids settling episodes.

2-72
All reactions take place in a single reactor. Eliminates need for additional clarifier
Improved settling rates
Compact (typically needs the space required by CAS system)
Potentially lower capital investment
Can be retrofitted into the existing sequencing batch reactor (SBR) systems to increase
capacity
Easy to operate
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Lack of independent evaluation of this technology
Lack of capital and O&M cost data

No full-scale installation in the world.
Currently DHV is replacing an existing system with a Nereda plant, which will treat all
wastewater produced in and around the town of Epe, Netherlands. This will result in a
doubling of the plants treatment capacity without increasing its footprint. The upgraded
plant will be in operation in mid-2011.
This technology is most suitable and economically justifiable for increasing the capacity of
existing activated sludge systems without adding additional basins. It is the best fit for SBR
systems where all biochemical reactions and solids-liquid separation of activated sludge take
place in a single SBR.
All components (with the exception of the adhesive pellets) of this technology are mature
and are available from multiple suppliers. The technology is expected to be used in small
facilities initially. Once the benefits are proven in full-scale facilities, mid-sized to large
facilities can use this technology.
Cost Information
Technology Supplier
DHV Water BV
P.O. Box 1132
3800 AL Amersfoort
The Netherlands
Telephone: 0031-33-468-22 00
Fax : 0031-33-468-28 01
Email: andreas.giesen@dhv.nl
Web: www.dhv.com
Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (MSABPTM)

Application Area
Objective
Achieve BOD and nitrogen removal without solids wasting
Status
Developmental
The Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (MSABPTM) is a developmental technology for

domestic and industrial wastewater treatment based upon spatial microorganism
succession. Spatially segregated trophic microorganism chains provide proper conditions
under which bacteria are used as a food source sequentially by first primary and then higher
level microorganisms in the food chain. Apparently, the spatial microorganism succession
provides treatment by aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms maintained at different stages
of the biological reactor.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-73
There are eight compartments in the biological reactor. The influent wastewater enters the
first compartment and travels through each successive compartment, circulating via the flow
pattern created by air diffusers located at the bottom of the tank. Wastewater flow is in a
looping pattern so that short circuiting is reduced. Removal of organics and nitrification take
place in the first four compartments. The fifth and sixth compartments are anoxic and
denitrification occurs there. The seventh and eighth compartments operate in the
endogenous phase in which the remaining volatile solids are digested. Each stage is
supplied with an individually controlled air supply intended to sustain the microorganisms
and promote optimum oxygen transfer. A proprietary inner carrier fabricated from synthetic
material provides immobilization of microorganisms within each stage. Figure 2-34 shows a
pilot unit provided by Aquarius Technologies, Inc.
FIGURE 2-34
Pilot MSABP(Courtesy of Aquarius Technologies)

No primary and secondary clarifiers

Reduced capital cost
No WAS generation (according to the supplier)
Reduced energy cost
Lower carbon footprint
Lack of fundamental understanding for designing, sizing, and costing the system
Limited full-scale experience with limited performance data
Long-term performance is unknown

Three installations in the world: two industrial settings and one very small resort community
(USA application).
Independent performance data were not obtained.
Implementation of this technology in a larger scale municipal application requires more
demonstrations to explore process fundamentals, and long-term process performance is
required to develop design criteria and establish cost. Once those benefits are
demonstrated, it can be applicable at small to large facilities.
2-74
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Cost Information
Aquarius Technologies, Inc.
1103 Mineral Springs Drive, Suite 300
Port Washington, WI 53074, USA
Tel: 262-268-1500
Fax: 262-268-1515
Email: info@aquariustechnologies.com
BioScape Technologies, Inc.
816 Bennett Avenue

Medford, OR 97504, USA
Tel: 541-858-5774
Fax: 541-858-2771
Email: info@bioscapetechnologies.com
Side Stream Treatment Technologies for Ammonia

The centrate that results from dewatering the digested solids contains high concentrations of
the released ammonia and represents a significant return load, up to 20 percent or 30
percent of the plants influent nitrogen load. Separate treatment of this side stream can
significantly reduce the nitrogen return load to the main biological nitrogen removal process
(CH2M HILL, 2010).
The increased use of anaerobic digestion, coupled with increasingly stringent ammonia
nitrogen and total nitrogen limits in the effluent stream of municipal WWTPs, has led to
extensive research on the treatment of the nitrogen-rich side stream. A number of
innovative treatment approaches have been developed in recent years that specifically
target these return flows, some of which are physicochemical, others biologically based. It
is the latter group of processes, which include nitritation and deammonification, which have
attracted the most interest, due mainly to their potential cost-effectiveness, reduced energy
requirements, and overall environmental benefits.
Single Reactor High-activity Ammonia Removal Over Nitrite (SHARON)

Application Area
Objective
Biological nitrogen removal from streams containing high levels of ammonia (such as
centrate and landfill leachate)
Status
Innovative

The SHARON process was developed cooperatively by the Delft University of Technology
and Grontmij (De Bilt, Netherlands). Compared to conventional nitrification, the SHARON
process reduces oxygen and COD requirements (for denitrification using supplemental
carbon addition, etc.) by 25 percent and 40 percent, respectively.
The SHARON process features a continuous-flow, completely mixed reactor without solids
retention. If the reactor is operated at an appropriate temperature (such as 30C) and at a
sufficiently low solids retention time (1-day aerobic SRT for example), then nitrite oxidizers can
be effectively washed out of the system. With only ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) present,
the side stream ammonia is oxidized to nitrite. For the processes just described, alkalinity is
typically insufficient to maintain a stable pH. Alkalinity can often be supplemented during the
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-75
denitrification step, which can be performed in the same reactor. As with some other side
stream technologies (for nitrogen control), the carbon source used to perform denitrification is
typically methanol. A process schematic of SHARON is presented in Figure 2-35.
FIGURE 2-35
Process Schematic of SHARONTM (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2010)
The aerobic oxidation of ammonia is an exothermic reaction (produces heat). When this
heat is added to the centrate produced from dewatering anaerobically digested sludge,
which can have temperatures above 90F (32C), the temperature in the reactor can
increase. Therefore, a heat exchanger may be necessary to cool the reactor contents and
maintain the optimal operating temperature of 30C.
Considerable savings in carbon source and aeration capacity are reported when the
SHARON process is compared to the conventional nitrogen conversion within the context of
overall nitrogen removal. Based on European data, average nitrogen removal efficiency is in
the range of 80 to 90 percent. On average, 70 percent of the nitrogen load is converted via
nitrite. The presence of suspended solids is not reported to influence removal efficiencies
and operation of the process, as it operates without solids retention.

Potential Advantages over Conventional Nitrification/Denitrification Processes
Smaller side stream tankage requirements than conventional processes

Reduced oxygen requirement
Reduced need for external carbon addition
Relatively simple O&M
Presence of suspended solids
Potential Disadvantages Compared to Conventional Nitrification/Denitrification Processes
Nitrogen removal efficiency is strongly dependent on influent ammonia concentration and

hydraulic retention time (HRT)
For KSA applications, temperature control would be required to maintain optimum

operating temperature of 30oC
Tight pH and alkalinity monitoring and control are required

2-76
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Six full-scale SHARON systems have been in operation for more than 5 years in the
Netherlands. The only installation of SHARON in the USA that is currently in operation is
at New York Citys Ward Island WWTP.
Significant research has been conducted for further improvement of the SHARON process.
Most technologies are very similar to SHARON with some modifications.
The technology can be applicable at small to large facilities as in CAS systems. It is also
suitable for treating centrate streams from the centralized anaerobic digestion facilities.
Technology Supplier
Mixing and Mass Transfer Technologies
Southeastern Region
8833 North Congress Ave., Suite 818
Kansas City, MO 64153, USA
Tel: 816-854-1969
Email: arawakomski@m2ttech.com
Website: http://www.m2ttech.com
STRASS Process
Application Area
Objective
centrate and landfill leachate).
Status
Innovative

The STRASS process, originally developed in Strass, Austria in the early 1990s (Wett,
1998), is being considered as an alternate to SHARON operation without bioaugmentation.
The process uses a high sludge age SBR to oxidize ammonia to nitrite (nitritation), followed
by reduction of the produced nitrite to nitrogen gas (denitritation). A supplemental carbon
source, such as primary sludge or methanol, is used to drive the denitritation process.
The STRASS process is very similar to the SHARON process, and it was developed in the
same year. The main difference is that the SHARON process is operated as a chemostat
without solids retention (to keep a short SRT and thus maintain inhibition of nitrite oxidizing
bacteria (NOBs), while the STRASS process is operated in an SBR with high sludge
retention time (greater than 20 days). High sludge retention time in the reactor achieves a
similar degree of denitrification at much reduced reactor volumes CH2M HILL, 2010). The
key feature of the STRASS process is a simple and effective pH-based control mechanism
to control the intermittent aeration system. Proper selection of pH setpoints helps to control
NOB inhibition and inorganic carbon limitations.
The STRASS process is flexible and represents a viable alternative to the SHARON process
if cost-effective treatment of the sludge dewatering centrate is the primary process objective.
However, it does have additional processing requirements, including the need to use a presedimentation process to remove solids from the centrate stream before side stream treatment.
Potential Advantages over SHARONTM
Improved denitrification performance due to maintaining high SRT.

Reduces tank volume requirement and capital investment
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-77
Better process control

Primary sludge can be used for alternative carbon source for denitrification
Potential Disadvantages Compared to SHARONTM
Requires pre-sedimentation process to remove solids from the centrate stream prior to
side stream treatment

Full-scale STRASS systems are operating in Strass and Salzburg, Austria. Pilot systems
are operating by the Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Virginia, USA. There are no full-scale
installations in the USA at this time (USEPA, 2008).
Similar to SHARONTM, STRASS can be applicable for small to large facilities. It is also
suitable for treating centrate streams from centralized anaerobic digestion facilities.
Technology Supplier
Cyklar-Stulz
CH-8737 Gommiswald
Rietwiesstrasse 39
Switzerland
Telephone: 41-55-290-11-41
Fax : 41-55-290-11-43
Email: info@cyklar.chl
Web: www.cykar.com
SHARONTM/ANOMMOX (ANerobic AMMonia Oxidation) Process

Application Area
Objective
centrate and landfill leachate).
Status
Innovative
This process, which is a modification of the SHARONTM process, has two stages. In the first
stage, the reactor is operated without supplemental alkalinity, resulting in the conversion of
approximately half of the ammonia in the centrate to nitrite. The mixture of nitrite and
ammonia is ideally suited to serve as influent for the ANAMMOX process (second stage),
where ammonium and nitrite are anaerobically converted to nitrogen gas and water as
illustrated in Figure 2-36.
The ANAMMOX reactor is typically operated at relatively high temperatures (25C to
40C). The ANAMMOX reactor is similar in design to an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB).
Potential Advantages over SHARONTM and STRASS
2-78
More sustainable and lower carbon footprint than SHARON and STRASS due to
reduction in CO2 emission
Process does not require alkalinity and carbon addition
Eliminates chemical use, which reduces capital and O&M costs
Low sludge generation due to autotrophic denitrification
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-36
Process Schematic of SHARONTM /ANOMMOX (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2010)
Potential Disadvantages Compared to SHARONTM and STRASS
More complex operation than single stage systems
Tighter process control is required to maintain optimum ratio of nitrite to ammonium

(1.3:1) in the first stage reactor

The first and only SHARON/ANAMMOX system in operation was installed at the
Dokhaven WWTP (Waterboard Holland Delta, Rotterdam, Netherlands). The process began
operation in 2005 (CH2M HILL, 2010).
No full-scale facility in the USA. Extensive research is being conducted in the USA and
Europe.
SHARON/ANAMMOX can be applicable for small to large facilities. It is also suitable for
treating centrate streams from the centralized anaerobic digestion facilities.
Technology Supplier
Mixing and Mass Transfer Technologies
Southeastern Region
8833 North Congress Ave., Suite 818
Kansas City, MO 64153, USA
Tel: 816-854-1969
Email: arawakomski@m2ttech.com
Website: http://www.m2ttech.com
DEamMONification (DEMON) Process

Application Area
Objective
centrate and landfill leachate)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-79
Status
Innovative

The STRASS process has evolved into the DEMON process, which uses the same pH
based control philosophy that was developed at the Strass WWTP. DEamMONication
includes two autotrophic reaction steps: (1) partial nitritation (aerobic oxidation of about 50
percent of the ammonia to nitrite) controlled by maintaining a low-level bulk liquid dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentration using pH; and (2) anaerobic oxidation of residual ammonia by
generated nitrite. The DEMON process is operated in a single-sludge SBR system where
intermittent aeration is provided. The reactor used in DEMON supports the development of
higher-density granules which behave much like biofilms with respect to bacterial growth in
different redox zones. These redox zones develop as a result of resistance to mass transfer,
or diffusional limitations.
The DEMON processuses a
cyclone to separate anammox
bacteria, which exist inside the
higher-density granules, from
NOB. The selective wasting of
NOB allows the optimized system
to support relative quantities of
NOB, AOB, and ANAMMOX
bacteria that are required for the
syntrophic relationship of the
bacterium essential to support both
partial nitritation and
deammonification in a single-stage
reactor. Figure 2-37 depicts a
schematic representation of the
DEMON process.
FIGURE 2-37
Process Schematic of DEMONTM (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2010)
Potential Advantages over SHARONTM
More sustainable and lower carbon footprint than SHARON and STRASS due to
reduction in CO2 emission
Process does not require alkalinity and organic carbon addition
Eliminates chemical use, which reduces capital cost and O&M costs
Low sludge generation due to autotrophic denitrification
Patented control system provides stable process performance (90 percent ammonia
removal) at varying influent loads
Potential Disadvantages Compared to SHARONTM
High-intensity tight process control is needed for success of operation
Tall structure (20 m) due to inclusion of cyclone. May be a challenge to implement at

locations with strict height limit

The DEMON process is being used in approximately 10 to 15 full-scale installations in
Europe. The first full-scale SBR system in the USA that is capable of operating as the
DEMON process is under construction at the time of preparation of this report at the
Alexandria Sanitation Authority Water Resource Facility, Alexandria, Virginia, USA (Daigger
et al., 2011).
2-80
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
DEMON can be applicable for small to large facilities to treat streams containing high
levels of ammonia. It is also suitable for treating centrate streams from centralized
anaerobic digestion facilities.
Grontmij Nederland BV
Infrastructure and Milieu
Afdeling Water and Reststoffen
Postbus 203, 3730 AE De Bilt
Handelsregister 30029428, Netherlands
Tel: 31-30-220-79-11
Fax: 31-30-220-01-74
Web site: http://www.grontmij.nl/site/nl-ni/
Cyklar-Stulz
CH-8737 Gommiswald
Rietwiesstrasse 39
Switzerland
Telephone: 41-55-290-11-41
Fax : 41-55-290-11-43
Email: info@cyklar.chl
Web: www.cykar.com
Vacuum Rotation Membrane (VRM) System

Application Area
Objective
Filtration of biomass for high-quality effluent with smaller footprint, lower-energy demand,
and more effective air scouring of membranes.
Status
Innovative

Vacuum Rotation Membrane (VRM), a patented process of Huber Technology Inc., USA,
uses flatB-sheet ultra-filtration membranes rotating around a horizontal shaft. Scouring air is
introduced next to the shaft at about half the water depth, providing high-intensity scouring of
a small section in the 12 oclock position. The membranes rotate through this scouring
section several times per minute. Operating results show that neither back-pulsing nor
regular cleaning is required to maintain an average flux of at least 10 gfd (35 L/m2/h) with a
suction head of less than 10 feet (USEPA, 2008). Intermittent scouring at low throughputs
minimizes energy cost. Figure 2-38 shows a process schematic of the Huber VRM.
High concentration of biomass reduces aeration basin volume by 70 percent (according

to Huber)
Reduced energy consumption for scouring air due to the centrally positioned air intake
and rotation of the membranes
No periodic permeate back-washing during filtration compared to many MBRs
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-81
FIGURE 2-38
Process Schematic of Huber VRM Module (Courtesy of Huber Technology, Inc.)
No full-scale experience in USA.

Lack of performance, operation, and cost data

One full-scale facility in Europe (location not provided)
The technology has been pilot tested in California, USA in 2006 for California Title 22
approval. The Huber VRM pilot system produced virtually particle-free effluent (<0.1
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit [NTU]) with more than 5-log removal of fecal coliforms and
more than 3-log removal of coliphage. The operating flux was generally between 13 and 15
gfd with a TMP between 1.3 and 2.7 psi.
California Title 22 certification is the first step for demonstrating the ability of this technology
to meet the most stringent water reuse criteria. As in other MBR systems, this modular
technology can be applicable for small to large facilities.
Cost Information
Equipment cost: $1 per gallon or $265 per m3 (based on European operations). O&M cost:
$27 per year per m3 wastewater treated (based on overseas operations).
2-82
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Technology Supplier
Huber Technology Inc. Middle East
P.O. Box 120136 Plot J2-08

Sharjah Airport International Free Zone
United Arab Emirates
Phone: (+971) 6.5574059
Fax: (+971) 6.5574069
E-mail: info@huberme.comend_of_the_skype_highlighting
www.huberme.com
2.3.3 Innovative/Developmental Resource Recovery Technologies

Technologies classified under this category use physical/chemical and/or biological
treatment principles to recover resources from wastewater in the form of nutrients, salt,
biogas, and electricity. Most emerging technologies (carbon sequestration and biofuel
synthesis, microbial fuel cell, etc.) in this category are not comparable with the established
technologies because no matching technology can be found in the established category.
Therefore, no comparison table is included in this sub-section.
Algae Sequestration with Biofuels Synthesis

Application Area
Objective
Reduction of GHG emissions and production of algae to produce biodiesel or crude oil
Status
Developmental

The USA Department of Energys Office of Fuels Development funded a program to develop
renewable transportation fuels from algae starting in 1978. The main focus of the program
was the production of biodiesel from high lipid-content algae grown in ponds, utilizing waste
CO2 from coal-fired power plants. Over the almost two decades of this program,
tremendous advances have been made in the science of manipulating the metabolism of
algae and the engineering of microalgae algae production systems. The microalgae family
is a diverse group which can grow in autotrophically (uses inorganic material, such as CO2
as an electron donor to gain energy) or heterotrophically (uses organic carbon sources to
gain energy). They use sunlight, nutrients, and carbon sources to produce new cells in
aquatic environments. Algae have a relatively high lipid content, which makes them a
valuable fuel source. Floatation, centrifuges, or membranes can be used for algae
separation before harvesting them. Harvesting is a complex and energy-intensive process.
Once harvesting is completed, biofuels can be produced by extracting the lipid fraction or
grinding the cells to make a green crude oil using all the carbon in the cell. The production
of biodiesel involves a process called trans-esterification, where the various triacylglycerols
(oils) are chemically altered to form esters.
A simplified process schematic of algae biodiesel is presented in Figure 2-39.
The reactors (aquatic environment) used in algae biodiesel projects may be an open
raceway or horizontal photo-bioreactors as presented in Figure 2-40.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-83
Water
CO2 Source
- Compression
- Transport
- Purification
- Dissolution
Inoculum
Nutrients
Evaporation
Reactors
- Pumping
- Horizontal & Vertical Designs
- Tubes, Panels, and Bags
- Open Raceway Pond
- Temperature Control
Initial
Dewatering
- Flotation
- Membranes
- Centrifuge
- Presses
Harvest
- Complex
- Energy
Consumptive
Conversion to
Biodiesel
- Standard
Technology
FIGURE 2-39
Process Schematic of Algae Biodiesel (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2007)
FIGURE 2-40
Algae Biodiesel Reactor Examples (Adapted from CH2M HILL, 2007)
Comparison to Established Technologies (Corn, Cellulosic Materials, and Other Crops as an

Alternative to Petroleum-Based Fuels)
High biomass productivity potential

Higher energy content fuel (microalgae fuel content is 100 times higher than corn)
Avoids competition with agricultural lands and water for food and feed production
Uses non-freshwater, resulting in reduced pressure on limited freshwater resources
Captures CO2 and recycles carbon for fuels and co-products
Still much smaller footprint compared to corn and cellulosic based alternative fuels
Much more suitable to the desert geography of KSA than crop-based energy
Still developmental technology. Knowledge about the following has not been
established: process design and optimization, efficacy of harvesting and conversion
methods, and capital and O&M costs
Consumptive loss of wastewater is a major issue. Photobioreactors do not have direct

loss; However, the fluid in the tubes absorbs most of the solar radiation, so it must be
cooled with an indirect heat exchanger with cooling water circulated to an evaporative
cooling tower
Harvesting and conversion methods are complex.
2-84
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Yield per unit area is still low

No full-scale facility. Extensive pilot testing funded by the USA Department of Energys
Office of Fuels Development has been performed since 1978. The pilot testing results have
shown that algae can produce up to 7,000 gallons of oil per acre per year as opposed to 18
and 102 gallons of oil per acre per year produced by corn and sunflower, respectively.
A shift is occurring from an ethanol-centric biofuels strategy to a more holistic use of
biomass within the entire energy sector. The global appetite for transportation fuel from
green sources is intense. Generous funding in grants and venture funding is supporting
algae to biofuel research. Algae are highly promoted as a method of sequestering CO2 from
power plant flue gas, and facilities receive the added benefit of being paid CO2 credits. All
these factors may make the algae to biofuel concept commercially successful in the near
future. However, there are several questions that need to be answered first:
What strains of algae will yield the ideal combination of high-quality effluent and highquality biofuel?
What are the most suitable reactor types and arrangements to avoid water losses and
reduce facility footprint?
What are the most efficient methods for separating and concentrating the algae?
What are the most efficient and cost-effective methods for breaking open algae cells for
the production of a green crude or the separation of the lipid, aqueous, and solid
fractions of the lysed (broken open) cells?
What are the most efficient and cost-effective methods for converting the green crude or
purified lipid into a commercially reliable biofuel?
To what extent are incentives or carbon credits available?
Cost Information
Not established
Not available
Carbon Sequestration with Biofuels Synthesis

Application Area
Objective
Reduction of GHG emissions and production of methanol from methane
Status
Developmental

The developer of this innovative technology concept, Kartik Chandran, Ph.D., received the
2010 Paul L. Busch Award from The WERF Endowment for Innovation in Applied Water
Quality Research for his research to develop a new technology that transforms plantgenerated methane, a potent GHG, into the green fuel, methanol. The technology could
offer WWTPs a more affordable, environmentally friendly process for producing this
alternative fuel and help them address one of their top challenges, the reduction of nitrogen
concentrations in effluents. The technology concept is depicted in Figure 2-41.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-85
Comparison to Established
Technologies
No established technology.
Technology Tested/Implemented or
Demonstrated
Laboratory scale.
Implementability/Future
Advancements/Scalability
Ongoing research at Columbia
University (Dr. Chandran) aims to
develop a bioreactor system using the
ammonia oxidizing bacteria to
generate methanol. Early research
FIGURE 2-41
focuses on process stability and
Schematic of (Courtesy of Columbia University, Dr. Chandran)
methanol yield using different
nitrifying bacterial strains. Some of todays largest and most advanced treatment plants rely
on methanol addition to improve the performance of their denitrification processes. For
example, Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility, which serves the metropolitan
Washington, D.C. area, was able to decrease its nitrogen discharge by half using methanol
addition. The cost of methanol addition, however, is significant and domestic methanol
prices recently reached their highest levels in 3 years. By providing the technology for
treatment plants to generate their own methanol, this bioreactor could provide smaller
treatment plants with a more cost-effective option while still realizing the benefits of
increased denitrification rates and improved nitrogen removal.
This approach is intriguing, because it relies on biological processes to address the methane
and carbon dioxide in biogas. Biological nutrient removal has a proven track record in
wastewater systems, even smaller ones. This process could easily fit into existing anaerobic
treatment schemes and, in so doing, yield additional benefits. By integrating these
bioreactors into the biological nutrient removal process, it would be possible to enhance
nitrogen removal by converting nitrogen to nitrite using the ammonia oxidizing bacteria, and
then channeling the methanol these bacteria produce back into the system to serve as an
external carbon source for denitrification of the nitrite produced.
Cost Information
Not established yet.
Current methanol production in the USA occurs largely through an expensive conversion
process that chemically catalyzes the oxidation of methane gas. Adding to the cost is the
need to purify methane sources, such as digester gas, prior to conversion. Columbia
University research takes an alternative and more cost-effective approach to generating
methanol through the development of autotrophic microbial reactors. These reactors, which
plants can integrate into their normal biological treatment processes, convert the methane in
digester gas directly to liquid methanol, avoiding purification and chemically catalyzed
conversion.
Processes and technologies already exist to harness biogas as a resource. Cogeneration,
which uses biogas to generate heat and power, is well established and is in use at WWTPs.
But cogeneration, as with any resource recovery technology, has its drawbacks. For
example, the cost of producing energy from biogas can be quite high relative to current
energy prices, and the quantity of biogas required to make the process feasible often limits it
to the largest treatment plants.
2-86
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Technology Supplier
Kartik Chandran, Ph.D.
Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering
Columbia University
918 Seeley W. Mudd Building
500 West 120 Street
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 854 9027
Fax: (212) 854 7081
kc2288@columbia.edu
Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC)

Application Area
Objective
Generate electricity during wastewater treatment
Status
Developmental

MFC technology is an
emerging biotechnology that
utilizes bacteria to generate
electricity during degradation
of organic substances.
Traditional MFCs consist of
an anaerobic anode and an
aerobic cathode. Bacteria
degrade organic substances
(e.g. acetate, glucose) and
generate electrons in the
anode chamber. At the
cathode, the electrons are
transferred toward a highpotential electron acceptor,
preferably oxygen. As current
flows over a potential
difference, electricity is
generated as a result of
bacterial activity. The
generation of electricity is
based on the respiratory
FIGURE 2-42
Schematic Illustration of Microbial Fuel Cell
enzymes of the bacteria that
span the outer membrane and transfer electrons to materials on the surface of the cell. MFC
represents a great potential for its application in WWTPs to simultaneously treat wastewater
and produce electricity (USEPA, 2008). Figure 2-42 presents a schematic of an MFC.

No comparison to any established technology.

MFC, originally developed by Bruce Logan at Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania,
USA, has been investigated by numerous researches over the last 5 years. The highest
power density reported reached over 1000 W/ m3 (Fan et al., 2007). Diverse MFC
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-87
configurations (He et al., 2006), electrode materials (Logan et al., 2007), and substrates
(Galvez et al., 2009; Freguia et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010) have been studied and promising
results have been reported.
Application of MFC on a broader scale is still limited by several obstacles. First, most MFC
studies are conducted in batch mode at relatively small scales, usually less than 300 mL. A
linear increase in the power density with an increase in MFC size is not expected due to the
limitations of mass transfer. Although a higher number of electrodes (as high as four) in
MFCs has been found to maintain the power density of MFCs at large scales (Jiang et al.,
submitted), it remains unclear whether further increases in the number of electrodes can
improve the power generation of MFCs operated in continuous flow mode. Second, the high
cost of MFC, especially the high cost of platinum-coated cathodes, limits the wide application
of MFCs. Low-cost manganese dioxide (MnO2) cathode materials have been developed and
tested using laboratory scale MFCs operated in batch mode (Li et al., 2010). However, the
performance of this new cathode is yet to be investigated in large-scale continuous MFCs.
Cost Information
Not established
Not established
2.3.4 Innovative/Developmental Phosphorus and Salt Recovery Technologies

Crystalactor Technology
Application Area
Objective
Reduce phosphorus loads to WWTPs and recover phosphorus
Status
Innovative
The Crystalactor process was developed by DHV Water BV, Netherlands, and is an
example of crystallization processes for phosphorus recovery. The technology uses sand as
the seed material for crystal development in a vertical cylindrical fluidized bed reactor which
combines coagulation, flocculation, separation, and dewatering in a single reactor. The
phosphate-containing wastewater is pumped upward, maintaining the pellet bed in a
fluidized state. In order to crystallize the phosphate on the pellet bed, a driving force is
created by a reagent dosage and sometimes also pH adjustment. Once the appropriate
process conditions are selected, co-crystallization of impurities is minimized and high-purity
phosphate crystals are obtained. The pellets grow and move toward the reactor bottom. At
regular intervals, a quantity of the largest fluidized pellets is discharged at full operation from
the reactor and fresh seed material is added after atmospheric drying pellets are obtained.
A schematic diagram of the process is shown in Figure 2-43.
The Crystalactor process enables phosphate removal and recovery by means of several
process routes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
2-88
crystallization as calcium phosphate

crystallization as magnesium phosphate
crystallization as magnesium ammonium phosphate
crystallization as potassium magnesium phosphate
STRATEGIC SUMMARY


This technology has been applied at full-scale in
the Netherlands and was installed at the
Geestmertambacht, Heemsted, and Westerbrork
plants. In 1994, the Crystalactor reactor was
installed in the Geestmertambacht plant to
recover phosphorus as calcium phosphate, which
could be used as raw material in the phosphate
industry to produce phosphoric acid. The
capacity of the installation is 250 m3/hour,
producing 70 kg phosphate/hour (DHV, 2007).
Cost Information
Not widely established.
The cost of calcium phosphate production using
the Crystalactor process was estimated to be
22 times higher than the cost of mined phosphate
rock (Roeleved et al., 2004), and thus at the time
FIGURE 2-43
the process was not considered economically
Process Schematic of Crystalactor (www.dhv.com)
viable. The Crystalactor process is an add-on,
and does not require significant modification to existing solids handling processes. The
process requires readily available lime to raise pH. It does not need hydrocarbon fuel inputs
and therefore has a lower carbon footprint. The product can be used as fertilizer raw
material. The cost of production is high relative to natural sources, but the value of the
recovered calcium phosphate should increase as natural supplies decrease.
Technology Supplier
DHV Water BV
P.O. Box 1132
3800 AL Amersfoort
The Netherlands
Telephone: 0031-33-468-22 00
Fax : 0031-33-468-28 01
Email: andreas.giesen@dhv.nl
Web: www.dhv.com
P-RoC
Application Area
Objective
Status
Developmental

The P-RoC (Phosphorus Recovery from wastewater by Crystallization of calcium phosphate
compounds process) uses surplus settled activated solids in the same way as Crystalactor.
The seed material in the P-RoC system under development in Germany is a tobermorite-rich
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-89
waste material from the construction industry (Berg and Shaum, 2005). No additional lime is
required as the tobermorite is composed of calcium silicate hydrates. Tobermorite appears
to stimulate the precipitation of calcium phosphate, serving as the crystallization nucleus,
while it also increases the reactor pH due to its chemical properties, reducing the solubility of
the calcium phosphate. A schematic for this process is illustrated in Figure 2-44.
FIGURE 2-44
Process Schematic of the P-RoC Technology (Berg et al., 2005)


Studies completed at the Institute for Technical Chemistry, Water and Geotechnology
Division (ITC-WGT), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, document pilot-scale
performance of the process and the product quality. There are no known full-scale
applications of the technology.
P-RoC uses waste material as both the seed for crystal development and as the pH adjustor.
It does not need large energy inputs and therefore has a lower carbon footprint. The product
can be used as fertilizer raw material.
Cost Information
The process is under development, and no cost data are available.
Technology Supplier
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH
P.O. Box 36 40, 76201 Karlsruhe, Germany www.fzk.de/itc-wgt
CMM Center of Competence for Material Moisture www.cmm-karlsruhe.de
Institute for Technical Chemistry
Dr.-Ing. Rainer Schuhmann,
phone: +49 (0) 7247 82-3787, e-mail: rainer.schuhmann@kit.edu
Dipl.-Ing. Dirk Patzig
phone: +49 (0) 7247 82-3213, e-mail: dirk.patzig@itc-wgt.fzk.de
Struvite Formation
Application Area
2-90
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Objective
Status
Innovative

Struvite is crystalline magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate (NH4)MgPO4.6(H2O).
The composition of struvite is approximately 30 percent bound phosphorus as P2O5.
Unintended formation of struvite in wastewater treatment is usually detrimental to operation
(blocking pipes and fouling heat transfer surfaces). Intentional formation of struvite by
magnesium addition with pH adjustment was demonstrated by Burns and Moody (2002).
The researchers used MgO as the magnesium source, and the X-ray diffraction of the
material confirmed the presence of struvite in the product. Weidelener et al. (2007)
proposed a method to leach phosphorus out of digested sewage solids and produce struvite.
This method uses sulfuric acid as a leaching agent. Prior to struvite precipitation with MgCl2,
interfering metal ions in the leachate are inactivated through complexation. This method
allows for the production of a product that is comparable to mineral commercial fertilizers in
terms of heavy metals concentration.
OSTARAs Pearl process (Canada) recovers struvite from a phosphorus-rich solids stream
using magnesium chloride. Supplemental caustic soda may be required depending on the
alkalinity and hardness of the phosphorus-bearing waste stream. Figure 2-45 shows a
schematic of OSTARAs struvite recovery process.
FIGURE 2-45
OSTARAs Struvite Recovery Process
Multiform Harvest also specializes in phosphorus recovery in the form of struvite from
wastewater. It uses an up-flow fluidized bed reactor that was originally developed for
agricultural liquid stream treatment. According to Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies
Inc., the system has a conical reactor design and achieves total phosphorus reductions
exceeding 80 percent and orthophosphate reductions typically exceeding 90 percent.
Ammonia levels are reduced by up to 20 percent. This enables a WWTP to meet nutrient
discharge limits without the use of costly chemicals, such as ferric chloride.

STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-91

A pilot-scale struvite recovery project was conducted at the city of Edmonton Gold Bar
WWTP (Alberta, Canada) by OSTARA. The pilot results showed that the process was
capable of recovering over 75 percent of phosphate and 20 percent of ammonia from the
solids reject water. Based on pilot results and full-scale design, an assessment of the
process and environmental benefits resulting from struvite recovery was performed using a
life cycle assessment framework.
The first full-scale commercial OSTARA nutrient recovery facility began operating in spring
2009 near Portland, Oregon (USA), at the Clean Water Services' Durham Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Facility in Tigard, Oregon. A pilot plant had demonstrated Ostara's
Pearl nutrient recovery process at the same facility in 2007. This facility is the first to
implement a full-scale commercial operation, where 100 percent of the wastewater treatment
side stream was treated with this technology.
The Pearl process was recently successfully pilot-scale tested at Hampton Roads Sanitation
Districts Nansemond WWTP (Virginia, USA), where it recovered more than 85 percent of
the phosphorus and 40 percent of the ammonia from the liquid it processed. This led to the
decision to proceed with full-scale implementation of the technology.
Pilot testing at the Edmonton Gold Bar WWTP showed that struvite recovery has the
potential for offsetting meaningful amounts of GHG emissions through sustainable and
energy-efficient production of fertilizers. At full scale, struvite recovery would result in the
production of up to 1,200 tons per year of struvite fertilizer along with a 20 percent reduction
in the phosphorus load and a 5 percent reduction in the ammonia load on the WWTP. The
life cycle assessment also showed that the full-scale plant would result in the offset of
approximately 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year relative to
conventional fertilizer manufacturing.
In the full-scale operation at the Durham facility in Tigard, Oregon, USA, Ostara's Pearl
nutrient recovery process is currently removing more than 90 percent of the phosphorus in
the wastewater's liquid stream and producing 500 tons of struvite under the commercial
name of Crystal Green fertilizer annually.
According to Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc., the Multiform Harvest system is
currently used at agricultural operations and recently was selected by the City of Boise,
Idaho, USA for implementation at the Citys WWTP.
Cost Information
Case-specific and not disclosed by the technology suppliers.
Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc.
690 1199 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 2R1
Telephone: 604 408 6697
Fax: 604 408 4442
Multiform Harvest Inc.
2033 Sixth Avenue
Suite 253
Seattle, Washington 98121-2580
Tel: 206-725-3305
info@multiformharvest.com
2-92
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Salt Solidification and Sequestration (SAL-PROC)

Application Area
Concentrate/brine streams
Objective
Recovery of salt from concentrate/brine streams
Status
Innovative

SAL-PROC is a patented process
of Geo-Processors USA, Inc.,
Glendale, California, USA. It is an
integrated process for the sequential
or selective extraction of dissolved
elements from saline waters in the
form of salts and chemical
compounds (mineral, slurry, and
liquid forms). The process involves
multiple evaporation and/or cooling
steps supplemented by conventional
mineral and chemical processing.
This technology is based on a
closed-loop processing and fluid flow
circuits, which enable the partial or
FIGURE 2-46
complete treatment of inorganic
SAL-PROC Process Schematic
saline streams for recovery of
valuable by-products. According to Geo-Processors, field trials and pilot testing indicated
that a number of saline waste streams can be converted into marketable products
(precipitated salts) while achieving ZLD. The chemicals typically recovered from saline
streams include gypsum-magnesium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, sodium chlorite,
calcium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and calcium chloride. A simplified SAL-PROC process
schematic is illustrated in Figure 2-46.
The ZLD systems utilize multiple reaction steps using lime and soda ash to produce
carbonated magnesium, calcium carbonate, and a mixed salt. The overall system recovers
nearly entire flow. However, SAL-PROC requires incorporation of one or more desalting
technologies to reduce volume significantly while highly concentrating water entering the
SAL-PROC.
SAL-PROC is not a stand-alone brine concentrate treatment technology. This process acts
as a product recovery process. The suitability of using SAL-PROC depends upon the water
quality and type of application. RO concentrate from water reuse facilities might not be
permitted to recover products because wastewater RO concentrate may contain organic,
toxic, and hazardous material.


According to Geo Processor Inc., this technology is in full-scale application for produced
water treatment in Queensland, Australia. The system produces 21,600 tons of saleable
chemicals per year.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-93
This technology has not been widely used to date despite the commercialization of this
technology in early 2000s. Knowledge regarding capital and O&M costs and process
performance under varying feed quality conditions has not been established. The
implementability of the process also depends on the cost-competitiveness of the product and
the availability of potential buyers.
Cost Information:
Case-specific, and not disclosed by the technology suppliers.
Technology Supplier
Geo Processor Inc.
690 1199 West Pender Street
Glendale, CA, USA
Telephone: 604 408 6697
Fax: 604 408 4442
Other Technologies: Greenhouse Sludge Drying Systems

Application Area
Objective
Low-energy biosolids drying
Status
Innovative

Greenhouse drying is an alternative to the conventional sludge drying beds that are used at
treatment facilities typically smaller than 5 mgd. This technology uses sunlight to evaporate
a large portion of the water content of the biosolids. Greenhouse drying beds have been
successfully used in Europe and the USA, and are costeffective for 1.0-to 10-mgd plants,
because they require a minimal amount of energy, labor, and maintenance. In typical
installations, biosolids are spread over a large covered area, similar to a greenhouse, while
the sunlight evaporates the water. During drying, the biosolids are turned and mixed.
Ventilation is an important factor to continually remove moisture-laden air from the surface of
the biosolids and replace it with fresh dry air. The product solids content can be 85 to 90
percent depending on the operation. Both batch and continuous operation is possible. A
schematic of a version of this process marketed by Huber is shown on Figure 2-47. Use of a
heat recovery loop from wastewater as shown is optional.

Fully automated control possible
Active drying with a turning system included
Can be coupled with a heat recovery/heat exchange system if necessary
Cost-competitive when compared to gas-fired/mechanical drying systems, with much

lower operating costs
Odors contained in the greenhouse structure
The greenhouse type design provides containment from external factors, such as wind
and rain
High-quality dried biosolids with low pathogen content can be produced
2-94
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
FIGURE 2-47
Process Schematic of Greenhouse Drying Process (Huber Technology)
More costly compared to conventional passive sludge drying beds
Although possible to automate, includes more mechanical parts compared to

conventional passive sludge drying beds

This technology has been implemented at facilities that range from less than 1 mgd to 10
mgd. The supplier indicated that the Parkson Thermo-System dryer has been applied to
0.2-mgd to 40-mgd systems. According to the information from Parkson Corporation, there
are Thermo-System units in operation in the USA in Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Oregon, and
South Carolina, and in Palma de Mallorca, on the Mediterranean island of Mallorca.
Parkson's German licensor for this technology had previous installations in Germany, Italy,
Belgium, Austria, and Australia for both municipal and industrial applications.
The technology has recently been implemented at full scale. Considering the land
availability in the arid areas of KSA, the technology could be favored over other higherenergy-consuming (gas-fired or mechanical) or passive drying bed type alternatives, and it
would be a suitable option for many locations in KSA. The greenhouse type design also
provides containment from external factors (such as wind and rain), which is not available for
open drying beds.
Cost Information
Capital cost depends on the unit sizing based on location and the components included.
Operating costs are significantly lower than those of gas-fired and mechanical drying
systems; the energy requirement is about 40 kWh per ton of water evaporated, with no
additional thermal energy supplement required unless the footprint needs to be reduced with
external heat addition, depending on site space availability.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-95
Parkson Corporation
Corporate Head Quarters
1401 West Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-1969
Tel 1.888.PARKSON
Fax 954-974-6182
http://www.parkson.com
Parkson ME LLC
PO Box 233160
Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971.4.280.8923
Fax: + 971.4.280.8932
Huber Technology Inc.
Nasik Group, Prince Abdallah Road
El Mursalat Quarter Al Omar Furniture Blg
P.O.Box : 8658
Riyadh 11462, Saudi Arabia
Tel: +966 1 45 67 377
Fax: +966 1 45 48 166
http://www.huber-technology.com
2.3.5 Natural Treatment Systems

Natural treatment systems are well established and have been used throughout the world for
treatment and polishing of wastewaters. Information on these systems is summarized in
Appendix A. Recently wetlands have been used as an alternative solution in reducing the
temperature of wastewater effluents to satisfy discharge temperature requirements. Recently,
aquifer storage and treatment has attracted interest in reuse projects and has been proven
and successfully applied to many locations in Germany and the USA. Because aquifer
storage and treatment is a promising approach for KSA, it is evaluated in detail in Chapter 4.
2.4 Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Technologies

This section provides a relative comparison of innovative/developmental technologies using
Tables 2-2 through 2-6. Technologies are categorized and comparisons are made relative
to a defined established technology, if applicable. Reference technologies are shown in
parentheses.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2-96
Desalination technologies (RO)

Disinfection technologies (chlorine-based disinfection)
Filtration technologies (pressurized polymeric membrane systems)
Biological treatment technologies (CAS systems)
Side stream treatment technologies (SHARON)
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
TABLE 2-2
Regulatory Acceptability in Reuse

a
Applications
Process Chemical Use Including

Pretreatment and Post Treatment
Complexity of Operation and

a
Maintenance
Fouling Propensity
Treated Water Quality
Recovery
Footprinta
Energy Use
Heat Usage Compared to Thermal

Process (80 kWh/m3)
Applicability to Small to Large Systems
Implementability in Next 5 Year
Status
Technology
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Desalination Technologies
ARROW
P,C
NR
CD
B,P,C
S,L
NR
Dewvaporation
B,P,C,F
S, L
DDD
Ecosphere
P,C
NR
FO
B,P,C
ML
S,L,I
HIX-NF
NR
MD
B,P,C
ML
S,L,I
MDC
NR
NR
NF
B,P,C
ML
S,L,I
Nanotechnology App.
B,P, C
ML
S,L,I
OPUS
P,C
NR
Solar Desalination (Coupled

with RO or
MED)
P,C
ML
S,L,I
SPARRO
P,C
ML
S,L,I
ZDD
P,C
ML
S, I
NR
Compared to conventional RO systems

NR: Not required
: Similar to RO
: Higher or more than RO
: Much higher than RO
: Less than RO
: Much less than RO
Status Designation:
B: Bench-scale
C: Commercialized
F: Full-scale
P: Pilot
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Implementability Designation:
U: Unlikely
P: Possible
L: Likely
ML: Most Likely
Applicability Designation:
S: Small plants
I: Industrial
L: Large plants
2-97
TABLE 2-3
Re-growth Potential

a
Maintenance
Energy Requirement
Footprint
Virus Inactivation
DBP Formation
Coliform Inactivation
Oxidation Capabilities
Applicability to Small to Large

Systems
Regulatory Acceptability in Reuse

Applications
Status
Technology
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Disinfection Technologies
Ferrate
P,C
S,L
Microwave UV
P,C,
F
ML
S,L
Pasteurization
B,P,
C
PAA
B,P
S, L
Photocatalysis
S,I
Simultaneous
Use of Two or
More
Disinfectants
B,P,
F
ML
ML
S,L
Solar
Disinfection
Ultrasonic
Cavitation
B,P
Compared to chlorine based disinfection systems

NR: Not required
: Similar to chlorine disinfection
: Higher or more than chlorine disinfection
: Much higher than chlorine disinfection
: Less than chlorine disinfection
: Much less than chlorine disinfection
Status Designation:
B: Bench-scale
C: Commercialized
F: Full-scale
P: Pilot
Implementability and Regulatory Acceptance Designation:
U: Unlikely
P: Possible
L: Likely
A: Accepted
ML: Most Likely
S: Small plants
I: Industrial
L: Large plants
2-98
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
TABLE 2-4
Ceramic Membranes
B,P,C,F
S,I,L

a
Maintenance
O&M Cost
Footprint
Capital Cost
Energy Requirement
Chemical and Mechanical Tolerance
Flux
Recovery

Systems
Status
Technology
Comparison of Filtration Technologies
: Similar to Pressurized Polymeric Membranes

: Higher or more than Pressurized Polymeric Membranes
: Much higher/better than Pressurized Polymeric Membranes
: Less than Pressurized Polymeric Membranes
: Much less than Pressurized Polymeric Membranes
Status Designation:
B: Bench-scale
C: Commercialized
F: Full-scale
P: Pilot
U: Unlikely
P: Possible
L: Likely
ML: Most Likely
I: Implemented
S: Small plants
I: Industrial
L: Large plants
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-99
TABLE 2-5

a
Maintenance
Gas Generation
Sludge Generation
Footprint
Energy Requirement
Robustness of Process
Emerging Contaminant Removal

a
Performance
Nitrogen Removal Performance
BOD Removal Performance
Applicability to Small to Large Systems
Status
Technology
Summary and Comparison of Innovative/Developmental Biological Treatment Technologies
AnMBR
B,P,C,
F
S,I
AMBR
B, F
MABR
MBfR
B,P
S,I
NEREDA
P, C
S,I,L
MSABP
P,C, F
DEMON
B,P,F
S,I,L
VRM
B, C,F
S,I,L
Compared to CAS systems

NR: Not required
: Similar to CAS
: Higher or more than CAS
: Much higher/better than CAS
: Less than CAS
: Much less than CAS
Status Designation:
B: Bench-scale
C: Commercialized
F: Full-scale
P: Pilot
U: Unlikely
P: Possible
L: Likely
ML: Most Likely
I: Implemented
S: Small plants
I: Industrial
L: Large plants
2-100
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
TABLE 2-6

a
Maintenance
Sludge Generation
Energy Requirement
Oxygen Requirement
Footprint
Methanol Requirement
Nitrogen Removal Performance

Systems
Status
Technology
Summary and Comparison of Side Stream Treatment Technologies
STRASS
B,P,C,F
S,I,L
SHARON/ANAMMO
X
B,P,C,F
S,I,L
NR
DEMON
B,P,C,F
S,I,L
NF
Compared to SHARON
NR: Not required
: Similar to SHARON
: Higher or more than SHARON
: Much higher/better than SHARON
: Less than SHARON
: Much less than SHARON
Status Designation:
B: Bench-scale
C: Commercialized
F: Full-scale
P: Pilot
U: Unlikely
P: Possible
L: Likely
ML: Most Likely
I: Implemented
S: Small plants
I: Industrial
L: Large plants
2.5 Impact of Wastewater Quality on Operation and

Performance of Treatment Unit Processes
The wastewater characteristics are of great significance in the treatment and reuse of
wastewater. Once treated wastewater quality objectives or requirements are set for reuse,
the selection of the treatment scheme is determined primarily by the wastewater
composition. Wastewater composition is of pivotal importance in operation and performance
of the unit treatment processes. A comprehensive wastewater quality characterization is
essential to accomplish a reliable assessment that adequately addresses wastewater quality
impacts on the operation and performance of the treatment processes. Unfortunately, the
data available are limited to a few conventional wastewater parameters (BOD5, TSS, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN], TDS, pH, etc.), which are not comprehensive enough for the
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-101
purpose of evaluation. In this section, a generic approach is taken to address potential

impacts of inorganic and organic compounds on operation and performance of reuse and
advanced treatment processes. Table 2-7 summarizes key wastewater quality parameters
and their impacts on operation and performance of the unit treatment processes.
2.6 Industries in KSA with Reuse Potential

Many industrial manufacturing processes (such as those at pulp and paper facilities, oil
refineries, and chemical manufacturing facilities) depend on reliable and large quantities of
water. Unlike many reuse schemes which have seasonal patterns of water demand such as
those used for agricultural and landscape irrigation, industries tend to use water at a
relatively constant rate throughout the year. Therefore, industries provide a unique
opportunity for year-round use of reclaimed water. In addition, industries are often required
to meet increasingly stringent discharge goals, particularly for wastewater discharges. A
long-term objective of industries is to minimize or eliminate discharges to receiving waters or
sewer systems by applying ZLD concepts (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Industries have been
implementing more efficient water use practices and adopting internal wastewater treatment
and recycling, where practicable.
According to KAUST Industrial Collaboration Program (KICP) members, cement
manufacturing, iron and steel manufacturing, and petroleum refineries have great potential for
industrial reuse in KSA. The main objective of this sub-section was to identify wastewater
characteristics and evaluate potential reuse schemes for those industries. However, despite
considerable effort through communication with KICP members, communication with
universities, and an extensive literature search, adequate information regarding industrial
wastewater characterization in KSA could not be obtained. Wastewater characteristics for the
three candidate industries were assumed to be similar to those reported in industrial textbook
references (Industrial Wastewater Management, Treatment and Disposal, WEF, MOP FD-3,
2008). As a result, that information was used. Any pertinent information on this subject, if
obtained later, will be incorporated into the final report.
Cement manufacturing facilities process aluminum, silica, limestone, clay, chalk, and iron
oxides to produce cement. Wastewater is generated via process equipment cooling, cement
kiln-dust recovery via wet scrubbing, and materials storage pile runoff (WEF, FD-3, 2008).
The main wastewater pollutants are TDS (potassium, sodium, chlorides, and sulfate) and
suspended solids. Recycled water can be used in cooling towers. Suspended solids can be
removed using settling ponds or clarifiers.
Iron and steel manufacturing facilities produce carbon steels, alloy steels, and stainless steels.
Water is used for cooling and cleaning of process off-gases, direct cooling of coke and slag,
direct cooling and cleaning of steel, product rinsing, process solution, makeup water, and
direct cooling of process equipment. Other sources of wastewater include slag quenching,
equipment cleaning, rinse water and contaminated cooling water (WEF, FD-3, 2008). The
main wastewater pollutants are oil and grease, TSS, ammonia, cyanide, fluoride, nitrite/nitrate,
COD, TKN, TOC, hydrocarbons, and several other priority and nonconventional organic
compounds. For coke making, wastewater treatment includes oil and grease removal,
ammonia removal via stripping, and flow equalization before biological treatment. Activated
sludge systems with nitrification/denitrification are the most common type of biological
treatment systems. For iron ore processing, the recommended treatment technologies are
solids removal with metals precipitation using lime, caustic, magnesium hydroxide, or soda
ash, break-point chlorination for ammonia removal, and multimedia filtration for solids removal.
For steel making, wastewater can be treated for recycling via a high-volume classifier followed
by a clarifier for solids removal, wet open combustion to remove scale formers, and further
blowdown treatment via metals precipitation (WEF, FD-3, 2008).
2-102
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
TABLE 2-7
Wastewater Quality Parameters and Their Impacts on Operation and Performance of Unit Treatment Processes
Parameter
Ammonia--high in
secondary effluent
Impact
Increases chlorine demand during
disinfection
Mitigation
Provide ammonia removal during
Causes corrosion in copper-based alloys

Stimulates biological growth
Alkalinity--low in raw
wastewater
Reduces or diminish biological nitrification

performance
Add alkalinity (caustic, lime,

sodium bicarbonate, etc.)
Alkalinity--high in
secondary effluent
Increases scaling potential of membranes

and requires more frequent cleaning
Acidify feed water
Reacts with hydroxyl radical and reduces the

efficiency of advanced oxidation processes
Barium--high in
secondary effluent
Promotes membrane scaling when combined

with sulfate
Add antiscalant
BOD/TKN--low in raw
wastewater
Reduces nitrogen removal performance in

biological nitrogen removal plants
Add external organic carbon

source (such as methanol) or use
prefermenter to supplement
organic compounds to drive
denitrification
BOD--high in secondary
effluent
Promotes biological growth and fouls

membranes
Provide pretreatment (such as

PAC, granular activated carbon
[GAC], biologically activated
carbon [BAC] or ozone) to reduce
BOD, if needed
Requires more frequent membrane cleaning

and backwashes
Increases disinfectant/oxidant demand
Reduce either sulfate or barium

using IX or other technologies
Reduces efficacy of UV disinfection and other

disinfection processes
Calcium--high in
secondary effluent

with scale-forming ions such as carbonate,
fluoride, sulfate and phosphate
Acidify feed water (effective for

controlling only CaCO3 and
Ca3(PO4)2
Fouls UV lamps
Add antiscalant
Soften wastewater
Free chlorine, present in

disinfected secondary
effluent
Polymeric NF/RO membranes have no

tolerance to free chlorine even at trace
concentrations (<0.1 mg/L)
Dechlorinate the wastewater or

add ammonia to form combined
chlorine
EDR membranes have very little tolerance for

free chlorine (must be less than 0.5 mg/L)
Fluoride--high in
secondary effluent

with calcium
Hardness--high in
secondary effluent
Promotes membrane scaling and causes a

loss of productivity and deterioration of
permeate quality
Add antiscalant
Reduce either calcium or fluoride,
if needed
Reduce hardness
Fouls UV lamps
Iron and Manganese-high in secondary
effluent
May oxidize or form complexes with other

constituents and promote membrane fouling
Provide pretreatment for iron and

manganese
May damage membranes

Fouls UV lamp and reduced form reacts with
oxidants (such as chlorine, ozone, hydrogen
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-103
TABLE 2-7
Parameter
Impact
Mitigation
peroxide) and increases oxidation demand

Magnesium--high in
secondary effluent
Promotes scale formation
Reduce hardness
Microbial Parameters
Fouls low and high pressure membranes
Provide pretreatment (feed water

chloramination for example) to
reduce microbiological fouling
Oil and Grease--high in

raw wastewater
May promote Nocardia sp. growth and

foaming.
Establish good management

practices for oil and grease
removal
Reduces settlability, filterability, and

permeability
Oil and Grease--high in
secondary effluent
Fouls membranes
Exerts oxidant demand
Can form a film on UV lamps and reduce
effectiveness of UV disinfection
Establish good management

practices for oil and grease
removal
pH--raw wastewater
pH must be close to neutral range to allow

biological reactions
Add chemicals to bring pH to

neutrality
pH--secondary effluent
Affects chemical reactions, dissolution, and

precipitation of metals and sparingly soluble
salts. High pH increases CaCO3 and
Ca3(PO4)2 precipitation potential
Make pH adjustment
Phosphate--high in
secondary effluent
Promotes membrane scaling
Add acid and antiscalant
Stimulates biological growth
Provide biological or chemical

phosphorus removal to reduce
phopshorus
Silica (SiO2)--high in
secondary effluent
Promotes membrane scaling
Add antiscalant
Strontium--high in
secondary effluent

with sulfate
Sulfate--high in
secondary effluent

with scale-forming ions such as calcium,
barium, or strontium
Remove silica with either lime

softening or high pH IX
Add antiscalant
Reduce strontium, sulfate, or both
Add antiscalant
Reduce either sulfate or scaleforming ions
Increases corrosion
Temperature--raw
wastewater
WWTPs are designed to perform under a

wide range of temperatures and other
operating conditions to ensure balanced
microbial growth, proper oxygenation and
mass transfer, biochemical transformation for
organic and inorganic contaminant removal.
Temperature-secondary effluent high
Increases precipitation tendency of sparingly

soluble salts, which increases scaling
potential of NF/RO membranes and
increases UV lamp fouling
Increases salt passage and permeability in
NF/RO membranes
Reduces feed pressure for NF/RO
membranes
2-104
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
TABLE 2-7
Parameter
Impact
Mitigation
TDS--high in secondary
effluent
High TDS is a direct indicator of elevated

levels of sparingly soluble salts that promote
membrane scaling and cause a loss in
productivity and deterioration in permeate
quality. The sparingly soluble salts of
concern include CaCO3, CaF2, CaSO4,
BaSO4, Ca3(PO4)2, SrSO4, and silica (SiO2).
Add acid and antiscalant
TOC--high in secondary
effluent
Promotes organic/microbiological fouling on

membranes.
TOC fouling is best managed with

proper flux selection
Reduce individual ions
Reduces efficiency of UV disinfection.

TSS--high in secondary
effluent
Increases headloss or TMP during filtration,

shortens filtration times and membrane run
times, and reduces productivity
Provide coagulation prior to

filtration
Reduces efficacy of UV disinfection
Turbidity--high in
secondary effluent
Impacts are very similar to those of TSS
Provide coagulation prior to

filtration
Petroleum refining facilities process crude oil into various petroleum products via a series of
physical and chemical processes. Petroleum refinery wastewaters consist of process
wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, surface water runoff, and sanitary
wastewater. Wastewater generation is significant (up to 31,000 m3/day is reported, WEF,
FD-3, 2008). The main wastewater constituents include BOD5, oil and grease, pH, TSS,
amines, ammonia, chlorides, COD, hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, phenol, solvents, and
TDS. Wastewater treatment typically starts with segregation and treatment of sour water
(containing dissolved hydrogen sulfide, organic sulfur, and ammonia) via gas stripping
before discharge to the WWTP. Oil and solids removal is accomplished using dissolved air
floatation or settling ponds before biological treatment. Biological treatment options include
CAS systems, stabilization ponds, or trickling filters. In some instances, activated carbon or
sand filters can be used for polishing. MBR use couples biological treatment with membrane
filtration and eliminates further polishing.
The water quality requirements for industrial use may vary among the industries. For
example, most cooling towers at oil refineries require either secondary disinfected or tertiary
treated reclaimed water. Some industries may require much higher water quality (such as
high-pressure boiler feed water, semiconductor industry) where advanced treatment
technologies (such as RO and MED) produce such high-quality water. In each case, a
number of technologies can be used to meet industries reclaimed water quality objectives.
The selection of technology depends on the quality of the wastewater to be treated, sitespecific factors (such as available space), project-specific constraints (chemical
requirements, sludge and waste disposal requirements, ease of operation, etc.) and capital
and O&M costs.
Industries may be deterred from using reclaimed water because of the high conveyance
costs (piping and pumping) for conveying water from the water reclamation facility to the site
of use. Conveyance costs, on the other hand, have a very minor impact on water reuse
project costs if industrial facilities are located near water reclamation facilities or do not
require pumping. Industrial reuse case study examples discussed in Chapter 4 indicate that
the cost savings offered by the use of reclaimed water often outweigh the costs of
implementing additional treatment facilities to meet specific industrial process water quality
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-105
requirements. Reasonable water tariffs for industries make water conservation, treatment,
and reuse an attractive option for industries.
2.7 Summary and Path Forward

The need for alternative water resources, coupled with increasingly stringent water quality
discharge requirements, are the driving forces for developing water reuse strategies in the
world today. The growing trend is to consider water reuse as an essential component of
integrated water resources management and sustainable development, not only in dry and
water-deficient areas, but in water-abundant regions as well. Therefore, many wastewater
utilities are considering designing systems suitable for potential future water reuse
applications.
The technologies currently used for water reclamation have evolved from operations and
processes used for water and wastewater treatment (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). With the
valuable scientific knowledge developed over the past decade concerning emerging
constituents found in water and wastewater, the focus on water quality in water reuse
applications (such as indirect potable reuse applications) has greatly intensified. Therefore,
in response to water quality concerns, greater emphasis has recently been placed on
technologies that provide very efficient removal of suspended solids, pathogens, dissolved
solids, and emerging compounds. California Department of Health requires double
membrane barriers and advanced oxidation to address water quality concerns in
groundwater recharge projects in California (commonly referred to as indirect potable reuse).
Similar advanced water treatment schemes have been replicated in many indirect potable
reuse projects across the globe. Figure 2-48 presents a schematic of the advanced water
treatment schemes used at the Luggage Point Facility in Australia.
Many readily available current technologies are highly effective in reliably producing RQTSE,
which can be used for many purposes in KSA.
Other emerging and developmental technologies will soon be more widely available to
further increase the benefits of reuse by using less energy, or satisfying energy needs from
renewable sources or waste heat, creating less reject stream and unwanted byproducts,
treating and recovering concentrate streams for ZLD. These technologies can also be
adapted in KSA for treating and recovering wastewater streams
This chapter summarized technologies that can be applicable for wastewater treatment,
reclaimed water, and beneficial reuse in KSA. The following summary reflects the key
highlights and provides guidance on the path forward.
2-106
According to the proposed Draft Reuse Regulations for KSA (March 2011), reuse
schemes requiring secondary and tertiary treated wastewater shall meet the ammonia
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen limits of 5 and 10 mg/L, respectively. While BOD and TSS
limits can be satisfied by employing low carbon footprint technologies such as facultative
and oxidation ponds or constructed wetlands, more engineered technologies are needed
to meet proposed nitrogen limits. Some example technologies include Orbal ditches,
biologically active filters, Biolac, CAS and SBR systems designed for and operated at
biological nitrogen removal modes. CAS systems are highly proven and flexible for
conversion to MBR and biological/chemical phosphorus facilities, if higher-quality water
or phosphorus recovery is needed. Depth media filtration (such as mono, dual and multimedia filtration, Dynasand, etc.) and surface media filtration (disc and cloth media filters)
are low carbon footprint solutions compared to membrane based filtration technologies.
These technologies can meet the turbidity limit of 5 NTU proposed for secondary and
tertiary treated wastewaters. Chlorine disinfection can satisfy pathogen limit to meet
secondary and tertiary treated wastewater criteria. Sequential use of multiple
disinfection, such as chlorine-UV, chlorine-chloramination, UV-ozone, can be considered
for reducing DBP concerns.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE
ANTISCALANT
AMMONIA
MONOCHLORAMINE
FERRIC CHLORIDE
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
DISCHARGE
TO DRAIN
P
FLOCCULATION/
CLARIFIER PACKAGE
SYSTEM
SETTLED
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
FINE
SCREEN
MICRO
FILTRATION
RO FEED
TANK
CARTRIDGE
FILTER
RO
PRODUCT
STORAGE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
UV/
ADVANCED
OXIDATION
TREATED
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
SERVICE
WATER
METHANOL
SLUDGE TO WASTE
NITRATE
FEED
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT FEED EQUALISATION
PUMP
P
MF
BACKWASH
RECYCLE
CONCENTRATE
STORAGE TANK
GRAVITY TO
DRAIN
DENITRIFYING
FILTER
BACKWASH TO
WASTE
FIGURE 2-48
Luggage Point Potable Reuse Plant Schematic
For reuse applications requiring high water quality, use of a desalination technology for
salt and dissolved organic removal (high quality industrial applications, groundwater
recharge, etc.), following technologies could replace traditional RO use in the near
future. Use of ceramic membranes will provide adequate pretreatment for desalination
technology at reduced O&M costs:
Nanofiltration. This is a very promising technology that can remove TDS and reduce
emerging contaminants using much lower operating pressures than conventional RO
membranes. NF can be combined with aquifer storage and treatment projects to meet
indirect potable reuse requirements. One drawback of NF use is the low rejection of
nitrate which should be a concern for projects requiring additional nitrate removal. One
solution is to design or convert the existing wastewater treatment facility that will supply
the feed water for NF to achieve nitrogen removal upstream of NF.
Solar desalination. The high solar energy potential of KSA can be used in solar
projects to generate heat or electricity to drive desalination.
Humidification/dehumidification and membrane distillation. These processes are

attractive, if waste heat, low grade heat, or solar heat is available.
Forward Osmosis. Literature studies have shown that FO is a potentially a viable low
carbon footprint desalination alternative. Although the energy associated with FO is
low, the energy associated with reconstitution of draw solution, is potentially as high
as the desalination of seawater. Therefore, more research needs to be done to
identify draw solutions which do not require substantial energy when draw solution is
reconstituted.
Although anaerobic technologies reduce processing energy requirements in wastewater

treatment, gas production for energy may not be sufficient to justify the cost for treating
domestic wastewaters. Gas to energy benefits of these technologies may be recognized
when treating high COD containing industrial wastewaters.
Deammoniafication (DEMON) appears to be the most promising technology reducing

energy requirement and WAS generation without the need for organic carbon and
alkalinity addition for nitrogen removal. Although under current conditions, it is not cost
competitive for treatment of relatively low ammonia containing wastewaters (i.e., 25-40
mg/L ammonia-N typically found in raw domestic sewage), the recent research clearly
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-107
shows that is a very good alternative for treating high ammonia containing side-streams
generated from sludge dewatering facilities.
Hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) technology is a low carbon footprint

technology for treatment of oxidized compounds (nitrate, perchlorate, chlorate, etc.) from
wastewaters. The ineffectiveness of this process in removing reduced forms of organic
compounds, however, can limit use of this technology in wastewater treatment.
Carbon sequestration processes are very attractive for generating renewable energy.
However, most of these technologies are in early developmental stages, so it is unlikely
that these technologies will be seen in full-scale applications in the near future. Microalgae to biodiesel is the most investigated and potentially valuable technology for KSA
given the availability of vast land areas and high solar energy potential. Advances in
reactor technologies, harvesting methods, and final production technologies will likely
move this technology to a very prominent position in the near future. In the meantime,
numerous approaches can be taken to reduce energy consumption in wastewater
treatment facilities. Some examples include use of intermittent aeration, automated
SRT/DO control in activated sludge processes, ultrafine bubble diffusers, use of lowpressure high-output UV systems and variable frequency drives with pumps.
Phosphorus recovery technologies can be a good fit for KSA considering the extensive
agricultural and animal farming operations there. However, implementability of
phosphorus recovery technologies depends on the generation of enriched phosphorus
streams in the WWTP (e.g., anaerobically digested sludge) and the availability of
markets/users for the products. These technologies are suitable for large wastewater
treatment facilities or centralized biosolids digestion facilities.
Typical wastewater collection and disposal practices involve conveying all the
wastewater generated in a particular drainage to the most downstream (terminal) site for
treatment. As an alternative, decentralized reclamation plants (sometimes referred to as
satellite or scalping plants) can be used to intercept a portion of the collected
wastewater higher up in the drainage. Decentralized reclamation plants treat and
recycle water to a nearby distribution area and avoid otherwise wasted energy in
pumping back uphill from the more downstream terminal plant location. Centralized
facilities, on the other hand, make solids processing and resource recovery processes
more cost-effective.
2.8 References
Acra, A., Z. Raffoul, Z. and Y. Karahagopian. 1984. Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water
and Oral Rehydration Solutions. UNICEF (extract).
Angenent, Largus T. and S. Sung. 2000. Development of Anaerobic Migrating Blanket
Reactor (AMBR), A Novel Anaerobic Treatment System. Water Research. 35 (7), 739747.
Arturo-Schaan M., Sauvager F., Mamez C., Gougeon A., and Cormier M. 1996. Use of
Peracetic Acid as a Disinfectant in a Water Treatment Plant: Effect on the Plasmid Contents
of Escherichia coli Strains. Current Microbiology, 32, 43-47.
Baldry M.G.C. and French M.S. 1989. Activity of Peracetic Acid against Sewage Indicator
Organisms. Water Science and Technology, 21, 1747-1749.
Beckman J.R, Dewvaporation Desalination 5,000-Gallon-Per-Day Pilot Plant. 2008. DWPR
Report No. 120. Denver, Colorado.: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Bellona C., K. Bugdell, D. Ball, K. Spangler, J.E. Drewes and S. Chellam. 2011. Models
to Predict Organic Contaminant Removal by RO and NF Membranes. Proceedings of
2-108
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
American Water Works Association Membrane Technology Conference and Exposition.

March 2011.
Berg, U. and Schaum, C. 2005. Recovery of Phosphorus from Sewage Sludge and Sludge
Ashes: Applications in Germany and Northern Europe. Proceedings, 1st National Sludge
Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, March, 23rd 25th, 2005.
Biagini, B., B. Mack and T.A. Davis. 2010. Zero Discharge Desalination (ZDD) Technology
High Recovery Solution for Inland Desalination to Significantly Reduce Brine Disposal.
Proceedings of AMTA Annual Conference and Exposition. July 2010.
Blanco J., D. Alarcon, E. Zarza, S. Malato and J. Leon. 2007. Advanced Solar
Desalination: A Feasible Technology to the Mediterranean Area. White Paper Prepared for
CIEMAT Plataforma Solar de Almeria.
Block S.S. 1991. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation, 4th ed., Lea&Febiger Pubs.
Burch, D.J. and K.E. Thomas. 1998. Water Disinfection for Developing Countries and
Potential Solar Thermal Pasteurization. Solar Energy. 64 ( 13), 8797.
Burns, R.T. and L.B. Moody. 2002. Phosphorus Recovery from Animal Manures using
Optimized Struvite Precipitation. Proceedings of Coagulants and Flocculants: Global Market
and Technical Opportunities for Water Treatment Chemicals. Chicago, IL.
Caslake L.F., D.J. Connolly, V. Menon, C. M. Duncanson, R. Rojas and J. Tavakoli.
2004. Disinfection of Contaminated Water by Using Solar Irradiation. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, February 2004, 70 (2), 1145-1151,
Cath T.Y., J.E. Drewes and C. Lundin. 2009. A Novel Hybrid Forward Osmosis Reverse
Osmosis Process for Water Purification and Reuse, using Impaired and Saline Water.
Proceedings of American Water Works Association Membrane Technology Conference.
April 2009.
CH2M HILL, 2002. Review of Alternative Wastewater Disinfection Technologies- White
Paper. Prepared for CH2M HILL, August 2002.
CH2M HILL, 2007. Algae to Fuel: A Engineering Review, White Paper. Prepared for CH2M
HILL, December 2007.
CH2M HILL, 2008. Evaluation of Reject Treatment Technologies, Technical Memorandum.
Prepared for Eastern Municipal Water District. September 2008.
CH2M HILL, 2009. Brine-Concentrate Treatment and Disposal Options Report. Prepared
for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. October 2009.
CH2M HILL, 2010. Technical Memorandum-Evaluation of Sidestream Treatment
Technologies for Ammonia or Total Nitrogen Removal Part 1: Description, Review, and
Comparison. Prepared for Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. February 2011.
Christian, S., S. Grant, D. Wilson, P. McCarthy, D. Mills and M. Kolakowski. 2010. The
ANMBR Process and the First Year of Full-Scale ANMBR Operation Treating Salad
Dressing Wastewater. Proceedings of Water Environment Federation Membrane
Application Conference and Exposition. March 2010.
Colorado School of Mines. 2009. An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management
of Produced Water. Technical Assessment of Produced Water Treatment Technologies.
RPSEA Project 07122-12. November 2009.
Colgan S. and Gehr R. 2001. Disinfection. Water Environment Technology, 13(11), 29-33.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-109
Christen, K, 2006. Desalination Technology Could Clean Up Wastewater from Coal-bed

Methane Production. Environmental Science & Technology, January 11 2006.
Daigger, G.T., P. Sanjines, K. Pallansch, J. Sizemore and B. Wett, B. 2011.
Implementation of a Full-scale Anammox-based Facility to Treat an Anaerobic Digestion
Sidestream at the Alexandria Sanitation Authority Water Resource Facility. Proceedings of
the IWA/WEF Nutrient Recovery and Management: Inside and Outside the Fence
Conference. Miami, Florida. February 2011.
Durance, C., R. Hofmann, R.C. Andrews and M. Brown. 2005. Application of Ultraviolet
Light for Inactivation of Adenovirus. Proc. Disinfection 2005. Water Environment
Federation.
Faibish R.S., and Y. Cohen. (2001). Fouling-Resistant Ceramic-Supported Polymer
Membranes for Ultrafiltration of Oil-in-Water Microemulsions, Journal of Membrane Science,
185, 129-143.
Fan, Y., Hu, H., Liu, H. 2007. Enhanced Coulombic Efficiency and Power Density of Aircathode
Microbial Fuel Cells with an Improved Cell Configuration.
171(2), 348-354.
Journal of Power Sources.
Feachem R. E., D.J. Bradley, H. Garelick H. and D. Mara. 1983. Sanitation and
Disease: Health Aspects of Excreta and Wastewater Management. Wiley, New York.
Freguia, S., Teh, E.H., Boon, N., Leung, K.M., Keller, J., Rabaey, K. 2010. Microbial Fuel
Cells Operating on Mixed Fatty Acids. Bioresource Technology, 101(4), 1233-1238
Friese, D., R. Overstreet and G. Dobbeck. Membrane Biofilm Reactor Developments
Benefit Multicontaminant Treatment Performance. Proceedings of Water Reuse Association
California Section Conference and Exposition. March 2009.
Gaines, W.A., B.R. Kim, A.R. Drews, C. Bailey, T. Loch, S. Frenette. 2006.
Hydrodynamic
Cavitation Pilot Study for Controlling Cooling Water Quality. Proceedings of 79th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference. October 2006.
Glvez, A., Greenman, J., Ieropoulos, I. 2009. Landfill Leachate Treatment with Microbial
Fuel Cells: Scale-up Through Plurality. Bioresource Technology, 100(21) 5085-5091.
Global Water Intelligence. 2010. Volume 11 Issue 7, July 2010.
Gutierrez G., A. Lobo, D. Allende, A. Cambiella, C. Pazos, J. Coca, and J.M. Benito
(2008). Influence of Coagulant Salt Addition on the Treatment of Oil-in-Water Emulsions by
Centrifugation, Ultrafiltration, and Vacuum Evaporation. Separation Science and
Technology 43 1884 1895.
Hancock N.T. and T.Y. Cath, 2009. Novel Performance Modeling of Forward Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis Integrated Systems. Proceedings of American Water Works Association
Membrane Technology Conference. April 2009.
He, Z., Minteer, D. and Angenent, L. Electricity Generation from Artificial Wastewater Using
an Upflow Microbial Fuel Cell. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2005, 39 (14), 52625267
Huehmer R. and F. Wang, 2009. Energy in Desalination: Comparison of Energy
Requirements for Developing Desalination Techniques. Proceedings of American Water
Works Association Membrane Technology Conference and Exposition. April 2009.
2-110
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Jiang, D., E. Troop, K. Scheible, M. Curtis, D. Raymond and B. Li. 2010. High Power
Recovery with Large-scale Multi-anode/cathode Microbial Fuel Cells Treating Wastewater.
Proceedings of 83rd Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and
Conference. October 2010.
Jiang, J.Q., and B. Lloyd. (2002). Progress in the Development and Use of Ferrate (VI)
Salt as an Oxidant and Coagulant for Water and Wastewater Treatment. Water Research.
36, 1397-1408.
Joyce, E.; S.S. Phull, J.P. Lorimer and T.J. Mason. 2003. The Development and
Evaluation of Ultrasound for the Treatment of Bacterial Suspensions. A Study of Frequency,
Power and Sonication Time on Cultured Bacillus Species. Ultrason. Sonochem. 10 (6),
315-318.
Kim, J.R., Premier, G.C., Hawkes, F.R., Rodrguez, J., Dinsdale, R.M., Guwy, A.J. 2010.
Modular Tubular Microbial Fuel Cells for Energy Recovery During Sucrose Wastewater
Treatment at Low Organic Loading Rate. Bioresource Technology. 101 (4)1190-1198.
Koivunen, J. and H. Heinonen-Tanski. 2005. Inactivation of Enteric Microorganisms with
Chemical Disinfectants, UV Irradiation and Combined Chemical/UV Treatments. Water Res.
39 (8), 1519-1526.
Kristen, K. 2007. Environmental Costs of Desalination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(16),
5576-5579.
Lattemann, S., Kennedy, M., Schippers, J. and Amy, G. 2010. Chapter 2 Global
Desalination Situation, Sustainability Science and Engineering. 2, 7-39.
Lazarova V., Janex M.L., Fiksdal L., Oberg C., Barcina I. and Pommepuy M. 1998.
Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies: short and long term efficiency. Water
Science and Technology, 38, 109-117
Lefevre F., Audic J.M. and Ferrand F. 1992. Peracetic Acid Disinfection of Secondary
Effluents Discharged off Coastal Seawater. Water Science and Technology, 25(12), 155164.
Li, Xiang, B. Hu, S. Suib, Y. Lei and B. Li. 2010. Manganese Dioxide as a New Cathode
Catalyst in Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC). Proceedings of 79th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference. October 2006.
Liu, H., Ramnarayanan, R. and Logan, B.E. 2004. Production of Electricity during
Wastewater Treatment using a Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell. Environ. Sci and
Technol. 38, 2281-2285.
Lin, N.H., M. Kim, G.T. Lewis and Y. Cohen. 2010. Polymer Surface Nano-structuring of
Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Fouling Resistance and Improved Flux Performance.
Journal of Material and Chemistry, 20, 4642-4652.
Loeb S. (1998). Energy Production at the Dead Sea by Pressure-Retarded Osmosis:
Challenge or Chimera? Desalination 120: 247262.
Logan, B.E., Aelterman, P., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R., Schreder, U., Keller, J., Freguiac,
S., Verstraete, W. and Rabaey, K. 2006. Microbial Fuel Cells: Methodology and
Technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(17), 5181-5192.
Logan, B.E., Cheng, S., Watson, V. and Estadt, G. 2007. Graphite Fiber Brush Anodes for
Increased Power Production in Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells. Environ. Sci.Technol.,
41(9), 3341-3346.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-111
Mansell B., P. Ackman, C.C. Tung and P. Fu. 2011. Comparison of Nanofiltration and
Reverse Osmosis Membranes to Produce High Quality Water for Indirect Potable Reuse.
Proceedings of American Water Works Association Membrane Technology Conference and
Exposition. March 2011.
McCutcheon J.R., R.L. McGinnis, and M. Elimelech. 2005. A Novel Ammonia-Carbon

Dioxide Forward (direct) Osmosis Desalination Process, Desalination 174, 1-11.
Mehanna, M., Saito, T., Yan, J., Hickner, M., Xiaoxin, C., Huang, X. and Logan, B.E. 2010.
Using microbial desalination cells to reduce water salinity prior to reverse osmosis. Energy
Environ. Sci. 3(8), 1114-1120.
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed. McGraw
Hill Publishing, USA.
Metcalf and Eddy, 2007. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. McGraw
Hill Publishing, USA.
Morris R. (1993) Reduction of Microbial Levels in Sewage Effluents Using Chlorine and
Peracetic acid Disinfectants. Water Science and Technology, 27(3-4), 387-393.
Neis, U. and T. Blume. 2003. Ultrasonic Disinfection of Wastewater Effluents for HighQuality Reuse. Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply, 3(4), 261-267.
Prieto, A. L., H. Futselaar, P. Lens, G. Amy and D.H. Yeh. 2010. Gas-lift Anaerobic
Membrane Bioreactor (Gl-AnMBR): Preliminary Results from a Filterability Assessment.
Proceedings of Water Environment Federation Membrane Application Conference and
Exposition. March 2010.
Ried, A., J. Mielcke, M. Kampmann, T.A. Ternes and B. Teiser. 2004. Ozone and UV
Processes for Additional Wastewater Treatment to Remove Pharmaceuticals and EDCs;
Proc. IWA LeadingEdge Technologies Conf., IWA Publishing, 2004
Rittmann, B.E. 2007. The Membrane Biofilm Reactor is a Versatile Platform for Water and
Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Eng. Res., 12, (4), 157-175.
Roeleveld, P., P. Loeffen, H. Temmink and B. Klapwijk. (2004). Dutch Analysis for Precovery from Municipal Wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 49 (10), 191-199
Rodrguez G. and Camacho G, 2001. Perspectives of SolarAssisted Seawater Distillation.
Desalination. 126, 213218.
Salamero F. D. 2004. Modelling of Membrane Distillation Processes. Computer Aided
Process Engineering Center, Department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of
Denmark, Denmark.
Salveson, A., N. Goel, M. Scott, P. McCole and C. Bergman. 2009. Preliminary
Technology Assessment Effluent Disinfection Study for Six Kansas City WWTPs.
Proceedings of 82nd Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and

Conference. October 2006.
Scott, L., M Sivakumar, and H. Dharmappa. 2007. Optimising Membrane Distillation Using
Hollow Fibres. Sustainable Earth Research Centre, Environmental Engineering University of
Wollongong, Australia
Seed, L.P., Daren D. Yetman, Yuri Pargaru and Gene S. Shelp. 2006. The DESEL
System- Capacitive Deionization for the Removal of Ions from Water. Proceedings of 79th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference. October 2006.
2-112
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Sharma, V.K., F. Kazama, F., H. Jiangyong and A.K. Ray. 2005. Ferrates (Iron(VI) and
Iron(V)): Environmentally friendly oxidants and disinfectants. Journal of Water and Health 3
(14), 117-125.
Soubhagya K. P., E. R. Hall and P. R. Brub, 2010. Study of Submerged Anaerobic
Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR) Treating Municipal Wastewater. Proceedings of 83rd Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference. October 2010.
Srisawat, P., A.B. Streiffer, D.N. Barbeau, T.E. Wiese, D. Grimm, B.K. Skaggs, A.J.
Englande, Jr., and R. S. Reimers. 2010. Reduction of Estrogenic Activity in Wastewater
Following Treatment with Ferrate. Proceedings of 83rd Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference. October 2010.
Tao G., B. Viswanath, K. Kekre, L.Y.Lee, H.Y. Ng, W.C.L. Lay and H. Seah. 2009. RO
Brine Treatment by a Capacitive Deionization Based Process to Increase Water Recovery.
Proceedings of 13th Annual Water Reuse and Desalination Research Conference. May
2009.
Thu K., A. Chakraborty, B.B. Saha, W. G.Chun, K.C. Ng. 2010. Life-cycle Cost Analysis
of Adsorption Cycles for Desalination. Desalination and Water Treatment. Vol. 20, Issue 3.
August 2010.
Trieb, F. and H.M. Steinhagen. 2008. Concentrating Solar Power for Seawater
Desalination in the Middle East and North Africa. Desalination. 220, 165183.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2009. Multibeneficial Use of Produced Water
Through High-Pressure Membrane Treatment and Capacitive Deionization Technology.
Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 133.
September 2009.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2008. Emerging Technologies for
Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management. EPA 832-R-06-006.
February 2008.
USEPA 2010. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. EPA 832-R-10-005. September 2010.
Wade, T., K. Bourgeous, V. Hart, A. Salveson, K. Linden, J. Bandy, P. Ruiz-Haas and J.
Thurston. 2008. Titanium Dioxide Photocatalysis for Trace Organics & Pathogen
Destruction in Recycled Water. Proceedings of 12th Annual Water Reuse and Desalination
Research Conference. May 2008.
Wagner M., Brumelis D. and Gehr R. (2002) Disinfection of Wastewater by Hydrogen
Peroxide or Peracetic Acid: Development of Procedures for Measurement of Residual
Disinfectant and Application to a Physicochemically Treated Municipal Effluent. Water
Environment Research, 74(1), 33-50.
Waite, T.D. 1979. Feasibility of Wastewater Treatment with Ferrate. J. Environ. Eng.
Division,105(6).
Wang X. and K.C. Ng. 2005. Experimental Investigation of an Adsorption Desalination
Plant Using Low-temperature Waste Heat. Applied Thermal Engineering. 25, 27802789.
Water Desalination Report. 2008. Volume 44, Number 10. April 2008.
Water Desalination Report. 2009. Volume 45, Number 27. July 2009.
Weidelener A., Maier W. and Krampe J. (2007). Recovery of Phosphorus from Sewage
Sludge. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference of the Water
Environment Federation, Oct. 13-17, 2007, San Diego, CA, 417-424.
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
2-113
Wegelin, M., S. Canonica, K. Mechsner, T. Fleischmann, F. Pesaro and A. Metzler.

1994. Solar Water Disinfection: Scope of the Process and Analysis of Radiation
Experiments. J Water SRT-Aqua 43, 154169.
WERF. 2003. Water Environment Research Foundation. A Novel Membrane Process For
Autotrophic Denitrification. 00-CTS-14ET. 2003.
WERF. 2008. Water Environment Research Foundation Disinfection of Wastewater
EffluentComparison of Alternative Technologies. 00-HHE-4. 2008.
Xu, P. J. E. Drewes, C. Bellona, G. Amy, T. U. Kim, M. Adam, and T. Heberer. 2005.
Rejection of Emerging Organic Micropollutants in NanofiltrationReverse Osmosis
Membrane Applications. Water Environment Research. 77 (1), 40-48.
Xu P., J.E. Drewes, D. Heil, and G. Wang (2008 a) Treatment of Brackish Produced
Water Using Carbon Aerogel-based Capacitive Deionization Technology, Water
Research, 40, 2605-2617.
Xu P. and J.E. Drewes (2008 b), Sustainability of Implementing Desalination Technology.
Proceedings of Water Reuse and Desalination Research Conference. May 2008.
Yangali-Quintanilla, V., A. Sadmani, M. McConville, M. Kennedy and G. Amy. 2009.
Rejection of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds by
Clean and Fouled Nanofiltration Membranes. Water Research, 43 (9), 2349-2362.
2-114
STRATEGIC SUMMARY
Chapter 3: Public Education and

Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use
3.1 Introduction
Water scarcity and sustainability is emerging as a global issue and is being acknowledged at
high-profile gatherings of world leaders, including the United Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development, the Global Water Forum in Kyoto, and the Copenhagen Climate
Change Conference. It was also a focus of the 2011 Gulf Environment Forum held in KSA.
In KSA, potable water is produced from either non-renewable or very slowly renewable water
resources such as groundwater and through expensive and energy-intensive desalination of
seawater or other purification processes for saline water sources. Much of the potable water
produced from these costly sources is used for non-potable purposes, and these sources
cannot sustainably meet the future potable and non-potable water demands.
Water reuse is an essential component of integrated water resources management and
sustainable development, especially in water-scarce regions, and is a rapidly growing trend.
In many of the largest cities in KSA, water is reclaimed by advanced treatment and then
used in urban settings, primarily for landscaping and irrigation. The use of reclaimed water
in industrial settings is increasing, and additional markets are developing. Figure 3-1 depicts
the current and projected use of reclaimed water, by type.
However, developing these markets and fully realizing the potential for reclaimed water
usage will depend on understanding current barriers and then building public understanding,
trust, and support for reuse in KSA. This point is reinforced by Troy Hartley in his
presentation at the International Conference on Integrated Concepts on Water Recycling in
2005. While water reuse has been demonstrated to be a viable solution for water scarcity in
countries like USA, Singapore, and Australia, reuse projects have failed in the recent past in
some countries because of lack of public acceptance. Public acceptance must be grounded
in the broader context of water resources management, but also with attention to the issues
and needs specific to reuse.
To establish a greater understanding of water resource issues, the Saudi Water Act (MOWE,
2010) provides that MOWE, in coordination with the MOA, Ministry of Education and Ministry
of Higher Education, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and Ministry of Culture and Information, is
responsible for preparing an effective water education strategy. This strategy must promote
a culture in which the population is aware of water-related problems and challenges and is
capable of addressing them.
This purpose of this chapter is to identify potential barriers to reuse and to outline policy
(infrastructure investment, regulations and enforcement and pricing), public education, and
outreach activities that can be employed to create an environment favorable to expanded
reuse.
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS TO PROMOTE RECYCLED WATER USE
7000
6000
5000
Agriculture
Recreation
4000
Landscaping
1,000 M /d
Aquifer Recharge
3000
Industrial
2000
1000
2010
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
FIGURE 3-1
Total Existing and Projected Future Reuse Use by Type in KSA

The information provided in this chapter is intended to complement what currently exists in
the Saudi Water Act, but is specifically intended to focus on activities related to the need for
additional reuse in the future.
3.1 Barriers to Reuse Implementation in KSA

3.1.1 Technology, Infrastructure, and Public Trust
In many of KSAs cities, current WWTP design capacity is only half of the potable water
demand. As discussed in Chapter 1, only 40 percent of the wastewater is collected through
the sewer network and tankers and treated in WWTPs due to limitations in the wastewater
treatment network and WWTPs. The wastewater treated to a secondary or higher level is
approximately 78 percent of the limited treatment capacity. Only about 62 percent of the
2.56 million M3/day of wastewater treated in KSA is collected through sewers and the
remainder is collected in septic tanks/cesspits and taken by trucks to the WWTPs. Soak pits
are still being operated, allowing the sewage water to percolate and pollute the groundwater.
Tertiary treatment with UF and RO membranes that can produce very high quality recycled
water are yet to be adopted at KSAs major WWTPs; however, planned facilities would
incorporate tertiary treatment. In addition, KSA does not yet have an established distribution
network to supply recycled water to end users. Recycled water is currently being distributed
primarily through trucks.
The limitations in the advancement of water reuse can be summarized as follows:
3-2
The existing infrastructure is lacking in wastewater treatment capacity.
STRATEGIC STUDY
Sewer systems are leaking and the overall infrastructure network lacks sufficient
connectivity and advanced treatment plants to increase recycled water availability at
higher quality.
Aging WWTPs are producing recycled water of inadequate quality.
There is no network to distribute high-quality recycled water to end users.
Generally, the public has often been unclear about the difference between municipal
wastewater, grey water, and recycled water. However, the public is aware of being
adversely affected by the pollution caused by the lack of wastewater collection or when
the existing municipal WWTPs dump poor quality effluent into the environment.
Additionally, there is a lack of credible information about (1) the types of treatment
processes available and the capability of WWTPs to produce recycled water meeting
government standards and (2) the quality of recycled water that is recommended for
various applications. The result is fear of using the recycled water due to beliefs that
such use would result in health problems
In order to meet the stated reuse objectives and build public trust, KSA must make
prioritized investments in wastewater collection, treatment, and distribution and share
relevant information about appropriate treatment processes to ensure the protection of
public health.
3.1.2 Socio-Cultural Beliefs and Religious Practices

The KSA public generally has a negative opinion about recycled water. Saudi Arabians use
potable water for ablution, which is a religious ritual carried out before prayer, and many
believe that use of recycled water will invalidate their ablution, even though the recycled
water is free from impurities and, according to the religious guidelines, can be used for
ablutions. (This has been the major factor in slowing the acceptance of recycled water.)
Many countries have considerable Muslim populations that have benefitted from using
recycled water. In these countries, fatwas have been issued to clarify that using recycled
water for ablution (and even drinking) is acceptable, provided the water meets the
specifications established. In KSA, the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars issued a fatwa in
1978 stating that recycled water can be used for ablution and drinking, provided that it is
sufficiently and appropriately treated to ensure good health. A translated excerpt from the
fatwa is reproduced below:
According to the report prepared by the experts in this regard, a large body of water would
be pure from any impurity if such impurity is removed, if more water is added to it, or if such
impurity is eliminated by the passage of time, the sun, the wind, or any other cause that
would remove its impurity. Impure water could be purified by modern filtering techniques
that are the best and most efficient methods for purification, in which many materials will be
added to remove impurities and certified by the water treatment experts. Therefore, this
Council believes that such water will be totally pure and may be used for ritual purification
and drinking as long as there are no negative consequences to health. If drinking is to be
avoided, it is merely for reasons of public health and safety, not because of any ramifications
of Islamic Law.
The following actions will help change religious perceptions and will be included in the
outreach activities:
Publicize the fatwa issued in 1978 approving the use of recycled water and invite many
Islamic scholars to support and promote this change.
Encourage the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars in KSA to publish additional fatwas
that promote the use of recycled water.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-3
Conduct mosque programs to clarify to the public that recycled water is a safe and
valuable resource.
Engage and feature religious scholars in TV, radio, and other programs explaining that
recycled water can be treated to achieve high purity levels.
Issue statements of religious scholars approving use of recycled water in newspapers

and on TV, radio, and public displays.
Conduct debates on recycled water in religious seminars.
3.1.3 Public Perceptions and Terminology

In KSA, there is significant reluctance to using recycled water even for irrigation and
industries. Research conducted in Singapore, Australia, and USA also indicates that reuse
projects have a high risk of public rejection, in part because of the words and images used to
explain such projects. The words used to describe recycled water have great power. From
the surveys conducted in Australia and USA, it was observed that derivatives of the word
pure (such as purer than, purity, and purified) tend to reassure people that water is safe to
be returned to the drinking supply. Key findings from the research conducted by the
WateReuse Research Foundation are summarized below (Macpherson and Slovic, 2011).
Lack of knowledge is the major reason for public opposition to water reuse projects. It
has been observed in USA, Singapore, and Australia that information provided on
wastewater treatment increased public understanding of water quality and treatment and
willingness to use recycled water for agriculture and industries. Providing easily
understandable technical details explaining the treatment process stages, the
terminology used, the quality of water achievable through treatment, and the effects of
various constituents in the recycled water had a positive effect on public perception,
including an increasing tendency to trust the process and accept reuse. During the
surveys, the public agreed that transparency is vitally important to establishing trust and
that the information should be available in an easy-to-understand, accessible format for
those who are interested.
The words wastewater and sewer tend to dissuade people from using recycled water,
probably because of the negative connotations of the terms sewer, sewage, and waste.
In one project, managers posted a sign reading Recycled Water: Do Not Drink.
Unfortunately, more than half of the survey respondents interpreted that phrase to mean
that recycled water should never be used for drinking, which indicates that the sign was
having adverse, misleading effects on reuse projects.
Media coverage also has a powerful effect on public perceptions of reuse. Specifically,
media treatment of the health impacts of trace organic contaminants (and similar
contaminant-related stories) may convey scientific information in a way that exaggerates,
dramatizes, or distorts scientific information. Coverage can also use stigmatizing
language that politicizes or sensationalizes the story. These types of stories can lead to
confusion among the public about the role of pharmaceuticals and personal care
products in water systems. Sensational media coverage, phrases, and images play a
strong role in shaping the publics image of reuse. In some cases, readers draw
conclusions from headlines rather than reading the actual publication.
Issues defined as emerging or new tend to create more concern than others. Although
water reuse is not new, the opportunities and the technologies available are not well
known. In addition, the terminology is sometimes inconsistent and emphasizes the
source of the water (wastewater) rather than its quality (resulting from advanced
technology and monitoring).
3-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
Knowledge and understanding of

water quality gained through
exposure to simple and easy-tounderstand information are the keys
to acceptance of water recycling.
Viewing a clear, short presentation
from a knowledgeable presenter,
coupled with a visual, interactive
explanation of the technology with
examples of water recycling around
the world, increases the acceptance
of water recycling. In a NEWater
Explorer program in Singapore the
presentations overall received
positive comments, particularly the
tutorials. Participants noted that the
graphics (especially the graphic that
magnified the RO membrane 100
million times) clearly communicated
how membranes work to protect
public health.
Survey respondents indicated that
lack of knowledge about
wastewater treatment processes is
the main reason for the publics
negative opinions toward reuse
projects, whether for potable or
nonpotable use, rather than lack of
trust.
Challenges in educating people in KSA on

recycled water are listed below:
The publics understanding of water science is

generally poor.
Approaches to project communication must

feature easily understood images and words that
simply, clearly, and convincingly explain water
and wastewater quality and treatment to the
public.
The water community must determine (1) how

levels of water treatment can be explained
effectively, (2) how to adequately explain the
nature of recycled water in a way that leads to
public acceptance of its safety, (3) how
increased knowledge of water quality and
treatment can be used to improve acceptance,
(4) what types of information the public needs to
understand how water can be treated, managed,
used, and reused, and (5) what words and
images can be used to improve public
acceptance.
An understanding of how branding can help

promote reuse is needed.
The public has received inconsistent and

misleading messages in the past. Due to the
sensitive nature of the subject, the overall
approach and a water recycling glossary must
focus on communication techniques that will
boost success. A new, consistent vocabulary
that can be used to explain management of
water may prevent public rejection of otherwise
technically valid strategies and could contribute
to the success of reuse projects.
Respondents indicated more

concern about the risk to human
health and the environment from
climate change and smog than from
pharmaceuticals detected in trace
amounts in drinking water. They
were somewhat more concerned
about plasticizers found in water
The public must be educated about potential
bottles than pharmaceuticals.
health and environmental risks associated with
When the word microconstituents
recycled water use without receiving negative,
was used, it rated as a lower
misleading messages.
concern than pharmaceuticals or
plasticizers found in water. Researchers assumed this is because the word
microconstituents is not understood to include both pharmaceuticals and plasticizers.
Respondents were not particularly opposed to reusing water that has been used by
humans, but they were broadly opposed to reusing water that has been in a sewer.
There appears to be a lack of understanding that water in a sewer includes water that
has been used by people as well as other water that enters the sewer, such as
stormwater, inflow, and infiltration. The words and images associated with sewers,
toilets, and waste have been observed to create a very negative impact among the
public.
The best way for the water community to proceed is (1) to make sure that the full urban
water cycle story is told so that the public receives accurate information and (2) to
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-5
partner with the media early in a projects planning stage and frequently throughout the
process.
Approaches to project communication must feature easily understood images and words that
simply, clearly, and convincingly explain water and wastewater quality and treatment to the
public.
If such a study were conducted in KSA, similar observations would be expected. In
designing the Public Education, Outreach, and Awareness Program for KSA, lessons
learned from previous work will be used to enhance program success.
3.1.4 Water Tariffs in Middle East

Pricing policy is one of the main driving factors for water reuse or lack thereof. Water tariffs
are set based on a number of formal criteria defined by law, as well as informal criteria.
Formal criteria typically include one or more of the following:
Financial criteria (cost recovery)

Economic criteria (efficiency pricing based on marginal cost)
Environmental criteria (incentives for water conservation)
Social and political considerations often are also important in setting tariffs. Tariff structures
and levels are influenced in some cases by the desire to avoid an overly harsh burden on
poor users or by other political considerations. Water tariffs should be easy to understand
for consumers. This is not always the case for the more complex types of tariffs, such as
increasing-block tariffs and tariffs that differentiate between different categories of users.
The potable water tariff in KSA is the lowest in the region. Due to huge pervasive subsidies
for potable water in KSA, though the production and transmission cost is close to SR 6 per
m, the delivered potable water cost to the public is close to only SR 0.15 per m. This lowcost potable water has resulted in high per capita consumption of potable water in KSA and
has not provided incentives for the public to use recycled water. Until pricing structures for
potable and reuse water are revisited, the public (and targeted reuse customers) will not be
financially incentivized to replace current potable usage with reuse water. Reuse water must
not only be safe and reliable, it must also be cost-competitive.
MOWE has recognized this fact and is addressing the price issue related to potable water
and recycled water in the draft Saudi Water Act. Further discussion of the business case
related to reuse opportunities is presented in Chapter 4.
3.1.5 Water Resource Management Structure

Including water reuse as an essential component of integrated water resources management
and sustainable development is a growing trend around the world, not only in water-deficient
areas but also in water-abundant regions. Numerous countries have established water
resources planning policies based on maximum reuse of urban wastewater. KSA currently
has several regulating entities covering different aspects of reuse regulations. This can be
confusing for the public and result in regulatory gaps in planning and enforcement.
Regulations are discussed further in Chapter 7.
Regulating agencies in KSA are:
Presidency of Meteorology and Environment (PME)

MOWE
Saudi Arabian Standards Organization ( SASO)
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu (RCJY)
Saudi Aramco
PME regulates water quality standards for:
3-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
Pretreatment guidelines for discharge to central treatment facilities

Receiving water quality
Performance standards for direct discharge
General environmental law and its implementation procedures
MOWE regulates the following:
Treated wastewater and its reuse regulations and implementation, including reuse for
agricultural purposes, industrial purposes, aquifer injection, municipal reuse, recreation,
and fish aquaculture.
SASO water quality standards regulate:
Bottled drinking water

Non-bottled drinking water (which includes physical, biological, and microbial
characteristics)
The following water quality regulations are applicable to areas within the RCJY:
Ambient Water Quality Standards for Receiving Waters in Coastal Areas
Effluent Standards for Direct Discharge
Standards for Pretreatment and Discharge of Pollutants from Regulated Industrial

Wastewater Sources
Standards for Discharge to Irrigation Systems
Ballast Water Discharge Standards
Potable Water Quality Standards
Agricultural reuse is often a first target of reuse planning, as it is in KSA. Reuse in

agricultural applications is currently practiced today in almost all arid areas of the world. In
many regions, particularly in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America,
unplanned use of inadequately treated wastewater for irrigation of crops continues and is
often confused by the public with planned and regulated reuse. This major health concern
makes it imperative that governments and the global community implement proper reuse
planning, management, and regulations emphasizing public health and environmental
protection, during this era of rapid development of wastewater collection and treatment
systems. To allow systematic planning, investment, and protection of public health as reuse
expands in KSA, a management structure focusing on reuse should be explored.
3.1.6 Regulations and Recycled Water Quality

Water reuse standards or guidelines vary with the type of application, the regional context,
and the overall perception of risk. Depending on the project specifications, there will be
different water quality requirements, treatment process requirements, and criteria for
operation and reliability. (Details concerning water reuse standards and guidelines are
presented in Chapter 7.) However, the starting point for any water reuse project for any
application is ensuring public health and safety. For this reason, microbiological parameters
have received the most attention in water reuse regulations. Since monitoring for all
pathogens is not realistic, specific indicator organisms are monitored to minimize risk.
Different countries have developed different approaches to protecting public health and the
environment, but the major factor in choosing a regulatory strategy is economics, specifically
the cost of treatment and monitoring. Most developed countries have established
conservatively low risk guidelines or standards based on a high-technology/high-cost
approach, such as the California (USA) standards. However, high standards and high-cost
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-7
techniques do not always guarantee low risk because factors such as insufficient operational
experience, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and regulatory control can have
adverse effects. A number of developing countries advocate another strategy for controlling
health risks by adopting a low-technology/low-cost approach based on the World Health
Organization (WHO) recommendations. Further discussion of reuse standards is presented
in Chapter 7.
In spite of the economic and ecological advantages associated with water recycling, the key
issue remains public health and safety. The reuse of untreated wastewater, still widely
practiced in several regions in nations such as China, India, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan,
Nepal, Vietnam, and most of South America, leads to enteric diseases, helminthic infections,
and dangerous epidemics (USEPA, 2004). In addition to public health risks, insufficiently
treated effluent may also have detrimental effects on the environment. For example, high
salinity levels in effluent can lead to a decrease in productivity for certain crops and
destabilization of the soil structure. Another possible adverse effect is groundwater pollution.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Water passed Royal Decree M/6 in 1999 with regulations
encouraging reuse of treated wastewater for agriculture. Though many Royal Decrees have
been issued in KSA and the MOA has issued regulations in the form of ROI, they have not
been strictly enforced. Consistency of enforcement and associated standards is currently an
issue in KSA and should be addressed if public trust of recycled water is expected to
increase. Further discussion of this issue is provided in Chapter 7.
3.2 Proposed Policy, Public Education, and Awareness Actions

to Promote Recycled Water Use
The following recommendations are intended to address the barriers to successful
implementation of reuse plans in KSA. While the majority of the proposed actions are specific
to public education and awareness, the actions also include suggestions to address
organizational and leadership barriers, financial incentives, and innovative applications of
technology.
3.2.1 Organization and Leadership

Recycled Water Hub
A Recycled Water Hub will be formed to provide a strategic platform for leveraging the
development of water reuse technologies, learning, and networking. Positioning itself as a
center for recycled water excellence, the Recycled Water Hub can serve as a launching pad
for both local and international water treatment companies that are eager to capitalize on the
business and research and development (R&D) opportunities in KSA.
The Recycled Water Hub will strive to be:
Primarily an R&D incubator center to find more competitive, innovative, and efficient
technologies for use of recycled water
Secondarily (1) an institute for advanced learning for recycled water professionals (2) a
knowledge and networking hub, and (3) a link between industry, water treatment
companies, and utilities
Leading international companies like Siemens, Nitto Denko, and GE will be encouraged to
set up bases and laboratories at the Recycled Water Hub. With the analytical lab services,
close proximity to test sites, and access to R&D funding and technologies, the Water Reuse
Hub can drive the development of more competitive, innovative, and efficient technologies in
the water reuse sector.
3-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
Steering Committee
A Steering Committee of knowledgeable, influential decision-makers, who can effect
changes in laws, regulations, restrictions, implementation, and enforcement, should be
formed under MOWE to analyze the new requirements and draft policies and procedures to
assist MOWE in establishing new policies. The committee would also work to increase the
momentum toward water reuse and would consist of representatives from:
NWC
Ministry of Religious Affairs
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Health
MODON
MOA
KAUST
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)
Chambers of Commerce
PME
Business Community
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Saudi Arabian Water &
Environmental Society
The committee would be responsible for reviewing and approving the promotional public
awareness and education campaign materials, including documents, posters, TV clips,
presentations, seminars, etc., for recycled water.
3.2.2 Incentives and Penalties

Incentives provided by government to the people who directly or indirectly use recycled
water for an industry, farm, or building will encourage more people to use recycled water.
The incentives can be in the form of providing one or more of the following:
Power provided on priority

Water connection provided on priority
Industrial/municipal license provided on priority
Subsidy in the form of a percentage of the cost of the recycled water infrastructure
Cash incentives
The government should consider the use of penalties to discourage people from discharging
wastewater to the network and using freshwater, where recycled water can be used. The
penalties and other actions should be most or all of the following:
Set policies and regulations to promote a water reuse environment.
Establish drivers (incentives and penalties) for accepting the change to using recycled
water.
Set wastewater collection charges that are much higher than charges for potable water.
Impose very high charges for granting approval to drill wells for agriculture where a
recycled water connection is available in the vicinity.
Withhold permission for constructing or operating an industry or decline to renew the

commercial registration.
Withhold a power connection and discontinue the power connection to those who do not
comply with the regulations.
Impose a penalty (including imprisonment in extreme cases) for violations.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-9
Encourage both public and private sectors to take joint ownership of efforts to maximize
water reuse.
3.2.3 Surveys and Research

A series of surveys and focus groups will be conducted to better understand the publics level
of knowledge about water resources, including both water and wastewater treatment, as well
as levels of trust, knowledge, and experience with recycled water. Since public resistance to
water reuse is a known fact, the surveys will focus on determining the factors driving
resistance to reuse. The primary objective will be to evaluate how the terminology used to
describe recycled water may have affected outcomes. The secondary objective will be to
examine how education and knowledge about recycled water relate to public acceptance. A
third objective will be to test different delivery models for how best to increase public
acceptance of reuse. Few researchers in developed countries have taken a holistic view of
the topic of reuse to ensure that the conversation focuses on the costs and benefits of a
particular project in a water cycle context.
Surveys conducted in the USA and Australia suggest that the yuck factor (a term used to
describe negative reactions) does affect the publics acceptance of reuse projects
(Macpherson and Slovic, 2011). Educating the public about the water cycle, treatment
technologies, and the safety of recycled water can help to overcome these negative
reactions and foster acceptance.
The surveys will be both quantitative and qualitative, covering different demographic sectors,
including industries and agriculture. The survey team will review surveys conducted in other
countries. The survey questionnaires can be used for reference and modified to suit the
Saudi Arabian culture. The surveys can be conducted individually or collectively in a group
during seminars or even by telephone. However, individual surveys and group surveys tend
to produce more reliable results than telephone surveys. These surveys will enable the
water community to use proper terminology in the communication and refine the overall
strategy for the Public Education, Outreach, and Awareness Program.
3.2.4 Key Messages and Implementation Approach

Using information obtained from the research and other sources, key messages pertaining
to all aspects of reuse will be developed. The purpose will be to illustrate the need for KSA
to pursue water reuse to achieve both economic benefits and environmental improvements.
It is envisioned that these key messages will address technical, economic, environmental,
social, safety, and religious issues, such as those listed below:
KSA faces water-related stress and has had to make huge investments in desalination
plants (as discussed in Chapter 1) and pipelines to distribute an adequate quantity of
safe and clean water.
Benefits associated with water reuse include savings from not having to develop new
water sources, reduced treatment requirements, and the economic value of the recycled
water.
Recycled water is available in different levels of water quality for different applications
due to the higher cost associated with higher degrees of purification.
The treatment cost of desalinated water is higher than the cost of producing recycled
water.
The general Saudi public will pay attention if they understand that future generations will be
adversely affected by a continued dwindling of groundwater levels and continued high costs
of desalinated water production.
3-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
Religious perceptions are deeply rooted in the Saudi people. New concepts must be
introduced and explained clearly and systematically. Therefore a phased approach to
implementation of reuse is suggested. Implementation phases may be as follows:
Phase 1: Agricultural and industrial applications, possibly toilet flushing
Phase 2: Treated grey water for ablution and cleaning
Phase 3: Injecting recycled water to limit saltwater intrusion and replenish groundwater
reserves
Phase 4: Indirect potable use by injecting recycled water into aquifers that are not in
direct proximity to a drinking water supply
A stepwise approach such as this fosters public trust through proven reuse applications that
are cost-effective, successful, and safe. As public trust grows, implementation of the
subsequent phases will be easier. A coordinated Public Education, Outreach, and
Awareness Program will accompany these phases of implementation to foster support and
extend the base of support, based on reliable information. Chapter 5 more fully addresses
the proposed implementation approach related to Phases 3 and 4.
3.2.5 Branding Recycled Water

As noted above, according to surveys conducted in Australia, Singapore, and USA, the
words wastewater, sewage, and sewer deter people from using reuse water. It has also
been observed that the word pure and its derivatives reassure people that water is safe.
Since the words used to describe recycled water have great power, it is essential that the
recycled water be re-branded. This has been done successfully in Singapore, where the
recycled water for potable application was re-branded as NEWater (PUB, 2011). Positive
terms could be used, such as Essential Water Clear Water (proposed by MOWE) and
Tahir, which means water without any smell, color, or taste that can be even used for any
religious purpose.
The survey described in Section 3.2.3 will be used to measure how favorably the public
responds to using Essential Water/Clear Water and Tahir, or other terms being
considered to re-brand reuse. For the purposes of this Strategic Study, the term Tahir is
used; however, the final choice for branding should be selected based on the outcome of the
survey. Simultaneously, an open competition could be conducted through newspapers
inviting people to suggest a suitable name for recycled water and win a cash award.
Branding recycled water and building trust should gradually change the public perception
from negative to positive. The outcomes of this effort are expected to be:
Establishment of a brand for recycled water with a suitable name (similar to NEWater in
Singapore) that emphasizes its quality and purity, accompanied by publicity so that the
end product is seen as a valuable commodity.
Incorporation of the new brand in all discussions (verbal, written, virtual, technical, and
public) on reuse. This will help shift the public focus from primarily the origins of the
water to its suitability and benefits of use.
3.2.6 Build Technical Knowledge

The terms describing wastewater treatment are most often used inconsistently, such as
preliminary, primary, secondary, advanced secondary, tertiary, advanced tertiary, and
advanced treatments. Also, terminology used in communication has a major effect on public
acceptance. The definitions in publications by the American Water Works Association
(AWWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), and other water organizations are too
technical for the general public. John Ruettens Best Practices for Developing Indirect Potable
Reuse Projects: Phase I Report (2004) provides value-based and communication best
practices and includes case studies to illustrate each of these practices.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-11
A set of terms that are understandable (a glossary) will be developed to communicate with the
public. The terms in the glossary will be accurate but not written for engineers, scientists, and
other water professionals. In the interest of consistency, all communications in the Public
Education, Outreach, and Awareness Program will use the terms from the glossary as well as
the re-branded terminology for reuse.
Using easy-to-understand terminology, education programs will be aimed at increasing
awareness of the effectiveness of different treatment technologies. For example, instructors
can demonstrate that technologies such as MF/UF and RO technologies, can treat
wastewater to a level that is as pure as bottled water. Chapter 2 discusses these
technologies in detail.
Materials will be created to fully explain the treatment processes, effectiveness, application
and other information. Specifically, these documents will do the following with the intent of
increasing understanding of technical processes, thereby building trust in reuse.
Explain the water cycle and the significant role of reuse in the cycle. Figures 3-2 and 3-3
are examples of information that could be developed; specifically, they show the water
cycle as typically depicted and the water cycle that is more representative of the cycle in
KSA, respectively.
FIGURE 3-2
Water Cycle as Typically Depicted
Describe processes used for treating wastewater in simple language using the
terminology in the glossary and explain the quality of water achievable in each process.
Summarize the costs associated with achieving various qualities of water.
Explain Saudi regulations concerning the quality of water for various applications and
compare with international regulations.
Identify pathogens and viruses associated with recycled water and their maximum
permitted level in various applications. Discuss safe and unsafe levels relative to human
health.
Describe quality control measures undertaken in the treatment process to ensure that
the targeted quality is achieved.
Discuss safety measures built into the system in case of process upsets to ensure that
water that does not meet required quality standards never enters the distribution system.
3-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
Summarize the non-monetary benefits of reuse, such as improved environmental quality

and public health, reduced discharge of nutrients to receiving waters, lower drinking
water production costs, and creation of additional recreational opportunities.
FIGURE 3-3
What the Future Might Hold with Enhanced Urban Water Reuse
Modified Water Cycle Developed by WateReuse Research Team - Adapted and used from Talking About
Water (WRF-07-03), Copyright 2011, with permission from the WateReuse Research Foundation.
Present data from various countries demonstrating benefits of using recycled water.
Explain the benefits of nutrients in recycled water that could be used by crops and thus
reduce fertilizer requirements on farms.
In addition to the information contained in the materials described, the following approaches
will also be useful in increasing public knowledge about reuse and related technologies:
Organize seminars, workshops, and other events to educate the public on wastewater
treatment processes, quality standards, and quality assurance procedures associated
with recycled water, and the social and economic responsibility to promote water reuse.
Conduct debates on water reuse with public participation so that pros and cons of water
reuse can be examined and thus address concerns about water reuse.
Familiarize the public, especially industry leaders, with the processes used by
conducting tours of recycled water production facilities.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-13
3.2.7 Demonstration Projects

The purpose of developing innovative demonstration projects is to bring the public closer to
water treatment and reuse projects and create confidence in the use of recycled water.
A project in Jordan included the study, plan, design, and construction of two proven, lowcost, low-maintenance WWTPs for small communities. The community was actively
involved in the activities and will operate and maintain the treatment plants and resulting
reuse water in a safe and sustainable manner. Building community involvement into the
planning, decision-making, and operations builds understanding and support for appropriate
wastewater technologies (USAID, 2004).
Additional projects could include the following actions:
Develop public parks with lawns, colorfully illuminated fountains using recycled water,
and signs to inform the public about recycled water.
Develop lakes using recycled water. Water bikes, ski boats, etc., could be made
available to the public for rental to increase their comfort level with recycled water
Develop a recycled water lake into a wetland that would attract international attention
as Nakheel is doing in the International City, Dubai. Nakheel developed this innovative
idea of developing a sustainable wetland using recycled water when birdwatchers
discovered a wide variety of bird species, including indigenous, migratory, and
endangered species visiting Al Warsen Lake, which was formed from the excess
recycled water pumped into the quarry pits from the Dubai Municipal Sewage Treatment
Plant.
3.2.8 Encouraging Urban Agriculture and Vertical Farming

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines urban agriculture as
an industry that produces and processes food, largely in response to the daily demand of
consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, applying intensive production methods to yield a
diversity of crops. Urban agriculture ensures access to fresh vegetables, fruits, and food security
to city dwellers. This results in an increase in entrepreneurial activities and the creation of job
opportunities, as well as reductions in food cost due to the avoidance of transportation costs.
Using high-density urban farming, for instance in vertical farms or stacked greenhouses, many
environmental benefits can be achieved on a city-wide scale that would be impossible otherwise.
With a little effort and investment, rooftops can contribute to improving families quality of life and
provide them with healthy food. This practice can also raise their income, in addition to its
environmental and aesthetic role.
Public Parks with Water Features
3-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
Lawn maintained using recycled water
Illuminated fountains using recycled water
Lake with birds
Lake with recreation
Artists Rendering of Lake Development
Urban agriculture will be promoted with recycled water. This will be helpful in making use of
the recycled water that will be available in abundant quantities from the WWTPs in the cities.
In addition, there will be no need to transport the recycled water to farming areas in villages
away from the city. By encouraging urban agriculture with recycled water, government
should be able to replicate the success achieved by TEI.
Vertical farming seems to be one of the best options for urban farming where land availability
is limited. If successfully implemented, this practice can use recycled water and offer the
promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (yearround crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been lost in the
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-15
cities. However, the cost and overall economics of vertical farming must be reviewed in
each location to confirm its feasibility under site-specific conditions.
3.2.9 Exhibitions and Knowledge and Information Centers

Exhibitions and knowledge centers offer hands-on learning about water resources and
reuse. The following actions could be taken as part of exhibitions and knowledge centers:
Include interactive participation in exhibitions and knowledge centers.
Design knowledge centers so that visitors, especially students, understand the need for
reuse.
Explain how and where recycled water can be usedexamples include agriculture,
industry, drinking water, aquaculture, aquifer storage, groundwater recharge, car
washing, toilet flushing, and fodder. Discuss the differences between direct and indirect
use of recycled water. Describe its importance in reducing the investment in expensive
desalination plants.
Provide visitors with information about the value of wastewater as a resource that can
contribute to the nations development. Provide TV presentations, scale models, and
short films to the Knowledge and Information Center to educate visitors about how
proper processing of wastewater can generate bio-gas/power, manure for irrigation, and
water.
Develop illustrations/presentations for the Knowledge and Information Center describing

the successful experience of developed nations with water reuse.
Develop interactive computer programs with graphics and illustrations to explain the
various stages in wastewater treatment (coagulation, flocculation, clarification, sludge
removal and thickening, anaerobic treatment, anoxic treatment, aeration, filtration,
MF/UF membranes, MBR, RO, disinfection with chemicals and UV treatment, etc.
Examples of graphics from the NEWater Explorer program are shown in Figure 3-4.
Develop 3-D models illustrating various advanced wastewater treatment facilities and the
equipment involved.
Show and explain the various quality checks that are conducted (and the equipment
used) before recycled water is conveyed out of a treatment plant.
Develop a presentation listing potential health risks associated with recycled water in
agriculture, industry, aquaculture, aquifer storage, groundwater recharge, etc. and the
processes used to minimize such risks.
Design a computer program that simulates quality audits in recycled water facilities.
Make technical experts available in the Knowledge and Information Center to address
any questions or concerns raised by the public.
Circulate fliers and pamphlets among the public to enhance awareness of recycled
water. Mass Media and Public Outreach
3.2.10 Mass Media and Public Outreach

In addition to the targeted techniques previously described, the Public Education, Outreach, and
Awareness Program will also include a mass media component. As part of this effort,
communication tools such as printed documents, posters, a website, TV and radio broadcasts,
and newspaper articles will be developed. Social events and social media will also be used to
convey positive messages about recycled water.
3-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 3-4
Screen Captures from NEWater Computer Program (PUB, 2011)
3.2.11 Website
A website known as Tahir (or other name corresponding to branding choice for recycled water)
will be developed exclusively to promote recycled water. MOWE and NWC websites will include
links to Tahir. This website will be a Knowledge and Information Center on recycled water and
all information will be available in English and Arabic. The site will be user-friendly, similar to the
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) website. The site will present the following:
Virtual tour of wastewater treatment and recycled water production processes
Frequently asked questions (FAQ) and responses
A simple method for users to raise questions and receive responses
Scrolling frames showing various recycled water applications and a simple method for
going to the desired application page
Current news regarding recycled water
An online weekly magazine, also called Tahir, which publishes information on recycled
water (could be automatically forwarded to registered subscribers)
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-17
Videos of speeches given by religious scholars on recycled water
Fatwas, regulations, incentives, and penalties related to recycled water
TV clips and media campaign items from other countries that have pioneered recycled
water, modified if necessary to make them suitable to reach KSA public (including
children)
Connections with social media forums
Webinars
Online discussion forums
Testimonials and success stories concerning recycled water usage worldwide
Example screen shots of sample webpages from the NeWater project in Singapore are shown in
Figure 3-4. The website includes example information from other reuse sites, provides
interactive demonstrations on technology, and familiarizes viewers with treatment processes to
create understanding and build confidence.
3.2.12 Media Relations

A spokesperson will be identified and will coordinate with various government agencies and the
Steering Committee, issue statements to the media, and serve as the liaison with the media.
This person will be responsible for building relationships with reporters and editors, will re-brand
reuse with the media, will promote stories to help convey positive reuse messages, and will
enlist appropriate content experts. Additional activities may include:
Host media tours of WWTPs to explain the system, processes, and quality control
procedures used, enabling media representatives to publish and broadcast positive
stories.
Distribute the recycled water glossary to media representatives to prevent confusion over
terminology. Explain the negative effect of using certain words and images (see Section
3.3.1) so that they avoid them.
Provide TV clips and media campaign materials from other countries that have been
pioneers in water reuse so that they can be modified and used to suit the Saudi culture.
If required, provide training to media representatives.
Develop slogans or tag lines on water reuse (similar to the water conservation slogan
Conserve, Value, and Enjoy) to be used in the media campaign.
Co-ordinate mosque programs with media so that they are covered in the press and on
TV and radio.
Periodically develop and distribute press releases and advertisements to publicize

significant events.
As part of overall media promotion, a sand clock vessel (hourglass) was developed in
association with the Max Vision advertising company. The hourglass was filled with water and
sparkling particles (glitter) and fitted with a filter at the neck. During one cycle, the water drops
from the top part of the vessel to the bottom and mixes with the glitter (depicting water getting
dirty when used). Then in the reuse cycle, the hourglass is turned upside down. The water
passes through the filter (leaving the glitter behind) and is collected at the bottom as clean water
(showing how the water treatment process removes the dirt). Photographs of campaign visuals
are shown in Section 3.3.12.
3-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
3.2.13 Social Media

Social media are used for social interaction and feature highly accessible and scalable
communication techniques. Web-based and mobile technologies are used to turn
communication into interactive dialogue, which is an effective means of publicizing information.
They are relatively inexpensive and accessible, enabling anyone to publish or access
information, compared to industrial media, which generally require significant resources to
publish information. For many users, especially the younger generation, online social
networks are not only a way to keep in touch, but a way of life. Online social networks can be
effectively used to:
Create social communities that promote water reuse.

Integrate with existing network communities to publicize news related to water reuse.
Arrange online events through Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc.
3.2.14 Social Events

The following are examples of social events that may be used:
Organize seminars and forums on water reuse in various cities and arrange for them to
be covered by media. The events should focus on alleviating the social and cultural
beliefs that have slowed progress in embracing recycled water usage.
Announce competitions to identify innovative uses of recycled water in TV and

newspapers to stimulate more public involvement.
Evaluate malls, mosques, and hotels for using recycled water and present awards at a
public function. This will encourage more to jump on the bandwagon. Such promotions
have been used successfully to promote water conservation in hotels.
Identify key groups and individuals who are influential in shaping public opinion and
invite them to small group meetings. These should represent a cross section of issues,
locales, stakeholders, etc., and are different from focus group meetings.
Organize a festival for a week during Saudi Water Day (coinciding with World Water Day22 March) where water reuse can be promoted using seminars, debates, etc.
3.2.15 Road Show Materials

Educational materials could be created and tailored to reach audiences at these social
events. These road show materials could include a film documentary and brochures, for
example. These materials would visually display key messages about the need for
sustainable water resources management and treatment capabilities and would offer takeaway printed materials. Examples are presented below.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-19
Brochures
3-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
Television Documentary
3.2.16 In-School Educational Programs

In-school education programs are an important component of a long-term education campaign.
In-school programs not only raise the awareness of students so that they become informed
adults, but students also become change agents in their homes and communities. In-school
programs could include the following components:
Develop PowerPoint presentations on treatment techniques, reuse needs and

applications, advantages, etc., and forward to schools to present to students.
Suggest modifications to the school curriculum to introduce topics on reuse and its
importance.
Encourage students to develop or participate in water reuse projects in their

extracurricular activities.
Arrange for experts to conduct seminars in schools to explain to students the processes
involved in water treatment, wastewater treatment, and quality control.
Encourage students to display scale models that use recycled water in annual
exhibitions.
Conduct educational tours of reuse Knowledge and Information Centers.
Sponsor a competition among students to propose the best TV clip annually as part of
Saudi Water Forum (SWF) events.
3.3 Gaps and Conclusions

Water reuse has been identified as an essential component of the long-term integrated water
resource management plan for KSA. However, there is currently insufficient wastewater
collection and treatment, and limited distribution of reuse water. Additionally, there are varying
levels of regulations and enforcement of existing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
processes, as discussed in other chapters. Because of the widely varying wastewater treatment
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-21
and disposal methods and the apparent lack of effective regulation and enforcement, there is
general confusion and a lack of understanding on the part of the public about the safety of reuse.
A well-designed Public Education, Outreach, and Awareness Program is necessary to address
these issues.
Recycled water has also been proven as a reliable means of preventing degradation of receiving
waters and the environment as a whole, and could also reduce the investment required in
expensive desalination plants. Water reuse projects have been successful not only in arid and
semi-arid regions, but also in regions with temperate climates to protect sensitive areas,
enhance recreational activities, support water-intensive economic sectors, and help populations
cope with water crises during droughts. In KSA, recycled water is the only low-cost alternative
resource for irrigation, which constitutes approximately 85 percent of the overall water demand.
Clearly, government needs to give special emphasis to promoting agriculture with recycled
water.
In addition, the successful implementation of the reuse program must take into account local
cultural and religious traditions, values, and beliefs. Islamic Law requires pure water for certain
purposes, including ablution, and defines how the water can be made pure. As noted above, the
Council of Leading Islamic Scholars in KSA issued a fatwa in 1978 stating that reuse water, if
treated sufficiently to ensure good health, is considered pure because the impurities are
removed during the treatment process. However, the public has been slow to accept that reuse
is a safe and appropriate water resource.
Research suggests that public support for reuse is largely dependent upon understanding of the
water cycle, water treatment processes, and the terminology used to describe it. However, with
re-branding, simple language and structured learning, the public can come to embrace reuse. A
targeted survey is recommended to focus on re-branding recycled water including positive
terms such as Essential Water, Clear Water (proposed by MOWE) and Tahir.
A comprehensive Public Education, Outreach, and Awareness Program should be developed in
conjunction with the investments in expanding reuse opportunities in KSA. The program will not
only provide education on reuse, but also on the overall goals and importance of water and
energy conservation and environmental benefits of reuse such as the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions through energy use reductions.
Such a program should include establishment of a Steering Committee, research, branding, and
other techniques discussed above. Provision of demonstration projects, knowledge centers, and
interactive web-based tools will be instrumental in building public understanding of complex
processes by using easily understandable terminology and imagery. Lastly, such a program
should also include mass media approaches and in-school education. Engagement of leading
religious scholars throughout all aspects of the program will be essential in gaining support for
reuse and acceptance of reclaimed water in religious practice.
3.4 References
Global Water Intelligence. 2009. Water Market, Middle East 2010.
Hatem Al Motairi. Water quality standards and regulations in Saudi Arabia presented by
Director of water quality standards, PME.
Hatem Aseer Al Motairi, Head Water Quality Section, MEPA, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 2001.
Water Quality Regulations and Wastewater treatment and reuse in Saudi Arabia.
Lazaova, V. B. Levine, J. Sack, G. Cirelli, P. Jeffery, H. Muntau, M. Salgot, and F. Brissaud.
2001. Role of water reuse for enhancing integrated water management in Europe and
Mediterranean Countries. Water Science and Technology Vol. 43 No. 10 pp 2533. IWA
Publishing.
3-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
Macpherson, Linda. Dr. Paul Slovic. 2011. Talking About Water: Vocabulary and Images
that Support Informed Decisions about Water Recycling and Desalination, Research Report
and User Guidance. Report WRF-07-03. Published by the WateReuse Research
Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Maliva, Robert G., T. M. Missimer, F. P. Winslow. 2010. Aquifer Storage and Recovery
of Treated Sewage Effluent in the Middle East.
Ministry of Water and Electricity and The World Bank Group. 2009. Presentation: National
Water Strategy for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-An update.
Mohammed A. Al-Hajri . 2009. Wastewater Reuse Regulations in Saudi Arabia. Saudi
Aramco Presentation. Presented 2-4 March 2009.
Negewo, Bekele Debele, PhD. 2011. PresentationWater Outlook for the MENA Region
Up to 2050: With Special Focus on Desalination and Renewable Energy by, Water
Resources Specialist. World Bank in Consultative Workshop to Update the Kingdoms
Water Strategy, 8th June 2011 Ministry of Water and Electricity, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
PUB, Singapore Web site. www.pub.gov.sg. Accessed May-July 2011.
Ruetten, John. 2004. Best Practices for Developing Indirect Potable Reuse Projects: Phase
I Report. WateReuse Association Report 01-004-01.
USAID. 2004. Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Small Communities: Community
Screening and Selection Consultation Workshop. Amman, Jordan. 31 October 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse,
Chapter 8, Water Reuse Outside the U.S.
STRATEGIC STUDY
3-23
chapter 4: business opportunities
Chapter 4: Business Opportunities

4.1 Introduction
Expanding the current level of reuse in KSA in a financially rational way will support
economic development at the local, regional, and national scales by leveraging the countrys
scarce water resources and by providing a dependable and sustainable water supply to
meet growing demand. The financial viability of reuse projects and the business
opportunities that can be associated with them depend in part on understanding the
relationship among the various water sources, first uses, and reuses of water either originally
extracted from the sea and made usable with desalination or extracted from groundwater
sources.
Desalination is relatively expensive and groundwater sources may only last another 15 to 25
years under current withdrawal rates without a significant increase in recharge (Kajenthira et
al., 2011). Additionally, to the extent that treated wastewater is discharged to the sea or not
otherwise directed to recharge, water is lost to the system that could be retained and
recycled. Plans to change the current rate structures and tariff levels for water, wastewater
treatment, and RQTSE will support a more sustainable water supply and wastewater
treatment program and support expanded reuse while reducing subsidies that create
disincentives for reuse.
This chapter establishes the economic and financial basis for reuse in several parts. First,
the macro-level case for reuse is presented, driven by the limitations of groundwater and
high costs associated with desalination. Projections for future RQTSE availability are then
examined using information from MOWEs 13 Draft Regional Planning Reports (ItalConsult,
2009-2010, see also Chapter 1). Specifically, those reports assigned allocations to five
major reuse categories: agriculture, landscaping, industry, recreation, and aquifer recharge.
This analysis helps identify absolute and relative opportunities across categories at the
regional and local level. Two sets of case study examples are then presented and analyzed
that show the costs and economic benefits of specific reuse projects, proposed or currently
in place. The first set is drawn from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports but
compiled and analyzed collectively in a way not found in those reports. The second set
consists of site- or company-specific case studies developed specifically for this study
through literature and consultations with the involved parties.
Those presentations and analyses provide the foundation for further evaluating the business
case for reuse through a set of five distinct scenarios that reflect different allocations of
RQTSE to the five reuse categories. These scenarios were developed and analyzed using a
publicly available Excel model, ProjectSelectTM, specially customized for this study so that
reuse scenarios could be more easily defined and evaluated with the model. ProjectSelectTM
was developed by CH2M HILL, in collaboration with Clean Water Services, a wastewater
and stormwater utility in Oregon (USA) (Matichich, 2010). The customized version will be
provided to KAUST and included with copies of the report at the conclusion of this study to
support further development and evaluation of additional generalized reuse scenarios, as
well as site-specific project proposals.
The featured scenarios are defined to be consistent with the types of situations that currently
exist or can be fostered in KSA. Comparing and contrasting their performance on financial
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 4: BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
and non-financial metrics shows how reuse can be financially viable and attractive for
customers and providers. Together, the assessment of future projections, case studies, and
the scenarios developed specifically for this chapter provide the basis for a set of findings
and recommendations presented at the end of the chapter.
This chapter builds extensively on and is in some respects a continuation of the information
presented in Chapter 1, in particular as relates to the future projections for reuse by sector,
region, and locality drawn from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports. The
technology assumptions made for the reuse scenarios developed for this chapter reflect and
are consistent with the information and assessment presented in Chapter 2. The formulation
of the scenarios and the specification of the non-financial criteria developed to help evaluate
them reflect the information and discussions provided in chapters related to public education
and awareness (Chapter 3), regulatory considerations (Chapter 7), and aquifer recharge
(Chapter 5).
4.2 The Macro-Case for Reuse: Energy and Sustainability

KSA occupies 2.2 million square kilometers (km2), and is the largest country in the world with
no lakes or rivers to sustain its population of 25.7 million. Despite possessing annual
renewable water resources from groundwater of only 2.4 billion m3, Saudi Arabias water
withdrawals exceeded 20 billion m3 in 2010, making it the third-largest per capita water user
worldwide (Kajenthira et al., 2011). Over 80 percent of Saudi Arabias water supply is
withdrawn from non-renewable groundwater aquifers, which are estimated to contain only a
15- to 25-year supply at present extraction rates. Water demands, exacerbated by rapid
population growth and increased urbanization, are expected to double over the next two
decades, with the municipal and industrial sectors increasingly reliant on saltwater (sea
water and brackish groundwater) desalination (Kajenthira et al., 2011).
Desalination, particularly the large-scale thermal desalination commonly used in Saudi
Arabia, is a capital- and energy-intensive means of producing freshwater. Thermal
processes are generally suitable for large-scale facilities with a co-generation option.
However, there is a critical need to develop alternative approaches to produce water for
small and remote locations at affordable cost. Water reuse is one of the viable options
where produced water can be used for agricultural and urban irrigation or in some cases
high quality industrial uses (e.g., microchip manufacturing) or indirect/direct potable reuse as
practiced in Singapore (see Chapter 3).
Regardless of the type of beneficial use, reuse can reduce drinking water consumption for
various activities (i.e., agricultural and urban irrigation and industrial uses) and offset high
costs associated with desalination as well as reduce demand on groundwater supplies.
Table 4-1 presents energy requirements for tertiary treatment (which is the additional step
required in KSA for production of reclaimed water for unrestricted reuse), reuse RO, brackish
water RO, and commonly used seawater desalination technologies. In many reuse
schemes, including urban and agricultural irrigation, the required tertiary treatment can be
implemented by employing media filtration and chlorine disinfection. In some cases, highTDS wastewater (i.e., greater than 2,500 mg/L) requires partial RO treatment to meet the allpurpose irrigation TDS objective of no higher than 2,500 mg/L. The energy cost of RO in
reuse projects is much lower than that of seawater RO projects because much lower feed
pressure is required to overcome osmotic pressure in reuse RO projects.
The reduction of water withdrawals from groundwater and desalination by increasing
wastewater reuse is clearly promising if the energy requirements and the carbon footprint of
desalination versus reuse are considered. Increased wastewater reuse has long been
recognized as a potential intervention strategy in addressing water scarcity; however, the
lack of national policies and/or strategies to support wastewater treatment and reuse has
significantly restricted reuse in most Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, until recent
4-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
years. With the vision of MOWE, NWC, and universities, an increase in sewerage networks
to facilitate wastewater collection and treatment has been aggressively targeted in upcoming
years.
TABLE 4-1
Energy Requirements of Commonly Used Reuse and Seawater Desalination Technologies

Electrical Energy
3
(kWh/m )
Thermal Energy
3
(kWh/m )
Equivalent
Thermal Energy
3
(kWh/m )
0.01-0.02
0.04-0.08
0.5-1.5
2-6
1
4
0
0
4
15
70
74
80
100
Reuse Technologies
Tertiary Treatment (gravity media filtration
a
coupled with chlorine disinfection)
b
Reuse RO
Desalination Technologies
a
Brackish Water RO
c
Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO)
c
Multiple Effect Distillation (MED)

Multi-Stage Flash (MSF)
Based on recent experience with similar projects.
Cote et al, 2005.
Sharqawy, 2011
The reduction of water withdrawals from groundwater and desalination by increasing

wastewater reuse is clearly promising if the energy requirements and the carbon footprint of
desalination versus reuse are considered. Increased wastewater reuse has long been
recognized as a potential intervention strategy in addressing water scarcity; however, the lack
of national policies and/or strategies to support wastewater treatment and reuse has
significantly restricted reuse in most Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, until recent years.
With the vision of MOWE, NWC, and universities, an increase in sewerage networks to facilitate
wastewater collection and treatment has been aggressively targeted in upcoming years.
Plans to increase the exceptionally low urban water tariff from 0.10 SR/m3 to as much as
5.25 SR/m3 by NWC will be a key factor in reducing overall water consumption and more
adequately representing the costs of water provision and treatment. It also is expected that
tariffs for desalinated water and natural gas will be increased to reflect production costs
while the reuse of treated wastewater may be subsidized for a period to increase reuse
demand. Increased tariffs for first use water will make water reuse a more attractive option
while also making it a key component of a sustainable water management strategy and
program.
4.3 Potential RQTSE Uses, Market Size, and Growth Trends

The Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports divide the list of potential RQTSE uses into five
categories: agriculture, landscaping, industry, recreation, and aquifer recharge. More
specific examples of reuse within these categories are also listed in Table 4-2, drawn from
the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports, case studies, and other sources.
The potential market size for each of the main reuse categories can be assessed using the
Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports data, as seen in Figures 4-1 through 4-5. These
present estimates for reuse at the country, regional, and city level. Observations about what
the charts show are provided following Figure 4-5. Chapter 1 presents more detail about the
regions and the cities and their current and future projected water supplies, wastewater
flows, and reuse opportunities.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-3
TABLE 4-2
Reuse Applications by Primary and Sub-Category

Primary Categories
Sub-Categories/Examples
Agriculture
Tertiary treatment is required to meet unrestricted agricultural

irrigation, which includes salad crops and vegetables eaten raw, and
restricted, other crops; winter and summer cultivation.
Crop examples include: cereal, vegetables, melons, watermelon,

fruits, citrus, grapes, dates, fodder, alfalfa.
Secondary treated and disinfected water suitable for most

landscaping in areas without direct human contact. Tertiary treatment
is required for use in public parks or other areas where direct human
contact is likely.
Applications include: green areas in the cities, such as planting trees

along roads, turf and grass areas, and public parks.
Secondary treated and disinfected water in some cases (cooling

towers, irrigating nurseries and plants surrounding industrial areas).
Very high quality water for some uses (high pressure boiler feed);
even higher quality may be needed for other uses.
Not regulated in KSA yet. However, in most cases, tertiary treatment

is required for unrestricted recreation.
In Al Jouf Region: small lakes or parks
In Riyadh Region: development of Wadi Hanifa, maintenance of Al

Hayer Lakes
Not regulated in KSA yet. The requirements vary depending upon

recharge type (direct recharge or sub-surface spreading, etc.).
Used to reduce the scale of drop in water table.
In Qaseem Region: allocated amounts flow through a wadi and mix

with stored water from stormwater for aquifer recharge.
Landscaping
Industrial
Recreation
Aquifer Recharge
Across the regions and cities, reuse by sector compares as follows; again, only cities with
some industrial use are included in the above figures:
Many of the regions and cities are projected to have substantial amounts of their total
reuse delivered to the agricultural sector.
In most regions and cities, landscaping is the next most prominent use after agriculture.
Industrial use is significant in some regions and cities, and less so in others. While three
regions show no industrial reuse projected at all, all the cities show at least some
industrial reuse, but this is because cities with no industrial allocations are excluded from
the chart.
Only three regions show some recreational projections, all at 10 percent or less, and only
two of the cities had recreational projections.
Only one region has any aquifer recharge shown.
With respect to trends by reuse type, the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports data
reflect different assumptions about the growth rate in reuse between 2010 and 2025, and
between 2025 and 2035. In general, the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports assume
the same or similar growth rates for each category for all cities in a region.
4-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
7,000
Aquifer Recharge
Agriculture
6,000
Recreation
Landscaping
5,000
1000 m3/d
Industrial
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2010
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
FIGURE 4-1
Reuse Projections, Country-Wide by Use Type

Note: This chart was generated from tabular data extracted from
the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
1,400,000
Aquifer Recharge
Recreation
1,200,000
Industry
Landscaping
Agriculture
m3/day
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Al Baha
Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan
Madinah Makkah Northern Narjan Qaseem Riyadh

Borders
Tabouk
FIGURE 4-2
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Regions, 2025

Note: The height of the bar shows the total amount, and each type is
represented by a different colored segment.This chart was generated from
tabular data extracted from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-5
100%
95%
0%
4%
0%
10%
0%
7%
0%
19%
90%
0%
0%
3%
0%
16%
20%
0%
0%
11%
10%
0%
85%
80%
29%
20%
75%
16%
0%
4%
0%
6%
17%
26%
31%
30%
23%
65%
3%
0%
30%
30%
70%
0%
9%
21%
45%
30%
60%
55%
30%
Aquifer Recharge
Recreation
50%
Industry
45%
81%
40%
35%
Landscaping
67%
Agriculture
67%
63%
30%
25%
70%
70%
62%
60%
68%
60%
50%
20%
43%
40%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Al Baha
Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan

Borders
Tabouk
FIGURE 4-3
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Regions as a Percent of Regional Total, 2025
Note: These are the same data as shown in Figure 4-2, but each region-type segment
is shown as a percent of total for that region. This display allows for better comparison
of the relative allocations of types across the regions. This chart was generated from
tabular data extracted from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports.
1,200,000
1,000,000
Aquifer Recharge
Recreation
800,000
Industrial
m3/day
Landscape
600,000
Agriculture
400,000
200,000
FIGURE 4-4
Proposed Reuse Amounts: by Type for Cities with Industrial Reuse, 2025
Note: The height of the bar shows the total amount, and each type is represented by
a different colored segment. This chart was generated from tabular data extracted from
the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports.
4-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
100%
0%
95%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
10%
10% 10% 10%

20%
85%
20%
80%
20%
75%
30%
30% 30%
70%
65%
0%
5%
20%
60%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
25% 25%
0%
0%
0%
40% 40% 40% 40%
5%
30%
70%
60%
55%
30%
50%
50%
Aquifer Recharge
45%
Recreation
40%
35%
70% 70% 70%
30%
60%
60% 60%
25%
60%
60% 60% 60% 60%
50%
20%
15%
Industrial
40%
Landscape
Agriculture
40%
30%
30%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
FIGURE 4-5
Proposed Reuse Amounts: By Type for Cities with

Industrial Reuse as Percent of City Group Total, 2025
Note: These are the same data as shown in Figure 4-4, but each city-type segment is shown
as a percent of total for that city. This display allows for better comparison of the relative
allocations of types across the cities. This chart was generated from tabular data extracted
from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports.
For this reason, Table 4-3 provides a tabular comparison of the growth rates across regions
only for the two periods in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports data by reuse
category for four of the five categories. Aquifer recharge is projected for only one region,
Qaseem: growth is projected to be about 2.2 percent annually from 2010 to 2035.
TABLE 4-3
Reuse Sector Growth Rates and Associated Statistics

Agriculture
10-25
Landscaping
25-35
10-25
25-35
Industry
10-25
Recreation
25-35
10-25
25-35
Average
5.6%
2.1%
5.7%
2.5%
5.9%
2.6%
7.1%
5.0%
Median
4.5%
2.2%
4.4%
2.2%
4.2%
2.2%
7.1%
3.3%
Minimum
1.6%
0.4%
2.4%
0.4%
2.3%
2.0%
5.4%
2.2%
Maximum
16.8%
3.3%
15.9%
7.2%
13.2%
6.5%
8.9%
9.4%
Standard
Deviation
4.4%
0.8%
3.9%
1.6%
4.0%
1.4%
2.5%
3.9%
Figures 4-6 through 4-9 graphically present the reuse sector growth rates calculated from the
Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports data (imputed growth rates). Together, the tabular and
graphic data show the following about the relative growth rates within and across the four
categories at the city level:
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-7
Consistent with the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports regional and city data
presented in Chapter 1, growth rates for 2010 to 2025 are higher, sometimes many times
higher, than for 2025 to 2035.
Most growth rates for all region-use combinations for 2025 to 2035 are in the 2 percent to
3 percent range.
Average and median growth rates are similar for agriculture, landscaping, and industry.
Recreation rates are slightly higher, but notably only represent three regions.
Agriculture has a lower minimum and a higher maximum across regions than the other uses
for 2010-2025. Landscaping and industry rates are comparable.
Agriculture, landscaping, and industry show similar variance in rates for 2010-2025 across
regions, as indicated by the standard deviations.
18%
GR/yr 2010-2025
17%
GR/yr 2025-2035
16%
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Al Baha Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan

Borders
Tabouk
FIGURE 4-6
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Agriculture,

Imputed Annual Growth Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035
4.4 Reuse Case Studies: Current Practices and

Future Proposals
This section presents two sets of case study examples that show the costs and economic
benefits of specific reuse projects, proposed or currently in place. As noted above, the first
set is drawn from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports, but compiled and analyzed
collectively in a way not found in those reports. The second set consists of site- or
company-specific case studies developed specifically for this study from the literature and
consultations with the involved parties.
4-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
17%
GR/yr 2010-2025
16%
GR/yr 2025-2035
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Al Baha Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan

Borders
Tabouk
FIGURE 4-7
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Landscaping,

Imputed Annual Growth Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035
Note: This chart was generated from tabular data extracted from the
Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports.
14%
GR/yr 2010-2025
13%
GR/yr 2010-2025
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Al Baha
Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan
Madinah Makkah Northern Narjan Qaseem Riyadh Tabouk

Borders
FIGURE 4-8
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Industry, Imputed Annual Growth Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-9
10%
GR/yr 2010-2025
GR/yr 2025-2035
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Al Baha Al Jouf
Asser
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan

Borders
Tabouk
FIGURE 4-9
Proposed Reuse Amounts for Regions: Recreation, Imputed Annual Growth Rate for 2010-2025 and 2025-2035
4.4.1 Case Studies Drawn from Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
The Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports include 64 case studies addressing the costs
and benefits of proposed reuse projects in five regions: Riyadh (54), Eastern Province (4),
Jizan (1), Al Madinah (2), and Al Qaseem (3). The reports also include 22 case studies with
primarily the cost estimates for proposed projects; 12 of these are also among the costbenefit examples. Table 4-4 presents summary statistics for the 68 projects that had
sufficient data for the entire group, and for each major reuse category. These case studies
represent a range of reuse projects similar to those described in Table 4-2.
Table 4-4 presents the average, median, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation
values for the project attributes shown for all projects. The summary statistics for all 68
projects reflect the wide range of system scales and costs. Table 4-5 provides some
discussion comparing the agriculture, landscaping, and industry sub-groups to the statistics
for the entire data set.
The cost-benefit ratio is the quotient of the total cost divided by the total revenues: as such, a
value of 1 indicates the project exactly breaks even; a value less than 1 indicates the project is
profitable (revenues exceed costs); and a value greater than 1 indicates the project loses money
(costs exceed revenues). Because it is a ratio, it can be used to directly compare projects on a
relative basis, regardless of size. Figure 4-10 shows the ratios for all 64 examples from the Draft
MOWE Regional Planning Reports that included specific cost-benefit calculations, while
Figure 4-11 shows the ratios for the 55 projects with ratios less than 0.6 to better delineate the
relative positions of the markers. The 64 projects are distributed as follows: 32 agriculture; 26
landscaping; 5 industry; and 1 recreation.
4-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 4-4
Summary Data from 68 Reuse Case Studies Detailed in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
All Data (n=68)

Average
Median
Min
Max
StDev
Agriculture (n=33)
Average
Median
Min
Max
StDev
Landscaping (n=27)
Average
Median
Min
Max
StDev
Recreation (n=1)
Industry (n=7)
Average
Median
Min
Max
StDev
Storage
Volume
(Mm3)
Pipeline
Cost
(M SR)
247
100
0
4000
557
4
3
0
10
4
28
9
1
585
75
3
2
0
27
4
2
0
0
10
3
32
11
3
605
78
3
1
0
48
6
38
0
0
180
76
7
5
0
25
8
40
13
3
653
96
691
800
0
1000
247
300
100
0
4000
710
4
5
0
10
4
44
9
1
585
105
3
2
0
10
2
2
0
0
10
4
47
11
3
605
109
4
1
0
48
9
49
0
0
180
84
8
5
0
25
9
7
6
1
22
4
807
800
600
1200
87
168
100
38
1000
201
3
3
3
3
9
6
1
29
7
3
2
1
13
2
2
2
0
3
2
11
9
3
33
8
1
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
135
1200
0.8
72
20
2
400
145
13
14
2
25
10
886
800
500
1800
434
330
48
0
2000
737
1
1
0
2
1
34
15
2
81
33
5
1
0
27
10
1
0
0
2
1
39
17
4
92
38
3
2
0
9
4
Proposed
Amount
(1000 m3/d)
Pipeline
Length
(km)
27
5
1
400
58
13
7
1
176
24
765
800
0
1800
238
28
7
1
151
40
18
8
1
176
33
10
3
1
135
27
Pipeline Pumping
Diameter
Station
(mm)
(kW)
Delivery
Storage
Subtotal
Cost Capital Cost
(M SR)
(M SR)
Wastewater
Treatment Wastewater
Delivery
Capital Treatment
O&M Cost
Costs O&M Costs
(M SR)
(M SR)
(M SR)
Pumping
Station
Cost
(M SR)
Cost per
Year
Total Cost (25 yrs,
(M SR)
M SR)
Assumed
Price
(SR)/m3)
Revenue
(M SR)/yr
Cost/
Benefit
2
1
0
26
4
1.46
1.00
0.50
3.00
0.67
14
2
0
438
58
0.4
0.3
0.0
1.4
0.3
63
15
3
653
132
3
1
0
26
5
0.87
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.22
5
2
0
28
7
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.4
9
9
9
9
13
10
3
45
10
1
0
0
2
0
1.91
2.00
0.70
2.00
0.32
5
2
1
49
10
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.4
2.00
99
0.1
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
6
2
43
18
5
101
42
2
1
0
4
2
2.20
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.10
93
10
2
438
193
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.3
Note: This table was compiled from the individual case studies presented in the MOWE reports.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-11
TABLE 4-5
Observations about Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports Case Study Statistics by Sub-Group
Relative to the Entire Set
Delivery System
Specifications
Agriculture
Landscaping
Scale comparable for all 68
Proposed amounts less

and pipeline length
shorter
Proposed flow amounts

most among groups but
pipeline length comparable
Only one project with

3
storage (3M m )
Average pumping kW
higher, but median lower
Four projects with storage:

3
two with 10 M m and two
3
with 5 M m
Industry
Delivery System
Costs
Slightly higher than all 68,

as pipeline lengths longer
Lowest costs among

groups
Less than for agricultural set

but higher than for
landscaping
Wastewater
Treatment
Identical to all 68only

data in groups
None included in
examples
None included in examples
Total Costs
Higher than all groups and

greater variance
Lowest among groups

and small variance
Middle among groups and

moderate variance
Assumed Price and

Revenues
Lowest assumed pricing (1

3
SR m ) and low revenues
Middle pricing (2 SR m )
but low revenues due to
relative quantity
Highest pricing (2-3 SR m )

and highest revenues
resulting from high pricing
and high quantities
Cost-Benefit Ratio
Comparable to all groups
Lower than agricultural,

similar to industry
Lower than agricultural,

similar to landscaping
Note: Recreation is excluded from this summary since there was only one example.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Cost-Benefit Ratio
Riyadh-Agriculture
Riyadh-Industrial/Cooling
Riyadh-Landscaping
Riyadh-Recreation
Eastern Province-Agriculture
Jizan-Agriculture
Madinah-Industry
Madinah-Landscaping
Al Qaseem-Agriculture
Al Qaseem-Industry
FIGURE 4-10
Cost-Benefit Ratios for 64 Project Examples from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
Note: This plot shows ratios for all 64 projects as compiled from the individual case studies.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Cost-Benefit Ratio
Riyadh-Agriculture
Riyadh-Industrial/Cooling
Riyadh-Landscaping
Riyadh-Recreation
Eastern Province-Agriculture
Jizan-Agriculture
Madinah-Industry
Madinah-Landscaping
Al Qaseem-Agriculture
Al Qaseem-Industry
FIGURE 4-11
Cost-Benefit Ratios for 55 Project Examples from the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
Note: This plot excludes examples with values > 0.6 to better display the data as compiled from the individual case
studies
Together, Figures 4-10 and 4-11 show the following about the cost-benefit ratios for the plotted
projects:
4-12
The Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports case studies illustrate that reuse can be
economically viable. Most of the ratios are below 0.6, much better than the break-even
value of 1.0. Of those projects with cost-benefit ratios higher than 0.6, there are six
STRATEGIC STUDY
agricultural projects, two landscaping projects, and one industrial project. Among this group,
the ratio ranges from about 0.7 to 1.4. Among these examples, only three projects do not at
least break even, and they are all agricultural examples where the rate is 0.5 or 1.0 SR/m3.
The more detailed view shown in Figure 4-11 also shows that the ratio range for the
agricultural projects (orange and yellow markers) is generally higher than for landscaping
(green markers), although there is some overlap of the ranges. The industry project markers
(blue) are more visible in this chart, and are seen to be in the low end of the range,
overlapping with many landscaping projects and fewer agricultural projects.
With respect to the specific user categories:
Most of the agricultural projects appear in the 0.3 to 0.6 range, the six higher projects
ones notwithstanding.
Most of the landscaping projects appear in the 0.1 to 0.5 range, and some are even
lower.
The five industry projects have ratios of 0.01, 0.07, 0.08, 0.30, and 0.70.
The single recreation example has a ratio of essentially zero.
4.4.2 Other Case Studies

The current water tariff for most users in KSA (0.10 SR m3/day) is very low, which makes many
reuse schemes other than industrial uses (for which tariffs are higher) currently infeasible. On
the other hand, reasonable water tariffs make water conservation, treatment, and reuse an
attractive option for industries. Reuse case studies in this section are based on the studies
performed by the subject industries or independent parties to evaluate the feasibility of
implementing reuse in industrial facilities. Payback periods were also provided in most cases to
demonstrate whether the investment required for recovering and treating wastewater for reuse
can offset water purchases within a reasonable period.
In addition to water reuse, resource recovery, which is an integral component of
sustainability, has gained significant attention in the last decade. For example, converting
organic material to biogas via anaerobic digestion to produce energy/heat has been
practiced for many years. The biogas to energy benefits have already been proven across
the globe. More recently, technologies are being or have been developed to recover micronutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) from wastewater. The recovered material is a
valuable asset for agricultural uses. The case study examples herein also include resource
recovery studies from the USA and from KSA.
Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) Water Reuse Study

SABIC is one of the worlds 10 largest petrochemicals manufacturers and among the worlds
market leaders in the production of polyethylene, polypropylene, glycols, methanol, methyl tert
butyl ether (MTBE), and fertilizers and polyolefins. SABIC industries consume large quantities of
potable water for their processes while generating a significant quantity of wastewater. The
water data for a SABIC facility located in Jubail show consumption of 96,000 m3/d of potable
water and generation of approximately 45,000 m3/day of wastewater (Al-Hazmi and Jaffar,
2006). The wastewater is pretreated and conveyed to a central wastewater treatment facility for
further treatment to meet stringent discharge requirements. A portion of the treated wastewater
is currently used for landscape irrigation.
SABIC has implemented numerous programs to conserve water in its facilities. One key
initiative was the feasibility study to evaluate the potential for recycling the wastewater being
generated from SABIC industries. Another notable initiative was the establishment of a
water conservation program well supported by a reward and recognition program. As part of
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-13
the water recycling program, SABIC first characterized wastewater quality in all industrial
facilities. Second, a detailed feasibility study was conducted by a consultant to evaluate
treatment requirements, treatment technologies, and associated costs for treating and
reusing the wastewater. The feasibility study concluded that reuse is economically a
feasible option in some locations.
SABIC also conducted a pilot study and Basic Engineering Evaluation on one of the industrial
facilities for water reuse to reduce the freshwater intake and costs for potable water. The
industrial facility included in the pilot program generated approximately 10,100 m3/day of
wastewater from plastics, olefins, and utilities operations. The treated wastewater from the
industry has been meeting the discharge standards on a regular basis. Due to wastewater
quality and treatment requirement differences, PVC- and olefins-containing wastewater streams
were collected and treated separately. In addition, SABIC was considering recovering PVC,
which has a market value, from the wastewater. The wastewater quality and treated water
quality goals are presented in Tables 4-6 and 4-7 for PVC-(Phase I) and olefins-containing
wastewater (Phase II), respectively.
TABLE 4-6
Phase I (Wastewater Quality and Treated Water Quality Objectives)

Unit
Wastewater Flow
Design Value
Maximum Value
m /day
5,760
TOC
mg/L
113
165
TSS
mg/L
326
502
TDS
mg/L
105
130
Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH4-N)
mg/L
Phosphate (PO4-P)
mg/L
0.1-0.5
45
Standard unit
10.2
TOC
mg/L
<3
TSS
mg/L
<1
TDS
mg/L
<125
Temperature
pH
12.2
Treated Wastewater Quality Objectives
<150
The wastewater treatment processes used to meet Phase I water quality objectives for reuse
included:
Neutralization, primary clarification, and flow equalization for primary treatment

Linpor aeration tank and secondary clarification for biological or secondary treatment
Dual media filtration and chlorine based disinfection for tertiary treatment
Sludge stabilization, thickening, and dewatering for biosolids/sludge treatment
The wastewater treatment processes used to meet Phase II water quality objectives for
reuse included:
4-14
Pre-treatment in existing facilities

Dissolved air flotation and flow equalization for primary treatment
Linpor aeration tank and secondary clarification for biological or secondary treatment
Dual media filtration and chlorine based disinfection for tertiary treatment
Activated carbon and RO for advanced treatment (partial treatment only)
Sludge stabilization, thickening, and dewatering for biosolids/sludge treatment
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 4-7
Phase II (Wastewater Quality and Treated Water Quality Objectives)

Unit
3
Design Value
Maximum Value
Wastewater Flow
m /day
5,470
TOC
mg/L
101
272
TSS
mg/L
60
120
TDS
mg/L
300
500
NH4-N
mg/L
28
PO4-P
mg/L
0.4
Oil and Grease
mg/L
100
Temperature
oC
65
pH
300
Standard unit
10.2
TOC
mg/L
<1
TSS
mg/L
<0.1
TDS
mg/L
<50
12.2
Treated Wastewater Quality Objectives
With the required treatment processes, SABIC projected 38M SR and 33M SR in capital
investments required to treat and reuse the wastewater in Phases I and II, respectively. The
economic evaluations for each phase, including payback periods, are summarized in
Table 4-8. The short payback periods for each alternative strongly suggest reuse is
economically feasible. The need for advanced treatment in Phase II increased the capital
and O&M costs for unit wastewater treated, thereby resulting in a longer payback period
compared to Phase I.
TABLE 4-8
Summary of Economic Evaluation Results: SABIC Water Reuse Study

Phase I
Phase II
2,150,000
1,415,000
12,900,000
8,490,000
187.5
Not Applicable
134,000
Not Applicable
Total Cost Offset/Revenue
13,034,000
8,490,000
Capital Investment, SR
38,000,000
33,000,000
Annual O&M Cost, SR/year
2,816,000
2,349,000
3.7
5.4
Total Annual Reuse Flow, m /year

Water Purchase Cost SR/m
Annual Water Purchase Cost Offset, SR/year

Unit Sell Price for Low Grade PVC, SR/ton
Annual Revenue for Selling Low Grade PVC, SR/year
Payback Period, years
Jeddah Industrial City Textile Processing Industry

Tamkeen Sustainability Advisors evaluated an industrial reuse case study in a textile
processing plant located in Jeddah industrial city. Coloring carpets through dyeing and
printing is the main activity of the company and its 450 employees. Typical of this sector, the
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-15
process uses large quantities of water (purchasing approximately 1,400 m3/day of potable
water). Recognizing the financial and environmental potential linked to saving water, the
company has evaluated treatment and reuse options within the industry (Wafeer, 2011).
All effluents from printing operations and from the RO unit are currently discharged into the
sewage system as wastewater. The company has installed a storage tank to capture the
discharges. Tamkeen Sustainability Advisors proposed that the collected effluents be treated
via coagulation and flocculation followed by rapid sand filtration. The physical treatment
process provided was found to be adequate for recycling the treated flow to the process for
reuse. In addition, the industry is considering increasing the level of treatment applied to its
effluents to treat and reuse more water. The future treatment plants will include:
A biological treatment unit (not specified)

Dissolved air floatation (two tanks)
Media filtration
RO (partial treatment)
With the chemical treatment system (initial phase), the company will be able to reduce its
water consumption by 800 m3/day. When the new treatment facilities (future phase) are
commissioned, the industry is expected to save approximately 1,200 m3/day of water.
The economic evaluations for each phase, including payback periods, are summarized in
Table 4-9.
In each case, reuse is a highly feasible option for the industry for reducing potable water
consumption and offsetting potable water purchases within a very reasonable payback
period. The companys reduced need for desalination will also help lower its carbon
footprint.
TABLE 4-9
Summary of Economic Evaluation Results: Jeddah Industrial City Textile Processing Industry
Initial Phase
Physical Chemical
Treatment Only
Future Phase (includes Physical/Chemical and

Biological and Advanced Treatment Facilities)
292,000
438,000
Annual Water Purchase Cost

Offset, SR/year
1,752,000
2,628,000
1,900,000
6,400,000
120,000

1.2
700,000
3.3
Projected O&M Costs are based on 25 mg/L ferric and 1 mg/L polymer addition and 5 horsepower (HP) total
load.
b
Projected O&M Costs are based on 25 mg/L ferric and 1 mg/L polymer addition and 5 HP total load for the
initial phase and an additional SR 580,000/year for biological and advanced treatment facilities based on
CH2M HILL experience on similar size projects.
Middle East Paper Company in Jeddah

Middle East Paper Company (MEPCO), located in Jeddah, shows leadership in reducing
water consumption and waste generation and using recycled paper for manufacturing while
protecting the environment and offering economic value. Paper manufacturing requires high
quantities water. Considering the lack of sufficient groundwater and surface water resources
in Jeddah, MEPCO has developed innovative approaches to reduce water consumption
4-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
without sacrificing productivity. Jeddah lacks sufficient surface or underground water

sources for MEPCOs water-intensive operations (Wafeer, 2011).
First, MEPCO made the modifications necessary to use recycled water in its manufacturing
process. Second, MEPCO has significantly improved its water efficiency, reducing its water
consumption from 20 m3/ton paper produced to 8 m3/ton paper produced. The future goal of
MEPCO is to further reduce its water consumption to 4 m3/ton paper produced.
MEPCOs Jeddah facility had a production capacity of 100 000 ton/year in 2002 and it used
treated wastewater from the Khumrah WWTP in Jeddah City, which is located close to the
paper mill. The received wastewater was further treated by coagulation, flocculation, and
chemical precipitation followed by RO before being used in the manufacturing process. In
2002, MEPCO used approximately 20 m3 of water per ton paper produced. In 2006,
MEPCO extended its production capacity to 300,000 ton/year, which required three times
more water for manufacturing. MEPCO evaluated inefficiencies regarding water
consumption and assessed all waste streams that could be treated and recycled back into
the process. The company installed drum screens, two dissolved air floatation units, and
gravity filters, which reduced its water consumption to 8 m3/ton paper produced. This
system also allowed the recovery of fibers. MEPCOs innovative approach is depicted in
Figure 4-12.
FIGURE 4-12
MEPCOs Approach for Wastewater Treatment and Recycling in Jeddah City Facility
Note: Adapted from Wafeer, 2011
MEPCO is planning to install a biological treatment unit to further reduce the organic loading
in the effluents and thus increase water recycling. Once the proposed upgrade is
completed, MEPCO will be able to reduce its water consumption to 4 m3/ton of product.
With the additional treatment and recovery, MEPCO reduced its water consumption by
4,200,000 m3/year. Once the biological treatment unit is commissioned, MEPCO will save
an additional 1,200,000 m3/year of water with a total water savings of 5,300,000 m3/year.
MEPCOs investments and estimated payback periods are summarized in Table 4-10.
Unlike the two previous case studies, much lower costs for water purchase have been used
for forecasting savings and payback periods. If the current water purchase rate of SR 6/m3
had been used, the payback periods would be much less than 1 year for each phase of the
project.
ARAMCO Riyadh Refinery

Saudi ARAMCO has plans to increase production of its oil products and petrochemical
products. The oil refining and petrochemical industries require vast quantities of water for
cooling and other purposes. While water demand for industrial and residential users
increases, the limited water resources will not be sufficient to supply water to industries,
posing a serious problem (JETRO, 2009).
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-17
TABLE 4-10
Summary of Capital Investment and Payback Period for Water Recycling at MEPCO Paper Facility in Jeddah City
Initial Phase Drum Screens,
Dissolved Air Floatation and
Gravity Filters
3

Additional
Biological
Treatment Facility
4,200,000
0.363
5,300,000
0.407
1,525,000
2,125,000
1,530,000
11,530,000
770,000
1,455,000
2.0
16.1
Back-calculated using actual savings of approximately SR 1,525,000 and 2,125,000 for the initial and future
phases of the project, respectively.
b
Back-calculated using estimated payback periods of approximately 2 and 16 years for the initial and future
phases of the project, respectively.
The Riyadh Refinery treats crude oil of 122,000 barrels per day (b/d), and the main products
include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) , gasoline, kerosene, diesel oil, fuel oil, and asphalt.
The supply of industrial water primarily depends on the desalination of seawater, which is
expensive (6 SR/m3) and consumes much energy. In late 2008, a feasibility survey on
wastewater reuse was conducted in ARAMCOs Riyadh Refinery. The purpose was to
identify the condition of the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities and to explore
the possibility of wastewater reuse in the plant; this action would document environmental
and social considerations and relevant laws and regulations on implementing wastewater
reclamation and reuse in KSA (JETRO, 2009).
The survey identified the following areas where reuse can be implemented:
Boiler blowdown
Cooling tower blowdown
Oily wastewater from the oil/water separator
Sanitary wastewater
The survey results indicated that if

reuse were implemented in all four
areas, the industrial water demand
could be reduced by 60 percent.
Because the Riyadh Refinery is a
special case where both water and
wastewater service are free of
charge, the survey findings were
used as a benchmark for developing
conceptual studies. In one example,
ARAMCO assumed a refinery
capacity of 300,000 barrels (bbl) to
determine if reuse is a feasible
option. The projected capital
investment and projected payback
period are presented in Table 4-11.
TABLE 4-11
Summary of Capital Investment and Payback Period for ARAMCO

Refinery Reuse (Refinery Capacity: 300,000 bbl)
Parameter
Value
3
Treatment Plant Capacity, m /day

12,000
6
23,652,000
112,500,000

2,200,000
5.2
Based on 90% on-line time for the advanced water treatment

facility.
b
Based on CH2MHILLs projections on similar size projects.
Table 4-11 shows that the short payback period makes reuse an economically feasible
option. Purifying wastewater using RO can be achieved with a much lower carbon footprint
than seawater desalination using RO and thermal processes.
4-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
Nutrients Recovery in Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility,

Oregon, USA
Clean Water Services is a wastewater and stormwater public utility committed to protecting
water resources in Oregons Tualatin River watershed. Its Durham Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Facility (AWTF) in Tigard (suburban Portland) provides treatment for the Cities of
Beaverton, Tigard, Sherwood, Tualatin, Durham, King City, and portions of Clackamas and
Multnomah Counties, with a combined flow of over 20 mgd. The facility provides tertiary
treatment, removing ammonia and nitrogen compounds biologically, along with combined
biological and chemical phosphorus removal. Final effluent is further filtered with granular
media (sand) filters for solids removal. Sludge is thickened, anaerobically digested,
dewatered, and transported to the central part of Oregon for application on arid farmland
(Ostara, 2011).
This reuse application of sludge is beneficial as phosphorus, an essential nutrient, will
continue to be pressured by restricted supplies and burgeoning worldwide demand whether
peak phosphorus occurs in 50 years or in 250 years. Wastewater streams from municipal
and industrial treatment facilities are rich in phosphorus and ammonia, which are valuable
nutrients to recover. If not recovered, discharging nutrient-containing wastewater effluents
depletes oxygen in the receiving water, which could pose an environmental problem while at
the same time losing valuable nutrients.
Recently, a few technologies have been developed to recover nutrients in wastewater. One
of these, Ostaras PEARL Nutrient Recovery Process, harvests up to 90 percent of
phosphorus and 20 percent of nitrogen from treated wastewater and transforms them into a
high grade, slow-release fertilizer called Crystal Green. The PEARL Process prevents
potentially polluting nutrients from finding their way into sensitive watersheds by extracting
them for further processing. This eliminates phosphorus build-up in pipes, saving substantial
money in maintenance costs. In addition, it produces a fertilizer that provides a revenue
stream to further offset capital costs (Ostara, 2011).
To meet the strict discharge criteria on the Tualatin River, Clean Water Services Durham
facility must seasonally treat phosphorus to a limit of 0.1 mg/L. As is common with biological
phosphorus removal facilities, phosphorus and other nutrients from the sludge handling
processes are recycled within the plant and increase the effective nutrient load on the main
treatment process. Additionally, phosphorus, ammonia, and magnesium become highly
concentrated in the sludge handling process and cause the formation of struvite (magnesium
ammonium phosphate). This struvite formation coats pipes, valves, and other equipment,
which reduces flow capacities and increases maintenance requirements.
To treat these nutrients and prevent struvite formation, Clean Water Services utilized
chemical dosing (ferric chloride) and installed special Kynar lined pipes. These traditional
solutions are expensive, so in order to operate more efficiently Clean Water Services
initiated a study of Ostaras PEARL Process with the following objectives:
Reduce sidestream nutrient loads

Reduce potential for struvite scaling
Enhance beneficial reuse of AWTF nutrients
Meet 0.1-mg/L phosphorus effluent limit cost-effectively
Clean Water Services successfully completed a pilot plant demonstration of the PEARL
process in the summer of 2007, and then contracted to procure a full-scale facility in October
2008, with operation beginning in the spring of 2009. Ostaras scope of work encompassed
all services and materials required to deliver a fully functional process capable of achieving
the nutrient removal treatment objectives and producing a finished fertilizer product ready for
shipment to customers. The treatment processes included:
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-19
Three PEARL 500 Reactors

Chemical storage and dosing
Full process automation
All pumps, motors, valves, and process piping
Fertilizer product processing
Operator training and ongoing technical support
Modification of a decommissioned influent pumping station to house the facility
The installed PEARL reactors and other equipment are shown in Figure 4-13.
The capital and O&M cost details were not available for this ongoing effort. However, Ostara
Nutrient Recovery Technologies indicated that the revenue generated from fertilizer
purchase is enough to offset the investment cost in 5 years.
FIGURE 4-13
PEARL 500 Reactors in Durham AWTF (Courtesy of Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies)
Al Kharj Road STP Riyadh Area

This section describes the current standards and practices of wastewater sludge (biosolids)
management in KSA, then presents a specific example of changes in biosolids management
at one of KSAs largest Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs), and concludes with a summary of
how KSA plans to transition from current practices dominated by landfill disposal, to future
practices that will focus more on the recovery of energy and nutrients from biosolids.
Current Biosolids Management Standards and Practices

MOWE has developed draft regulations that set standards for land application of biosolids.
This draft has been developed in collaboration with the MOA General Directorate for
Irrigation and the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA). The Ministry of Health
(MOH) has also contributed indirectly through consultation on this standard. At the present
time, the standards have been officially approved by both MOA and MOMRA, and are being
reviewed for approval by MOWE (MOA, 2001).
The Presidency of Meteorology and Environmental Protection (PME) is entrusted with the
control of pollution and the protection of the Environment. The environmental Standards
include among other things the reuse of sludge in the Environment (PME, 2001).
The two above-mentioned documents represent the current status of regulatory standards
addressing biosolids in the Kingdom at this time. The prevailing current practice for biosolids
management is dewatering of unstabilized sludge at the various STPs followed by hauling to
landfills for disposal. There are a few cases of stabilizing sludge by digestion or composting
4-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
and applying to MOA lands, but landfilling of sludge predominates as the prevailing practice
(NWC, 2011).
Al Kharj Road STP Case Study

The Al Kharj Road STP serves the southeast and northeast portions of the greater Riyadh
metropolitan area. The STP currently consists of two parallel process trains with treatment
capacities of 100,000 m3/day each, known as Phase I and Phase II, respectively.
The treatment process consists of (in order of process flow): coarse screens, influent pumps,
fine screens, grit and grease removal tanks, oxidation ditches operated to nitrify and
denitrify, final clarifiers, and disinfection. The treated effluent is pumped to an offsite storage
lagoon and used in agriculture. Waste activated sludge is removed from the final clarifiers
and pumped to belt filter presses, which dewater the sludge to 20 percent to 24 percent dry
solids concentration. The dewatered cake is discharged via inclined screw conveyor to rolloff containers, and is currently trucked offsite to landfill disposal.
With wastewater flows to the Al Kharj Road STP increasing rapidly, NWC has initiated the
design and construction of a third phase of the STP. The capacity of Phase III will be
200,000 m3/day, which will double the size of the expanded STP to 400,000 m3/day.
The NWC is now negotiating with the design-build contractor that submitted the highestscoring proposal (i.e., best combination of quality and price). The proposed, alternative
process train that includes anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization has the capability of
saving NWC from 5 million to 9 million SAR annually, as compared to the base process train.
The estimated simple payback period for the additional equipment needed by the process
alternative is a very attractive 5 to 8 years, during which the capital investment would be
completely recouped and net savings would accrue in all subsequent years through the
facilitys estimated 20- to 25-year service life (CH2M HILL, 2011).
Benefits of Biosolids Stabilization and Beneficial Use at Al Kharj Road and Other STPs
If NWC accepts the alternative proposal to build anaerobic digesters that will stabilize sludge
to produce biosolids as well as biogas at the Al Kharj Road STP, the following economic and
environmental benefits will accrue.
Digested biosolids will meet the Kingdoms standards for reuse of biosolids in agriculture,
as stipulated by the PMEs regulations for agricultural land application.
The biosolids digestion process itself provides the following benefits:
It destroys a high percentage of volatile solids, which reduces its total mass as well
as odors and the potential to attract vectors.
The volatile solids that are destroyed are actually converted to biogas that is
comprised 60 percent of methane, which gives it a high fuel value for energy and
heat production, since methane is the active ingredient in natural gas.
It substantially reduces the levels of pathogens in biosolids by increasing the

temperatures and providing long detention times that allow for pathogen kill.
Digested and stabilized biosolids have been shown to provide many benefits in
agricultural production, including:
Biosolids add the essential, major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) in
addition to a large number of essential micronutrients that are needed for healthy
plant growth.
Biosolids contain a high percentage of organic carbon that is required for maintaining
fertile soils that are needed for healthy plant root systems.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-21
Biosolids contain a high percentage of water, needed especially in the desert climate.
As noted above, the Kingdom currently landfills a large proportion of sludge from wastewater
treatment, but implementing new treatment processes such as digestion will enable the
Kingdom to transition from a paradigm of sludge disposal to one of reuse and resource
recovery of biosolids. This transition and its many benefits will be similar to the transition the
Kingdom is undergoing for the reuse of treated effluent (NWC, 2011; and CH2M HILL,
2011).
4.5 Formulation of Scenarios for Analysis

The data presentations and analyses featured in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 provide the
foundation for further evaluating the business case for reuse through a set of five distinct
scenarios that reflect different allocations of RQTSE to the five reuse categories. They are
defined to be consistent with the types of situations that currently exist or can be fostered in
KSA. Comparing and contrasting their performance on financial and non-financial metrics
shows how reuse can be financially viable and attractive for customers and providers.
4.5.1 Introduction and Basis for Defining Scenarios

The business case for reuse depends on a variety of factors, including treatment and
delivery costs, rate structures (absolute SR/m3d as well as relative cost across uses), and
broader national and utility objectives. Additionally, the business case must not only be
framed in the context of current reuse amounts, perspectives about different types of reuse,
and rate issues, but also considering goals and practical capabilities for future expansions of
absolute volume, public education about benefits and safety, relative growth potential across
reuse types, improvements in willingness to pay for RQTSE, and ability to implement a
financially viable rate structure.
The five scenarios featured in this study were developed based on projected uses
specifically described in Section 4.3, and the policy goals and capital plans more generally
described in Chapter 1. The sector-components of the scenarios include reuse in one or all
of the following major categories, consistent with the Draft MOWE Regional Planning
Reports projection categories: agriculture; landscaping; industry; recreation; and aquifer
recharge. These are further delineated into sub-categories by quality need or specific use,
as described later in this section (see Section 4.5.4).
Including all major categories of reuse in some way in the scenarios is consistent with the
observations summarized below about the future projections for each major category:
Agricultural reuse applications are projected to be significant in every region and in 10 of

the 16 city-groups evaluated in this section. Growth in projected demand from this
sector is healthy, and expanding the use of RQTSE for crops will reduce reliance on
shrinking groundwater supplies. Additionally, the Draft MOWE Regional Planning
Reports indicate that farmers can increase yield by irrigating with RQTSE compared to
groundwater due to the higher nutrient content of RQTSE.
Landscape reuse applications are also projected to be significant in almost every region
and in almost every city-group. Growth in projected demand from this sector is also
healthy. Increasing RQTSE for landscaping will help limit groundwater withdrawals
and/or reliance on desalination depending on the current source of water for public and
commercial landscaping applications. It is presumed that the nutrient content of RQTSE
could also benefit trees, shrubs, grass, and other plants, as the Draft MOWE Regional
Planning Reports mention it benefits crops, compared to ground- and desalinated source
water.
4-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
Industrial reuse applications are projected to be significant in selected regions and in the
city-groups featured in this study. Growth in this sector is projected to be a little higher
on average than for agriculture or landscaping. Moreover, a reliable supply of water in
the amount and at the quality levels demanded for various industrial processes, from
uses not needing tertiary treatment up to uses needing advanced treatment is critical to
supporting the economic development of the industrial centers and the cities and regions
that depend on them. See Section 1.8 for more detail on current industrial reuse
practices.
Recreational reuse applications are projected to be greater than zero in only three
regions, but this may be a reflection of the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
projection process, and not necessarily a reflection of the level of future opportunities
that could be developed. Where it is used, reuse for recreational benefits (see
Table 4-2) is important, and as Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports case studies
show it can have an attractive cost-benefit ratio (see Figures 4-10 and 4-11).
Aquifer recharge using RQTSE is projected for only one region in the Draft MOWE
Regional Planning Reports, but the reports state that this is a reflection of prioritizing
needs in other reuse categories over recharge. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is a
strategic practice that can assist in restoring water from depleted aquifers that are not
directly used for potable purposes, as also discussed in Chapter 5. It is particularly
valuable as an alternative to surface discharges to wadis where the resource quickly
evaporates, or discharge to the sea where the potential energy investment in low TDS
water is lost.
Including all major categories of reuse in more than one scenario is also consistent with the
comparative results of the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports case studies and the
ones developed specifically for this study.
Agricultural, landscaping, and industry reuse all have the potential for cost-benefit ratios of
less than 1, as illustrated in the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports case studies (see
Figures 4-10 and 4-11 and associated discussion). The other industry-specific case studies
also show that reuse can be cost-effective, with relatively short payback periods of 1 to 5
years in five of the six examples presented.
4.5.2 Evaluating Business Case by Individual User, Reuse Use Category, and
Reuse Portfolio
There are three scales at which the business case for delivering RQTSE can be evaluated:
individual user; reuse category or group; and on a portfolio basis. The differences in the
business case at these three scales are driven primarily by two sets of factors: user rates, which
are often set by use category; and treatment and delivery costs. The Draft MOWE Regional
Planning Reports case studies assume a future rate structure that is low for agricultural users, at
a broad, middle range for landscaping, and at higher rates for industrial users (see the middle
panel of Figure 4-15 later in this section).
In contrast, treatment and delivery costs do not correlate to reuse categories quite so explicitly.
Treatment costs relate to quality levelsdifferent quality levels are needed for specific
agricultural and industrial uses. Delivery costs primarily relate to distance of use from the plant
and the extent to which gradient requires pumping technology and energy.
For these reasons, it is important to consider the scale at which a business case should be
evaluated.
The smallest scaleindividual userwould compare the rate revenues from that user to the
marginal cost of treating (if applicable) and delivering the RQTSE. This scale is the most
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-23
limited, and for all but the largest individual users, may not be a practical way to evaluate the
reuse business case.
The middle scale in this discussionreuse category or defined groupingwould compare

the rate revenues from the agricultural sector, for example, to the segregated cost to provide
the RQTSE to those defined users in the specified geography. This scale of analysis could
be performed for each major sector (e.g., agricultural, landscaping, and industry). This scale
offers fewer restrictions and may be informative for capital planning and rate structuring.
However, a significant difference in chargeable fees across sectors may result in less
attractive or even poor business cases at this scale.
The largest scale in this discussiona geographically, system-based, or otherwise defined

portfoliowould compare rate revenues from a potentially mixed user group for a defined
geographic area or defined portion of the treatment and/or delivery system. This scale of
analysis can more effectively match revenues and costs and provides the best opportunity to
combine low, medium, and high user fees within the portfolio into a total revenue stream to
compare with total costs for the defined portfolio. The likelihood of a positive business case
for the entire portfolio would be higher than for evaluations at smaller scales, as profits from
higher rate payers offset any losses from lower rate payers. Additionally, this portfolio scale
can take advantage of smoothing out any seasonal differences in use across the sectors that
result in fluctuating revenue streams.
4.5.3 Summary of the Five Scenarios Developed for this Analysis

In light of the projections for types of reuse and an objective to provide some analysis
reflecting a sector-based as well as portfolio approach to business case evaluation, the five
scenarios described below have been selected for this analysis: all reflect the objective to
promote reuse in the industrial sector. Scenarios 1 through 4 afford the opportunity to
examine the business case for industrial reuse by itself, or in combination with one other
sector: agriculture; landscaping; or aquifer recharge. Scenario 5 affords the opportunity to
take a portfolio approach to business case evaluation and includes all major sectors.
Scenario 1, Industry + Agriculture: Reflects the objectives to promote reuse in the industrial
and agricultural sectors and includes 50 percent delivery to each major category, with
25 percent each to restricted and unrestricted farming uses and 25 percent each to restricted
and all purpose industrial reuse.
Scenario 2, Industry + Landscaping: Reflects the objectives to promote reuse in the

industrial and landscaping sectors and includes 50 percent delivery to each major category,
with 25 percent each to restricted and unrestricted landscaping uses and 25 percent each to
restricted and all purpose industrial reuse.
Scenario 3, Agriculture + Landscaping + Aquifer Recharge: Reflects the objectives to

promote reuse for agricultural and landscaping uses, as well as aquifer recharge, at
allocations of 40 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.
Scenario 4, Industry High and Very High Quality Level: Reflects the objective to support
specialized industrial and commercial processes that require advanced treatment above
tertiary, with an equal distribution among each upper quality level.
Scenario 5, Multi-Sector Portfolio: Reflects the objective to provide reuse to as many sectors
and users within a specific geography as possible, and to evaluate the overall business case
for the defined portfolio on the basis of total revenues versus total costs. The scenario
assumes the following percentage allocations to major categories: 25 percent agriculture;
25 percent landscaping; 25 percent industry, 12.5 percent recreation; and 12.5 percent
aquifer recharge.
More detail about selected assumptions is provided in Section 4.5.4.
4-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
4.5.4 Method, Assumptions, and Inputs for Scenario Definition and Analysis
Overview
The reuse business case analysis uses ProjectSelectTM, an Excel-based tool, to evaluate the
financial and non-financial attributes of the five main reuse scenarios and specified
variations. ProjectSelectTM was developed by CH2M HILL, in collaboration with Clean Water
Services (Matichich, 2010). The publicly available version of this tool was customized for
this analysis by adding in some reuse scenario specification dashboards that allow the user
to easily enter key assumptions for the reuse scenarios, and by adding in variable cost
assumptions for wastewater treatment and reuse delivery that automatically populate the
primary scenario cost and revenue tables based on selections made in the custom reuse
dashboards. The customized version of ProjectSelectTM will be provided to KAUST.
ProjectSelectTM provides a consistent framework to develop and organize cost and revenue
components for each scenario, including capital expenditures, recurring rehabilitation costs,
annual O&M costs, and operating revenues or other cost savings. Based on these inputs and
the resulting net revenue forecast, the tool calculates various financial metrics for each scenario,
including net present value, equivalent annual cost, payback period, and benefit-cost and costbenefit ratios. ProjectSelectTM automatically generates a wide set of tables and charts to display
absolute and comparative financial results.
In addition to evaluating the financial and economic metrics described above, ProjectSelectTM
also supports evaluating and comparing the scenarios using non-financial, non-quantitative
criteria. These criteria are selected and defined within the tool and each scenario is rated using
a defined scoring system. The criteria are given relative weights: they can be equally important,
or some can be more important than others. ProjectSelectTM calculates the total non-financial
score reflecting each scenarios performance based on the non-financial criteria and
automatically generates comparative tables and graphics.
Together, the financial and non-financial results are compared across all scenarios to assess the
relative strengths and weaknesses of each reuse scenarios business case. Specific
assumptions for system specifications, financial inputs, and non-financial criteria were developed
for the scenarios featured in this study, as described below. Recipients of the ProjectSelectTM
tool customized for this study will be able to make their own assumptions for the inputs that drive
costs, including flow, tariffs, existing WWTPs, and reuse conveyance needs, as well as inputs for
non-financial criteria, including number of criteria, definitions, weighting, and scoring.
Assumptions and Inputs Common to All Scenarios and All Variations

The following assumptions and inputs are the same for all scenarios.
Discount rate: 2.5 percent (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] World Factbook, 2011).
Start year: 2011.
Forecast year: Calendar.
Period of evaluation: 25 years (This is the same period used in the Draft MOWE
Regional Planning Reports cost/benefit examples).
Currency: SR.
Costs and revenues entered as: uninflated SRs, as opposed to inflated.
Costs and revenues for project alternatives occur at: start of year, as opposed to mid- or
end of year. (The reason for this is to fully reflect initial outlays in the analysis. By
following the start of year convention, expenditures and revenues during Year 1 are not
discounted; expenditures and revenues in Year 2 receive 1 full year of discounting, and
so on for succeeding years.)
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-25
Payback Period Financial Parameter uses: discounted costs, as opposed to

undiscounted costs. (The reason for this is so that the time value of money, including
the effects of different streams of revenues and expenditures over time for the various
scenarios, is taken into consideration when evaluating the length of time before front-end
expenditures on balance lead to a positive cumulative cash flow for the first time.)
Additionally, it should be noted that the tables that summarize the results of the financial
analysis in ProjectSelectTM display monetary values in millions of SR showing two decimal
places (e.g., 234.56 M SR). Cost and revenue inputs used to create the analysis are
entered at a more precise level of detail. Some tables in the tool that summarize the cost
and revenue inputs to the financial analysis display monetary values in SR (e.g., 1,026,563).
Showing two decimals for M SR in the financial results tables or the entire unrounded SR
values in tables that summarize cost and revenue inputs does not necessarily imply a
corresponding level of precision in these estimates.
Specification of the Five Main Scenarios: Flows, User Allocation, Rates,

and Revenues
The five main scenarios (also labeled alternatives in some of the figures) for this reuse
business case evaluation were specified in part as shown in Figures 4-14 and 4-15, which are
screen captures directly from ProjectSelectTM.
Development of Reuse Scenarios
This worksheet facilitates identification of scenario characteristics (treatment levels, existing infrastructure, allocation to beneficial use)
Flow
Alternative# & Name
1
2
3
4
5
1. Industry + Agriculture
2. Industry + Landscaping
3. Ag + Land + Recharge
4. Industry 3&4
5. Multi-Sector/Use
(m3/day)
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Power
(SR/Kwh) Existing Infrastructure
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
Alt. # General Purpose of Scenario
(Primary+Secondary and Tertiary Level Treatment)

Corresponding Water Quality (Target Effluent Standards)
All Purpose Unrestricted Reuse

Very High Level Industrial Reuse
1
2
3
4
5
WWTP Exits
WWTP Exits
WWTP Exits
WWTP Exits
WWTP Exits
Tertiary (Turbidity of less than 5 NTU, total coliform of less than 2.2 MPN/100 mL)
Advanced (Turbidity of less than 0.2 NTU, TDS of less than 10 mg/L)
Allocation to Beneficial Use Categories

Agriculture
Alt. #
1
2
3
4
5
Landscaping
Industrial Use
Recreational Use
Recharge
AG-RE
AG-UN
URB-RE
URB-UN
IND-1
IND-2
IND-3
IND-4
REC-RE
REC-UN
GW RCHG
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
25%
0%
20%
0%
12.5%
25%
0%
20%
0%
12.5%
0%
25%
20%
0%
12.5%
0%
25%
20%
0%
12.5%
25%
25%
0%
0%
12.5%
25%
25%
0%
0%
12.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6.25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6.25%
0%
0%
20%
0%
12.5%
TOTAL
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
FIGURE 4-14
Specification of Scenario Flows, Existing Infrastructure, Reuse Quality, and Reuse Allocations
Note: The white numbers in the red cells identify the minimum quality level needed for that use. All Purpose
Unrestricted Reuse is Level 4; Very High Level Industrial Reuse is Level 6.
The following key assumptions are reflected in Figure 4-14.
4-26
All scenarios (labeled Alt.#) assume the same flow, energy cost, and pre-existing
infrastructure at 50,000 m3/day (this flow is representative of a medium-size facility),
0.1875 SR/kilowatt hour (Kwh), and a WWTP treating to tertiary levels (turbidity of less
than 5 NTU, and total coliform of less than 2.2 MPN/100 mL).
STRATEGIC STUDY
All scenarios except #4 assume a reuse quality level of All Purpose Unrestricted
Reuse, which is the minimum level necessary for unrestricted uses (see UN choices in
the Allocation to Beneficial Use Categories panel for agriculture, landscaping, and
recreation, IND-2 among industrial options, and recharge), but also can be deployed for
restricted uses (see RE choices or IND-1).
Scenario #4 assumes a very high reuse quality level is delivered following advanced
treatment with turbidity of less than 0.2 NTU, and TDS of less than 10 mg/L for both
IND-3 (high) and IND-4 (very high). By comparison, the high quality level also assumes
advanced treatment, but with turbidity of less than 0.2 NTU and TDS of less than
100 mg/L.
The four industrial levels (labeled in Figure 4-14) assume the following uses, for example:
IND-1, industrial applications with cooling tower that DOES NOT require mist eliminator
IND-2, industrial applications with cooling tower that DOES require mist eliminator, or
other industrial uses that require only tertiary level treatment
IND-3, high quality industrial uses such as process water and medium pressure
boiler feed water (200-500 bar)
IND-4, very high quality industrial uses such as process water for microchip
manufacturing and high pressure boiler feed water (700 bar)
The relative allocation of the total flow to each reuse subcategory is as shown in the
bottom panel of Figure 4-14 in the blue numbers with shading corresponding to the major
reuse category, consistent with the rationale described in Section 4.5.3.
The flow allocations result in defined flows by subsector for each scenario, and
corresponding subsector-derived user fee revenues based on the assumed rate structure for
the main set of scenarios. Figure 4-15 shows the assumptions for each of these as
displayed in the customized tool.
Projected Revenues and Other Benefits for Reuse Scenarios
This worksheet estimates annual rate and non-rate revenues associated with each reuse scenario
Projected Flows by Use Category (m 3 )
Agriculture
Alt. #
1
2
3
4
5
AG-RE
Landscaping
AG-UN
12,500
10,000
6,250
12,500
10,000
6,250
URB-RE
Industrial Use
URB-UN
12,500
10,000
6,250
12,500
10,000
6,250
IND-1
12,500
12,500
6,250
IND-2
Recreational Use
IND-3
12,500
12,500
6,250
25,000
-
IND-4
REC-RE
25,000
-
3,125
Recharge
REC-UN
3,125
TOTAL
GW RCHG
10,000
6,250
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Projected Rates by Use Category (SR / m 3 )

Agriculture
AG-RE
Landscaping
AG-UN
0.50
1.00
URB-RE
Industrial Use
URB-UN
0.70
2.00
Projected Rate Revenues by Use Category (SR)

Agriculture
Alt. #
1
2
3
4
5
AG-RE
2,053,125
1,642,500
1,026,563
AG-UN
4,106,250
3,285,000
2,053,125
IND-1
1.00
IND-2
Recreational Use
IND-3
2.00
2.50
Sales Volume Reduction Factor:
Landscaping
URB-RE
URB-UN
2,874,375
2,299,500
1,437,188
8,212,500
6,570,000
4,106,250
IND-4
REC-RE
3.00
4,106,250
4,106,250
2,053,125
IND-2
8,212,500
8,212,500
4,106,250
IND-3
20,531,250
-
1.00
GW RCHG
2.00
10.0%
Industrial Use
IND-1
Recharge
REC-UN
Recreational Use
IND-4
24,637,500
-
REC-RE
REC-UN
1,026,563
2,053,125
Recharge
TOTAL
GW RCHG
18,478,125
23,405,625
13,797,000
45,168,750
17,862,188
FIGURE 4-15
Projected Flows, Rates, and Revenues for the Five Scenarios
For the purpose of this analysis, rates have been assumed for various categories of reuse
based on the range of case studies from other reuse contexts. Specifically, the fee structure
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-27
was developed to be consistent with the assumptions made in the Draft MOWE Regional
Planning Reports in that the low and high end of each sectors range was used for restricted
and unrestricted qualities, respectively, for sectors with two subcategories (agriculture,
landscaping [predominantly urban], and recreation), while for industry, IND-2 and IND-3
rates were set relative to the low and high used for IND-1 and IND-4.
Differentials in rates among categories of users are based on case studies examined. The
cost of providing service to various categories of customers has not been used directly in
establishing the assumed rates, although it is likely an indirect factor in influencing the rates
in the various case study contexts. The extent to which cost of service principles should be
used in establishing rates is a policy issue that would best be addressed during
implementation planning for a specific reuse option.
Finally, a sales volume reduction factor of 10 percent was used, reflecting an assumption
that 90 percent of the produced reuse water makes its way to a paying end user, and
10 percent is lost in the system.
Specification of the Five Main Scenarios: Wastewater Treatment Costs,

Reuse Conveyance Costs, and Total Costs
This section presents a description of the cost assumptions made for the five scenarios,
including screen captures of the summary cost worksheets directly from ProjectSelectTM. As
part of the customization of ProjectSelectTM for this analysis, the tool calculates wastewater
treatment costs, reuse conveyance costs, and total costs for each scenario. The custom
cost worksheets are automatically populated based on user-specified inputs for specific
parameters: including flow and quality level for wastewater treatment; and pipeline length,
pipe diameter, and total dynamic head (TDH) for conveyance costs. Therefore the
assumptions in the cost worksheets change as these inputs change. Additional detail about
the fixed and variable cost assumptions that are inputs for wastewater treatment and reuse
conveyance costs in worksheets is provided in Appendix B.
Flow-based wastewater treatment cost assumptions (capital and O&M) were developed for six
specified treatment levels, although only two were used in this analysis (All Purpose Unrestricted
Reuse and Very High Level Industrial Reuse). The wastewater treatment costs for the six levels
for a reuse flow of 50,000 m3/d are shown in Figure 4-16 for the four possible assumptions
about pre-existing treatment infrastructure that can be included or excluded from the analysis.
Regardless of whether wastewater treatment costs are included in the business case analysis,
the cost to deliver the RQTSE to the users always is included. These reuse conveyance costs
are calculated based on the defined total flow (50,000 m3/d in this case) and incorporate
assumptions about flow rates, total pipeline length, pipe diameter, pipe installation costs (SR/m),
pumping efficiency, and pumping costs. Figure 4-17 shows the assumptions used for the main
set of scenarios, including in particular 10,000 m of pipe at a diameter of 825mm, and the
resulting capital and O&M estimates. To help normalize the scenarios for more direct
comparison, the same reuse conveyance assumptions were made for each scenario (it is
possible to make different assumptions by changing the values in blue font).
Based on the assumptions made about treatment levels, pre-existing infrastructure to
exclude from the analysis, and reuse conveyance, costs are totaled for each scenario. The
resulting estimates for the five scenarios in this analysis are shown in Figure 4-18. Because
scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 5 all assumed tertiary treatment is in place before reuse, no costs are
included for wastewater treatment in those scenarios. Scenario 4, including high and very
high quality industrial uses, also assumes tertiary treatment pre-exists but additional costs
are incurred to provide the advanced treatment necessary, which are included in the
financial analysis and comparisons. Meanwhile, conveyance capital and O&M costs are
included for all scenarios (and at the same level consistent with the same assumptions made
for all scenarios as shown in Figure 4-17).
4-28
STRATEGIC STUDY
Comparison of Treatment Costs for Hypothetical Reuse Options

This worksheet compares capital and O&M costs for each combination of Treatment Levels and Existing Infrastructure Options
Existing Infrastructure Options
To compare reuse options, input:

Flow (m 3 / day):
50,000
Power Cost (SR / Kwh):
0.1875
WWTP Exists
(Primary and Secondary
Treatment Only)
WWTP Does Not Exist
WWTP Exists
(Primary+Secondary and
Tertiary Level Treatment)
WWTP Exists
(Primary+Secondary and
Tertiary Level + RO)
Estimated Treatment Costs (all numbers in millions of SR)

Treatment Levels (WQ Effluent)
Capital
Restricted Industrial Reuse
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
304.92
6.05
26.59
2.05
Restricted Recreational Reuse
306.11
6.08
27.78
2.07
Restricted Irrigation Reusec
340.71
6.05
62.39
2.05
All Purpose Unrestricted Reused
341.20
6.56
62.87
2.56
High Level Industrial Reuse
527.53
12.11
249.20
8.11
249.20
7.82
Very High Level Industrial Reusef
610.40
13.74
332.07
9.74
332.07
9.44
96.07
1.62
Includes cooling tower that does not require mist eliminator.
Recreation is limited to fishing, boating, and other non-contact recreational activities. No filtration is needed but disinfection requirement is similar to tertiary treatment.
Includes limited human contact uses such as irrigation for nurseries and golf courses.
Includes all purpose uses including urban irrigation, agricultural irrigation, unresitricted recreational uses, and cooling tower that requires mist eliminator and several industrial reuse
options that require only tertiary level treatment.
High quality industrial uses such as process water and medium pressure boiler feed water (200-500 bar). Tertiary level treatment and RO for TDS removal and water purification
removal.
Very high quality industrial uses such as process water for microchip manufacturing and high pressure boiler feed water (700 bar). Tertiary level treatment and double pass RO for
TDS removal.
FIGURE 4-16
Wastewater Treatment Costs for 50,000 m3/d of Reuse Capacity for Different Pre-Existing Infrastructure Assumptions
Flow Conveyance Model
This worksheet estimates CONVEYANCE capital and O&M costs for each reuse alternative based on user input (blue text)
Alternative
Flowrate, m3/day
1. Industry + 2. Industry + 3. Ag + Land

Agriculture Landscaping + Recharge
4. Industry
3&4
5. MultiSector/Use
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Flowrate, mgd
13.21
13.21
13.21
13.21
13.21
Flowrate,m3/sec
0.579
0.579
0.579
0.579
Conveyance Option
Pipe Velocity, m/sec
Pressurized
Pressurized
Pressurized
Pressurized
0.579
Pressurized
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Pipe Diameter, m
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Pipe Diameter, mm
753
753
753
753
753
Selected Pipe Size, mm
825
825
825
825
825
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Pipe Length, m
Unit Installed Cost of Pipe, SR/m
Installed Pipe Cost, SR
4072
4072
4072
4072
4072
40,720,000
40,720,000
40,720,000
40,720,000
40,720,000
Pump TDH, m
50
50
50
50
50
Pump TDH, ft
165
165
165
165
165
Pump Efficiency, %
Brake HP
Motor HP
Transfer Pump Station Capital Cost, SR
TOTAL Capital Cost, SR
Electricity Unit Cost, SR/Kwh
Annual Pumping Cost, SR/year
Annual O&M as % of Capital, SR/year
TOTAL ANNUAL COST, SR/year
70
70
70
70
70
546
546
546
546
546
607
607
607
607
607
4,552,500
4,552,500
4,552,500
4,552,500
4,552,500
45,272,500
45,272,500
45,272,500
45,272,500
45,272,500
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
671,250
671,250
671,250
671,250
671,250
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
453,000
453,000
453,000
453,000
453,000
1,124,250
1,124,250
1,124,250
1,124,250
1,124,250
FIGURE 4-17
Reuse Conveyance Cost Assumptions
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-29
Treatment and Conveyance Cost Estimates by Reuse Scenario

This worksheet summarizes treatment and conveyance cost components for each alternative
Estimates by Cost Category (SR)

Type of Expenditure:
Flow
(m3/day)
Existing Infrastructure
One-time
Annual
Periodic
Periodic
One-time
Annual
Treatment
Capital
Treatment
O&M
Treatment
R&R (5 yrs)
Treatment
R&R (10 yrs)
Conveyance
Capital
Conveyance
O&M
Alt. #
General Purpose
50,000
WWTP, Tertiary (no RO)
45,272,500
1,124,250
50,000
45,272,500
1,124,250
50,000
45,272,500
1,124,250
Very High Level Industrial Reuse
50,000
332,066,250
9,438,750
7,500,000
22,612,500
45,272,500
1,124,250
50,000
45,272,500
1,124,250
FIGURE 4-18
Total Costs for Reuse Scenarios
Non-Financial Evaluation Criteria, Weighting, and Scenario Scoring

Including non-financial evaluation criteria in the business case analysis helps capture other
important considerations that are not readily monetized or quantified. Rules of thumb for
developing such criteria are as follows:
Comprehensive, to include all important non-financial considerations
Fundamental, to express the essential reasons for interest in the alternative
Relevant, to address only those consequences that are influenced by comparing

alternatives
Well-defined, to facilitate generation and communication of insights for guiding the evaluation
Non-redundant, to avoid double-counting of possible consequences
Measurable, to define objectives precisely and to specify the degree to which objectives may
be achieved
Concise, to limit the collection of information to that required for a reasonable analysis
considering the available resources
Following these guidelines, six non-financial evaluation criteria were developed for this analysis.
They are identified and described below.
1. Economic Development: The extent to which the scenario supports local, regional, and/or
national economic development objectives by making the operations more efficient and/or
profitable, and therefore supporting development of additional jobs in the economy. While
these benefits are expected to be most pronounced in the industrial and commercial
enterprise sectors, reuse could provide opportunities for greater efficiency/profitability, and
therefore job growth and other economic benefits in some other sectors as well, such as
agriculture.
2. User/Public Acceptance: The extent to which direct users will accept and demand
reclaimed water for all or some of their needs, as allowed by/consistent with regulations,
regardless of tariff for reuse relative to first use water. Acceptance in this context also
includes any potential negative perceptions regarding water quality and related perceptions
regarding potential impacts on public health, or nuisance side-effects. This also captures the
extent to which direct users customers and the general public will accept reclaimed water
with no negative impacts on direct users business.
3. Ease of Implementation: Reflects the relative convenience of adding or switching
completely to reclaimed water, including one-time changes in technology and/or operations,
availability of proven equipment to reliably secure appropriate quantities and qualities of
reuse water to meet user needs, and ongoing operation, maintenance, and safety activities.
4-30
STRATEGIC STUDY
4. Temporal Use/Payment Pattern: Since the reclaimed water will be produced on a

relatively even pace year-round, scenarios with less seasonal variation in demand are
preferred to ones with more seasonal variation. Additionally, user profiles with more regular
payment streams and greater likelihood of meeting financial commitments are favored over
those with less regular or lumped payment streams and greater uncertainty regarding their
reliability of meeting financial commitments.
5. Regulatory Support/Enforcement: In general, it is expected that all uses included in the
scenarios will be supported in regulation; however, some may be more supported than
others, or may have clearer requirements than others (it also is assumed that the current
draft rules will be implemented substantively as they exist now). Additionally, some types of
reuse may be easier to inspect and enforce than others (e.g., where use is distributed to a
few large customers rather than to many distributed customers where ability to verify
compliance is more costly and problematic).
6. Community Benefit: The extent to which the
community is aware of and values the reuse, with the
knowledge that a scarce resource is being sustainably
reclaimed to reduce local and national dependence on
groundwater and desalination, and where reuse is
considered likely to free up these other water
resources to meet other identified community needs
for water.
For scoring purposes, a 10-point scale was developed
for each criterion, generally corresponding to the
narrative ratings shown in Table 4-12. Best
professional judgment was used in deciding how to
apply these across the different criteria to most
accurately reflect the relative relationships among the
scenarios. The raw (i.e., unweighted) scoring results
are displayed in Figure 4-19.
TABLE 4-12
Scenario Scoring System

Narrative Rating
Numerical
Score
Considerably above
average performance
10
Moderately above
average performance
Average performance
Moderately below
average performance
Considerably below
average performance
RESET Evaluation
Non-Financial: Project Alternative Evaluation, Scores, and Results
This worksheet allows the user to evaluate each project alternative against the chosen performance scale, and displays the results of the analysis
Type of Performance Scale Specified:
Ordinal
Ordinal
Ordinal
Ordinal
Ordinal
Temporal
Ease of
Regulatory
Use/Payment
Implementation
Support/Enforce
Pattern
Ordinal
Economic
Development
User/Public
Acceptance
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Average
performance
Average
performance
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Moderately
above average
Average
performance
Average
performance
Average
performance
Moderately
below average
Moderately
below average
Considerably
above average
4. Industry 3&4
Considerably
above average
Considerably
above average
Considerably
above average
Considerably
above average
Considerably
above average
Average
performance
5. Multi-Sector/Use
Moderately
below average
Average
performance
Moderately
below average
Average
performance
Average
performance
Moderately
above average
Community
Benefit
Calculate Raw Scores: this section determines the raw score for each non-financial criterion and project alternative based on previous input from user
7
7
7
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
10
4. Industry 3&4
10
10
10
10
10
5
5. Multi-Sector/Use
3
5
3
5
5
7
FIGURE 4-19
Narrative Rating for Each Criterion and Each Scenario and Corresponding Raw Numerical Score
Note: Weighted component scores and full results are shown in Section 4.6.2.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-31
4.6 Detailed Evaluation of the Five Defined Reuse Scenarios

This section presents the business case evaluation for the five scenarios using the
assumptions described above, featuring the built-in ProjectSelectTM financial metrics, nonfinancial metrics as specified for these scenarios, and comparative graphics. Financial
results are presented first, followed by the non-financial results. Overall findings and
recommendations based on the scenario evaluation, and the other information presented in
this chapter, are provided in Section 4.7.
It should be noted that because ProjectSelectTM was originally developed to compare
alternatives that exclusively or predominantly involve costs and not revenues, many of the charts
feature costs as positive above the x-axis, and revenues as negative below the x-axis. Where
deemed useful, reminders of this presentation feature are included in figures.
4.6.1 Summary of Financial Results

All of the scenarios have favorable financial metrics with respect to positive net present value
(NPV), relatively low payback periods, high benefit-cost ratios (B/C), and low cost-benefit ratios
(C/B), as seen in Figure 4-20. The two scenarios including industrial allocations with either
agriculture or landscaping have the best metrics, followed by the multi-sector/use scenario in a
close third place, the agriculture-landscaping-recharge scenario in fourth place for all but NPV,
and the high quality level industrial scenario with a noticeably longer payback period and less
favorable (but still better than break-even) B/C and C/B ratios. It should be remembered,
however, that the high level industrial scenario is at a disadvantage relative to the others in that
additional capital investment in advanced treatment is needed to support this scenario, while the
other four do not require additional wastewater treatment capital investment.
Project Alternative
4. Industry 3&4
5. Multi-Sector/Use
Net Present Value
282.46
375.51
194.05
222.48
270.82
Equivalent
Annual Cost
(3.61)
(3.61)
(3.61)
(34.22)
(3.61)
DISCOUNTED
Payback
Benefit - Cost
Ratio
2.67
2.06
3.69
13.71
2.77
5.25
6.65
3.92
1.35
5.07
Cost-Benefit
Ratio
0.19
0.15
0.26
0.74
0.20
FIGURE 4-20
Summary of Financial Results for the Scenarios

Note: NPV and Equivalent Annual Cost are given as Million SR; Discounted Payback is number of
years. Green shading identifies the best alternative, peach shading identifies the second best. The
C/B ratio is provided in addition to the B/C ratio because the C/B ratio is used in the Draft MOWE
Regional Planning Reports case studies.
ProjectSelectTM also automatically generates charts for each financial metric shown in
Figure 4-20 except the C/B ratio, which was manually added for this study, to support visual
comparisons of the results. These are presented in Figure 4-21.
Comparing the net cash flows for all scenarios shows a similar, but not identical, relative
relationship as in the NPV values. Figure 4-22 shows that the four scenarios not involving high
quality industrial reuse are all clustered together at the 28.53M SR marker, as their initial costs
(as expected given their conveyance costs) are all the same and they have no WWTP capital
costs. Also consistent with the NPV relationships, the high level industrial scenario incurs
significant costs at the outset, shown in the 342.73M SR marker. Consistent with the relatively
short payback periods for the scenarios not involving high level industrial reuse (see
Figures 4-20 and 4-21), the lines for these four scenarios cross below the x-axis, into positive net
cash flows very quickly. The high level industrial scenario crosses the x-axis into positive net
cash flow territory later (see yellow line) but ultimately has the second-best net cash flow at
412.48M SR. The high level industrial reuse scenarios relative ranking in NPV and net cash
flows differ because this scenario has a higher level of recurring capital costs than the others,
4-32
STRATEGIC STUDY
and because the net cash flows are based on undiscounted dollars, and so the gross cumulative
revenues over time have a greater impact than they do in the NPV analysis, where they are
discounted.
Financial Parameter: Net Present Value
Financial Parameter: Equivalent Annual Cost
Comparison of financial results across project alternatives

-
400.00
375.51
(3.61)
(5.00)
350.00
300.00
(3.61)
(3.61)
(3.61)
(10.00)
282.46
Millions of SR
Millions of SR
270.82
250.00
222.48
194.05
200.00
(15.00)
(20.00)
150.00
(25.00)
100.00
(30.00)
50.00
(35.00)
(34.22)
(40.00)
Industry + Agriculture
Industry + Landscaping
Ag + Land + Recharge
Industry 3&4
Multi-Sector/Use
Industry 3&4
Multi-Sector/Use
Financial Parameter: Payback Period
Financial Parameter: Benefit-Cost Ratio
16.00
7.00
6.65
13.71
14.00
Ratio of Benefits to Costs
6.00
12.00
Number of Years
Equivalent Annual Cost
Net Present Value
10.00
8.00
6.00
3.69
4.00
2.77
2.67
2.06
5.25
5.07
5.00
3.92
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.35
1.00
2.00
Industry 3&4
Multi-Sector/Use
DISCOUNTED Payback
Industry 3&4
Multi-Sector/Use
Benefit - Cost Ratio
FIGURE 4-21
Graphic Presentation of Financial Parameters for Each Scenario
Comparison of Net Cash Flows

Analysis of cumulative costs (benefits) across project alternatives
400.00
342.73
Total Project Costs (Millions of SR)
300.00
200.00
100.00
-
32.60
28.53
27.92
22.99
CY2011
CY2016
CY2021
CY2026
CY2031
FY2036
(100.00)
(200.00)
(271.55)
(300.00)
(373.18)
(400.00)
(388.57)
(500.00)
(511.76)
(412.58)
(600.00)
Industry 3&4
Multi-Sector/Use
FIGURE 4-22
Net Cash Flows for the Reuse Scenarios

Note: Negative flows appear above the x-axis and positive flows appear below the x-axis.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-33
Figure 4-23 presents net cash flows for the individual scenarios; recurring costs can be seen
in these charts.
Cash Flow Analysis: Industry + Agriculture
Cash Flow Analysis: Industry + Landscaping
Graphical summary of undiscounted costs and revenues for specified alternative
Choose Project Alternative:
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
(41.50)
(50.00)
30.00
(100.00)
(128.27)
20.00
(150.00)
10.00
(200.00)
(215.04)
(250.00)
(300.00)
(301.81)
(10.00)
(350.00)
(20.00)
(388.57)
(30.00)
(400.00)
Annual Project Costs (Benefits) in Millions of SR
40.00
(450.00)
CY2011
CY2016
Capital Investment
CY2021
CY2026
Operating Costs
40.00
(66.13)
30.00
(100.00)
20.00
(177.54)
(200.00)
10.00
(288.95)
(10.00)
(511.76)
(20.00)
(30.00)
(500.00)
(600.00)
CY2011
CY2016
CY2021
Capital Investment
Cash Flow Analysis: Ag + Land + Recharge
CY2026
Operating Costs
CY2031
Revenues
Cumulative NCF
Cash Flow Analysis: Multi-Sector/Use

50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
28.53
(18.09)
(50.00)
30.00
(81.46)
20.00
(100.00)
(144.82)
10.00
(150.00)
(200.00)
(208.18)
(10.00)
(250.00)
(271.55)
(20.00)
(300.00)
CY2016
Capital Investment
CY2021
Operating Costs
CY2026
(38.42)
(50.00)
30.00
(100.00)
20.00
(122.11)
(150.00)
10.00
(200.00)
(205.80)
-
(250.00)
(10.00)
(289.49)
(300.00)
(20.00)
(350.00)
(373.18)
(400.00)
(30.00)
CY2031
Revenues
40.00
Cumulative Costs (Benefits) in Millions of SR
40.00
32.60
(400.00)
(400.36)
Cumulative NCF
CY2011
(300.00)
CY2031
Revenues
22.99
27.92
CY2011
Cumulative NCF
CY2016
CY2021
Capital Investment
Operating Costs
CY2026
Revenues
CY2031
Cumulative NCF
Cash Flow Analysis: Industry 3&4

400.00
400.00
342.73
300.00
350.00
204.31
200.00
300.00
100.00
250.00
38.78
-
200.00
150.00
(100.00)
(104.14)
100.00
(200.00)
50.00
(269.66)
(300.00)
(412.58)
(50.00)
(100.00)
(400.00)
450.00
(500.00)
CY2011
CY2016
Capital Investment
CY2021
Operating Costs
CY2026
Revenues
CY2031
Cumulative NCF
FIGURE 4-23
Net Cash Flows Charts for the Individual Scenarios Also Showing Capital Investments, Operating Costs, and Revenues
Note: Negative flows appear above the x-axis and positive flows appear below the x-axis.
4.6.2 Summary of Non-Financial Results

ProjectSelectTM tabulates and displays the total component scores for each criterion based
on the scoring and weighting assumptions discussed in Section 4.5.4 and shown in
Figure 4-19. Figure 4-24 presents the tabular results and Figure 4-25 presents the same
results graphically. Summary observations are provided following Figure 4-25.
4-34
STRATEGIC STUDY
RESET Evaluation
Non-Financial: Project Alternative Evaluation, Scores, and Results
This worksheet allows the user to evaluate each project alternative against the chosen performance scale, and displays the results of the analysis
Type of Performance Scale Specified:
Ordinal
Ordinal
Economic
Development
User/Public
Acceptance
Ordinal
Ordinal
Ordinal
Ordinal
Temporal
Ease of
Regulatory
Use/Payment
Implementation
Support/Enforce
Pattern
Community
Benefit
Weighted Score and Results: this section applies the user-specified weights and develops the overall Non-Financial Score for each project alternative
Priority Weighting:
4. Industry 3&4
5. Multi-Sector/Use
FIGURE 4-24
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
1.17
1.17
0.83
1.67
0.50
1.17
1.17
0.83
1.67
0.83
1.17
1.17
0.83
1.67
0.50
0.83
1.17
0.50
1.67
0.83
0.83
1.17
0.50
1.67
0.83
1.17
1.17
1.67
0.83
1.17
Total Score % of High

69%
6.33
76%
7.00
56%
5.17
NA
9.17
51%
4.67
Component Weighted Scores for Non-Financial Criteria

Note: This is the bottom panel of the worksheet shown in Figure 4-19. See in the pale blue shaded row the priority
weighting assigned to each criterion. In this case they are equally weighted at 16.7% such that the sum of the
weights equals 100%. Total scores are shown in the dark green label, and the highest scorein this case 9.17 for
the Industry 3&4 scenariois also shaded dark green. To the right of the scores, each score as a percentage of
the highest score is shown.
Non-Financial Evaluation of Project Alternatives

Comparison of total weighted score and components by criterion
* The highest overall score identifies the most desirable project alternative based on the specified non-financial critieria
10.00
9.17
9.00
0.83
8.00
1.67
7.00
7.00
Total Utility
6.33
6.00
5.00
1.67
1.17
5.17
0.83
4.00
0.83
3.00
1.17
2.00
1.17
1.17
4.67
1.17
1.67
1.67
0.50
1.17
0.83
0.50
1.67
0.83
1.17
1.17
1.17
0.83
0.50
0.83
1.00
1.17
1.17
1.67
0.83
0.83
0.50
0.00
Industry + Agriculture Industry + Landscaping Ag + Land + Recharge
Industry 3&4
Economic Development
User/Public Acceptance
Ease of Implementation
Regulatory Support/Enforce
Community Benefit
Total Score
Multi-Sector/Use
Temporal Use/Payment Pattern
FIGURE 4-25
Graphic Presentation of Component Weighted Scores for Non-Financial Criteria

Note: The values inside each bar segment are the weighted scores, which are 0.167 times the raw score.
The five possible scores of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 thus translate into possible weighted component scores of 0.17,
0.50, 0.83, 1.17, and 1.67, respectively.
Overall, the high quality reuse Industry 3&4 scenario scored the highest on the nonfinancial criteria, followed by the two other scenarios with significant industrial reuse
(at 50 percent each). The agriculture-landscaping-recharge scenario was fourth best, and
the multi-sector scenario scored lowest, but still with a score close to the mid-range. Some
reasons for these results are as follow:
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-35
The Industry 3&4 scenario received the highest possible score on all criteria except
community benefit, which was designed to favor more visible uses. Consistent with
standard practice for these types of scoring, the other scenarios were then scored
relative to this best situation.
Industry + Landscaping received the second highest possible score on all criteria. This
is because while the industry component scored the highest individually, the landscaping
component scored about average individually, except for community benefit, for which
the individual sector scores are reversed. This resulted in splitting the difference and
scoring the package as moderately above average on all criteria.
Industry + Agriculture scored slightly below the Industry + Landscaping scenario.

These two scenarios were deemed equal on four of the six criteria, but the Industry +
Agriculture scenario received lower scores for Temporal Use/Payment Pattern and
Regulatory Support/Enforcement. This is because it is expected that agricultural users
may not pay until after their harvest, resulting in a less-steady revenue stream, and it is
believed that agricultural operations may be more difficult to inspect than urban or
commercial landscaping operations due to the relative geographic spread or
concentration.
The Ag+Land+Recharge scenario generally scored lower than others except multi-use
because the individually higher scoring industrial uses were not present to boost the
agricultural and landscaping components scores. Notably, this scenario scored the
highest possible on community benefits, which (as noted above) is designed to reflect
the visibility of the reuse among the general public.
The Multi-Sector/Use scenario, although the lowest total score among the group, still
has an overall score that can be interpreted as about average. Some of the individual
component scores are lower, in part because the higher scoring industrial component
was proportionately less (only 25 percent by allocation). This is particularly true for the
economic development criterion. This scenario also received a relatively lower ease of
implementation score, in part because 75 percent of the allocation would need some
personal precautions and/or special equipment. Notably, this scenario scored the same
as the Industry + Agriculture scenario on temporal use/payment pattern and regulatory
support/enforcement and the same as both Industry +Agriculture and Industry +
Landscaping for community benefits.
4.6.3 Summary of Overall Scenario Results

Together, the financial and non-financial analysis of the five scenarios shows that a wide
variety of reuse portfolios can: (1) be economically viable without subsidies under a sufficient
tariff structure; and (2) deliver important non-financial benefits to the users, reclaimed water
providers, and larger community. This is shown in Figure 4-26, which is similar to
Figure 4-20, but includes the non-financial scores as well.
The main financial differences across the scenarios examined here relate to the assumed
rate structure, the relative proportion of low, medium, and high rate-payers, and whether or
not advanced treatment is necessary and included in the financial analyses. The main nonfinancial differences relate to greater relative benefits for the chosen criteria delivered by
industrial uses compared to landscaping and agricultural uses.
Certainly, the five scenarios presented here are necessarily generalized to examine the
relative relationships among reuse portfolios with distinctly different reuse allocations that
might be found in KSA localities. In reality, the reuse water provider and its prospective
customers will have ample opportunity to collaborate in identifying opportunities for reuse
and planning cost-effective treatment and delivery systems. This discussion of the scenario
results is not intended to imply that communities should choose among these scenarios as
4-36
STRATEGIC STUDY
scoped here, but rather that communities should develop the reuse portfolio that best
matches their needs and opportunities.
Financial and Non-Financial Results
Project Alternative
4. Industry 3&4
5. Multi-Sector/Use
Net Present Value
Equivalent
Annual Cost
282.46
375.51
194.05
222.48
270.82
(3.61)
(3.61)
(3.61)
(34.22)
(3.61)
DISCOUNTED
Payback
2.67
2.06
3.69
13.71
2.77
Benefit - Cost Non-Financial

Ratio
Total Score
5.25
6.65
3.92
1.35
5.07
6.33
7.00
5.17
9.17
4.67
FIGURE 4-26
Summary of Financial and Non-Financial Results for the Scenarios

Note: NPV and Equivalent Annual Cost are given as Million SR; Discounted Payback is number of years. Green
shading identifies the best alternative, peach shading identifies the second best. See Figure 4-20 for the C/B ratio.
Note that all B/C ratios are greater than 1.0, indicating the scenario is profitable, and payback periods are relatively
short. Four of the five scenarios have total non-financial scores which can be interpreted as average (=5) or above,
while the fifth is very close to an overall average score.
In fact, given the limited recent and ongoing experience with reuse in some geographies
within the study area, the range of reuse opportunities will likely be established over time as
an equilibrium/balance point is reached as the utility systems more aggressively market the
availability and quality of reuse opportunities and existing and potential additional customers
gain experience and a comfort level in using reuse water to meet appropriate portions of
their water needs. Local governments and MOWE will also need to facilitate a matching
process for reclaimed water to be used for various users and support the education of
customers in its use.
While common assumptions had to be made for this study to provide a consistent framework
for considering the NPV, payback, and benefit-cost relationships of the identified scenarios,
utility-specific and customer-specific considerations will likely ultimately play a significant role
in determining where there is a likely match between utility and customer expectations and
goals. For example, the fact that Scenario 4 (Industry 3&4) scores strongly in terms of
contribution to non-financial criteria and ultimately has a net positive cash flow that is
favorable relative to other scenarios (see Figures 4-22 and 4-23 and related text) suggests
that this could be a viable approach even though the standard financial metrics such as NPV
and benefit-cost ratio show this scenario as scoring lower than the other scenarios.
Since a key driver affecting the standard financial metrics in these comparisons is whether or
not there are substantial front-end costs, several considerations could result in a scenario
such as Industry 3&4 still being a viable strategy. One way is that the industries that would
benefit from the availability of the high quality reuse water provided for this scenario might be
willing to work with the utilities to help provide a revenue stream that makes it financially
feasible for both the utility and customer to implement this reuse strategy.
Another example of how a scenario such as Industry 3&4 could see improved metrics is
through more detailed context-specific feasibility studies of the costs of providing reuse
water. Such studies may indicate that there are economies of scale at certain plateau
points in the implementation of required treatment facilities that would allow utilities, if
provided contractual commitments for purchasing water at or near those plateau points, to
assume lower costs for providing reuse water than were assumed in the higher-level
evaluation conducted in this study.
The fact that there are positive benefit-cost ratios and encouraging payback periods for
these preliminary studies with a reasonable range of high-level assumptions on costs and
usage, suggests that there is merit going forward for both utilities and potential customer
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-37
groups to think creatively in terms of such usage, cost, and revenue conditions that would
provide a framework for even more mutual benefit/gain sharing.
Reuse programs well-tailored for specific communities clearly have the potential to score
well on financial and non-financial criteriapotentially even higher than some of the
scenarios presented here. Site-specific planning can take advantage of economies of scale,
the benefits of decentralized systems where appropriate, optimizing piping and delivery
systems, and co-location of users in a way that cannot be reflected in the scenarios
presented here. Additionally, a systems approach will enable providers to optimize their rate
structure for their specific user base, charging high rates for high quality, keeping reuse rates
competitive with first use water rates, and keeping rates lower for some uses and users
where necessary to encourage demand for reclaimed water.
4.7 Findings and Recommendations

The analyses presented in this chapter demonstrate that the commitment to significantly
expand the availability of RQTSE for a wide variety of uses will be critical to meeting future
water demand, can be cost-effective for users, and can be profitable for providers.
Capturing these business opportunities and supporting overall resource sustainability goals
will depend in large part on the following:
Instituting rational tariff structures for both first use water and RQTSE that support the
significant capital and operational investments that will be made
Creating the proper economic relationship between different sources of water to make
RQTSE sufficiently attractive as a source, and to recognize differences in ability and
willingness to pay in a manner consistent with social and cultural considerations
The findings directly derived from the information and analysis presented in this chapter
have important implications for future planning and resource allocation processes and
decisions, in particular for taking an integrated systems planning and management approach
(systems approach) for the relevant scope and scale. The findings themselves and their
larger implications also point to specific actions and activities that should be supported and
launched where not already underway to ensure that local, regional, and national goals for
reuse and sustainable resource management are met.
Highlights of the major findings, broader implications, and recommendations are discussed
in turn below.
4.7.1 Highlights of Major Findings

The various sections of this chapter demonstrate the following:
The macro-case for reuse is compelling given the projected depletion of groundwater
resources, the very high cost of desalinating seawater driven in part by its high energy
needs, and the economic irrationality of sending treated wastewater back to the sea
given these scarcity and cost considerations.
The potential demand for RQTSE is projected to triple between 2010 and 2035, with the
most significant growth occurring between now and 2025. Significant growth in demand
is projected for almost every region and city, across all five categories of reuse:
agriculture; landscaping; industry; recreation; and recharge.
Almost every region and city shows significant future reuse demand for agricultural,
landscaping, and industrial use even though there is variability in the relative demand for
RQTSE from each user category across regions and cities, due to differences in
geography, demographics, and economic activities.
4-38
STRATEGIC STUDY
The compilation of the Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports case studies shows that
all but 3 of the 64 proposals could be implemented profitably, with C/B ratios less than 1,
and that 54 could be implemented with C/B ratios of 0.6 or less. These examples also
show that while landscaping and industrial reuse projects among this set are generally
more cost-effective than agricultural ones, agricultural reuse projects can have C/B ratios
within the range for the other two types of reuse.
The individual case studies presented show that reuse can be particularly attractive for
industrial users with relatively short payback periods. Some of these cases also
demonstrate that other resource conservation and recycling opportunities can exist for
WWTPs that offer significant cost savings and/or specific revenue streams.
The five reuse scenarios developed and evaluated for this study using ProjectSelectTM
collectively show that all distinctly different reuse portfolios defined by variable flow
allocation to the five major categories can be financially viable, with many profitable in
the near term, and also deliver important non-financial benefits to users, providers, and
the community. Individually, the scenarios demonstrate the opportunity and need to
tailor actual WWTP and reuse systems to specific geographic realities and market
opportunities; the scenarios are not intended to imply that any one scenario is best in all
circumstances.
4.7.2 Broader Implications and Other Findings

While the results of the scenarios analysis show that a wide range of reuse portfolios can be
financially viable on key performance metrics, including positive NPV, acceptable payback
period, and better than break-even B/C and C/B ratios, achieving those favorable metrics in
practice will depend on integrated planning, capital decisions, continued collaboration with
potential customers and other stakeholders, and coordinated management.
In fact, the NWCs taking responsibility for water, wastewater, and reuse services in the six
largest citiesRiyadh, Jeddah, Makkah, Al Taif, Al Madinah, and the Greater Dammam
areaprovides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the power of integrated master
plans to optimize and leverage the three services during the development, construction, and
implementation phases. In particular, NWC will have the opportunity to implement (or
continue to implement) the strategies listed below that will help maximize the financial and
non-financial benefits of reuse for all involved:
Coordinate rate structures for water, wastewater, and RQTSE to create the necessary
relative cost relationships between the three to provide sufficient economic incentives for
conservation, recycling, and reuse.
Implement a public education and awareness program and user-targeted RQTSE

marketing programs to fully develop the projected demand in all user categories present
in the geographic area associated with a given WWTP-RQTSE system.
Collaborate with user groups and individual users to identify and capture opportunities to
match different RQTSE levels to specific needs, to take advantage of co-location, and
otherwise optimize conveyance systems to minimize those costs, and enter partnerships
to share capital and/or O&M costs where necessary to offer a quality level that could not
otherwise be provided.
Fully explore and compare system alternatives with respect to their degree of
centralization versus decentralization. Depending on geography and demand profile,
one or the other extreme, or a mix may be the best plan. Centralized facilities offer
economies of scale for treatment, but could require significant conveyance infrastructure
and costs, which in some cases might be beyond a feasible distance. Decentralized
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-39
facilities, which provide either significant treatment or just enough additional treatment to
meet the local need, could be very cost-effective in some situations.
Beyond the six cities, MOWE can also continue to promote reuse in other cities and regions.
The scenarios presented in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 offer similar lessons and demonstrate
similar opportunities for integrated planning and development of water, wastewater, and
reuse systems outside of cities, though the geographic and coordination challenges may be
somewhat greater. With sources and uses in a less concentrated geography, the emphasis
outside cities should be focused on matching potential sources of RQTSE with potential
customers and developing the necessary education, marketing, collaboration, and capital
initiatives to match those partners where it can be financially viable to do so. A key
component of these efforts would be to actively and aggressively promote RQTSE over
groundwater. A combination of general education, rational prices for groundwater versus
RQTSE, and total farm financial analysis to show the yield benefits of RQTSE will be
necessary to meet reuse goals in agricultural areas outside of the cities.
The final implication featured in this section is based on an aspect of the scenarios that
could not be directly evaluated on financial metrics: the importance of greatly expanding
MAR. Because there is not a standard practice in KSA to emulate, the rate structure used
for the scenarios did not include any tariff for recharge, despite the inclusion of that reuse in
two of the five scenarios.
MAR offers the opportunity to strategically and purposefully store RQTSE for later use when
supply exceeds demand. Perhaps some type of options rate structure could be developed
for users willing to pay to bank RQTSE in an aquifer that they could call for later. This
could involve the option holder paying a lower fee (per m3) at the time the RQTSE is stored
than the option holder would pay later, which might represent partial or full payment for the
volume delivery the option holder can request at a later date. At the same time, the owner of
the stored RQTSE should be able to value it in some way on its balance sheets that
supports the financial viability of storing it even if no specific user makes a claim on it. At a
minimum, where at all preventable, TSE should not be discharged to the sea (where it would
only conceptually return to a desalination plant), or to wadi drainages where it would
evaporate without any meaningful recharge benefits. Excess TSE should be recharged to
non-potable aquifer areas to immediately preserve precious water resources and the energy
invested to produce water with relatively low TDS.
4.7.3 Additional Recommendations to Support Development of

Reuse-Related Business Opportunities
In addition to the above strategic recommendations, enhancements to the quantity and
quality of water-related data are needed to fully support achievement of water resource
management objectives in KSA generally, and more specifically the achievement of reuse
expansion goals. This recommendation is similar to that made in Chapter 1, and covers the
need for detailed and accurate information about water use, wastewater generation,
groundwater withdrawals, and reuse quantities and allocations. This is consistent with the
National Water Database discussed in Chapter 7, and recently recommended in a
presentation by MOWEs Deputy Minister (Al-Saud, 2011).
The type of database envisioned will be necessary to fully support the integrated systems
planning and management approach discussed above that is key to successfully
implementing reuse programs wherever they can deliver financial and non-financial benefits
to users, providers, and the recipient communities.
Follow-on efforts to this study should be launched to further explore the opportunities and
constraints on financially viable reuse programs. Input assumptions for this study reflect a
reasonable range of system, financial, cost, and revenue variables. Specific opportunities to
expand reuse will result by locating situations where utilities and customers achieve financial
4-40
STRATEGIC STUDY
and non-financial benefits based on their specific goals, objectives, and evaluation
frameworks, including their specific cost of money in light of current resources, access to
capital markets, and other draws on their financial resources. As a follow-on effort, it is
recommended that more detailed studies be conducted based on defined needs for users in
delineated geographies, where opportunities to provide specific volumes and quantities of
reuse water at qualities required by identifiable candidate customers can be used to refine
the assumptions of required capital and O&M costs and revenue/rate opportunities. As
noted above, opportunities for creative cost-sharing and gain-sharing might be explored to
further enhance the opportunities for mutual benefit to utilities and potential customers.
4.8 References
Al-Hazmi, A. and A. Jaffar. 2006. SABIC Wastewater Conservation and Reuse.
Proceedings of Saudi Arabian Water Environment Association Workshop. December 5-6,
2006. Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
Al-Saud, Dr. Mohammed. 2011. The Importance of Developing Sustainable Water
Resources in the Kingdom: Strategies for the Future. Jeddah. 31-05-2011.
Cote, P., S. Siverns, S. Monti. 2005. Comparison of Membrane-based Solutions for Water
Reclamation and Desalination. Desalination. 182; pp 251-257.
CH2M HILL. 2011. Summary Review of Design-Build Proposals for Al Kharj Road STP
Phase III. March 2011.
ItalConsult. 2009-2010. Wastewater Reuse Planning Reports prepared for the Ministry of
Water and Electricity (MOWE) for each of the 13 Regions:

Al Jouf; July 2009
Hail; July 2009
Jizan; March 2010

Najran; August 2009
Tabouk; July 2009
Ostara. 2011. http://www.ostara.com/.

Japan External Trade OrganizationJETRO). 2009. The Study on Wastewater Treatment
and Water Reuse in Saudi-Aramco, Saudi Arabia. Prepared by JETRO Water Re-use
Promotion Center Sumitomo Corporation.
Kajenthira A. L.D. Anadon and A. Siddiqi. 2011. The Case for Cross-Sectoral Water
Reuse in Saudi Arabia: Bringing Energy into the Water Equation. Proceedings of 17th
Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference. May 8-10, 2011.
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). 2001. Using Treated Water for
Irrigation Controls: Conditions, Offences and Penalties.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Presidency of Meteorology and Environment (PME). 2001.
General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation. October 15, 2001.
Matichich, Michael. 2010. Evaluating investment options: Water resource management
utility develops freeware that transportation, facilities, and virtually any other infrastructure
operation can use. Public Works Magazine. December 2010. http://pwmag.com/industrynews.asp?sectionID=760&articleID=1465624&artnum=1. A link to the freeware version of
ProjectSelectTM is provided at the end of this article.
STRATEGIC STUDY
4-41
National Water Company (NWC). 2011. Jeddah City Business Unit, Wastewater Sludge
Management Plan.
Sharqawy, M.H. 2011. Mobile Solar Desalination System for Water Production in Arid and
Off Grid Areas. Proceedings of International Desalination Association Conference in
Portofino, May 16-18, 2011.
U.S. CIA World Factbook. 2011. See at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/fields/2207.html. See also
http://www.indexmundi.com/saudi_arabia/central_bank_discount_rate.html .
Wafeer. 2011. http://www.wafeer.net/page1251216.aspx.
4-42
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 5: Aquifer Recharge and Recovery

5.1 Introduction
Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) was defined by Dillon (2005) as the intentional banking
and treatment of waters in aquifers. The term managed aquifer recharge was introduced as
an alternative to artificial recharge, which has the connotation that such use of the water
was, in some way, unnatural (Dillon, 2005). MAR can be either a storage technology,
treatment technology, or both. With respect to reclaimed water, MAR can be used to store
seasonally available excess water (intra-annual supply management), to strategically store
currently available excess water for future use, or to serve as a treatment (polishing) step in
a multiple-barrier approach to reclaimed water reuse.
Other similar terms have been introduced for MAR techniques. The term aquifer recharge
and recovery (ARR) refers to the artificial recharge of water into an aquifer and its later
recovery for subsequent use with a primary goal of water treatment. ARR of reclaimed water
can be very cost-effective wastewater treatment technology. The term managed
underground storage (MUS) was introduced by the U.S. National Research Council (2008)
to denote the purposeful recharge of water into an aquifer system for intended recovery and
use as an element of long-term water resource management.
MAR includes a variety of techniques, some of which are applicable to RQTSE storage and
treatment (Table 5-1). Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is an important MAR technique,
which was defined by Pyne (1995) as: The storage of water in a suitable aquifer through a
well during times when water is available, and the recovery of the water from the same well
during times when it is needed.
TABLE 5-1
RQTSE MAR Techniques

Technique
Description
ASR
Injection of water into an aquifer and its later recovery using wells.
ARR
Recharge of water into an aquifer and its later recovery for use with a primary goal
of water treatment.
Aquifer recharge using wells
Injection of water into an aquifer with the goal of increasing aquifer water levels.
Aquifer storage, transfer, and

recovery (ASTR)
Injection of water into an aquifer and its recovery using different, nearby wells with
the goal of using flow through the aquifer as a treatment process.
Salinity barrier system
Injection or recharge of water by infiltration to create a hydraulic mound and thus

prevent saline-water intrusion.
Soil-aquifer treatment (SAT)
Infiltration of wastewater into shallow basins with the goal of improving its quality
by vadose and saturated zone processes. As originally defined, the flow of water
is controlled and restricted to a limited area of the aquifer.
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 5: AQUIFER RECHARGE AND RECOVERY
ASR, like other types of MAR systems, takes advantage of the large storage volumes
present in aquifers and, in the case of systems recharging non-potable waters, the natural
contaminant attenuation processes that occur in aquifer systems.
A variety of different types of water are stored or treated in MAR systems, including:
RQTSE (also referred to as reclaimed water)
Potable water (including desalinated water)
Surface water (treated to varying degrees)
Stormwater
Raw groundwater (inter-aquifer systems)
MAR using RQTSE has the advantage of potentially allowing for the greatest beneficial use
of the water, which might otherwise go to waste and present a disposal problem. MAR
techniques can also be intentionally used to improve the quality of the water. The principal
challenge of MAR using RQTSE is ensuring that public health, water supplies, and the
environment are protected.
5.1.1 Potential Benefits of RQTSE MAR and ASR in KSA

All freshwater resources are precious in water-scarce
Benefits of Water Reuse
regions such as KSA and other countries in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA) region. Very limited
Reuse of RQTSE is thus the only
additional renewable fresh groundwater and surface
available source of large volumes
water resources are available to meet current and
of relatively inexpensive
projected future demands. Only two large-scale
freshwater, especially for nonsources of additional water are available to
potable uses
accommodate future increases in demand:
desalination and wastewater reuse. Desalination can
provide an essentially unlimited supply of additional freshwater, but at a relatively high cost.
Agricultural irrigation is by far the greatest water use in KSA, and desalinated water is too
expensive for many agricultural uses. Reuse of RQTSE is thus the only available source of
large volumes of relatively inexpensive freshwater, especially for non-potable uses.
Increased collection, treatment, and reuse of wastewater are important for controlling the
rising groundwater tables occurring locally in some KSA cities, which may exacerbate
flooding (Al Motairi, 2001).
The primary value of RQTSE MAR in KSA is as a component of integrated water resource
management (IWRM). Reclaimed MAR can allow for greater value to be obtained from
RQTSE resources, which in turn can lead to more effective utilization of all water resources.
In particular, increased beneficial use of RQTSE allows for more valuable fresh groundwater
and desalinated water resources to be put to higher value (potable) uses.
ASR and related technologies can be used to store excess RQTSE (i.e., flows in excess of
current reuse water demands) that would otherwise be disposed of, with potential associated
environmental impacts. Water could be stored to manage intra-year variations in supply and
demand or on a long-term strategic basis for use in the future when demands increase. The
availability of a reliable source of high-quality RQTSE could allow for agricultural
development in areas lacking an available fresh groundwater supply.
MAR technologies, such as ARR, may also be used as a treatment element in a multi-barrier
approach to wastewater reuse. Numerous sources of data indicate that the concentrations
of pathogens and many chemical contaminants can be greatly reduced using MAR systems,
resulting in a substantial improvement in RQTSE quality (Section 5.4). Placing RQTSE in a
natural environment (in this case an aquifer) also tends to reduce its stigma of being a
5-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
wastewater product and can thus increase the social acceptance of reuse. Discussions with
several date palm farmers in KSA indicated that they would not be willing to use reclaimed
water for crop irrigation because of this stigma.
More specialized MAR systems can be used to manage specific water resources problems.
For example, RQTSE can be used in salinity barrier systems to prevent or reverse salinewater intrusion in coastal areas, and thus protect valuable fresh groundwater resources.
Increased beneficial reuse of RQTSE reduces the economic and environmental costs
associated with its disposal.
5.1.2 General Requirements for Successful RQTSE MAR and ASR

ASR is a storage technology. As such, general requirements include a supply of excess
RQTSE that can be stored and a demand for the stored water. As a result, RQTSE ASR in
KSA currently has potential applications primarily in major urban areas with large wastewater
treatment facilities and RQTSE flows. Four areas were investigated in this study:
Riyadh Region (Riyadh and Al-Kharj)
Makkah Region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Al Taif)
Madinah Region (Al Madinah)
Eastern Province (Dammam, Dhahran, and Al-Khobar)
Techniques with primarily a treatment goal (e.g., ARR, ASTR, SAT) can be utilized as a
cost-effective wastewater treatment step in smaller communities.
Successful implementation of RQTSE ASR depends upon local supply and demand for the
water. If the entire RQTSE flow is currently being reused, then ASR is not viable because
there would be no water to store. Similarly, there is little value in storing RQTSE
underground if there are no unmet demands for the RQTSE (i.e., the current RQTSE
demands can be met in their entirety by current flows). However, water may be strategically
stored now in order to meet anticipated future demands. For example, RQTSE may be
stored in anticipation of a future expansion of the reuse water distribution system. The
availability of a reliable RQTSE supply can be a driver for increased demand for the water.
The performance of MAR systems is highly dependent on local hydrogeological conditions.
ASR and other MAR techniques require favorable hydrogeological conditions in order to
meet storage and treatment goals (Section 5.3). Such favorable conditions are not present
everywhere. Unfavorable hydrogeological conditions can result in the recovery of only a
small percentage of stored water, deterioration in stored water quality due to adverse fluidrock interactions, or less than targeted attenuation of contaminant concentrations.
Fortunately, much has been learned over the past several decades on the extent to which
hydrogeological conditions influence the performance of MAR systems, which provides
valuable guidance on the selection of aquifers for MAR systems and system design.
A fundamental concern for RQTSE MAR systems is protection of groundwater resources
and public health. Protection of both can be achieved in two primary ways. RQTSE can be
treated to a very high degree so that it poses essentially no public health hazard even if it
were to be consumed. Alternatively, an MAR system could be implemented in a carefully
selected location, with respect to both the choice of aquifers and geographic site, so that
there is no significant risk that the water would enter potable water supplies. Both of these
strategies are being employed globally and could be used in KSA. Water quality standards
for restricted and unrestricted irrigation with RQTSE have been established by MOWE.
Water quality standards have not been issued specifically for groundwater recharge projects
and should be established on a project-specific basis during project permitting.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-3
RQTSE MAR systems must comply with all applicable regulations and must also receive
socio-cultural (public) acceptance. In general, public acceptance of reuse is related to the
potential for exposure to the water. There is typically support for projects with long distances
(low potential exposure, e.g., irrigation of highway medians). Support decreases if indirect
potable reuse is involved. Direct potable reuse projects typically have the least support.
5.2 MAR and ASR Concepts

5.2.1 MAR System Types
MAR includes a variety of technologies to store and treat water using aquifers. The choice
of system type depends upon project storage and treatment needs, and local hydrogeology.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery

ASR involves the underground storage of water in aquifers using wells. ASR, using the
definition of Pyne (1995), requires that injection and recovery be performed using the same
well. Performing injection and recovery from a single well has the significant benefit of a
lower cost than separate dedicated injection and recovery wells. Dual-function wells also
have the advantage that the well pump can be used to periodically backflush the well, which
is normally required in order to maintain its capacity.
In practice, most ASR systems use dual-function wells, but there are circumstances when
separate injection and recovery wells may be a better solution. For example, if the body of
stored water (reservoir) is moving horizontally due to local hydraulic gradients or vertically
due to density stratification, then more water might be recovered using a dedicated downgradient recovery well. The large (78-well) Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, ASR system uses
both dual-purpose wells and dedicated injection wells.
ASR systems offer the following advantages for RQTSE storage:
Much lower costs than surface storage options
Very large storage capacities that are typically available at no cost
Much lower land requirements than surface reservoirs
No water losses due to evapotranspiration
Less severe environmental impacts due to small system size
Potential improvement in water quality through the natural attenuation of concentrations

of pathogens and chemical contaminants
Minimal adverse aesthetic (e.g., visual, odor) impacts
The main disadvantages or limitations of ASR systems include the following:
Unfavorable hydrogeological conditions potentially resulting in low recoverability of

stored water
Adverse changes in water quality potentially occurring due to fluid-rock interactions (e.g.,
metals leaching)
Adverse public and regulatory perceptions, particularly if indirect potable reuse is

involved
ASR includes several different types of systems that vary in how they achieve useful storage
of water (Maliva and Missimer, 2008; 2010). Useful storage refers to the degree to which
5-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
injection, storage, and recovery of water provide the system owner or operator with
additional water when needed that would not otherwise be available. The two main types of
ASR systems are chemically bounded and physical-storage systems.
Chemically bounded ASR systems store freshwater in an aquifer that contains poorer quality
water, which is brackish water for most systems of this type. The boundary of the freshwater
reservoir is the chemical contrast between the injected water and native groundwater
(Figure 5-1). A mixing or transition (buffer) zone separates the injected water and native
groundwater. The operation of ASR systems using brackish or saline aquifers has been
described as conceptually like the inflation and deflation of a balloon (Senay, 1977), and
more commonly in recent publications as like a bubble. Injection of freshwater inflates the
balloon or bubble, which then deflates during recovery.
FIGURE 5-1
Conceptual Diagram of ASR Using Brackish Storage Zone

Note: A) Injection of freshwater displaces native brackish groundwater. Freshwater and brackish water
are separated by a mixing zone. B) During recovery, freshwater is drawn back toward the ASR well.
It is recognized that neither the balloon nor the bubble metaphor is accurate for the reservoir
used to store freshwater (e.g., Vacher et al., 2006; Maliva et al., 2006). The distribution of
injected freshwater is controlled by aquifer heterogeneity: injected water preferentially enters
the most permeable beds within the storage zone. The freshwater reservoir may also
become asymmetrical in response to natural and anthropogenically influenced hydraulic
gradients and density stratification.
Physical-storage ASR systems store water by increasing the total volume of water in storage
in an aquifer, as manifested by an increase in aquifer water levels or heads (Figure 5-2).
The function of the aquifer is similar to that of a water storage tank, in which the walls of
the tank are the aquifer boundaries. The key technical issue is the selection of an aquifer
with sufficient lateral and underlying confinement so that most of the stored water is retained
(i.e., water level or head increase persists) until the time of recovery. Groundwater basins
bounded by crystalline bedrock are good candidates for physical-storage ASR systems.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-5
FIGURE 5-2
Conceptual Diagram of Physical Storage ASR System

Note: The increase in the volume of stored water is the product of the increased water level or head (h) above
pre-injection levels, aquifer area, and storativity.
Physical-storage ASR systems are typically used to store freshwater in a freshwater aquifer.
Another option is to store freshwater on top of brackish or saline water within a closed basin.
Aquifer Recharge Using Wells

For this technology, the system is designed to increase water levels in an aquifer by
injection. The prime candidates for aquifer recharge systems are aquifers where water
levels or heads have significantly declined over time due to over-draft. The storage space
available in depleted aquifers can be used to store RQTSE. Depending upon current
groundwater use in the basin and aquifer conditions, existing production wells might be used
as recharge wells. A key technical issue is how best to use this technology without
degrading aquifer water quality or interfering with existing uses, particularly if the aquifer is
still being used for potable water supply. Aquifer recharge systems may be operated for the
benefit of all aquifer users.
Aquifer recharge using wells is very similar to physical-storage ASR in one major respect:
the goal is to increase aquifer water levels. Aquifer recharge systems may also be
implemented to stop or reduce the rate of water level decline from over-draft. In addition,
injection and recovery may be performed using separate wells. It may be more economical
to inject water at the point of supply and recover it at dedicated production wells located near
the point of use. The aquifer is used to convey water from the point of supply to the point of
use, rather than constructing a pipeline or canal.
Aquifer Storage, Transfer, and Recovery

ASTR is a type of MAR system in which separate injection and recovery wells are used
(Figure 5-3) as a means of improving stored water quality by providing additional residence
time and taking advantage of the filtration provided by the aquifer (Rinck-Pfeiffer et al.,
2006). The essential feature of ASTR is the intentional use of the flow of injected water
through an aquifer as a treatment method. However, ASTR systems may also provide a
storage benefit.
5-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 5-3
Conceptual Diagram of ASTR System

Note: Reclaimed water is injected and recovered using separate wells. Water quality is improved by
physical, chemical, and biological processes as the water flows through the aquifer.
An excellent operational example of an ASTR system is the El Paso Water Utilities (Texas,
USA) Hueco Bolson Recharge Project, which involves injection of highly treated RQTSE
from the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant into the upper Hueco Bolson Aquifer and its
later recovery for potable use (National Research Council, 1994; Sheng, 2005). The
recharge and recovery wells have a minimum spacing of 782 m in order to ensure an
adequate aquifer residence time (2-year minimum) for complete inactivation of viruses in the
recovered water.
A key technical issue is how best to accurately determine travel times between injection and
recovery wells, which may be shorter than expected due to aquifer heterogeneity (e.g., the
presence of flow zones with very high hydraulic conductivity). Aquifer characterization,
modeling, and tracer testing can be used to assess aquifer travel times.
Salinity Barrier Systems

The intrusion of saline water into aquifers is a serious concern in coastal areas that are
reliant on groundwater for water supply. Groundwater withdrawals in coastal areas may
reduce the potentiometric surface of aquifers to a point where the hydraulic gradient at the
coast changes from seaward to landward, allowing saline waters to migrate inland (Figure 54). Saline-water intrusion occurs in both unconfined and confined aquifers.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-7
FIGURE 5-4
Conceptual Diagram of Salinity Barrier System

Note:
A) Saline-water intrusion occurs when groundwater pumping induces a landward hydraulic gradient at the
saline-water interface
B) A salinity barrier restores a seawards gradient for forming a hydraulic mound between production wells and
the saline-water interface
Injection of RQTSE near the saline water/freshwater interface is a proven technology for
preventing, or even reversing, saline-water intrusion and thus protecting coastal water
resources. The typical salinity barrier system design includes a row of injection wells
installed parallel to the coast, landward of the saline water /freshwater interface. A barrier
can also be created in unconfined aquifers by land application (e.g., infiltration basin).
A prime example of a salinity barrier recharge system using highly treated wastewater is the
Talbert Gap system in Orange County, California, USA (Maliva and Missimer, 2010). The
Talbert Gap barrier consists of 26 multiple-zone (nested) injection wells constructed across
the approximately 4-km wide gap between the Huntington Beach Mesa and the Newport
Mesa. The injected water is conventionally treated wastewater that undergoes additional
advanced treatment consisting of MF pretreatment followed by RO and UV light and
hydrogen peroxide treatment to break down remaining organic compounds and provide
disinfection. A salinity barrier system injecting wastewater that receives tertiary treatment
and disinfection has been constructed at the town of Salalah in coastal Oman (Shammas,
2008).
Salinity barrier systems can also be operated to provide a storage function, with some of the
recharged water recovered for non-potable use by inland wells. The use of separate
injection and recovery wells would allow for improvement of water quality through natural
attenuation processes (i.e., the system would also function as an ASTR system). Sheahan
(1977) described a system involving paired wastewater injection and extraction proposed for
5-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
Santa Clara, California (USA). The rationale for the landward extraction well is that it would
prevent degradation of fresh groundwater supplies. The extraction wells would capture
injected wastewater and prevent its inland migration.
Soil-Aquifer Treatment
SAT involves the infiltration of treated wastewater into shallow basins with the goal of
improving its quality by vadose and saturated zone processes (Figure 5-5). SAT, as
originally defined, differs from aquifer recharge by land application in that the applied treated
wastewater is to be recovered and its extent in the aquifer controlled (Bouwer, 1974, 1985,
1989, 1991). In cases where the receiving aquifer contains freshwater, an integral part of
the design and operation of the SAT systems is controlling the flow of recharged water in the
aquifer so that it can be removed instead of migrating away and eventually contaminating
wells used for drinking water (Bouwer, 1989, 1991). The same natural treatment processes
are active in other types of surface applications, whether or not the recharged water is locally
contained or controlled. The term soil-aquifer treatment (or SAT) has recently been used
more generally in referring to surface application systems that use vadose zone transport as
a natural treatment process as part of groundwater recharge systems. The wetting and
drying cycles are managed in SAT systems to control redox conditions and to optimize the
removal of nutrients and chemicals of concern. SAT systems may also be operated to
provide seasonal and long-term storage.
FIGURE 5-5
Conceptual Diagram of SAT System

Note: Reclaimed water is recharged using infiltration basins. The quality of the water is improved by natural
attenuation processes as it flows to production wells first through the vadose zone and then the phreatic zone
Bank Filtration
Bank filtration is a treatment technology that takes advantage of the natural filtration that
occurs as water from a surface water body travels through the bed sediment and aquifer.
Bank filtration systems typically consist of either vertical or horizontal wells installed near the
banks of the surface water body. Ray et al. (2002a, b) and Hubbs (2006) provide overviews
of bank filtration technology. The systems are typically used as a treatment technology for
river and lake water. However, the potential exists for bank filtration to be used as a
treatment step for treated wastewater. Water may be recovered from lakes used for
wastewater disposal and, with some additional treatment (e.g., disinfection), used for
irrigation purposes.
5.2.2 System Performance Criteria

The performance of MAR systems should be evaluated using quantitative criteria based on
the specific storage and treatment objectives of the each system. Ideally, target
performance criteria for an MAR system should be established at the start of a project.
Chemically bounded ASR systems are usually evaluated in terms of recovery efficiency
(RE), which is defined as the percentage of the injected water (Vinj) that is recovered (Vrec) at
a quality suitable for its intended use.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-9
RE(%) = 100(Vrec /Vinj)

RE can be calculated over the entire operational history of a system (system recovery
efficiency [SRE]) or over an individual operational cycle (operational recovery efficiency
[ORE]) (Sheng et al., 2007). ORE tends to improve over time as native groundwater is
flushed from the vicinity of ASR wells and a buffer zone is developed. ORE values are thus
normally greater than SRE values.
For ASR systems using brackish-water aquifers as storage zones, salinity criteria (e.g., total
dissolved solids [TDS], chloride) are normally used to calculate RE. From a practical,
operational perspective, the RE of ASR systems is a function of the intended use of the
recovered water and its sensitivity to variations in water quality. Water use for irrigation
purposes can usually be of lesser quality than water intended for potable use. The current
(2006) MOWE reuse standard for TDS is 2,500 mg/L, whereas the Saudi drinking water
standard is 1,500 mg/L.
Hence, an ASR system storing RQTSE for irrigation purposes can have a greater RE than
an identical system storing water for potable use because of the greater flexibility in the use
of more saline water for irrigation. In systems using brackish-water storage zones, salinity
gradually increases toward the end of a recovery period. Recovery may continue at higher
salinities for systems storing water for irrigation purposes than for systems used for potable
supply.
Physical-storage and aquifer recharge systems must be evaluated by different criteria than
those used for chemically bounded ASR systems. The objective of these systems is to
increase the volume of water in storage in an aquifer. Therefore, performance of these
systems must be based upon storage rather than water quality criteria. The performance
criteria should also have a time component, since the critical issue is the availability of
additional water at the time of need (end of storage period).
The evaluation of system storage efficiency (SE) is similar to that of RE, based on the ratio
of the increase in the volume of water in storage in an aquifer (Vs) to the volume injected.
SE(%) = 100(Vs /Vinj)
The change in the volume of water stored in an aquifer can be estimated from the change in
head (h), storativity (S), and aquifer area (A).
Vs = hSA
In practice, evaluating the performance of physical-storage and aquifer recharge systems is
much more complicated because aquifer heads vary across an aquifer and are affected by
processes other than recharge, particularly extractions by other aquifer users. Groundwater
modeling is, therefore, generally necessary to evaluate aquifer-wide changes in storage in
response to recharge.
Other types of MAR systems are evaluated using other criteria. Salinity barrier systems, for
example, are evaluated based on their effectiveness in preventing or reversing saline-water
intrusion, using salinity data from monitoring wells. SAT and ASTR systems are evaluated
based on the degree to which the recovered water meets targeted water quality criteria. For
example, if pathogens are the primary concern, then system performance might be
evaluated based on whether or not the recovered water meets the MOWE RQTSE irrigation
standards for fecal coliform bacteria and intestinal nematode eggs, or other criteria based on
local health information.
It is very important to have realistic expectations concerning likely MAR system
performance. Normally, some water will not be recoverable and long-term operational REs
for an ASR system will be less than 100 percent. A more realistic target for a properly
performing MAR system is an RE of 70 to 80 percent. Economic evaluations of MAR
5-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
systems should consider the expected amount of unrecoverable water, in the same manner
as evaluations of surface reservoirs need to consider losses to evaporation.
5.2.3 KSA MAR General Opportunities

KSA has a diverse hydrogeology, and there is a wide variety of potential applications of MAR
technologies. Area-specific potential MAR applications for the main population areas are
discussed in Sections 5.7 through 5.10. The design and operation of systems can and
should be tailored to local hydrogeological conditions and aquifer uses.
A major challenge is how to avoid unplanned potable reuse and impacting aquifers
considered by their users to be pristine. The over-riding concern with RQTSE MAR is
avoiding public health impacts associated with the water entering the potable supply.
Indirect potable reuse might occur from MAR systems that use brackish-water aquifers that
are too saline for direct consumption, but are being used as a source of water for blending
with desalinated water. Recharge of RQTSE into aquifers that have a non-potable use may
still arouse opposition from local users if they have not been convinced of the benefits of the
project through public outreach.
Over-drafted sedimentary rock aquifers in the central and eastern part of the Kingdom have
storage space that could be used for RQTSE storage. As aquifers have diminishing value
as water sources due to depletion or degradation of water quality, officials could decide that
the optimal future use of these aquifers is for the storage of high-quality RQTSE. The ASR
systems could serve a dual purpose of storing high-quality RQTSE (and thus improving the
quality of water available to local users) and restoring aquifer water levels.
RQTSE may be stored in aquifers that can contain brackish groundwater and, as a result,
are not suitable for potable use without treatment (desalination). RQTSE would be injected
and recovered using dual-function ASR wells. The main technical issue is identifying a
storage aquifer with hydraulic properties and water quality that would allow for the operation
of a system at high REs. Groundwater flows in the carbonate aquifers of KSA tend to be
dominated by secondary porosity (fractures and/or karstic solution conduits), typically
resulting in poor REs (Section 5.3.1). Although sandstone aquifers may have preferable
hydraulic properties, they are generally considered primary potable water supply sources in
the Kingdom. Conventional ASR may be successful in aquifers that contain mildly brackish
water that can accommodate a greater amount of mixing of recharge and native
groundwater.
Aquifers underlying ephemeral river channels (wadis) have hydrogeological characteristics
that are well suited for ASTR. The aquifers are usually well confined (particularly in
crystalline bedrock terranes) and are elongated in the direction of flow. Wadi aquifers
generally have relatively steep hydraulic gradients, which are usually not favorable for ASR
because the advective movement of stored freshwater is undesirable. In the case of ASTR,
it is possible to take advantage of the downstream hydraulic gradient and good underlying
and lateral confinement to control the movement of the recharged water. Water could be
injected using upstream wells and recovered using downstream wells (Figure 5-6).
Alternatively, wadi aquifers could be used for ARR (SAT), in which recharge is performed
using upstream basins, trenches, or galleries. MAR systems could be located far enough
downstream in wadi alluvial aquifers so that they would not impact upstream wells that are
still used for freshwater supply.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-11
FIGURE 5-6
Conceptual Diagram of Wadi ASTR System

Note: Water is injected in upstream wells and recovered using downstream production wells. Alternatively,
reclaimed water may be recharged upstream into the vadose zone, in which case the system would be an ARR
or SAT system
Saline-water intrusion has been documented in areas of intense groundwater use along both
the east and west coasts of KSA. Anthropogenic saline-water intrusion occurs in both
Tertiary-aged limestone aquifers (Dammam Aquifer) and in some wadi alluvial aquifers.
Opportunities thus exist for the development of salinity barrier systems to both protect and
enhance local groundwater supplies.
5.3 MAR and ASR Feasibility Issues

The performance of ASR and other types of MAR systems depends upon local
hydrogeology, which may not be favorable. The operational history of existing systems and
the results of theoretical studies provide many insights into the hydrogeological conditions
that are needed for the successful implementation of ASR and MAR systems, which were
reviewed by Maliva and Missimer (2010). The feasibility of MAR projects in general depends
upon three classes of factors:
Aquifer hydraulics and water quality, which control the storage, movement, and
mixing of recharged water
Geochemistry, which includes chemical and biological reactions in the storage zone
that can result in either an improvement or deterioration of stored water quality and can
impact system performance through aquifer and well clogging
Regulatory and socio-cultural factors, which can determine whether a project will be
allowed to move forward
5.3.1 Aquifer Hydraulics and Water Quality

The importance of aquifer hydraulics and water quality on the performance of MAR systems
depends upon their specific storage and water treatment objectives. The hydrogeological
controls over the performance of ASR systems that store freshwater in brackish and saline
aquifers have received much study, including recent reviews by Brown (2005), Maliva et al.
(2006), Reese and Alvarez-Zarikian (2007), and Maliva and Missimer (2010). The primary
factors controlling system performance are native groundwater salinity and aquifer
heterogeneity, which in turn controls aquifer dispersivity.
Salinity affects ASR system performance in two important ways. First, as the native
groundwater salinity increases, system performance becomes increasingly sensitive to the
mixing of native groundwater and stored water. Even a small amount of high-salinity native
groundwater can cause the salinity of the stored water to increase to unacceptable levels.
On the contrary, where native groundwater is mildly brackish (i.e., there is a small difference
5-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
in water quality between native groundwater and stored water), systems can tolerate much
more mixing and aquifer hydraulic conditions can therefore be less than ideal.
Second, salinity impacts the performance of ASR systems through density-driven fluid
migration (free convection or buoyancy stratification). Freshwater injected into an aquifer
containing brackish or saline water tends to migrate upward and outward in the storage
zone, while saline water tends to migrate toward ASR wells along the bottom of the aquifer
(Figure 5-7). Buoyancy stratification tends to result in lower REs as saline water more
quickly reaches ASR wells along the bottom of the aquifer. The rate of buoyancy
stratification is primarily a function of the salinity (density) differential between the native
groundwater and stored water, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the storage zone, and
the duration of storage.
FIGURE 5-7
Conceptual Diagram of Density-driven Movement of Freshwater Injected

into Saline Water (i.e., buoyancy stratification) in ASR System
Note: The more buoyant freshwater tends to move upward and outward toward the top of the storage zone.
Saline water migrates toward the ASR well along the bottom of the storage zone.
The effects of groundwater salinity on ASR system performance can be evaluated through
density-dependent groundwater modeling. There is no single salinity threshold for adverse
impacts on ASR system performance. Nevertheless, as a generalization, moderate (TDS <
5,000 mg/L) native ground salinities are preferred, and low REs would be expected for
salinities in excess of 10,000 mg/L.
High degrees of aquifer heterogeneity can have very adverse impacts on the performance of
MAR systems in which the goal is to recover and/or treat a specific volume of water.
Sensitive MAR systems include chemically bounded (brackish and saline water) ASR
systems, salinity barriers, ASTR, and ARR (SAT) systems. The ideal hydrogeological
condition is for groundwater flow to be dominated by matrix (intergranular or intercrystalline)
flow rather than flow through large secondary pores such as fractures and karstic solution
conduits (Figure 5-8). A review of ASR systems in Florida (USA) revealed that failed
systems invariably had groundwater flow dominated by secondary porosity (Maliva and
Missimer, 2010).
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-13
FIGURE 5-8
Conceptual Diagram of Matrix-dominated versus Conduit Flow

Note: In matrix-dominated flow, the injected water (shaded blue) flows in the intergranular pores between the
sand grains. In conduit flow, the injected water flows predominantly through secondary pores such as karstic
dissolution features or fractures
The concentration of flow into secondary pores that constitute a small percentage of the
aquifer volume adversely impacts RE in several ways. For example, the high hydraulic
conductivity of secondary pore systems results in rapid flow under prevailing aquifer
hydraulic gradients. The injected water volume in secondary porosity systems also has a
much greater areal extent.
Secondary porosity (e.g., fracture) systems tend to have much higher degrees of dispersive
mixing than matrix-dominated systems because of both greater flow velocities and more
irregular pore geometries (Domenico and Schwartz, 1998). Additionally, large concentration
gradients may be present between the fractures and adjacent matrix blocks, which can lead
to relatively high diffusion rates. Native groundwater present in the matrix bleeds into
water stored in secondary pores.
Secondary porosity can also adversely impact MAR
systems that have primarily a treatment objective.
For example, the presence of high-transmissivity flow
zones in ASTR systems can result in very rapid flow
between the injection and recovery well and,
therefore, low degrees of contaminant attenuation.
The presence of low vertical hydraulic layers in SAT
systems can impede vertical flow.
Other hydraulic factors that can impact the RE of
ASR systems using brackish-water storage zones
are storage-zone transmissivity, effective porosity,
aquifer thickness, and regional hydraulic gradient.
The latter is important because large gradients can
result in the rapid movement of stored water.
Preferred Hydrogeological
Conditions
TDS < 5,000 mg/L
Groundwater flow to be
dominated by matrix
(intergranular or intercrystalline)
flow
A combination of detailed
aquifer characterization and
groundwater modeling can be
used to assess potential system
performance and the likelihood
of system success.
Alluvial aquifers, such as wadi aquifers, are typically

dominated by intergranular (matrix) flow, although
underlying fractured and weathered bedrock may also contribute water. Groundwater flow in
the Jurassic through Tertiary limestone aquifers of KSA is dominated by secondary porosity
(Sections 5.7 and 5.10), making them generally unfavorable for high REs in ASR systems.
However, systems may still be feasible if they have a relatively low sensitivity to mixing. For
example, systems storing RQTSE in aquifers containing less than 5,000 mg/L of TDS may
still be feasible if the recovered water is to be used for irrigation.
5-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
An important lesson of the MAR experience to date is the importance of local aquifer
characterization as part of the feasibility study for MAR projects (Maliva and Missimer,
2010). A combination of detailed aquifer characterization and groundwater modeling can be
used to assess potential system performance and the likelihood of system success.
Unfavorable hydrogeological conditions may be identified early in a project. Decisionmakers then have the opportunity to investigate other storage zones, project sites, or system
options rather than prematurely committing to the cost of full-scale project construction.
Favorable aquifer characterization and modeling results may lead to greater confidence in
the success of the project.
5.3.2 Geochemistry
Geochemical incompatibility of recharged water with aquifer minerals and native
groundwater can adversely impact system performance by causing clogging or deterioration
of the quality of the stored water. Chemical clogging is a reduction in well performance due
to the precipitation of a mineral cement on the well screen or borehole wall, or by
cementation and mineral alteration within the aquifer near the borehole.
Calcium carbonate (calcite) is the most common scalant. Water chemistry data from the
Riyadh centralized WTPs (Al-Jasser, 2011) indicate that calcium carbonate scaling should
not be a concern as the RQTSE is undersaturated with respect to calcite. The chemistry of
RQTSE would be expected to vary across the Kingdom, and the Riyadh data may not be
representative of other regions. Nevertheless, the potential for calcium carbonate scaling
can be easily determined from basic chemical data, and scaling can readily be prevented, if
necessary, through acid addition for pH adjustment.
RQTSE tends to have high DO concentrations, whereas aquifers are often chemical
reducing. The introduction of DO can cause redox reactions such as the oxidation of
chemical reducing minerals (e.g., sulfides, iron carbonates, and glauconite) and the
precipitation of iron oxyhydroxides. Reduced iron is present at low concentrations in natural
groundwaters (as dissolved ferrous iron, Fe2+) and in reactive minerals in aquifers (iron
sulfides), so the precipitation of iron oxyhydroxides would normally not be a significant
clogging mechanism. However, iron bacteria (which oxidize iron) form biofilms that are a
common cause of biological clogging of wells.
Oxidation of reduced minerals can release trace elements that can adversely impact the
quality of stored water. Iron sulfide minerals (pyrite) contain a variety of trace elements,
such as arsenic and molybdenum, which are released upon their oxidative dissolution. The
leaching of arsenic into water stored in ASR systems is a major concern in some areas such
as south Florida, USA (Arthur et al., 2001, 2002; Mirecki, 2006a, 2006b). Arsenic
concentrations in water stored in ASR systems increased to levels that exceeded the
applicable groundwater standard, which is the primary drinking water standard. The
regulatory impact of arsenic leaching greatly increased after the drinking water standard
(and thus the groundwater standard) for arsenic was lowered in the United States from 50 to
10 micrograms per liter (g/L). Many more ASR systems are now in violation of
groundwater standards because they have reported maximum concentrations in the 11- to
50-g/L range, which previously were not a violation.
Significant leaching of arsenic and metals has not occurred in all ASR systems. Its
occurrence appears to be restricted to areas where aquifer rock contains trace quantities of
iron-bearing sulfide minerals. The low concentrations of leached arsenic generally do not
prevent use of the recovered water. Arsenic concentrations may be reduced through
blending. The reported maximum arsenic concentrations in the United States were mostly
below the KSA irrigation standard of 100 g/L (0.1 mg/L).
The introduction of DO in some ASR system using siliciclastic (e.g., sand and sandstone)
aquifers has resulted in elevated iron and manganese concentrations in stored water.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-15
Elevated iron and manganese concentrations have been documented in ASR systems in the
eastern Coastal Plain of the United States in which marine sandstones were used as storage
zones. The source of the iron and manganese is reduced minerals such as iron sulfides and
carbonates.
Injection of freshwater into siliciclastic aquifers that contain brackish or saline water may also
cause swelling and dispersion of clays, which can cause a rapid reduction in permeability.
Aquifers susceptible to salinity-induced permeability changes are referred to as being water
sensitive. Some clay minerals, such as montmorillonites, expand or swell when water
penetrates and is adsorbed in the interlayer molecular spaces. Clay dispersion involves the
mobilization of very fine clay particles, which flow with the injected water until they become
lodged in and clog pore throats.
Reactive mineral phases tend to be primarily authigenic minerals (i.e., minerals that form
within the sediments or rocks, such as cements) rather than the framework grains of the
aquifer rock and sediments (e.g., quartz, feldspar, rock fragment grains, and carbonate
grains and matrixes). The sediment and rock types present in KSA aquifers that might be
used for MAR systems (limestones, quartz arenites, and alluvial sediments) are usually
associated with relatively low reactivities. The main exception is residual evaporite minerals
(gypsum and anhydrite), which are susceptible to dissolution. Nevertheless, a geochemical
compatibility analysis is an integral part of the development of MAR projects. The potential
for dissolution, precipitation, and alteration reactions can be assessed using data on injected
(source) water and native groundwater chemistry and aquifer mineralogy using mineral
equilibrium and speciation software packages such as PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo,
1999).
5.3.3 Regulatory and Socio-Cultural Issues

MAR projects must meet all pertinent regulatory requirements. In the absence of specific
regulations pertaining to aquifer recharge, projects are typically evaluated through well
permitting and environmental impact assessment processes. KSA currently does not have
regulations specific to MAR projects. MAR projects in the Kingdom must be permitted by
MOWE, and it is therefore important to obtain MOWE input very early during project
development.
Public support is important for the successful
implementation of MAR and is particularly critical for
projects involving RQTSE. Successful implementation
of wastewater reuse technologies requires an
understanding of the social environment in which they
are to be applied (Lazarova et al., 2000), including
cultural and religious values, teachings, and doctrines.
The Council of Leading Islamic Scholars in KSA
issued a fatwa in 1978 stating that RQTSE can be
used for ablution and drinking if it is sufficiently and
appropriately treated to ensure good health:
5-16
Public Support
The successful implementation of
MAR is dependent on public
understanding of and confidence
in water resources management
involving RQTSE.
STRATEGIC STUDY
According to the report set by the experts in this regards, a large body of water would
be pure from any impurity if such impurity is removed, if more water added to it, or if
such impurity is eliminated by the passing of time, the sun, the wind or any other
cause that would remove its impurity. Impure water could be purified by the modern
filtering techniques that are the best and most efficient methods for purification, in
which many materials will be added to remove impurities and certified by the water
treatment experts. Therefore, this Council believes that such water will be totally
pure and it may be used for ritual purification and drinking as long as there are no
negative consequences on health. If drinking is to be avoided, it is merely for
reasons of public health and safety, not due to any ramifications of Islamic Law.
The reuse of treated wastewater is not contrary to Islamic law, but its potable use is not
recommended because of negative public sentiment. Asano and Cotruvo (2004) noted that
The irony is that water derived from natural but obviously imperfect sources often receives
only basic treatment (filtration and disinfection). The final product might not be as high
quality as the reclaimed wastewater that has been subject to much more rigorous treatment,
water quality control, and management. The Law of Contagion may apply, which suggests
that once water has been in contact with contaminants, it can be psychologically very difficult
for people to accept that it has been purified, and this may apply (Khan and Gerrard, 2006).
A similar point, noted by Daughton (2004), is that the more remote the hydrologic
connection, the easier it is for the public to accept water reuse.
On projects where the RQTSE is being put to a non-potable use and the storage aquifer is
not used for potable supply, public attention and opposition tend to be limited. However,
MAR projects involving planned or potentially involving unplanned indirect potable reuse are
likely to arouse public opposition and require much greater public outreach and education to
gain confidence in and support for the project. An additional consideration is that MAR may
reduce the stigma associated with reuse of RQTSE. Public confidence in water recycling
projects is increased when the RQTSE is put back into the natural systems, such as rivers
and aquifers, before recovery for reuse (Al-Otaibi and Mukhopadhyay, 2005; Dillon et al.,
2006a, 2006b). In the case of ASTR, the public may perceive little connection between
upstream injection wells and downstream recovery wells. In general, the type of system to
be used can affect public perceptions.
5.4 Water Quality Issues Associated with MAR of RQTSE

5.4.1 Introduction
A critical issue for RQTSE reuse and MAR projects is ensuring that public health and the
environment are not endangered. With respect to MAR systems, the primary concern is
avoiding the introduction of pathogens and chemical contaminants into the potable water
supply. An additional concern is to avoid impairing groundwater so that it remains
acceptable for local irrigation use. MAR can also provide important water quality benefits. It
is now well documented through operational and experimental results that MAR systems can
be effective in reducing the concentrations of pathogens and many chemical contaminants in
RQTSE (Dillon et al., 1999, 2006; Pyne, 2002; Khan and Rorije, 2002; Stuyfzand, 2007;
Dillon and Toze, 2005; McQuarrie and Carlson, 2003, Pavelic et al., 2006). MAR can be
used as a treatment element in a multiple barrier approach to wastewater treatment (referred
to as natural aquifer treatment).
The risks associated with MAR using RQTSE depend upon the following main factors:
Quality of the recharged RQTSE (concentrations of contaminants of concern)
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-17
Local hydrogeology and geographic location of the system, which control the potential for
unintended exposure (i.e., recharged water entering a potable water supply well or
unplanned entry into an irrigation well)
Contamination attenuation processes that occur during RQTSE recharge, storage, and
travel through storage aquifer
Use of recovered water, including any post-recovery treatment
5.4.2 Health Risks Associated with RQTSE

RQTSE may contain a variety of microbiological and chemical contaminants. The
contaminants of greatest concern are pathogenic microorganisms because a one-time
exposure can cause serious illness (Pescod, 1992; Toze, 2004, 2005). Chemical
contaminants, on the other hand, are typically present in wastewater at low concentrations
and long-term exposure is usually necessary for an adverse health impact to occur.
A wide variety of protozoa, helminths, trematodes, bacteria, and viruses have been identified
as infectious agents in untreated municipal wastewater. The microorganisms associated
with waterborne disease are primarily enteric pathogens (i.e., they originate within the
intestines of humans or other animals), which have a fecal-oral or fecal-dermal route of
infection (either human-to-human or animal-to-human) and can survive in water (National
Research Council, 1998). The infectious agents present in wastewater and their
concentrations depend upon the sources of the wastewater, the general health of the
population in the service (collection) area, the existence of disease carriers in the
population, and the ability of the various infectious agents to survive in environments outside
their host (National Research Council, 1994). Risks from microbial contamination depend
not only on the dose of microorganisms, but also on the hosts immune status. Sensitive
populations, including children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems,
stand a greater risk of severe outcomes (National Research Council, 1998). Sensitive
populations also include people who lack immunity to locally endemic waterborne diseases
(e.g., tourists).
Virtually any chemical generated or used in the service area of a WWTP could potentially
enter the RQTSE supply. The National Research Council (1998) recognized three
categories of chemical contaminants that are present in RQTSE:
Inorganic chemicals (iron, manganese, boron, etc.) and natural organic matter that are
naturally present in the water supply
Chemicals used or created by industrial, commercial, and other human activities

(personal care products, pharmaceuticals, etc.) in the wastewater service area
Chemicals added or generated during water and wastewater treatment and distribution
processes (e.g., disinfection byproducts [DBPs])
The second group of chemical contaminants includes compounds of emerging concern

(CECs), which are chemicals that are currently not regulated (i.e., there are no drinking
water or wastewater standards), but may have potentially deleterious human health or
ecotoxicological effects. CECs encompass a wide variety of organic compounds that include
pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription drugs and their breakdown products),
antibiotics, synthetic and natural hormones, personal care products, and detergent
metabolites. CECs are currently receiving a great deal of attention because they have been
detected at very low concentrations in what were considered to be clean surface water
bodies and in the drinking water supply for some major cities. The presence of CECs in
groundwater, surface water, and RQTSE is not a new phenomenon; rather, previous
analytical technologies were unable to detect these compounds at extremely low
concentrations: nanograms (10-9 g) per liter (parts per trillion) (Sedlak et al., 2000).
5-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
CEC residuals are found at concentrations orders of magnitude below the concentrations at
which an effective therapeutic dose would result from ingesting the water (Ongerth and
Khan, 2004). The major human health concern with emerging contaminants is not acute
effects from one-time exposure, but rather potential chronic effects from long-term exposure
to very low doses (Drewes et al., 2003). However, there is no evidence that CECs at the
concentrations detected in drinking water pose a significant health risk.
Although it is widely accepted that the presence of CECs in the environment and water
supply is undesirable, there is much uncertainty about appropriate responses. It is
recognized that CECs should be viewed in a proper context relative to other environmental
risks. Daughton (2009) noted the importance of determining where CECs fall within the
growing list of overarching environmental issues in a world of diminishing resources and
continuing emerging new concerns. On a global basis, the potential risks of CECs, as they
are now understood, appear to be greatly outweighed by the benefits of RQTSE reuse in
addressing the problems associated with water and food scarcity.
5.4.3 Assessment of Health Risks Associated with RQTSE MAR

The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2006; 2009) provide
an excellent overview of risk assessments for RQTSE reuse (recycling) and MAR systems.
The guidelines are not mandatory and have no formal legal status, but are designed to
provide guidance for individual states in developing their reuse and MAR policies and
regulations. A distinction is made between hazard and risks. Hazards are associated with
biological, chemical, physical, or radiological agents that have the potential to cause harm to
people, animals, crops, or the environment. Risk is the likelihood of identified hazards
causing harm and is the product of likelihood and harm (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2006).
Maximal (unmitigated) risk is the risk in the absence of preventive or mitigative measures.
Residual risk is the risk after existing and proposed preventive and mitigative measures.
A risk assessment is defined broadly as the process of estimating the probability of
occurrence of an event and the probable magnitude of adverse effects on safety, health, and
ecology over a specified time period (Asano et al., 2007). Risk assessment has four main
components:
Hazard identification, which is the recognition of biological, chemical, physical, or

radiological agents that increase the incidence of a health condition.
Exposure assessment, which is the evaluation of exposure scenarios and the probability
(and frequency) of exposure of an individual to biological, chemical, physical, or
radiological dose over a specified time period
Dose-response assessment, which quantifies the risk of disease or infection of an

individual from a given biological, chemical, physical, or radiological dose
Risk characterization, which combines the exposure and dose-response assessments to

estimate the incidence of a given adverse impact on a population
Two types of risk assessments are performed under the NRMMC-EPHCNHMRC (2009)
MAR guidelines. First is a maximal risk assessment, which identifies inherent risks in the
absence of preventive and mitigative measures. An initial exposure assessment is part of
the maximal risk assessment, which considers the transport of RQTSE in the subsurface
and possible pathways for human and environmental exposures. The second type, the
residual risk assessment, evaluates risks that remain after the consideration of potential
preventive and mitigative measures. For example, a maximal risk assessment of an/RQTSE
ASR system would likely identify pathogens in the recovered water as a significant risk. The
residual risk assessment might consider risks remaining after natural attenuation during the
planned storage period and post-treatment of the recovered water, such as disinfection. The
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-19
application of the guidelines to a trial ASTR project is discussed by Page et al. (2010a, b).
The phasing of the Australian MAR guidelines coincides with the normal MAR project
phasing: a desktop study, followed by field testing, and then construction and testing of a
pilot system.
5.4.4 Pathogenic Attenuation in Aquifers

Microbial survival in a groundwater environment is influenced by a variety of factors,
including the type of organism, temperature, DO concentration, redox state, water chemistry,
water source, and the population of indigenous groundwater organisms. Enteric
microorganisms enter a very different geochemical environment than their intestinal source;
this geochemical environment is already inhabited by native groundwater microorganisms,
which leads to greater inactivation (die-off or removal) rates (John and Rose, 2005). Rates
of inactivation are commonly expressed in terms of log10 removals (or simply log removals),
calculated as follows.
Where,
10 =
Ci = initial number of organisms

Cf = final number of organisms at day t
A log10 removal time is the time required for a 90 percent reduction in the number (or
concentration) of microorganisms. A 2-log10 removal time is the time required for a 99
percent reduction in number of microorganisms.
John et al. (2004), John and Rose (2005), and Toze (2005) summarized the current state of
knowledge for the inactivation of many microorganisms of concern in groundwater. Most of
the studied pathogenic microorganisms have log10 removal times from 1 to 50 days, which
corresponds to more than 7 log (99.99999 percent) removal over a period of 1 year. Internal
parasites are more resistant to inactivation under some circumstances, with over 200 days
for a 2-log reduction of Giardia cysts reported in some experiments (John et al., 2004). John
et al. (2004), however, noted that occasionally large variability in inactivation rates has been
observed for Giardia cysts between trials run under the same conditions. The authors
therefore urged caution in interpreting the results of their study for evaluation of
microorganism survival in the groundwater environment, because similarly larger degrees of
variation might occur under natural conditions.
The relatively rapid inactivation rates of most enteric microorganisms in the groundwater
environment indicate that MAR can be an effective means for improving the quality of
(polishing) RQTSE. The RQTSE produced by modern WWTPs is often of high quality, but
may still not meet standards for uses involving potential human exposure. For example,
Al-Jasser (2011) reported that the effluent from the six largest WWTPs in Riyadh exceed the
maximum allowable average fecal coliform contaminant level (2.2 most probable number,
MPN/100 mL) for unrestricted irrigation, with average concentrations of 25 to 258 MPN/100
mL. The 1.1- to 2.2-log10 removal needed to meet the unrestricted irrigation contaminant
level could be met by 3 to 70 days of subsurface storage in an MAR system using published
values for the inactivation rates for E. coli bacteria.
Toze (2006) cautioned that the current understanding of how environmental factors influence
pathogen survival is incomplete, and that accurately predicting the stability of various
pathogens in different environments is still difficult. The NRMMC-EPHCNHMRC (2009)
strongly recommended direct testing of pathogen decay rates at MAR sites. In situ diffusion
chambers have been used to determine log10 reduction in pathogen numbers for MAR
research sites (e.g., Page et al., 2010b, Toze et al., 2010), but are too complex and costly to
5-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
be a routine tool for most MAR projects. In the absence of site-specific pathogen decay
data, conservatively long values obtained from the scientific literature could be used,
particularly if data are available from geochemically similar systems.
5.4.5 Chemical Contaminant Attenuation in MAR Systems

The concentrations of chemical contaminants in wastewater may be reduced by a variety of
processes, including sorption, precipitation, and biological degradation as the water passes
through the soil (vadose zone) and/or aquifer. The reduction in concentrations may be
particularly effective if the recharged water passes through different redox environments,
each of which may include the removal of different compounds (Dillon et al., 2006;
Stuyfzand, 2007). The placement of RQTSE into storage in natural groundwater
environments also increases the recycling time and thereby allows more time for
biodegradation of contaminants that degrade more slowly (Dillon et al., 2006).
There has been much research on the effectiveness of SAT for the improvement of RQTSE
quality. It was recognized in the earliest SAT research (e.g., Bouwer,1974; Bouwer et al.,
1980) that SAT is effective in reducing the concentration of dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
in wastewater. A study of the fate of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM) and trace
organic compounds at operational SAT sites in Mesa and Tucson, Arizona, USA, indicated
that 50 to 70 percent of the DOC is removed after accounting for dilution (Fox et al., 2001;
Drewes et al., 2003b; Amy and Drewes, 2007). The character of the bulk organics present
after long-term SAT resembles the character of natural organic matter (NOM) present in
drinking water. A naturalization of organic matter occurs that results in its character
becoming very similar to the NOM present in surface water and groundwater not affected by
recycled water (Drewes, 2009).
However, some CECs are persistent in groundwater environments and thus water treated by
SAT. Column experiments by Rauch et al. (2005) demonstrated that soil organic matter
content and composition affect organic micropollutant removal. Different organic matter
substrates promoted the establishment of different soil microbial community compositions
and/or concentrations, which affected the removal of different micropollutants. The study
also demonstrated that microbial adaptation to micropollutants occurred as removal rates
increased, with increased exposure of the columns to trace pollutants.
There is an increasing body of evidence indicating that chemical contaminant concentrations
decrease in MAR systems that involve subsurface injection (e.g., ASR and ASTR). There
has been considerable study of the fate of DBPs in ASR systems used to store potable
water. Experimental and field studies have shown that the biotransformation rate of
trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) is dependent upon the redox
environment (Bouwer and Wright, 1988). In general, as the groundwater environment
becomes more oxidizing, more compounds tend to persist (Singer et al., 1993, Landmeyer et
al., 2000; Nicholson et al., 2002; Fram et al., 2003). HAAs undergo biodegradation under
both oxic and anoxic conditions, whereas THMs are resistant to biodegradation under oxic
conditions. Chlorinated THMs required the most reducing conditions for significant
biodegradation.
Field and experimental studies have demonstrated that the concentrations of some CECs
decrease in a groundwater environment, through biodegradation and adsorption, whereas
other compounds are much more resistant (e.g., Khan and Rorije, 2002; Drewes et al., 2003;
Heberer et al., 2004, Snyder, et al., 2004, Ying et al., 2004, Zuehlke, et al., 2004, Stuyfzand,
2007). As with SAT, anti-epileptic drugs (e.g., carbamazepine, primidone) were not removed
during recharge under either oxic or anoxic conditions.
SAT systems can also remove nitrogen compounds, by the alternation of nitrification under
aerobic conditions, and denitrification under anaerobic conditions. The form and
concentration of nitrogen compounds of water passing through SAT systems depend upon
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-21
the hydraulic loading rates and flooding and drying schedule for the infiltration basins
(Bouwer, 1974, 1985, 1991; Pescod, 1992).
MAR of RQTSE can result in an improvement in water quality through the attenuation of
chemical contaminants. However, some chemical contaminants are persistent in
groundwater environments.
5.4.6 Treatment Strategies

Three main treatment strategies have been applied with respect to RQTSE MAR, which vary
depending upon the degree of wastewater treatment and the reliance on natural aquifer
treatment processes. The mostly commonly used strategy to date for systems using
injection wells is to store tertiary-treated RQTSE in aquifers that are, at least locally, not
used for potable water supply. Tertiary treatment, which typically involves an additional
filtration step plus disinfection beyond secondary treatment, is used to reduce the
concentration of suspended solids and pathogens. Isolation from potable water supplies is
achieved through the use of aquifers that contain non-potable quality water (e.g., brackish
water) and the presence of vertical confinement and/or geographic separation from potable
water production zones. Improvement in stored water quality during storage is incidental.
Secondary- and tertiary-treated RQTSE is also commonly used for MAR systems that are
intended primarily to provide treatment of the RQTSE, with SAT systems being the most
common example. Secondary-treated wastewater is usually recharged in SAT systems.
ASTR systems require tertiary-treated water in order to avoid well clogging. Potable water
supplies are protected by physical isolation of the RQTSE (e.g., use of non-potable aquifers,
geographic separation, and hydraulic control over the recharged water volume).
Very high levels of treatment have been used in systems where the possibility of indirect
potable reuse exists (i.e., the RQTSE may enter the potable water supply). The best
example of a hyper-treatment system is the Orange County, California (USA), Groundwater
Replenishment System (GWR), which consists, beyond conventional wastewater treatment,
of microfiltration (MF) followed by RO and ultraviolet (UV) light and hydrogen peroxide
treatment to break down remaining organic compounds through an accelerated
decomposition (oxidation) process (Markus, 2009). The GWR system produces water with
quality far higher than that of many potable water systems.
Such high levels of treatment come at a great cost and are not necessary or economically
viable for most wastewater reuse and MAR applications. As with wastewater reuse in
general, treatment standards for wastewater use for MAR must consider local
socioeconomic conditions. Even if drinking water augmentation is not explicitly foreseen in
an MAR project, drinking water quality standards are still commonly applied to the recharged
or recovered water in many applications in developed countries (Wintgens et al., 2008). The
primary benefit of such high-level treatment is to provide peace of mind to the public, which
can be a critical factor in securing public acceptance of reuse projects.
Intermediate treatment options may be more economical than upgrading an entire
wastewater treatment facility. For example, where RQTSE does not meet standards for
unrestricted irrigation, only the flow that is needed for unrestricted irrigation or other uses
requiring higher quality water could receive additional treatment, such as additional
disinfection. The additional treatment could be provided either at the WWTP or point of use.
The RQTSE recharged at an ASR system in Hillsborough County, Florida, USA, for
example, received additional UV disinfection at the system site to ensure that it met
applicable microbiological groundwater standards prior to injection.
For systems where the RQTSE receives tertiary treatment or less, the critical technical issue
is avoiding indirect potable reuse. Potable reuse in KSA could potentially occur through
recharge into brackish-water aquifers that are used for blending with desalinated water. An
5-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
important element of feasibility assessments and project design is selecting project sites
where potable reuse will not occur. This can be achieved by either selecting a storage
aquifer that is not locally used for potable supply, using geographic separation of the MAR
system from potable-water supply wells, or locating the MAR system downgradient from
potable-water supply wells. Groundwater modeling is an integral tool for evaluating the
transport of RQTSE recharged into MAR systems.
5.5 Economic and Operational Issues

The technical feasibility of MAR projects depends upon favorable hydrogeological
conditions. The economic feasibility of MAR projects depends upon a number of design,
logistical, and operational issues. Ideally, the costs to construct and operate MAR systems
should not exceed the value of the recovered
Economics of groundwater recharge
stored or treated water. However, as with water
projects in general, MAR projects may have
in assessing the benefits of
secondary and social benefits that are difficult to
artificial recharge, consideration
quantify. For example, one benefit of reusing
must be given to the importance of
wastewater is avoidance of the environmental
water to the total economy, to the
impacts associated with its disposal. Economic
value of water for various uses, as
and operational issues need to be considered in
well as to the direct and intangible
a feasibility assessment and the selection,
benefits that may accrue.
design, and location of MAR systems.
The costs of ASR systems include both capital
-Todd (1965)
and O&M costs. Major capital cost items include
the wells and pumps, wellhead, piping, instrumentation, electrical supply connection, land
acquisition, and engineering and regulatory costs. Major O&M costs include electrical
supply, monitoring and reporting, well rehabilitation, maintenance and replacement of
equipment, and project staff compensation and overhead. Actual capital and O&M costs are
highly project-specific.
MAR project costs are typically evaluated in the same manner as costs on other engineering
projects by using some type of net present value (NPV), present worth (PW), or life cycle
cost (LCC) analysis, which considers both amortized capital costs and annual O&M costs.
The cost per unit volume of recovered or treated water can be evaluated against the
revenues from water sales, the costs of other storage and treatment options, or the value
generated from the use of the unit volume of water.
5.5.1 Site Location, Integration into Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure, and

Other Logistical Issues
MAR systems should be constructed at locations that are readily integrated into current or
planned future wastewater treatment and reuse infrastructure. Constructing dedicated
transmission mains to a distant, isolated MAR facility can be cost-prohibitive. The most
practical locations for MAR systems are either in the vicinity of WWTPs or at the point of
RQTSE use. The latter, for example, could be an existing or planned agricultural or
recreational area. Another alternative is to construct the system at a logistically or
hydrogeologically favorable location along an RQTSE transmission main.
An MAR system could be constructed as an integral component of a reuse system
expansion. In addition, an ASR system near the point of use may be used to ensure a
reliable, year-round supply to reuse water customers. The MAR system may also be used to
polish part of the RQTSE flow so that it meets higher water quality standards such as those
for unrestricted irrigation. An ASTR or SAT system could be used to provide polishing
benefits and reduce the stigma associated with wastewater reuse.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-23
There are a number of other logistical and infrastructure issues that are important in
determining the most favorable location for MAR systems:
Land availability
Site accessibility, including for drilling and maintenance equipment and the distance from
system operations staff base
Availability of electrical power supply
Site security (from vandalism and impacts from natural processes, such as flash floods in
wadis)
Environmental concerns (e.g., nearby sensitive environments)
Historical and cultural impacts
Local political and public support for or opposition to the project
All of the above need to be considered in the evaluation of potential locations for MAR
systems. However, an important caveat is that logistically convenient locations for an MAR
system may not be ideal from a hydrogeological perspective. Trade-offs between logistical
convenience (and associated cost benefits) and likely system performance need to be
carefully weighed.
5.5.2 Well Capacity and Depth

Well construction is a major cost item for ASR and other MAR systems that use wells for
recharge and recovery. Well construction costs are a function of well depth and diameter,
casing materials, completion (e.g., open hole versus screened), the number of surface and
intermediate casings, the testing program, and local well drilling costs. Well construction
costs are related to depth, with deeper wells costing more because of the increased
materials used (e.g., casing and cement), longer drilling times (and thus labor costs), and
often the requirement that high-capacity equipment be used. There is thus a clear cost
advantage for using shallower aquifers as storage zones.
Deeper wells also have greater O&M requirements. Injection wells normally require periodic
rehabilitation to maintain their performance, which is typically quantified using specific
injectivity (injection rate divided by increase in head/pressure). Rehabilitation of deeper
wells is also more difficult and time-consuming, and thus expensive, than for shallower wells.
Depth to water is also a significant O&M cost consideration. The depth to water depends
upon static water level, pumping rate, aquifer hydraulics, and well efficiency. The power
required for pumping is directly related to the total dynamic head (TDH), the primary
component of which is the depth to water in a well. Greater TDHs result in the need for
more powerful pumps and greater energy costs.
Well capacity (yield) is also an important economic factor for MAR systems. There are clear
cost advantages if the target injection and recovery capacity of a system can be achieved
using few wells. The cost savings come from both well drilling and surface infrastructure
(e.g., wellheads, piping, and instrumentation). Well capacity, which is commonly quantified
in terms of specific capacity, is primarily a function of the aquifer transmissivity. Well
efficiency is also an important factor in controlling well capacity, particularly where capacity
is reduced through clogging of the well screen, borehole wall, and/or the aquifer adjacent to
the borehole.
An important lesson associated with the historical implementation of ASR is that very high
transmissivities, and thus well yields, tend to be indicators of lower REs for chemically
bounded systems using brackish or saline water aquifers (Maliva and Missimer, 2010). The
5-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
very high transmissivities in some failed systems were due to groundwater flow being
dominated by secondary porosity (fractures or karstic solution networks), with associated
rapid, extensive migration of injected waters and high degrees of mixing of stored water and
native groundwater.
Tradeoffs, therefore, may also exist in the choice of storage zones. The aquifer that is most
economically attractive in terms of water quality, depth, and well capacity may have
hydrogeological characteristics that are less favorable for MAR system performance. The
additional construction and O&M costs associated with the use of deeper, more
hydrogeologically favorable aquifers may make projects economically unviable, particularly
given the relatively low economic value of RQTSE.
5.5.3 Well Clogging and Rehabilitation

Injection wells, in general, are prone to clogging, or plugging, which can result in a dramatic
decrease in well performance. The clogging may occur at the well screen, borehole water,
or aquifer adjacent to the borehole. Clogging can be caused by a number of physical,
chemical, and biological processes, including filtration of suspended material, mechanical
jamming (particle rearrangement), biological growths, chemical precipitation (scaling), clay
swelling and dispersion, and gas binding. Well clogging mechanisms and rehabilitation
options in MAR wells were reviewed by Maliva and Missimer (2010).
Clogging is, unfortunately, a normal part of MAR well operation. The need for well
rehabilitation should, therefore, be considered in initial cost-benefit analyses, system design,
and O&M budgeting. Well rehabilitation includes two main types of activities: routine
backflushing and periodic major well rehabilitation. Backflushing consists of pumping a MAR
well during recharge for a short period of time (typically 15 minutes or less). The reversal of
flow mobilizes and removes material that accumulates on the well screen or borehole.
Backflushing frequency depends upon system-specific performance and the quality of the
injected water, and can range from every several days to weeks (much less frequent for
potable water systems).
Major well rehabilitations are performed much less frequently (annually or less frequently)
and involve more chemical and/or physically intensive treatments such as acidification,
chlorination, brushing, swabbing, jetting, liquid carbon dioxide treatment, and sonic
treatments. Major well rehabilitations are normally performed when backflushing no longer
results in a satisfactory restoration of well performance.
Both backflushing and major well rehabilitation schedules and methods involve adaptive
management, and there is no one schedule or method that is optimal for all systems. Some
experimentation should be performed during the initial operation of an MAR system to
determine the schedule and methods that yield the most cost-effective improvement in
system performance. A key design issue for MAR systems is that the wellheads should
allow for pumping of the backflushed water to waste and allow for convenient equipment
access to the well for rehabilitation activities.
RQTSE MAR systems are particularly susceptible to biological clogging, which involves the
formation of biofilms on well screens, filter packs, and the borehole wall. Bacteria
preferentially grow where their food is most abundant, which is at well screen openings and
in the filter pack (Huisman and Olsthoorn, 1982). RQTSE by its nature tends to have high
organic and nutrient content, which is favorable for biological growth. The introduction of
oxygen also stimulates the growth of the native microbial populations in wells (Mansuy,
1999). It is therefore recommended that chlorine residual (2 to 5 mg/L total chlorine
residual) be maintained in injected RQTSE in order to control biological growth. Field data
have shown that when disinfection is performed using methods that do not leave a residual
(such as UV or ozone), biological well clogging can be very rapid.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-25
5.6 General Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of KSA can be subdivided into two major geological and physiographic
units, the western Arabian Shield (Crystalline Najd), in which crystalline rock is present at or
near land surface and the Sedimentary Najd and Eastern Province (Sedimentary Sequence),
which is underlain by a thick deposit of sedimentary rock (Ministry of Agriculture and Water,
1994). The sedimentary rock strata dip to the east (i.e., beds slope downward to the east),
so that progressively younger rocks are encountered at land surface from the center of KSA
to the Arabian Gulf coast (Figure 5-9).
The eastern and western parts of the Kingdom have distinctly different hydrogeological
conditions due to their different geological conditions. The sedimentary strata that underlie
the eastern half of the Kingdom contain multiple aquifers, separated by less permeable
confining or semi-confining strata. The crystalline rock of the Arabian Shield, with the
exception of shallow fractured and weathered zones, is essentially impermeable and forms
the base of the local groundwater system. The only significant aquifers are shallow, coarsegrained alluvial sediments that were deposited in wadi channels and some aquifer systems
found within basalt harrats. The wadis along the western coast originate in the eastern
Highlands (Hijaz Escarpment) and extend in a generally westward direction to the Red Sea.
Recharge rates in both the eastern and western parts of the Kingdom are low, with the
overall average rate being less than 5 mm per year (Ministry of Water and Electricity, 2009).
The mountainous areas of the western part of the Arabian Shield have significantly greater
than average rainfall and recharge and thus have greater renewable groundwater resources
in the wadi aquifers. However, wadi aquifers have low storage volumes and are vulnerable
to rapid depletion. The aquifers of the eastern part of the Kingdom have very large storage
volumes from recharge during earlier wetter (pluvial periods), but are also vulnerable to
depletion because of very low current recharge rates. Water levels in these fossil aquifers
are declining due to extensive agricultural withdrawals and, to a lesser extent, withdrawals
for municipal potable supply.
5.7 Greater Riyadh Area

The history of water supply development for the Greater Riyadh area was reviewed by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Water (1984) and Al-Mutaz (1987). The earliest water supply
sources were natural springs and seeps, and then shallow wells constructed in Wadi Hanifa
and its tributary wadis. Utilization of the sedimentary bedrock aquifers started once the wadi
aquifers became inadequate to meet growing demands, with the shallow Jubaila Aquifer
being the first exploited. A management pattern then developed: (1) moving production
farther away from the city to reduce local drawdowns and (2) construction of wells in deep
aquifers, particularly the sandstone Minjur and Wasia-Biyadh Aquifers. The Minjur Aquifer
contains brackish water that is treated by RO desalination.
In 1983, Riyadh began to receive desalinated water from Al-Jubayl on the Arabian Gulf
coast, which is blended with brackish groundwater near Riyadh. Groundwater is still an
important source of drinking water (roughly half of the water supply). The city currently
derives its groundwater from 249 production wells, 228 of which are deep wells generally
completed in the Wasia, Biyadh, and Minjur Aquifers. The remaining 21 wells are shallow
wells located in the Wadi Nisah area, approximately 40 km south of the city (High Committee
for Environmental Protection of Riyadh, 2010a). The Hunai wellfield has been added,
tapping the limestone Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer, far to the east of Riyadh. Additional
wellfields are currently planned, including extending the existing Wasia-Biyadh wellfield to
the south.
5-26
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 5-9
Geological map of the Arabian Peninsula

Source: Pollastro et al. (1997)
Primary sources of information on the general hydrogeology are Powers et al. (1966) and
Ministry of Agriculture and Water (1984). The general geological structure includes
eastward-dipping sedimentary formations of Cretaceous to Jurassic age (Table 5-2), overlain
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-27
locally by Miocene-Pliocene lacustrine limestones and gravels of the Kharj Formation, or

more widely by Recent and Quaternary alluvial deposits. The hydrogeology of the greater
Riyadh area is divided into shallow and deep aquifers. The shallow aquifers consist
predominantly of wadi alluvial aquifers, which are locally hydraulically connected (to varying
degrees) to underlying fractured and fissured rock belonging to the Kharj Formation, Sulaiy
Formation, Arab Formation, and upper Jubaila Formation. These formations form the
bedrock beneath the alluvial sediments in the Greater Riyadh area. The Jubaila Formation
is present mainly west of Wadi Hanifa, and the Arab Formation, Sulaiy Formation, and Kharj
Formation are present east of Wadi Hanifa.
5.7.1 Wadi Aquifers

As noted previously, wadis are ephemeral streams that are normally dry except during and
following significant rainfall events. Wadi aquifers are unconfined and are composed of
alluvial sediments, which are cobble, granule, sand, silt, and clay-sized siliciclastic material.
The sedimentologic and hydraulic properties of wadi aquifers are highly variable both
between different wadis and along different reaches of a single wadi.
Wadi aquifers, as unconfined aquifers, are susceptible to anthropogenic contamination.
Contamination sources include industrial activities in the watershed and wadi, agricultural
operations, household septic systems, and WWTP effluent discharges.
Wadi Hanifa (including its tributaries) extends through the Greater Riyadh area and is a
critical resource for the city. Most of the city lies in its drainage. It was the original water
source for the city and the wadi sediments are also an important source of building
materials. Wadi Hanifa also represents the natural drain within the city (Alhamid et al.,
2007). In addition to periodic storm flows, Wadi Hanifa is used for the disposal of sewage
effluent, agricultural drainage water, and dewatering effluent. The latter is very important as
groundwater levels in parts of the city have risen considerably, as in many other urban areas
in the Middle East and North Africa. Water levels within alluvial deposits keep the deposits
locally saturated to within 2 to 5 m of the surface and extensive pumping of alluvial aquifers
is being carried out to reduce high water tables adjacent to large structures (High Committee
for Environmental Protection of Riyadh, 2010b).
The alluvial aquifer system is still the basis for agricultural development along Wadi Hanifa.
Water is extracted using wells completed in the wadi alluvium. Wadi Hanifa is the primary
discharge point for the Southern (Manfouha) WWTP, which has an average day flow of
190,000 m3/d (Al Jasser, 2011), with plans for future expansion. Farms are present
downstream (south of Riyadh), but only for approximately 40 km, where the largely
anthropogenic flow of surface water disappears beneath surface sands (Winslow and
Maliva, 2010). The location where surface water flow ceases roughly corresponds to the
western boundary of the highly karstic Arab Formation, although the occurrence of surficial
sand deposits may also play a role in the disappearance of this flow.
Although Wadi Hanifa has flowing water only during and after rainfall events, the
combination of rising groundwater levels and discharges to the wadi has resulted in
perennial lakes and stream reaches and the formation of wetlands and marshes (Alhamid et
al., 2007). Both the surface water and groundwater in Wadi Hanifa are contaminated and
are considered unsuitable in their present state for any use except supplying natural
habitats. However, the groundwater quality is better than the surface water quality, which is
evidence that the alluvium acts as natural filtering and cleaning system (Alhamid et al.,
2007).
5-28
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 5-2
General Geological Structure of the Greater Riyadh Area

Formation
Age
Thickness
(m)
General Lithology
Hydrogeology
Alluvial Sediments
Recent
Quaternary
5 50
Mostly consolidated sand

and gravels intermixed
and interbedded with silt
and clays
Thick deposits in wadis

form aquifers; poor
quality water due to
contamination
Kharj Formation
Miocene Pliocene
5 50
Lacustrine limestone with

interbedded gypsum and
gravel
Not a water source
Wasia-Biyadh
Early to
Middle
Cretaceous
500 (in
outcrop area
east of
Riyadh)
Quartz sandstones and

interbedded shales,
dolomites, and
limestones
Primary aquifer,
significant source of
high quality water
Early
Cretaceous
20 100
Low-permeability micritic
to calcarenitic limestones
Not a significant water

source
Hith
Anhydrite
Late
Jurassic
0 - 90
Anhydrite or solution
breccias

source
Upper Arab
Formation
Late
Jurassic
10
50
Calcarentic and aphantic

(very fine-grained)
limestones, dolostones

source
Lower Arab
Formation
(Arriyadh
Aquifer)
Late
Jurassic
5100
Calcarenitic and aphantic

limestones, dolostones;
fractured
Variable well yield, but

water contaminated
and highly mineralized
in the Riyadh area
Jubaila
Formation
Late
Jurassic
100 150
Aphantic limestones and

dolostones
Upper part productive

where fractured,
otherwise very low
hydraulic conductivity
Hanifa Formation
Late
Jurassic
110

dolostones, oolitic,
limestone

source
Tuwaiq Mountains
Formation
Middle
Jurassic
140

dolostones

source
Dhruma Formation
Middle
Jurassic
375
Aphanitic and
calcarenitic limestones
and subordinate shales
and dolostones
Local water source
Marrat Formation
Early
Jurassic
120
Aphanitic and
calcarenitic limestones
and interbedded shales
Confining unit
Minjur Formation
Late
Triassic
400
Non-marine fine- to very

coarse-grained quartz
sandstone with
intervening shales and
mudstones
Principal aquifer; major

water source for
Riyadh
Jihl Formation
Middle to
Early
Triassic
326
Thin-bedded limestones
with minor sandstone,
shale, and gypsum
Secondary aquifer
CretaceousJurassic
Sulaiy
Formation
Yamama
Formation
Buwaib
Aquifers
500
Sources: Powers et al. (1966), Ministry of Agriculture and Water (1984), Edgell (1997), Alsharhan et al. (2001),
and High Committee for Environmental Protection of Riyadh (2010a).
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-29
The contaminated water has a higher salinity than the underlying freshwater, allowing the
interface between the two waters to be detected using surface resistivity geophysics (Fnais,
2010). The interface between the contaminated water and freshwater was identified at
about 100 m horizontally from the main channel and vertically at a depth of 20 m (Fnais,
2010).
Wasia-Biyadh Aquifer
The Wasia-Biyadh Aquifer consists predominantly of quartz sandstones interbedded with
shales, marl, limestone, and dolomite. The Biyadh Sandstone is of Early Cretaceous age,
and the overlying Wasia Formation is of Middle Cretaceous age. The Wasia Formation and
Biyadh Sandstone form a single aquifer, although confining beds apparently locally separate
these formations. The outcrop (and recharge area) of the aquifer is located east of Riyadh.
The aquifer is not present under the city itself, where the bedrock is older. The aquifer is
approximately 500 m thick in its outcrop area. The water quality at the outcrop is good, and
the aquifer is a significant source of water for the city of Riyadh. In the Al Khourais area,
located approximately 150 km east-northeast of Riyadh, the aquifer was reported as
providing large yields of groundwater containing 500 to 1,500 mg/L TDS. Well yields at the
Wasia WTP reportedly range from 2,160 m3/d to 5,520 m3/d (median = 4,800 m3/d; Deutche
Gessellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit [GTZ], 2006).
Cretaceous-Jurassic Aquifer
The Cretaceous Jurassic (C-J) Aquifer consists of the Sulaiy-Yamama-Buwaib subaquifers,
the Hith Anhydrite, and the Arab and Jubaila subaquifers. The Biyadh Sandstone is
underlain by generally low-permeability limestones belonging, in descending order, to the
Buwaib Formation, Yamama Formation, and Sulaiy Formation of Early Cretaceous to Late
Jurassic age. The underlying Hith Anhydrite is of Late Jurassic age. Anhydrite and gypsum
beds within the Hith Anhydrite, where present near land surface, are subject to dissolution.
The Sulaiy-Yamama-Buwaib subaquifers and Hith Anhydrite strata are generally not
significant water sources in the Greater Riyadh area. However, fracture zones in the Sulaiy
and upper Arab Formation provide opportunities for hydraulic connection between the
surface formations and the deep Arriyadh subaquifer (lower Arab Formation) in the eastern
part of the city (High Committee for Environmental Protection of Riyadh, 2010a).
Arab Formation
The Late Jurassic strata in the Greater Riyadh area is approximately 500 m thick and
consist, in descending order, of the Arab, Jubaila, Hanifa, and Tuwaiq Mountain Formations
(Okla, 1986). The Arab Formation consists of calcarenitic and aphantic limestones,
dolostones, and anhydrites of late Jurassic age. The Arab Formation is exposed in the
Greater Riyadh area. The anhydrite beds may be leached away at surface exposures. Well
yields from the Arab Formation are reported to vary depending on location. The Arab
Formation is a shallow unconfined aquifer in the Riyadh area and is contaminated and has
highly mineralized water.
The lower part of the Arab Formation in the Riyadh area contains a fractured limestone
associated with anhydrite solution and rock collapse referred to as the Arriyadh Aquifer.
Pumping tests have indicated transmissivities in the Arriyadh Aquifer to range from less than
100 m2/day to over 5,000 m2/day, with a typical value of 500 m2/day (High Committee for
Environmental Protection of Riyadh, 2010a). The average TDS concentration of the
Arriyadh Aquifer was reported to be 2,500 mg/L.
Jubaila, Hanifa, and Tuwaiq Mountain Formations

The Jubaila, Hanifa, and Tuwaiq Mountain Formations are lithologically similar to Arab
Formation in that they are composed of aphantic and calcareous limestones and subordinate
dolostones, which generally have very low matrix (unfractured rock) hydraulic conductivities.
5-30
STRATEGIC STUDY
Powers et al. (1966) reported that water from the Jubaila Formation is mainly derived from
openings resulting from weathering and jointing, rather than from porosity inherent in the
rocks themselves. The Jubaila Formation is lithologically diverse and is composed of a
lower unit of aphanitic limestones, partially dolomitized limestones, dolostones, and shales.
The Upper Jubaila Formation contains dolostones and brecciated fossiliferous aphanitic
limestones (biomicrites) (Okla, 1986). Fracture zones in the Jubaila and overlying Arab
Formation and Sulaiy Limestone, combined with the overlying alluvial sands and gravels,
make up a significant aquifer system with typical transmissivities between 1,000 and 3,000
m2/day (High Committee for Environmental Protection of Riyadh, 2010a). As is often the
case in fractured rock terranes in general, overlying alluvial sediments provide the storage
for fractured rock systems, which have a low storativity.
The Jubaila Formation water is usually of moderate to poor quality and is used mainly for
agriculture. The aquifer is vulnerable to contamination from sewage infiltration in Riyadh,
which was a greater issue in the past before the construction of WWTPs (SOGRAH, 1967).
Naeem et al. (1984) reported TDS concentrations of 2,825 to 2,916 mg/L.
The Hanifa Formation is a relatively pure carbonate unit that is not a significant water source
in the Greater Riyadh area. It is lithologically diverse, containing fossiliferous and oolitic
calcarenites, argillaceous limestones, and calcareous shales. The Tuwaiq Mountain
Formation consists of relatively competent limestone and has a tendency to form sheer cliffs.
The western boundary of the formation is essentially marked by westward-facing cliffs
located west of the city of Riyadh. The Tuwaiq Mountain Formation is also not a significant
source of water.
Dhruma Formation
The Dhruma Formation in the Greater Riyadh area consists of limestones (aphantic and less
commonly calcarenitic) and subordinate marine shales and dolostones of Middle Jurassic
age. South of latitude 23N, the Dhruma Formation and underlying Minjur Formation
combine to form the Minjur/Dhruma Aquifer. The Dhruma Formation is not a significant
water source in the Riyadh area, but is reported to have moderate to good yields to the
south (south of latitude 22N) where there is a change in lithology from mostly limestone to
mostly sandstone.
Marrat Formation
The Marrat Formation (Lower Jurassic) lies between the Dhruma Formation and Minjur
Formation. It is reported to consist mostly of aphanitic and calcarenitic limestones and
interbedded shales. The shales, siltstones, and aphanitic limestones of the Marrat
Formation generally act as an upper confining unit for the Minjur Aquifer.
Minjur Formation
The Minjur Formation is composed of a consistent lithology of very fine- to very coarsegrained quartz sandstones (mostly medium-grained), with subordinate shales, siltstones,
and conglomerates (Al-Aswad and Al-Harbi, 2000). The top of the Minjur Sandstone in
central KSA is marked by a downward transition from marine limestones of the lower Marrat
Formation to non-marine quartz sandstones of the Minjur Formation. The Minjur Formation
quartz sandstones are separated into two aquifers by 150 m of intervening shales and
mudstones. The Upper Minjur Aquifer is the primary production zone, as the lower Minjur
Aquifer contains poorer quality water. The transmissivity in the Minjur Sandstone in the
Greater Riyadh area varies from 1.7 x 10-3 to 7.2 x 10-3 m2/s (147 to 666 m2/d) and TDS
ranges from 1,400 to 1,600 mg/L (Alsharhan et al., 2001). In the Greater Riyadh area, the
Minjur Formation ranges from 1,500 to 2,300 m below land surface. As a confined aquifer
with low recharge, the Minjur Aquifer is vulnerable to over-draft and has experienced a rapid
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-31
decline in water levels. A water level decline of 75 m occurred in wells in the Riyadh area by
1979 (Williams and Al-Sagaby, 1982).
Jihl Formation
The Jihl Formation (Middle to Early Jurassic) underlies the Minjur Formation and is a
secondary aquifer in KSA. The Jihl Formation consists of thin-bedded limestones with minor
sandstone, shale, and gypsum. The Jihl Formation is known to contain a considerable
amount of water because of its great thickness. A well east of Riyadh was reported to yield
63 liters per second (L/s) (Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984). Nevertheless, the Jihl
and underlying units (e.g., Khuff Formation) are not considered viable storage zones for
RQTSE in the Greater Riyadh area because of their great depths and associated well
construction costs.
5.8 Makkah Region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Al Taif)

The geology of the Makkah region consists of Precambrian (Proterozoic) igneous and
metamorphic (crystalline) plutonic rocks that are overlain by Tertiary to recent sedimentary
rocks and sediments, and locally basalts. The Precambrian crystalline rock forms the base
of the groundwater system, although the crystalline rock may contain some usable water
where it is fractured near land surface. The main aquifers are alluvial (wadi) deposits, and
the Mid-Tertiary to Quaternary basalts (harrats) and underlying associated sediments.
Western KSA does not have the series of productive Triassic to Neogene sedimentary
aquifers that are present in the central and eastern part of the country, and thus has much
more limited water resources.
Wadi aquifers found in valleys dissected into the crystalline bedrock are the primary
groundwater source in the region. Cities of the region initially obtained their water supply
from shallow wells in local wadis. As population and associated water demands increased,
water was imported from more distant wadis. Wadi aquifers have experienced declining
water quality (e.g., elevated salinity, nitrates, and coliform bacteria), particularly downstream
from developed areas. The water in wadi aquifers located upstream of cities and agricultural
areas may still be suitable for potable use.
Basalts are locally an important water source, but vary greater in their hydraulic properties.
Massive basalt is essentially impermeable. However, basalt deposits may contain cervices,
joints, and fractures that are effective flow zones. Basalt deposits often have zones of
vesicular and intensely fractured basalt and sediments (interflow zones) that have both a
large storage volume and high transmissivity. Alluvial sediments below basalt flows may
also have considerable volume of water in storage.
Potable water is now being increasingly supplied by seawater desalination facilities located
on the Red Sea coast. However, groundwater is still an important water source for some
cities and is also a potential back-up source of water in the event of a disruption to the
desalinated water supply.
5.8.1 Jeddah
The near-surface geology of the Greater Jeddah area consists of alluvial wadi deposits and
marine limestones along the coast that overlie plutonic rock of the Arabian Shield. Water
supply has historically been a serious challenge for Jeddah (Ministry of Agriculture and
Water, 1984). Water was initially supplied to the city from local springs. Seawater
desalination (distillation) was initiated in 1907. The major groundwater sources used for the
city are Wadi Fatimah (approximately 55 km to the east) and Wadi Khulays (approximately
70 km to the north) (Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984). By the mid-1970s, the
withdrawals from the wadis were severely depleting the aquifers, and it was determined that
5-32
STRATEGIC STUDY
municipal use should be curtailed in favor of agricultural use and that seawater desalination
should be used to meet the water demands of Jeddah (Ministry of Agriculture and Water,
1984).
Jeddah is located between two large wadis, Wadi Fatimah to the south and Wadi Usfan to
the north. A number of smaller wadis are present in the Jeddah basin (watershed), which AlSefry and en (2006) described as containing three subbasins. Anthropogenic
contamination in Wadi Marwani, located northeast of Jeddah, is evident by increases in
salinity and nitrate concentrations (Al-Ahmadi and Al-Fiky, 2009).
Jeddah, like a number of other cities in the Middle East, has been experiencing rising
groundwater levels, due to leakage from water and sewage mains, irrigation return flows,
exfiltration from cesspool and septic systems, discharges of sewage to wadis, and other
sources (Al-Sefry and en, 2006). The fundamental reason for the water table rise is that
the net import of freshwater into the city from desalination and external groundwater sources
exceeds the capacity of the shallow aquifers to transmit the water to discharge areas. Water
levels were reported to have risen on average 0.41 m over a 4-year period (1996 to 2000;
Al-Sefry and en, 2006). Rising water levels within the city of Jeddah limit the potential for
local aquifer recharge, which could exacerbate the problem.
5.8.2 Makkah al Mukarramah

The main groundwater supply for the city of Makkah is alluvial deposits of Wadi Naaman
(Na man) and Wadi Fatimah. For over 12 centuries, Wadi Naaman was the main water
supply for Makkah. Until the 1970s, the most important water source was a qanat, AinZubaidah, in Wadi Naaman, which was constructed in 174 AH (Anno Hegirae) or 790 AD
(Anno Domini ) (Es-Saeed et al., 2003). Approximately 90 percent of the potable water for
the city of Makkah is now supplied from the Shuaiba desalination facility on the Red Sea
coast.
In general, the slopes of wadis decrease downstream, resulting in a downstream decrease in
energy and associated decreases in grain size and hydraulic conductivity. The thickness of
the alluvial deposits and the thickness of the vadose zone (depth to the water table) tend to
increase downstream (en, 2008). Water quality tends to decrease downstream, potentially
due to major anthropogenic factors.
The hydrogeology of Wadi Naaman is fairly typical of western KSA. The thickness of the
alluvial deposits increases from 3 to 15 m in upstream areas to more than 50 m farther
downstream (Subyani, 2010). The aquifer also includes underlying weathered crystalline
bedrock. The average transmissivity was reported to be 140 m2/d and TDS concentrations
in the upstream reaches were reported from a study in the late 1970s to range from 440 to
1,123 mg/L (average 923 mg/L) (Subyani, 2010). Es-Saeed et al. (2003) reported an
average estimated transmissivity of 355 m2/d for the upper reaches of the Wadi Naaman
system and average saturated and unsaturated thickness of 8.75 m and 34.17 m,
respectively. Considerable storage volume is, therefore, potentially available for recharge.
Salinity increases downstream of the confluence with Wadi Uranah, and water quality
declines further downstream with due to wastewater effluent (Es-Saeed et al., 2003).
A need for strategic reserves was recognized to manage a planned or accidental shut-down
of the desalination plant or pipeline. The threat would be exacerbated if the shutdown were
to occur immediately before or during the pilgrimage season. Construction of a subsurface
groundwater dam across the Wadi Naaman Aquifer was proposed in order to provide
Makkah with a strategic (emergency) source of water (SERCAP, 1983; Es-Saeed et al.,
2003; Al-Ghamdi, 2009; Khairy et al., 2010). The recommended construction material was
plastic (high-bentonite) concrete installed using diaphragm wall techniques. The dam would
impede the downstream flow of fresh groundwater, which would mound on its upstream side.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-33
The hydrogeology and water quality in Wadi Fatimah are discussed by Sharaf et al. (2001).
The Wadi alluvium ranges in thickness from a few meters upstream to a maximum of about
100 m in the downstream part of the wadi near the Red Sea. Hydraulic conductivity was
reported to range between 10 and 90 m/day. There has been a tremendous increase in
water use from the wadi for domestic, livestock, and industrial purposes, resulting in an
increase in salinity from both lateral intrusion and up-coning. TDS increases from less than
1,000 mg/L in upstream parts of the aquifer to over 10,000 mg/L downstream.
Wadi Yalamlam has been the subject of several hydrogeological studies in recent years as it
is one of the major undeveloped wadis in the Makkah area (Subyani and Bayumi, 2001;
Bayumi, 2008). Wadi Yalamlam is located approximately 125 km southeast of Jeddah and
70 km south of Makkah city. This wadi is unusual in that its upper reaches have surface
water flow most of the year, because of relatively high rainfall in its source, the Hijaz Scarp
Mountains. The aquifer consists of wadi alluvium and underlying weathered bedrock.
Pumping test data indicate a transmissivity of about 120 m2/d at Sadiyah, where the aquifer
is 6 to 12 m thick, and about 500 m2/d further downstream in the Almigat area, where the
aquifer is 15 to 38 m thick (Subyani and Bayumi, 2001). The downstream increase in
transmissivity was attributed to an increase in the thickness of the aquifer. The TDS
concentration of the aquifer was reported to be 1,450 to 1,835 mg/L.
5.8.3 Al Taif
The history of water supply for the city of Al Taif was reviewed by Shaiba (1998). The
traditional source of water was hand-dug wells in local wadis, particularly Wadi Wajj, which
bisects the city. As additional sources were needed, new supplies were obtained from
horizontal wells, locally called dobool (also known regionally as qanats and aflajes).Water is
also locally obtained from wells completed in the fractured crystalline bedrock. In order to
obtain further supplies, wellfields were constructed at Wadi Tarabah and Wadi Aradhah,
located some 130 km southeast of Al Taif. Al Taif now receives potable water from the
Shuaiba desalination facility located on the Red Sea coast.
The hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of Wadi Wajj at Al Taif are discussed by Al-Shaibani
(2008). The wadi aquifer consists of fine- to coarse-grained sediments with depths to
bedrock from a few meters to 20 m. The aquifer also includes at its base fractured and
weathered crystalline rock. The aquifer has a limited lateral extent. The hydraulic
conductivity of the alluvial sediments was estimated to be 20 to 54 m/d based on its grainsize distribution and 10 to 40 m/d based on results of two pump tests.
The Wadi Wajj illustrates the water quality changes that occur as wadis extend through
urban areas. A pronounced difference in water quality occurs between upstream and
downstream groundwater sampling locations. The wadi aquifer upstream of the city, and
thus up-gradient from the main presumed contamination sources, contains freshwater of
good quality. The downstream groundwater has elevated TDS, nitrate, phosphate, chloride,
and coliform bacteria concentrations. The TDS concentrations from several studies were
reported as 530.6 to 837 mg/L for upstream groundwater samples and 2,097 to 3,149 mg/L
for downstream groundwater samples. Potential contamination sources include infiltrated
sewage water, wastewater effluent discharged to the wadi, urban runoff, leachate from
poultry farm wastes, leakage from sanitary sewer systems, and contamination of wells with
sewage water during floods (Al-Shaibani, 2008).
5.9 Madinah al Munnawarah

The city of Al Madinah is located on the Arabian Shield within the belt of Mid-Tertiary to
Quaternary basalts (harrats). Lava flows are adjacent to the southern, eastern, and western
boundaries of the city. The major basalt field, Harrat Rahat (18,100 km2), is located south of
Al Madinah, and the Harrat Khaybar, Hutaym, and Kura Complex (21,400 km2) is located to
5-34
STRATEGIC STUDY
the north (Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984). The latest volcanic eruptions in the Al
Madinah area are recorded to have occurred in year 1256 A.D.
The geology of the Al Madinah area consists of five main units (ItalConsult, 1978):
Recent cover of alluvial and eolian sediments
Tertiary and Quaternary volcanics (basalts of the harrats)
Tertiary sedimentary rocks (sub-basaltic alluvial deposits)
Paleozoic sedimentary rocks
Basement complex (Precambrian crystalline rock)
The major local aquifer consists of basalt flows of Harrat Rahat (to the south) and subbasaltic alluvial deposits, which are hydraulically connected to form a single aquifer complex.
The historic water sources for the city were wadi aquifers and springs that drained the subbasaltic alluvium. A wellfield (Ayn Zarqa) was later constructed in the vicinity of the springs,
which increased water production but reduced spring flow (ItalConsult, 1978). Reported
pumping rates at the wellfield were 5 to 25 L/s (432 to 2160 m3/d) (ItalConsult, 1978). The
main wadis in the immediate city vicinity are Wadi Aqiq, Qana, and Al-Himd, which are the
major drainages for the city (Matsah and Hossain, 1993). Al Madinah now receives
desalinated seawater from the Red Sea. However, groundwater from Harrat Rahat is still an
important water supply source for the city. Additional desalinated seawater supply is
planned, although groundwater currently provides for roughly half of the citys potable water
supply. Wadi aquifers are used for agricultural water supply in outlying communities
(ItalConsult, 1978). Groundwater quality (salinity) in the Al Madinah area is highly variable
(ItalConsult, 1978).
The city of Al Madinah obtains water from three wellfields located in the northern Harrat
Rahat. The production zone is the uppermost weathered basement (bedrock), sub-basalt
alluvium, and densely fractured, jointed, and vesicular basalts that characterize the lower
part of the lava sequence (Al-Shaibani et al., 2007). Pumping test data indicate a very high
degree of variation in calculated transmissivities, ranging from 1 to 13,300 m2/d, which is
typical of fractured terrains (Al-Shaibani et al., 2007). Pumping rates from the three Al
Madinah wellfields were reported to average about 1,000 m3/d (Al-Shaibani, 2007). The
native groundwater is reported to be of drinking water quality (Al-Shaibani et al., 2007).
ItalConsult reported highly variable TDS concentrations in the basalt aquifer, ranging from
510 to 5726 mg/L.
The Madinah WWTP provides tertiary treatment (extended sand filtration followed by sand
filtration and disinfection; Al Saleem, 2007). The WWTP is located north of the city and
discharges disinfected effluent into Wadi Al Hamd, where it flows northward away from the
city. Downstream, the treated water is extracted by farmers for agricultural irrigation (Al
Saleem, 2007). A feasibility study was performed to evaluate the piping of RQTSE directly
to the farmers, with Wadi Al Hamd used for disposal of excess water (Consulting
Engineering Group, CH2M HILL International, 1985).
5.10 Greater Dammam Area

There are six aquifers in the Greater Dammam area, which includes the cities of Dammam,
Al-Khobar, Dhahran, and Qatif. The aquifers range in age from Lower Cretaceous to
Neogene (Table 5-3). The main aquifers occur primarily in carbonate rocks, and
groundwater flow is largely controlled by secondary porosity (e.g., solution cavities,
fractures, faults, and bedding plane openings). The Lower Cretaceous to Neogene strata
dip from the west to the east in a continuous manner, locally interrupted by a serous of
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-35
north-south oriented folds (Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984; GTZ, 2006, v. 11,
Figure 3.4). In general, salinity tends to increase to the east, from the recharge areas in the
outcrop areas to the west (east of Riyadh) toward the Arabian Gulf. The groundwater flow
direction is also to the east, with the pre-development potentiometric contours roughly
parallel to the coast of the Arabian Gulf. Water hydrochemistry also changes down-gradient
from calcium bicarbonate-type at the recharge area, to calcium sulfate-type, and then
sodium chloride-type near the coast (Bakiewicz et al., 1982).
TABLE 5-3
General Geological Structure of the Greater Dammam Area

Formation
Neogene
Complex
Dammam
Aquifer
Age
Thickness
Hofuf
Formation
Late
Miocene
Early
Pliocene
100 150 m
Dam
Formations
General Lithology
Hydrogeology
Continental deposits;
fluvial sands and marls,
marine limestones and
marls
Unconfined;
generally poor
aquifer
Middle
Miocene
Limestones, marls, and

shales. Extensive
fissuring and karstification
in upper part
Locally important
aquifer
Hadrukh
Formation
Early
Miocene
Mostly non-marine,
generally sandy strata;
Calcareous sandstones
and sandy limestones
with interbedded marls
and clays
Locally important
aquifer
Alat
Subaquifer
Early to
Middle
Eocene
Light-colored chalky
dolomitic limestone with a
lower marl
Principal aquifer
Khobar
Subaquifer
Upper fossiliferous
dolomite limestone or
dolomite and low marl
Principal aquifer
primary
groundwater
source
Alveolina
Limestone
Tan limestone containing

foraminifera Alveolina
Not a significant
water source
Saila
Limestone
Blue to gray-blue shale

and marl
Confining strata
Midra
Shale
Shales and clay
Confining strata
100 120 m
Rus Formation
Early
Eocene
80 to 120 m
Chalky limestones,
dolostones, anhydrite,
and marls
Confining unit, in
which anhydrite is
intact
Umm Er Radhuma
Early
Eocene
300 to 500 m
Limestones, dolomitic
limestones, and
dolostones
Principal aquifer;
Primary local
groundwater
source
Aruma Formation
Limestone
Upper
Cretaceous
300 to 450 m
Limestones with
subordinate dolostone
and shale
Poor aquifer
Sources: Powers et al., 1966; Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984; Edgell, 1997; Alsharhan et al., 2001; GTZ,
2006.
The main groundwater sources in the Greater Dammam area are the Umm Er Radhuma
Aquifer and the Khobar subaquifer of the Dammam Formation (Abderrahman et al., 2007).
5-36
STRATEGIC STUDY
The Neogene Complex aquifers are an important water source in the Al Hasa oases.
Approximately 67 percent of the produced groundwater in the Greater Dammam area is
used for agricultural purposes. The Greater Dammam area has a very high density of wells
(GTZ 2006, Figure 3.16), which will be an important consideration for any RQTSE MAR
project.
The Umm Er Radhuma and adjoining aquifers in the Eastern Province of KSA, including the
Greater Dammam area, was the subject of a detailed investigation (GTZ, 2006). A key
observation from that study was that the natural groundwater budget for the Umm Er
Radhuma, Aruma, Dammam, and Neogene Aquifers is slightly negative in that natural
outflows exceed current recharge. The recharge rate of the Umm Er Radhuma and
Dammam Aquifers was estimated to be only 5 to 8 mm/yr (Rasheeduddin et al., 2003).
Every additional extraction results in storage depletion. Groundwater pumping has
dramatically increased the difference between inflow and outflow, and groundwater mining
(over-draft) is taking place (GTZ, 2006). Wells completed in the Dammam and Neogene
Aquifer Complexes are especially vulnerable to becoming dry on a large scale and possible
deterioration of groundwater quality (GTZ, 2006).
The groundwater in the Greater Dammam area is generally not suitable for direct potable
use without treatment because of high salinities. However, brackish groundwater is used for
blending with desalinated water produced by the Saline Water Conversion Corporation
(SWCC) seawater desalination plants. The high-purity desalinated water is piped to regional
water blending stations, where it is blended with brackish groundwater to provide needed
minerals and increase yields. The blended water is then chlorinated and sent to the
distribution system.
Neogene Aquifer
The Neogene Aquifer is the shallowest hydrostratigraphic unit in the Dammam vicinity and,
historically, the first developed for water supply through the use of springs and shallow wells.
The Neogene Complex aquifers are generally not an important source of water outside of
the Al Hasa oasis area. Some springs outside of the Al Hasa oasis area, such as those in
the oases at Qatif (west of Dammam), are located in areas where Neogene strata are
present, but the flow originates from the underlying Dammam Formation (Powers et al.,
1966; Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984; Bazuhair and Hussein, 1989). Agricultural
water needs in the Al Hasa oasis area were historically met by the natural flow of water from
a relatively constant spring discharge (BRGM, 1977). Farmers cultivated different crops
seasonally depending on the water requirements of the various crops. More active
groundwater management began in the 1970s in order to increase agricultural production.
The Al Hasa oasis agricultural area is located approximately 100 km from Dammam.
Investigations have been performed to evaluate the feasibility of conveying treated
wastewater from the Greater Dammam area to Al Hasa (Saudi Consulting Services, 1995);
this raises the possibility of local ASR of seasonally available excess water.
The Neogene Complex is approximately 100 to 150 ft thick in the Dammam vicinity (GTZ,
2006; v. 11, Figure 3.15). The Neogene strata of the Eastern Province were deposited in
terrestrial, marine, and transitional settings. As a result of the varying depositional
environments, the strata have wide lateral and vertical variations in lithology and
hydrogeology (Alsharhan et al., 2001). The complex consists of three formations in the
Dammam region. They are, in ascending order, the Hadrukh, Dam, and Hofuf Formations.
The Hofuf Formation is a lithologically diverse unit composed of fluvial conglomerates, sands
and marls, and marine limestones and marls. It is the uppermost Neogene unit and is
overlain by surficial Quaternary deposits, which include aeolian sands, wadi alluvium, and
lacustrine silts. The Hofuf Formation ranges in thickness from 30 to 100 m in the Eastern
Province (Powers et al., 1966).
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-37
The Dam Formation is a predominantly marine unit that consists of interbedded limestones,
marine marls, and shales. The Hadrukh Formation consists mostly of non-marine generally
sandy strata. The main lithologies are calcareous sandstones and sandy limestones with
interbedded marls, and clays. A few beds near the top of the formation were reported to
locally contain marine mollusks (Powers et al., 1966).
The fractured nature and karstic properties of the Neogene Aquifers, especially the Dam and
Hadrukh Formations, locally cause high transmissivities. For example, an underground karst
cave system in the Dam Formation supplies the Ayn Khudud spring, the largest in the Al
Hasa oasis, which is located approximately 110 km southwest of Dammam (Edgell, 1997).
The transmissivity of the Neogene Complex based on nine pumping tests in the Al Hasa
oasis (Al Hofuf) area, where the aquifer is intensely used, ranges from 9.3 x 10-5 to 4.0 x10-2
m2/s (8 to 3,460 m2/d) (GTZ, 2006). The large range in values over a relatively small
geographic area presumably reflects the karstic nature of the strata. The mean
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values were 1.4 x10-3 m2/s (121 m2/d) and 1.4 x10-5
m/s, respectively. TDS in the Neogene Complex aquifers ranges from 2,500 to 4,000 mg/L
in the Dammam, Dhahran, and Al Khobar area (GTZ, 2006, v. 7, Figure 4.27). GTZ (2006,
v.11, Figure 4.5) indicated TDS concentrations in the combined Neogene Complex of 2,500
to 4,500 mg/L.
Dammam Formation
The Neogene Complex is unconformably overlain by the Dammam Formation. The
Dammam Aquifer is one of the primary aquifers of KSA and has historically been a major
water source in the Dammam area. The Dammam Formation is a lithologically varied unit
that is divided into five members. The members are, in ascending order, the Midra Shale,
Saila Shale, Alveolina Limestone, Khobar Limestone, and Alat Limestone. The bottom three
units consist of shales and clayey limestones and are not significant water sources, and with
the underlying Rus Formation, constitute the confining strata between the Dammam Aquifer
and the Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer.
The Khobar Limestone is approximately 40 m thick in the subsurface and is composed of an
upper unit of mostly calcarenitic limestone and a lower unit of dolomitic marl. The Alat
Formation has an average thickness of about 70 m in boreholes and is composed of an
upper unit of dolomitic limestone and a lower marl, referred to as the Alat Marl or Orange
Marl.
The Alat and Khobar Aquifers are important water sources in the Eastern Province. Both
members have a distinctive and persistent marl unit that acts as a confining or semiconfining unit. The Alat and Khobar Aquifers are separate hydrogeologic units, but wells
may be open to both. The aquifers were flowing artesian during the pre- and earlydevelopment periods, but water levels have locally dropped well below land surface due to
intense groundwater extractions.
The hydraulic properties of the Alat and Khobar Aquifers are determined, to a large degree,
by the presence of secondary porosity flow features such as fractures and karstic solution
cavities, which result in high transmissivities. Well productivity is directly related to the
number of fractures encountered, which are most abundant in the upper parts of both the
Alat and Khobar Aquifers. The transmissivity of both aquifers is particularly high in coastal
areas. The Ministry of Agriculture and Water (1984) reported transmissivities in the Khobar
and Alat members in coastal areas of the Eastern Province of 0.9 x10-1 and 2.9 x10-1 m2/s,
(7,780 and 2,500 m2/d), respectively. The results of two pumping tests in the Dammam
Complex in the Dammam vicinity indicated transmissivities of 6.0 x 10-3 and 1.1 x 10-2 m2/s
(518 to 959 m2/d; wells 4-CB-31, 4-S-23, GTZ, 2006). Harza Engineering (1986) reported
an average specific capacity for Dammam Aquifer wells in the Qatif area of 15 L/s/m, with a
5-38
STRATEGIC STUDY
range of 5.1 to 42 L/s/m for an 80 percent degree of confidence, which corresponds to well
yields of 25 to 2,10 L/s (2,160 to 18,144 m3/d) for 5 m of drawdown.
The TDS concentration in the Alat Formation in the Greater Dammam area (QatifDammam) was reported by Hassan (1992) to be approximately 2,000 mg/L. The TDS
concentration in the Khobar Formation was reported to range from 2,000 to 4,500 mg/L.
Higher salinities near the coast may be due to pumping-induced saline water intrusion (AlZarah, 2007).
Rus Formation
The Rus Formation consists of chalky limestone, partially dolomitized limestone, anhydrite,
and marls. The presence of bedded anhydrite, to a large degree, determines the hydraulic
properties of the formation. Continuous anhydrite beds have a very low vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Thus, where bedded anhydrite is abundant in the Rus Formation, the unit acts
as an effective confining zone between the Dammam Formation and underlying Umm Er
Radhuma Formation. However, where bedded anhydrite is absent due to dissolution or nondeposition, groundwater flow may occur between the two formations. The Rus Formation is
80 to 120 m thick in the Dammam vicinity (GTZ, 2006; V. 11, Figure 3.13).
Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer

The Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer is a principal aquifer in KSA and a very important water
source in the Eastern Province because of its high transmissivity. This formation was
described by Powers et al. (1966) as consisting entirely of a repeating series of light-colored
foraminiferal limestones, dolomitic limestones, and dolostones. The hydraulic characteristics
of the Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer are mainly controlled by the lithology of the formation and
the development of secondary porosity features such as joints, fissures, and karstic solution
voids (Bakiewicz et al., 1982).
The transmissivity of the upper part of the Umm Er Radhuma Formation tends to be much
greater than in the lower part, with the highest transmissivities occurring where fissuring and
karstic solution have occurred in the upper of units of the formation (Bakiewicz et al., 1982;
Ministry of Agriculture and Water, 1984; Harza Engineering, 1986). The common
occurrence of loss of circulation zones during drilling is evidence of the presence of welldeveloped secondary porosity. Fractured zones are also easily observed using caliper and
neutron borehole geophysical logs (Harza Engineering, 1986). The average hydraulic
conductivity of the Um Er Radhuma Aquifer is 0.32 m/d and 32 m/d in the unfissured and
fissured portions of the aquifer, respectively (Bakiewicz et al., 1982; Alsharhan et al., 2001).
Pumping tests indicate transmissivities for the Um Er Radhuma Formation in the Dammam
region mostly in the 1 x 10-3 to 1 x10-1 m2/s (86 to 8640 m2/d) range (GTZ, 2006; V. 11,
Figure 4.5). The formation is approximately 300 to 500 m thick in the Dammam area (GTZ,
2006; V. 11, Figure 3.12). The top of the formation occurs at about 300 m below sea level
(and land surface) along the Arabian Gulf coast in the Dammam area.
The Umm Er Radhuma Formation has a very pronounced down-gradient increase in salinity
to the northeast, toward the Arabian Gulf, ranging from about 300 to 1,000 mg/L in the
outcrop and recharge area to over 5,000 mg/L along the coast (GTZ, 2006; V. 11, Figure
4.4). However, there is also a pronounced vertical variable in salinity, with the lower part of
the formation containing water of marine or hypersaline conditions. The elevated salinities
are believed to have begun during periods of higher sea levels and remain in the formation
due to subsequent incomplete flushing by fresher waters (Harza Engineering, 1986). Upconing of saline water may thus represent a greater threat to water quality in the Umm Er
Radhuma than lateral saline-water intrusion.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-39
Aruma Formation
The Aruma Formation (upper Cretaceous) consists of massive limestone with subordinate
dolomite and shale. In the Eastern Province, along the Arabian Gulf, the formation is divided
into an upper limestone and lower shale unit. Groundwater flow is dominated by fissure and
cavernous systems, and associated losses of circulation zones are frequently encountered
during well drilling (Bakiewicz et al., 1982).
The upper, predominantly carbonate unit is approximately 300 to 450 m thick in the
Dammam region. The top of the formation occurs between 700 and 1,000 m below sea level
in the Dammam area (GTZ, 2006; V. 11, Figure 3.6). GTZ (2006) did not reference any
water quality or pump test data for the Dammam vicinity, presumably because such data
were not available. The Aruma Formation was interpreted to have salinities in excess of
5,000 mg/L near the coast (GTZ, 2006; V. 11, Figure 4.3). GTZ (2006) reported that the only
Aruma Formation groundwater sample that was collected near the coastline (west of
Salwah) had a TDS concentration of more than 12,000 mg/L. The Aruma Formation is
considered to be a secondary aquifer and is not used in the Dammam vicinity because of its
poor quality and great depth.
Deeper Aquifers
Formations that contain aquifers used for water supply elsewhere in KSA are present below
the Aruma Formation, such as the Wasia Formation. However, these deep aquifers are not
considered viable candidates for an ASR storage zone in this region because of their great
depth (> 1,200 m) and expected high salinities.
Wastewater
Most of the wastewater in the Eastern Province of KSA, including the Greater Dammam
area, receives only secondary treatment, which limits opportunities for reuse. GTZ (2006)
noted that the actual wastewater reuse was less than 2 percent of the total theoretical reuse
potential in 2004 and that only 14 percent of the TSE receives tertiary treatment. The
Greater Dammam area is characterized by urban land uses. However, there are large oasis
expanses with date palms, market garden crops, and ornamentals that would be the main
beneficiaries of the use of RQTSE (GTZ, 2006).
5.11 RQTSE ASR Options in KSA

A major constraint on the initial implementation of RQTSE ASR or other MAR techniques in
KSA is avoiding indirect potable reuse. Systems involving the recharge of highly treated
wastewater into aquifers locally used for potable water can be safely implemented, but would
likely be socially unacceptable at the present time. However, successful implementation of
reclaimed ASR for MAR, including demonstrations of improvement in water quality, may
lessen potential opposition to future projects that include an element of indirect potable
recharge.
Based on the hydrogeology of the studied areas, four main feasible RQTSE MAR concepts
were identified for the Kingdom:
ASR/ASTR/ARR in downstream reaches of wadi aquifers. Wadi aquifers are important
groundwater sources, particularly in the western part of the Kingdom. Studies have
documented that water quality deteriorates downstream of cities due to the use of the
channels for wastewater disposal (Alhamid et al., 2007; Al-Shaibani, 2008). In general, land
application of wastewater in hot, arid areas is not ideal because the high evaporation rates
result in an increase in salinity. RQTSE could be injected into the wadi aquifers using wells
(or possibly recharge trenches or galleries constructed in the vadose zone) and recovered
using either the same wells (ASR) or downstream wells (ASTR). ASTR/ARR systems could
5-40
STRATEGIC STUDY
be implemented to improve water quality, particularly the attenuation of contaminant

concentrations. In general, ASTR/ARR would be preferable over ASR due to potentially
greater water quality enhancements and reduced stigma associated with reuse of RQTSE.
ASR or salinity barrier systems in coastal areas. Salinity in the sedimentary rock
aquifers in eastern KSA naturally increases toward the Arabian Gulf coast. Some aquifers
along the coast have also locally experienced increases in salinity due to anthropogenic
saline-water intrusion. Aquifers with salinity levels too high for potable use may be used as
ASR storage zones. Salinity barrier systems may also be used to retard or reverse salinewater intrusion. Among the important design issues are locating and operating systems so
that the injected RQTSE does not reach production wells used for potable supply, including
wells that produce water is blended with desalinated water.
Over-drafted or otherwise impacted aquifers. Over-drafted aquifers have resulting
storage space that could be used for RQTSE storage. One constraint is that some of these
aquifers are still being used for local potable supply. Shallow aquifers that are either
depleted or have become contaminated may be reserved for RQTSE storage and natural
aquifer treatment. Some aquifers (such as the Minjur Aquifer) are used only with RO
treatment. An ASR or ASTR system within the Minjur Aquifer far from potable supply wells
may pose little risk to potable supply, in particular with RO treatment providing additional
protection. However, regulatory approval of such an option would likely face significant
obstacles.
Soil-aquifer treatment. Soil-aquifer treatment could be used as a polishing technique to
improve RQTSE quality and to provide some storage. It could potentially be implemented
throughout the Kingdom, but its feasibility depends upon local hydrogeological conditions.
5.11.1 Evaluation of RQTSE MAR Options

ASR feasibility depends upon a number of logistical and hydrogeological factors. Several
scoring systems have been proposed for evaluating ASR systems in which sites or systems
are ranked according to a cumulative weighted score for the considered feasibility variables
(e.g., CH2M HILL, 1997; Maliva and Missimer, 2010). Although it would be desirable to
develop a universal quantitative system to evaluate the feasibility of ASR systems, such a
goal is impractical because ASR systems vary greatly in their economic benefits,
infrastructure costs, and hydrogeology (Maliva and Missimer, 2010). Instead, scoring
systems should be tailored to project-specific considerations.
One objective of this study was to identify general reclaimed ASR and MAR options for the
major population centers of KSA, rather than assess specific sites. Hence, the focus of the
scoring system is on hydrogeological and aquifer water use issues rather than local logistical
issues or site-specific concerns (such as proximity to potable water wells). The scoring
system used herein (Maliva and Missimer, 2010) rates sites for each considered parameter
as being either:
F = Fatal flaw. Conditions make ASR or MAR either technically or economically unviable.
0 = Unfavorable (poor). Conditions are outside of the range normally considered favorable
for an ASR or MAR system, but project may still be viable.
1 = Acceptable. Conditions are favorable for meeting a minimum performance requirement,
but are less than ideal.
2 = Optimal range. Condition is ideal for proposed ASR or MAR system.
The key feasibility issues for RQTSE ASR or MAR for non-potable use are summarized in
Table 5-4 and are discussed below.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-41
Aquifer water quality. A groundwater quality suitable for direct potable use (TDS < 1,500
mg/L) is considered unfavorable because of concerns over contamination of an aquifer that
might be used directly for potable supply. TDS concentrations greater than 10,000 mg/L are
unfavorable for high RE. Optimal values for high RE are between 1,500 and 5,000 mg/L.
Aquifer transmissivity and well yields. Well capacity affects the economic viability of
projects, as low well capacities would result in a large number of wells being required to
meet system storage capacities. The optimal well capacity is between 2,000 and 8,000 m3/d
or (23 to 93 L/s; 0.5 to 2.1 U.S gallons per day). Higher capacity wells may be indicative of
secondary porosity dominated flow, which can have very adverse impacts on RE. Well
yields are ultimately determined by transmissivity. Very low well yields and aquifer
transmissivities would result in a project not being economically viable.
Storage capacity. ASR systems must be able to store a sufficient volume of RQTSE to
justify the investment in their construction. Storage capacity depends upon system type,
aquifer areal extent, storativity, and, for physical-storage systems, unsaturated thickness. In
the qualitative evaluation conducted for this project, the optimal condition was assumed to
be aquifer storage capacity that is great enough not to restrict likely RQTSE system
capacity, which would be the case for regional aquifers. An acceptable storage capacity
system would have limited capacity, but still be sufficient for RQTSE MAR applications
(capacities of 4,000 m3/d or greater). An example of an acceptable condition is a wadi
aquifer with 10 or more meters of unsaturated sediments that could be used for storage.
Inadequate capacities (< 2,000 m3/d) indicate unfavorable hydrogeological conditions.
TABLE 5-4
RQTSE ASR and MAR Feasibility Scoring System Summary

Parameter
Fatal Flaw
Unfavorable
Acceptable
Optimal
> 10,000 mg/L or

1,500 mg/L
5,000 x < 10,000
1,500 < x 5,000
< 50
50 x <200
< 2,000
200 x <500
1,000 x 2,000
500 to 1,000
Aquifer storage
capacity
Minimal
capacity
Inadequate
capacity
Adequate for
anticipated MAR
applications
No restrictions
Aquifer depth (m)
> 1,500
400 x < 1,500
100 < x < 400
100
Aquifer
heterogeneity and
porosity type
Karst-dominated
flow
Moderate
heterogeneity
Intergranular
(matrix-dominated
flow)
Storage zone
confinement
Poor
Moderate
Highly effective
Aquifer hydraulic
gradient
< 1:1,000
1:5,000 x <
1:1,000
1:5000 or
gradient is
beneficial (ASTR)
Adverse fluid-rock
interaction potential
Common reactive
minerals and
evaporites
Not expected to be a
significant problem
High-stability
mineralogy
(e.g., quartz sands)
Aquifer potable
reuse
Indirect
potable reuse
cannot be
avoided
Widespread use of
aquifer for potable
supply (domestic)
Potable reuse could

be avoided through
system siting.
Aquifer not used for

potable supply
10
Proximity to site of
RQTSE supply or
Long dedicated
conveyance would
Some additional
MAR could be
sited near WWTP
Aquifer water quality

TDS (mg/L)
Aquifer
transmissivity
2
(m /d)
5-42
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 5-4
RQTSE ASR and MAR Feasibility Scoring System Summary

Parameter
use
Fatal Flaw
Unfavorable
be required
Acceptable
conveyance required
Optimal
or point of use
Aquifer depth. Well drilling and maintenance costs increase with depth. Total well depths
of 100 m or less are considered optimal. Depths in excess of 1,500 m are considered a fatal
flaw for RQTSE MAR because of the deep well construction, and O&M costs.
Aquifer heterogeneity and porosity type. High degrees of aquifer heterogeneity are
unfavorable for ASR RE, as they can result in rapid and unpredictable movement of stored
water and excessive mixing of RQTSE and native groundwater. Matrix- (intergranular)
dominated flow is optimal, and karst-dominated flow is considered unfavorable.
Storage-zone confinement. Storage-zone confinement relates to the potential of stored
water to migrate out of the storage zone and result in either a significant loss of stored water
or adverse impacts to the other aquifers. Vertical confinement is quantified through the
leakance value of the confining strata, which is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the
strata divided by their thickness. Leakance values are generally not available for all the
aquifers in the study area. Instead, storage-zone confinement is qualitatively evaluated by
the thickness and lithology of confining units, with clays and shales providing the most
effective confinement. Unconfined aquifers are evaluated based on the lithology of
underlying rock.
Aquifer hydraulic gradient. Large hydraulic gradients can result in the rapid movement of
stored water, which is of particular concern in chemically bounded ASR systems in which the
objective is to recover the actual injected water. However, a substantial hydraulic gradient
may be beneficial for ASTR systems in which the gradient can be used to direct water from
injection wells to recovery wells.
Adverse fluid-rock interaction potential. RQTSE is normally in chemical disequilibrium
with aquifer minerals. Some fluid-rock interactions can result in clogging of wells and the
aquifer and deterioration in the quality of stored water. The optimal condition is a storage
aquifer mineralogy that consists only of essentially unreactive phases such as quartz sand.
The default classification is acceptable, in which fluid-rock interaction should not be a
significant detriment to system performance based on available information. The presence
of common reactive minerals and evaporite minerals (e.g., anhydrite, gypsum, and halite)
indicates unfavorable conditions.
Aquifer potable reuse. Avoidance of unintentional indirect potable reuse is an important
concern for RQTSE MAR systems. In the optimal situation, the aquifer is not locally used for
potable water supply. A condition is considered acceptable if there is some potable use in
the study site region (e.g., desalination blend-water), but indirect potable reuse may be
avoided through the site selection process. The widespread use of an aquifer for potable
supply indicates an unfavorable condition. A fatal flaw condition is indicated where
unintentional indirect potable reuse cannot be avoided.
Proximity to site of RQTSE supply or use. Major logistical issues and costs are
associated with conveying water from a WWTP to the MAR system and then to its point of
use. In the optimal situation, the MAR system can be located either near a WWTP or at a
point of use (e.g., agricultural area) that is already connected to the reuse system. The need
to construct a dedicated conveyance for the MAR system indicates an unfavorable condition.
Acceptable conditions might involve some pipeline construction that would serve a dual
function of expanding the reuse system to a co-located point of use and MAR system site.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-43
5.11.2 Scoring of KSA MAR Options

The potential RQTSE MAR options in the four studied areas are evaluated in Table 5-5
using the RQTSE ASR and MAR feasibility scoring system summarized in Table 5-4. The
highest scoring options in each of the study areas are discussed below.
TABLE 5-5
2 - Aquifer transmissivity
4 - Aquifer depth
5 - Aquifer heterogeneity and

porosity type
6 - Storage zone confinement
7 - Aquifer hydraulic gradient
8- Adverse fluid-rock interaction

potential
9- Aquifer potable use
10 - Proximity to site of RQTSE

supply or use
Total Score
15
2) ASR or ASTR using downstream

reaches of wadi alluvial aquifers
16
3) ASR using basalt aquifers (Harrat

Rahat)
4) ASR or ASTR in Wadi Hanifa

and tributary alluvial aquifers
15.5
5) ASR using Cretaceous-Jurassic

Aquifer
1.5
0.5
14.0
5) ASR using Wasia Aquifer
1.5
F-0
11.5
6) ASR using Minjur Aquifer
1.5
F-0
14.5
7) ASR using Neogene Aquifer
0.5
10.5
8) ASR or salinity barrier using

Dammam Aquifer
12
9) ASR or salinity barrier using

Umm Er Radhuma Formation
0.5
0.5
12
0.5
12.5
Region and Aquifer
3 - Aquifer storage capacity
1 - Aquifer water quality
Feasibility Scoring of RQTSE MAR Options
Makkah
1) ASR or ASTR using downstream
reaches of wadi alluvial aquifers
Al Madinah
Greater Riyadh Area
Greater Dammam Area
10)ASR using the Aruma Formation
F = fatal flaw, 0 = unfavorable, 1 = acceptable, 2 = optimal
Makkah Region (Jeddah, Makkah, and Al Taif)

Wadi alluvial aquifers are the only potential storage zones for RQTSE in the Jeddah,
Makkah, and Al Taif area. Wadi aquifers vary in their hydraulic characteristics both between
different wadis and between the upstream and downstream reaches of individual wadis.
Major advantages of wadi aquifers is their shallow depth, good confinement, dominance of
5-44
STRATEGIC STUDY
intergranular flow, and the possibility of taking advantage of aquifer hydraulic gradients for
ASTR or ARR. The downstream reaches of wadi aquifers tend to have impaired water
quality, which makes them unsuitable for direct potable use. However, the moderately
brackish salinities are favorable for ASR and ASTR. MAR would be used for both storage
and treatment. For example, RQTSE could be recharged using wells or subsurface galleries
to avoid evaporative losses and recovered using more downstream wells. Potential aquifers
are located in Wadi Naaman (Makkah), Wadi Wajj (Al Taif), Wadi Fatimah (south of Jeddah),
and Wadi Usfan (east of Jeddah). ASTR/ARR would be recommended over ASR for
enhanced water quality and reduced stigma associated with wastewater reuse.
Al Madinah
An ASR or ASTR system may also be feasible for Al Madinah in the downstream reaches of
Wadi Al Aqiq. Use of the Wadi Hamd downstream of the city also has the advantage of
relatively close proximity to the WWTP and agricultural users. The system would increase
the groundwater supply and improve water quality by lowering contaminant concentrations
and avoiding the concentration of salt associated with evaporation of surface water
discharges. The basalt aquifers (Harrat Rahat) are unfavorable for MAR because of ongoing
potable use, high degrees of aquifer heterogeneity, and distance from both the wastewater
supply and potential users. The salinity of the water in the basalt aquifers can be highly
variable.
Great Riyadh Area

Wadi alluvial aquifers (Wadi Hanifa and tributaries) could be used for ASR or ASTR
systems. Recharge of RQTSE into the alluvial aquifer could serve a polishing function for
the RQTSE, potentially achieving standards for unrestricted irrigation use. Injection of
RQTSE would avoid the evaporative losses associated with channel discharges. A limitation
for ASR is that water levels have already locally risen from discharges of treated wastewater
and other flows in the channel, resulting in areas of perennial surface water.
The Cretaceous-Jurassic Aquifer in the Greater Riyadh area has the advantage of shallow
well depths, locally high well capacities, suitable water quality for RQTSE ASR, and minimal
municipal potable use. The aquifer has moderate salinities and has anthropogenic
contamination in the Riyadh area. There is some use of the aquifer in the Greater Riyadh
area as a feedwater for brackish-water desalination. An MAR option is to reserve the
Cretaceous-Jurassic aquifer in some parts of the Greater Riyadh area for storage of RQTSE
for irrigation use. The aquifer could be recharged with RQTSE, and then locally recovered
using wells at the point of use. A key technical issue is how to ensure that recharge with
RQTSE would not adversely impact current or anticipated future uses of the aquifer as a
brackish feedwater source. Recharge should not exacerbate local rising water table
conditions. Potential REs are also uncertain.
The deep aquifers (Wasia and Minjur) have the advantages of good water quality and well
yields (transmissivity) for ASR. Their major disadvantages are great well depths, potable
use, and, for the Wasia Aquifer, the distance of aquifer areas (east of Riyadh) from the
wastewater source. The Minjur Aquifer underlies the Greater Riyadh area, but is a major
potable groundwater source, which combined with the great well depths, makes the aquifer
likely not feasible for RQTSE ASR. Regulatory acceptance of using the Wasia and Minjur
Aquifers for RQTSE MAR is unlikely.
Greater Dammam Area

The Neogene Aquifer is not particularly productive in the Dammam, Al-Khobar, Dhahran,
and Qatif areas, but has the advantage of shallow well depths. As with all the main
limestone aquifers in the Greater Dammam area, groundwater flow is dominated by
secondary porosity features (fractures and karstic solution cavities), which is unfavorable for
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-45
ASR. Both the Dammam Aquifer and Umm Er Radhuma Aquifer are comparable in terms of
ASR feasibility, with the former having the disadvantage of greater depth. There is a great
density of potable supply wells in the Greater Dammam area, which makes well interference
a critical issue. Wells used for blending with desalinated water or augmentation of the
potable water supply are particularly vulnerable because the groundwater reportedly
receives no treatment other than disinfection. The preferred areas for RQTSE MAR are
near a coast, where a system could serve both a storage and salinity barrier function.
RQTSE would be injected into the Dammam Aquifer in areas where the salinity is too high
for potable use. Some existing potable supply wells may need to be decommissioned for
this alternative. In addition, tertiary wastewater treatment would be needed to provide
adequate layers (barriers) of protection. The Aruma Formation scores close to the Neogene,
Dammam, and Umm Er Radhuma Aquifers, but is not a practical MAR storage zone
because of its great depth and poor water quality.
5.12 Conclusions
RQTSE is anticipated to be a very large component of water supply within the Kingdom in
coming years. MAR provides strategies for both reclaimed water storage and enhanced
water quality through natural subsurface polishing mechanisms. Strategies such as ASTR
/ARR offer a potential reduction in social stigma concerns associated with the recycling of
wastewater.
With respect to site-specific implementation of MAR, detailed feasibility and hydrogeological
analyses must be performed, including local hydrogeological characterization and pilot
testing. An approach of step-wise investigation allows a decision to stop or continue with
each step, thus minimizing financial risks.
Part of the feasibility process for identifying an
Water Management Options
appropriate site and approach is to weigh all
technical, economic, and socio-regulatory
With growing water supply needs,
considerations in order to select the most
reclaimed water MAR can become an
appropriate option. There is no one perfect site
important part of the array of integrated
for implementation of reclaimed water MAR in the
water management options in KSA.
Kingdom. All hydrogeological settings offer some
challenges, and trade-offs are a given. For
example, at a particular site, providing sufficient assurance that potable supply will be
protected may lead to less than optimal RE. However, it is anticipated that with growing
supply needs, reclaimed water MAR will soon become an important part of the array of
integrated water management options in the Kingdom.
5.13 References
Alhamid, A.A., Alfayzi, S.A., and Hamadto, M.A., 2007, A sustainable water resources
management plan for Wadi Hanifa in Saudi Arabia: Journal King Saud University, v. 19,
Engineering Sciences 2, p. 209-222.
Al-Ahmadi, M.E., and El-Fiky, A.A., 2009, Hydrogeochemical evaluation of shallow alluvial
aquifer of Wadi Marwani, Western Saudi Arabia: Journal of King Saud University (Science),
v. 21, p. 179-190.
Al-Aswad, A.A., and Al-Hardbi, D.A., 2000, Stratigraphy, provenance and depositional
evolution of the Minjur Sandstone (Upper Triassic) in Saudi Arabia: Journal King Saud
University, v. 12, Science (1), p. 57-84.
5-46
STRATEGIC STUDY
Al-Ghamdi, A.S., 2009, Development of strategic water reserve for the Holy City of Makkah,
Saudi Arabia: Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, v. 9, n. 5, p. 533-540.
Al-Jasser, A.O., 2011, Saudi wastewater reuse standards for agricultural irrigation: Riyadh
treatment plants effluent compliance: Journal of King Saud University Engineering
Sciences, v. 23, p. 1-8.
Al-Motairi, H.A., 2001, Water quality regulation and wastewater treatment and reuse in Saudi
Arabia, in Proceedings of Joint WHO/UNEP First Regional Conference on Water Demand
Management, Conservation and Pollution Control, Amman, Jordan 7-10 October 2001.
Al-Otaibi, M., and Mukhopadhyay, A., 2005, Options for managing water resources in
Kuwait: The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, v. 30, p. 55-68.
Al Saleem, E.S.A., 2007, Performance analysis of sanitary wastewater treatment plants:
Reliability-based analysis: Masters Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, King Faud
University, 162 p.
Al-Sefry, S.A., and en, Z., 2006, Groundwater rise problem and risk evaluation in major
cities of arid lands Jeddah case in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Water Resources
Management, v. 20, p. 91-108.
Al-Shaibani, A.M., 2008, Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of a shallow alluvial aquifer,
western Saudi Arabia: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 16, p. 155-165.
Al-Shaibani, A., Lloyd, J.W., Abdulwahab, A.A., and Al-Ahmari, A., 2007, Hydrogeological
and quantitative groundwater assessment of the basaltic aquifer, Northern Harrat Rahat,
Saudi Arabia: Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research, v. 25 (1/2), p. 39-49.
Alsharhan, A.S., Rizk, Z.A., Nairin, A.E.M., Bakhit, D.W., and Alhajari, S.A., 2001,
Hydrogeology of an Arid Region: The Arabian Gulf and Adjoining Areas: Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 331 p.
Al-Zarah, A.I., 2007, Hydrochemical processes of Alkhobar aquifer in eastern region, Saudi
Arabia: Journal of Applied Science, v. 7, n. 23, p. 3669-3677.
Amy, G., and Drewes, J., 2007, Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) as a natural and sustainable
wastewater reclamation/reuse technology: fate of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM)
and trace organic compounds: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 129, p. 19-26.
Arthur, J.D., Cowart, J.B., and Dabous, A.A., 2001, Florida aquifer storage and recovery
geochemical study: year three progress report: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Report
No. 83, 46 p.Arthur, J.D., Dabous, A.A., and Cowart, J.B., 2002, Mobilization of arsenic and
other trace elements during aquifer storage and recovery, southwest Florida, in Aiken, G.R.,
and Kuniansky, E.K., (eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Artificial Recharge Workshop
Proceedings, April 2-4, 2002, Sacramento, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 02-89, p. 47-50.
Asano, T., Burton, F.L., Leverenz, H.L., Tsuchihashi, R., and Tchobanoglous, G., 2007,
Wastewater Reuse. Issues, Technologies and Applications: McGraw-Hill, New York, 1570
p.Asano, T., and Cotruvo, J.A., 2004, Groundwater recharge with reclaimed wastewater;
health and regulatory considerations: Water Research, v. 38, p. 1941-1951.
Bakiewicz, W., Milne, D.M., and Noori, M., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Umm Er Radhuma
aquifer, Saudi Arabia, with reference to fossil gradients: Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, v. 15, p. 105-126.
Bayumi, T.H., 2008, Quantitative groundwater resources evaluation in the lower part of
Yalamlam Basin, Makkah Al Mukarramah, Western Saudi Arabia: Journal King Abdulaziz
University: Earth Science, v. 19, p. 35-56.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-47
Bazuhair, A.S., and Hussein, M.T., 1989, Springs of Saudi Arabia: Journal King Abdulaziz
University: Earth Science, v. 3, Special Issue: 1st Saudi Symposium on Earth Sciences,
Jeddah, 1989, p. 251-258.
Bouwer, H., 1974, Design and operation of land treatment systems for minimum
contamination of ground water: Ground Water, v. 12, n. 3, p. 140-147.
Bouwer, H., 1985, Renovation of wastewater with rapid-infiltration land treatment systems, in
Asano, T., (ed.) Artificial Recharge of Groundwater: Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, MA,
p. 249-282.
Bouwer, H., 1989, Ground water recharge with sewage effluent, in Johnson, A.I., and
Finlayson, D.J., (eds.) Artificial Recharge of Ground Water; Proceedings of the International
Symposium, Anahiem, California, August 23-27, p. 170-185.
Bouwer, H., 1991, Groundwater recharge with sewage effluent: Water Science and
Technology, v. 23, p. 2099-2108.
Bouwer, H., Rice, R.C., Lance, L.C., and Gilbert, R.G., 1980, Rapid-infiltration research at
Flushing Meadows project: Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 56, p. 2457-2470.
Bouwer, E.J., and Wright, J.P., 1988, Transformations of trace aliphatics in anoxic biofilm
columns: Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2: 155-169.
BRGM (Bureau de Recherches Gologiques et Minieres), 1977, Al Hassa Development
Project Groundwater Resources Study and Management Program, Volume 1, Syntheses
(November, 1977), Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Brown, C.J., 2005, Planning decision framework for brackish water aquifer, storage and
recovery (ASR) projects: Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 395 p.
CH2M HILL, 1997, Water supply needs and sources assessment, alternative water supply
strategies investigation. A tool for assessing the feasibility of aquifer storage recovery: St.
Johns River Water Management Special Publication SJ97-SP4, 143 p.
Consulting Engineering Group, CH2M HILL International, 1985, Investigation and
Engineering Design for Wastewater Reuse Planning in Madinah Area, Phase II, Final Design
Report (December, 1985), Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Daughton, C.G., 2004, Ground water recharge and chemical contaminants: challenges in
communicating the connections and collisions of two disparate worlds: Ground Water
Monitoring and Remediation, v. 24, n. 2, p. 127-138.
Daughton, C.G., 2009, Chemicals from the practice of healthcare: challenges and unknowns
posed by residues in the environment: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 28, p.
2490-2494.
Dillon, P., 2005, Future management of aquifer recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, v, 13, p.
313-316.
Dillon, P.J., Pavelic, P., Toze, S., and Rinck-Pfieffer, S., Martin, R., and Knapton, A., and
Pidsley, D., 2006a, Role of aquifer storage in water reuse: Desalination, v. 188, p. 123-134.
Dillon, P., Pavelic, P, Toze, S., Ragusa, S., Wright, M., Peter, P., Martin, R., Gerges, N., and
Rinck-Pfieffer, S., 1999, Storing recycled water in an aquifer, benefits and risks: Australian
Water and Wastewater Association Journal, v. 26, p. 21-29.
Dillon, P., and Toze, S., 2005, Water quality improvements during aquifer storage and
recovery, Volume 1: water quality improvement processes: AWWA Research Foundation
Report 91056F, 286 p.
5-48
STRATEGIC STUDY
Dillon, R., Toze, S., Pavelic, P., Vanderzalm, J., Barry, K., Ying, G.-L., Kookana, R.,
Skjemstad, J., Nicholson, B., Miller, R., Correll, R., Prommer, H., Greskowiak, J., and
Stuyfzand, P., 2006b, Water quality improvements during aquifer storage and recovery at
ten sites, In Recharge systems for protecting and enhancing groundwater resources,
Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Management of Aquifer Recharge,
Berlin, Germany, 11-16 June 2005: UNESCO, Paris, p. 85-94.
Domenico, P.A., and Schwarz, F.W., 1998, Physical and chemical hydrogeology (2nd): John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 506 p.
Drewes, J.E., 2009, Ground water replenishment with recycled water- water quality
improvements during managed aquifer recharge: Ground Water, v. 47, n. 4, p. 502-505.
Drewes, J.E., Reinhard, M., and Fox, P., 2003b, Comparing microfiltration-reverse osmosis
and soil-aquifer treatment for indirect potable reuse of water: Water Research, v. 37, p.
3612-3621.
Drewes, J.E., Heberer, T., Rauch, T., and Reddersen, K., 2003, Fate of pharmaceuticals
during groundwater recharge: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 23, p. 64-72.
Edgell, H.S., 1997, Aquifers of Saudi Arabia and their geological framework: Arabian Journal
for Science and Engineering, v. 22, n. 1C, p. 3-31.
Es-Saeed, M., Sen, Z.Z., Basamad, A., and Dahlawi, A., 2003, Strategic groundwater
storage of Wadi NaMan Makkah Region, Saudi Arabia: Saudi Geological Survey.
Fnais, M.S., 2010, Geophysical characteristics of Wadi Hanifa water system, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia: Arab Journal of Geosciences, doi: 10.1007/s12517-009-0104-7.
Fox, P., Narayanaswamy, K., Genz, A., and Drewes, J.E., 2001, Water quality
transformations during soil aquifer treatment at the Mesa Northwest Reclamation Plant,
USA: Water Science & Technology, v. 43, p. 343-350.
Fram, M.S., Bergamaschi, B., Goodwin, K.D., Fujii, R., and Clark, J.F., 2003, Process
affecting the trihalomethane concentrations associated with the third injection, storage, and
recovery test at Lancaster, Antelope Valley, California, March 1998 through April 1999: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4062, 72p.
GTZ, 2006, Investigations of Updating Groundwater Mathematical Model(s) for the Umm Er
Radhuma and Overlying Aquifers: Report prepared for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry
of Water & Electricity.
GTZ, 2006, Special Audit Riyadh, Wellfield of Wasia WTP, 16 p.
Harza Engineering Co. (1986), Additional studies and Final Design for the Improvement of
Irrigated Agriculture in the Qatif Area, Feasibility Report Volume III, Water Resources
Studies Appendix II: Reported prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Hassan, H.M., 1992, Hydrogeochemistry of Alat and Khobar Aquifers in Eastern Saudi
Arabia: M.S. thesis, King Faud University of Petroleum and Minerals, 156 p.
Heberer, T., Mechlinski, A., Franck, B., Knappe, A., Massmann, G., Pekdeger, A., and Fritz,
B., 2004, Field studies on the fate and transport of pharmaceutical residues in bank filtration:
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 24, p. 70-77.
High Committee for Environmental Protection of Riyadh (2010a), Environmental Database >
Natural Settings Hydrogeology:
http://www.arriyadhenv.com/English/ENVDB/Naturalphenomena/Pages/HIDROGOLOJIA.aspx
(accessed 21/3/2011)
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-49
High Committee for Environmental Protection of Riyadh (2010b), Environmental

Database>Natural Resources Water Resources in the City of Riyadh:
http://www.arriyadhenv.com/English/ENVDB/NaturalResources/Pages/Water_sources.aspx
(accessed 4/4/2011)
Hubbs, S.A., 2006, Evaluating streambed forces impact the capacity of riverbed filtration
systems, in Hubbs, S.A., (ed.) Riverbank Filtration Hydrology: Springer, Dordrecht, 344 p.
Huisman, L., and Olsthoorn, T.N., 1982, Artificial Groundwater Recharge: Pittman, London,
320 p.
John, D.E., Rose, J.B., and Karmarainen, A., 2004, Survival of fecal indicator bacteria,
bacteriophage and protozoa in Floridas surface and ground water: Final Report of the Fate
of Microorganisms in Aquifer Study, Southwest Florida Water District and South Florida
Water Management District, June 2006, 240 p.
John, D.E., and Rose, J.B., 2005, Review of factors affecting microbial survival in
groundwater: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 39, p. 7345-7356.
Khairy, A.T., Al-Ghamdi, A.S., and Gutub, S.A., 2010, Analysis and design of a deep
subsurface dam: International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS v.
10, n. 3, p. 32-41.
Khan, S.J., and Rorije, 2002, Pharmaceutically active compounds in aquifer storage and
recovery, in Dillon, P.J., (ed.) Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability, A.A.
Balkema, Lisse, p. 169-174.
Khan, S.J., and Gerrard, L.E., 2006, Stakeholder communications for successful water reuse
operations: Desalination, v. 187, p. 191-202.
Landmeyer, J.E., Bradley, P.N., and Thomas, J.M, 2000, Biodegradation of disinfection
byproducts as a potential removal process during aquifer storage recovery: Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 26: 861-867.
Lazarova, V., Cirelli, G., Jeffrey, P., Salgot, M., Icekson, N., and Brissaud, F., 2000,
Enhancement of integrated water management and reuse in Europe and the Middle East:
Water Science and Technology, v. 42, n. 1-2, p. 193-202.
Maliva, R.G., Guo, W., and Missimer, T.M., 2006, Aquifer storage and recovery: Recent
hydrogeological advances and system performance: Water Environment Research, v. 78, p.
2428-2435.
Maliva, R.G., and Missimer, T.M., 2008, ASR, useful storage, and the myth of residual
pressure: Ground Water, v. 46, p. 171.
Maliva, R. G., and Missimer, T. M., 2010, Aquifer storage and recovery and managed
aquifer recharge: Planning, hydrogeology, design, and operation: Methods in Water
Resources Evaluation Series No. 2, Schlumberger Corporation, 578 p.
Mansuy, N., 1999, Water well rehabilitation, a practical guide to understanding well problems
and solutions: Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 174 p.
Markus, M.R., 2009, Groundwater replenishment & water reuse: The Water Report, Issue 59
(January 15, 2009), p. 1-9. http://www.gwrsystem.com
Matsah, M.I., and Hissain, D., 1993, Ground conditions in Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, Saudi
Arabia: Journal King Abdulaziz University: Earth Science, v. 6, p. 47-77.
McQuarrie, J.P., and Carlson, K., 2003, Secondary benefits of aquifer storage and recovery:
disinfection by-product control: Journal of Environmental Engineering, v. 129, p. 412-418.
5-50
STRATEGIC STUDY
Ministry of Water& Electricity, 2009, Proposal for a National Water Strategy: Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia Ministry of Water & Electricity, Water Resources Development Department,
June 2009, 67 p.
Mirecki, J.E., 2006a, Geochemical models of water-quality changes during aquifer storage
recovery (ASR) cycle tests, Phase 1: geochemical models using existing data: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Final Report ERDC/EL TR-06-8, 64 p.
Mirecki, J.E., 2006b, Arsenic mobilization and sequestration during successive aquifer
storage recovery (ASR) cycle tests in the carbonate Upper Floridan Aquifer, South Florida,
In Recharge systems for protecting and enhancing groundwater resources, Proceedings of
the 5th International Symposium on Management of Aquifer Recharge, Berlin, Germany, 1116 June 2005, UNESCO, Paris, p. 304-310.
Naeem, A., Alsanussi, M., and Almohandsis, A.A., 1984, Ground water quality in Riyadh and
vicinity: Journal Japanese Association of Ground Hydrology, v. 26, n. 2, p. 46-50.
National Research Council, 1994, Ground Water Recharge Using Waters of Impaired
Quality, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
National Research Council, 1998, Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting
Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed Water, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
National Research Council, 2008, Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of
Recoverable Water, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 337 p.
Nicholson, B.C., Dillon, P.J., and Pavelic, P., 2002, Fate of disinfection by-products during
aquifer storage and recover, in Dillon, P.J., (ed.) Management of Aquifer recharge for
Sustainability, A.A. Balkema, Lisse, p. 155-160.
NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment
Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers Conference), 2006, National
Guideline for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1),
November 2006.
NRMMC-EPHCNHMRC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment
Protection and Heritage Council and National Health and Medical Research Council), 2009,
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks.
Phase 2: Managed Aquifer Recharge (July 2009), http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/
WQ_AGWR_GL__Managed_Aquifer_Recharge_Final_200907.pdf.
Okla, S.M., 1986, Lith0- and microfacies of Upper Jurassic carbonate rocks outcropping in
Central Saudi Arabia: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 9, n. 2, p. 195-206.
Ongerth, J.E., and Khan, S., 2004, Drug residuals: how xenobiotics can affect water supply
sources: Journal of the American Water Works Association, v. 96, n. 5, p. 94-101.
Page, D., Dillon, P., Vanderzalm, J., Toze, S., Sidhu, J., Barry, K., Levett, K., Kremer, S.,
and Regel, R., 2010a, Risk assessment for aquifer storage transfer and recovery with urban
stormwater for producing water for a potable quality: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 39,
11 p, doi: 10.2134/jeq2010.0078.
Page, D., Dillon, P., Toze, S., Bixio, D., Genthe, B., Jimnez Cisneros, B.E., and Wintgens,
T., 2010b, Valuing the subsurface pathogen treatment barriers in water recycling via aquifers
for drinking supplies: Water Research, v. 44, p. 1841-1852.
Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, PHREEQC (Version 2) A computer program for
speciation, batch reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations:
U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-42549.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-51
Pavelic, P., Dillon, P.J., and Nicholson, B.C., 2006b, Comparative evaluation of the fate of
disinfection byproducts at eight aquifer storage and recovery sites: Environmental Science &
Technology: 40: 501-508.
Pescod, M.E., 1992, Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 47: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Pollastro, R.M., Karshbaum, A.S., and Viger, R.J., 1997, Maps showing geology, oil and gas
fields and geologic provinces of the Arabian Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 97-470B.
Powers, R.W., Ramirez, L.F., Redmond, C.D., and Elberg, E.L., Jr., 1966, Geology of the
Arabian Peninsula. Sedimentary Geology of Saudi Arabia: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 560-D, 147 p.
Pyne, R.D.G., 1995, Groundwater recharge and wells: Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 376 p.
Pyne, R.D.G., 2002, Aquifer storage recovery wells: the path ahead: Florida Water
Resources Journal, February 2002, p. 19-27.
Rasheeduddin, M., Abderrahman, W.A., and Lloyd, J.W., 2003, Sustainable development of
a depletable aquifer, in Alsharhan, A.S., Wood, W.W., Goudie, A.S., Fowler, A., and
Abdellatif, E.M., (eds.) Desertification in the Third Millennium: Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, p.
447-486.
Rausch, T., Munoz, J., Drewes, J.E., Amy, G., and Choi, H., 2006, Fate of pharmaceutical
during soil infiltration leading to artificial recharge, in Recharge Systems for Protecting and
Enhancing Groundwater Resources, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on
Management of Aquifer Recharge, Berlin, Germany, 11-16 June 2005: UNESCO, Paris, p.
562-567.
Ray, C., 2002, Riverbank Filtration: Understanding Contaminant Biogeochemistry and
Pathogen Removal (NATO Series VI: Earth and Environmental Sciences): Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 255 p.
Ray, C., Melin, G., and Linksy, R.B., 2002, Riverbank Filtration. Improving Source-Water
Quality: Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 369 p.
Reese, R.S., and Alvarez-Zarikian, C.A., 2007, Hydrogeology and aquifer storage and
recovery performance in the Upper Floridan Aquifer, Southern Florida: U.S.G.S. Scientific
Investigations Report 2006-5239, 100 p.
Rinck-Pfeiffer, S., Pitman, C., and Dillon, P., 2006, Stormwater ASR in practice and ASTR
under investigation in Salisbury, South Australia, In Recharge systems for protecting and
enhancing groundwater resources, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on
Management of Aquifer Recharge, Berlin, Germany, 11-16 June 2005: UNESCO, Paris, p.
151-159.
Saudi Consulting Services, 1995, Investigations and Engineering Designs for Wastewater
Reuse Planning in Dammam Area and Possible Conveyance to Al Hassa for Agricultural
Irrigation (July 1995): Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Sedlak, D.L., Gray, J.L., and Pinkston, K.E., 2000, Understanding microcontaminants in
recycled water: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 35, p. 508A 515A.
en, Z., 2008, Wadi Hydrology: CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 347 p.
Shaibi, H.T., 1998, Water resources for At Taif, Saudi Arabia; A study of alternative sources
for an expanding urban area: The Geographical Bulletin, v. 30-1, p. 30-40.
5-52
STRATEGIC STUDY
Shammas, M.I., 2008, The effectiveness of artificial recharge in combating seawater

intrusion in Salalah coastal aquifer, Oman: Environmental Geology, v. 55, p. 191-204.
Sheahan, N.T., 1977, Injection/extraction well system A unique seawater intrusion barrier:
Ground Water, v. 15, n. 1, p. 32-50.
Sheng, Z., 2005, aquifer storage and recovery system with reclaimed water to preserve
native groundwater resources in El Paso, Texas: Journal of Environmental Management 75:
367-377.
Singer, P.C., Pyne, R.D.G., Mallikarjum, A.V.S., Miller, C.T., and Majonnier, C., 1993,
Examining the impact of aquifer storage and recovery on DBPs: Journal American Water
Works Association v. 85, n. 11, p. 85-94.
Snyder, S.A., Leising, J., Westerkoff, P., Youn, Y., Mash, H., and Vanderford, B., 2004,
Biological and physical attenuation of endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals:
implications for water reuse: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 24, 108-118.
SOGRAH, 1967, Water and Agricultural Development Studies, Area V, Riyadh Water
Supply: Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Stuyfzand, P.J., 2007, Behavior of pharmaceuticals and other emerging pollutants in various
artificial recharge systems in The Netherlands, in Fox, P., (ed.), Management of Aquifer
Recharge for Sustainability: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Managed
Aquifer Recharge of Groundwater: Acacia Publishing, Phoenix, p. 231-245.
Subyani, A.M., 2005, Hydrochemical identification and salinity problem of ground-water in
Wadi Yalamlam basin, Western Saudi Arabia: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 60, p. 53-66.
Subyani, A.M., 2010, Identifying the hydrochemical processes of groundwater in Wadi
Naman, western Saudi Arabia using factor analysis: Arabian Journal of Earth Sciences,
10.1007/s12517-010-0207-1
Subyani, A.M., and Buyami, T.H., 2001, Evaluation of groundwater resources in Wadi
Yalamlam Basin, Makkah Area; Project No. 203/420, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah.
Todd, D.K., 1965, Economics of ground water recharge: Journal of the Hydraulic Division,
Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 91, p. 249-270.
Toze, S., 2004, Reuse of effluent water benefits and risks. In New Directions for a Diverse
Planet, Proceedings of the 4th international Crop Science Congress, 26 Sep Oct, 2004,
Brisbane, Australia, 11 pp.
Toze, S., 2005, Pathogen survival in groundwater: a review of the literature. In Water quality
improvements during aquifer storage and recovery. Volume 1: Water quality improvement
processes, P. Dillon and S. Toze, (eds.), AWWA Research Foundation Report 91056F, pp.
123-140.
Toze, S., 2006, Water reuse and health risks real vs. perceived: Desalination, v. 187, p.
41-51.
Toze, S., Bekele, E., Page, D., Sidhu, J., and Schackleton, M., 2010, use of static
quantitative microbial risk assessment to determine pathogen risks in an unconfined aquifer
used for managed aquifer recharge: Water Research, v. 44, p. 1038-1049.
Williams, J.F., III, and Al Sagaby, I., 1982, Simulated changes in water levels in the Minjur
Aquifer, Riyadh Area, Saudi Arabia: Water Studies Series No. 2, Prepared for the Ministry of
Agriculture and Water.
STRATEGIC STUDY
5-53
Winslow, F.P., and Maliva, R.G., 2010, Reclaimed ASR Assessment of potential storage
zone in the Middle East, Proceedings 7th International Symposium on Managed Aquifer
Recharge, Abu Dhabi, October 10-13, 2010, 11 p.
Wintgens, T., Salehi, F., Hochstrat, R., and Melin, T., 2008, Emerging contaminants and
treatment options in water recycling for indirect potable reuse: Water Science and
Technology, v. 57, n. 1, p. 99-107.
Ying, G.-G., Kookana, R.S., and Dillon, P., 2004, Attenuation of two estrogen compounds in
aquifer materials supplemented with sewage effluent: Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation, v. 24, 102-107.
Zuehlke, S., Duennbier, U., Heberer, T., and Fritz, B., 2004, Analysis of endocrine disrupting
steroids: investigations of their release into the environment and their behavior during bank
filtration: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 24, 78-85.
5-54
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 6: Water Quality and Wastewater

Disposal Impacts
6.1 Introduction
Much of the border of KSA is surrounded by water, with the Red Sea to the west and the
Arabian Gulf to the east. With this expanse of shoreline, the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf
sustain a variety of uses, including ports and transportation; industry including power
production, oil exploration, and petrochemicals; recreation and tourism; fisheries and food;
diverse and unique habitat (such as coral reefs and mangroves); water supply for residential
and industrial uses; coastal development and land reclamation; and wastewater disposal.
As discussed in previous chapters, freshwater is limited despite this abundance of water,
and KSA has been described as the largest country in the world without a natural, perennial
river running to the sea (Vincent, 2008). In this naturally arid region, the wadis (riverbeds)
are usually dry depressions. While they may carry runoff after a rainfall, apart from some
regional variations, they often extend for only a short distance. With the exception of areas
in the southwest subject to monsoons, most of the country receives less than 200 mm of
rainfall per year, and in the interior part of the country several years may pass between
rainfall events (Vincent, 2008).
As a result of these dry conditions, demands for potable and other water have been met by
relying on groundwater and desalination of seawater, both of which have modified surface
and groundwater resources. The water table has dropped and naturally occurring lakes,
such as the system of 17 lakes known as the Layla Lakes, have become dry as a result of
direct pumping and use of groundwater for irrigation (Vincent, 2008), further limiting the
availability of surface water resources. At other locations, such as in Wadi Hanifa, the wadi
has been fed by partially treated wastewater discharges (Vincent, 2008). The drawdown of
groundwater and discharge of wastewater to wadis has the potential to place the Red Sea,
Arabian Gulf, and groundwater resources at risk, as does the discharge of inadequately
treated wastewater generated from various water uses.
For these reasons, Chapter 6 focuses on the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf, providing an
overview of physical and hydrologic conditions as a context for understanding water quality
and the potential for various activities to affect water quality. Within this context, surface
water quality is characterized along with documented changes resulting from various uses,
including wastewater disposal, desalination, and port activities. Section 6.2 focuses on the
Red Sea and Section 6.3 on the Arabian Gulf. Inland, some wastewater is transported to
sewage lakes, or large holding lagoons, and an overview of this type of wastewater disposal
is presented in Section 6.4. Finally, Section 6.5 provides a summary of how these
conditions influence water use management decisions and policy in KSA, while presenting
gaps in current policy, planning, and data collection.
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 6: WATER QUALITY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL IMPACTS
6.2 Red Sea

6.2.1 Physical and Hydrographic Characteristics
Physical Conditions
The Red Sea is a long, narrow semi-enclosed water body approximately 438,000 km2 in
size. It is about 1,950 km in length. At its widest point, the Red Sea is about 360 km and at
its narrowest point about 170 km. At its northern end, the Red Sea forks to form the Gulfs of
Suez and Aqaba; it connects with the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal. At its
southern end it is linked to the Gulf of Aden through the narrow Strait of Bab el Mandeb, and
from there to the Indian Ocean (Figure 6-1).
Water depths vary throughout the Red Sea, with the sea being relatively shallow at its
northern and southern ends. The sea has depths as great as 2,000 m in the central section,
with a maximum depth of 2,640 m (Gladstone et al. for The Regional Organization for the
Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden [PERSGA], 2006). The
sea bed consists of three main levels. The deepest areas are found in a central trough in
the south-central regions of the Red Sea.
From the trough, the sea bed rises sharply to a smooth terrace with an average depth of
about 600 m in the south to 1,000 m in the north (Drake and Girdler, 1964). From this
terrace, the seabed also rises abruptly to the continental shelf, within which the depth is no
more than 50 m due to the extensive formation of coral reefs. The continental shelf is
generally wider in the southern Red Sea, which is a major factor in determining the types
and distribution of shallow water marine habitats, including coral reefs; water depth is also a
factor influencing an areas sensitivity to water quality impacts. Landward, the Red Sea is
typically bordered by a coastal strip 40 to 60 km wide, backed by hills or mountains rising as
much as 3,000 m in some regions.
Wind, Currents, and Tides

Water currents in the Red Sea are generally slow-moving and wind-driven. They are
influenced by both Indian Ocean monsoons and daily and seasonal differences in the
heating of land and sea (thermosteric effects). Surface water currents move counterclockwise, with lower-salinity water moving north up the KSA coast of the Red Sea and
becoming more saline as it flows to the west and south along the Egyptian and Sudanese
coasts. During the summer months, from June through September, currents move southsoutheast throughout the main body of the Red Sea. This general pattern varies locally with
the shape of the coastline, offshore reef complexes, and eddy effects.
Tidal patterns are semi-diurnal and, as with other characteristics, vary from north to south.
When the northern part of the Red Sea is experiencing high water (spring tidal range of 0.6
m), the southern part is experiencing low water (spring tidal range of 0.9 m). In the central
part of the sea, in the vicinity of Jeddah, there is no appreciable semi-diurnal tide, although
there is a small diurnal variation in water levels.
General Climatic Conditions

The Red Sea is a tropical water body and along with the Arabian Gulf, among the warmest of the
worlds seas due to the regional climate. At the lowest temperature in February at the Gulf of
Suez, mean surface temperatures do not fall below 18C. At the southern entrance to the Gulf
of Suez they are as low as 21C, and increase to a maximum of 26.5C about three-quarters of
the way from the Gulf of Suez to Bab el Mandeb. The temperatures remain nearly constant
through the Bab el Mandeb to the Gulf of Aden. Sea surface temperatures are highest in August
and range from a mean of 27C in the Gulf of Suez to 31.5C in the southern Red Sea
(Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006). Further details on environmental conditions within the
Red Sea are provided in Section 6.2.3.
6-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 6-1
Bathymetry of the Red Sea

Source: New World Encyclopedia (2011)
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-3
6.2.2 Uses
The Red Sea supports a broad range of uses and is well-known for the diversity and quality of its
marine environment. It is famous for its coral reefs and marine life, with diverse habitats and
ecosystems including sea grass beds, salt-pans, mangroves, coral reefs and salt marshes.
These habitats support regionally and internationally significant marine species and the rich
fisheries associated with these habitats provide opportunities for fishing, surfing, sailing, and
scuba diving; they attract visitors throughout the year for recreational opportunities and tourism
and at locations such as Jeddah, are supported by resorts, hotels, and restaurants, contributing
to the economic importance of the Red Sea.
The Red Sea is a significant
The fishing industry associated with the Red Sea is a major
economic resource for potable
source of food in Saudi Arabia and a source of employment,
water, industrial uses, tourism,
with the industrial fleet based primarily in al Haffah. The
recreation, agriculture, and
artisanal (or traditional) fishing fleet is distributed throughout
fisheries.
the Red Sea coast, operating primarily in the Tabuk and
Makkah regions (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations [FAO], 2011). The artisanal fleet is estimated as directly involving 15,800
individuals, consisting of primarily fishers (5,114) and laborers (9,477), as well as temporary
fishers (753), walking fishers (481), and individuals investing in but no longer practicing fishing
(41) (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006).
The number of boats involved in fishing was estimated in 2004 at 8,952, including 8,795 small,
traditional open boats and 157 semi-industrial trawlers (simple trawlers/seiners or multipurpose
fishing boats with cabins and simple radio, radar, and navigation equipment).
In addition to traditional fishing, aquaculture plays an increasingly important role in the region
and includes shrimp farming (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006). In 2004, aquaculture
production comprised about 11,172 metric tons of the total fish production in Saudi Arabia
(freshwater and marine), with about 8,866 metric tons or 80 percent in seawater culture systems
(FAO, 2011).
The Red Sea also is important as a route between the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden, with
high volumes of ship and tanker traffic, supported by ports, as well as oil refining and
petrochemical activities in the vicinity of several ports.
In addition, the Red Sea is a significant economic resource as a water supply (following
desalination) for potable, industrial, and commercial uses, including agriculture.
6.2.3 Water Quality

Overview
Water quality can be characterized in terms of the chemical constituents in the water and
localized or regional changes in biota that may be a result of water quality changes. Despite the
semi-enclosed nature of the Red Sea and coastal development in some adjacent nations,
region-wide alteration of the marine environment as a result of land-based activities has not
been observed (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006). The issues that have been identified as of
greatest concern throughout the Red Sea are nutrient inputs from agriculture and sewage,
pollution from coastal industry and ports, and the physical impacts from coastal construction and
land reclamation. More localized effects and concerns in particular countries include potentially
contaminated runoff from pesticide use and inputs of chemicals from industry and shipping
(Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006). The sections that follow describe background water
quality by parameter throughout the Red Sea and, where data are available, activity and
location-specific effects to water quality. The need for additional monitoring to further
characterize the problems has been frequently identified in the technical literature.
6-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
Salinity
The Red Sea is among the most saline of water bodies in direct
Sensitivity of Biota to
contact with an ocean (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006).
Water Quality Changes
Salinity is influenced by high evaporation rates, which average 1
Biota in the Red Sea are believed
to 2 m/year throughout the year and low precipitation rates,
to be more susceptible, due to
which generally do not exceed 10 mm annually. The highest
very high salinity levels, to stress
evaporation rates generally occur in the southern Red Sea. As
from pollution and water quality
a result of these high evaporation rates, salinity gradually
changes than similar biota in
increases to the north, with salinity at Bab al Mandeb averaging
other marine environments.
37 percent (37 parts per thousand [ppt]); in the northern Red
Sea near the Gulfs of Aqaba and Suez, salinity averages 41
percent. By comparison, salinity levels in the Indian Ocean range from 32 to 37 percent. Other
salinity variations are observed based on season and depth, with salinity increasing during the
summer months: a 1 percent variation in the northern Red Sea and a 0.5 percent variation in the
southern Red Sea. Salinity also generally increases with depth and then levels off, with salinities
at depths greater than 200 m being relatively homogeneous at 40.6 percent, except in the
vicinity of hot brines, which are heated, metal-rich, highly saline waters found near the floor of
the Red Sea. The greatest depth gradients (from the surface to 200 m) are observed in the
southern Red Sea as a result of lower salinity inputs from the Gulf of Aden.
The high ambient salinity is close to the physiological limits of some Red Sea biota, such as
mangroves, coral, and various marine organisms, including fish and invertebrate. Marine
organisms in the Red Sea are typically hypoosmotic relative to the highly saline sea water,
and as a result may experience chronic osmo-regulatory stress to maintain internal water
balance. As a result, researchers have noted that these organisms are more susceptible to
synergistic effects of stress from anthropogenic sources of pollution and changes in water
quality than they might be in another environment (Gladstone et al. f or PERSGA, 2006).
Temperature/ Flushing/Salinity
At northern end of the Red Sea, water is exchanged between the Red and Mediterranean Seas
through the Gulf of Suez and Suez Canal, with the direction of flow dependent on water levels in
the Mediterranean Sea. From June to October, the current is generally southward.
At the southern end, water exchange between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden occurs through
the Strait of Bab el Mandeb and is limited by narrow, shallow straitsonly 140 m in depth for
much of the area. The deepest section is on the western Djiboutian side, but even there the
depth is only 290 m. As noted above, tidal variation is low and is negligible just to the north
of Bab el Mandeb.
In addition to the width of and depth of Bab el Mandeb, the flow through it is largely
influenced by high evaporation rates, monsoon winds, and salinity, with more water flowing
into the Red Sea than out. These conditions, defined by sharp differentials in seasonal
water temperatures and salinities, also influence the direction of flow between the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden. During the winter months, due largely to the high evaporation rates and
absence of river inflows, surface waters which are warmer and of lower salinity flow into the
Red Sea from the Gulf of Aden. At the same time deeper waters, which are cooler and of
lower salinity, flow out. The inflow of the lower salinity surface freshwater results in a greater
salinity gradient in the southern Red Sea than the northern Red Sea. This in turn contributes
to the persistent outflow of the cooler, denser, highly saline water from the deeper areas of
the southern Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden. During the summer months, the pattern
changes with the flow in the surface layer reversed and water from intermediate depths
flowing from the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.
The semi-enclosed nature of the Red Sea limits its renewal or flushing time, with the renewal
time for the entire water body estimated at around 200 years. Above the thermocline, in the
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-5
upper 200 m of water, the flushing rate is estimated to range from 6 years (Gladstone et al.
for PERSGA, 2006; Hpner and Lattemann, 2002) to 10 years (Smeed, 2010) and in the
deeper water, flushing rates are estimated to range from 30 to 45 years (Plahn et al., 2002
as cited in PERSGA, 2006) to 70 years (Smeed, 2010). Thus, pollutants discharged to the
Red Sea may reside there for an extended period of time before they are flushed out as
water from outside sources replaces water in the sea.
Dissolved Oxygen
DO concentrations in the Red Sea are affected by temperature, salinity, and water circulation
patterns, with the lowest concentrations found in the warmest, highest-salinity waters. DO is at
near saturation levels in surface waters throughout most of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden
and therefore does not indicate widespread water quality impacts. The highest surface water
concentrations are generally found in the northern Red Sea due to lower water temperatures
and the southern Red Sea as a result of higher primary productivity. DO levels typically are
higher in the winter, when temperatures are lower, than in summer.
DO concentrations are saturated to a depth of about 100 m, drop to 10 to 25 percent
saturation at depths of 400 to 600 m, then increase to about 20 to 50 percent saturation in the
deep water layer. Concentrations remain at saturated levels throughout the Gulf of Suez and
decline with depth in the Gulf of Aqaba, but never below 50 percent saturation.
Nutrients
Nutrients, in the form of nitrate, phosphate, ammonium, and silicate, are required for the
growth of phytoplankton and contribute to overall productivity. In shallow coastal ecosystems,
excessive nutrients can increase the growth of epiphytic algae on sea grass and have
negative effects on the growth, survival, and reproduction of coral. Overall nutrient trends and
patterns are described in this section and in the discussion of productivity below. Localized
differences are described in the discussion of pollutant sources and water quality below.
The Red Sea is oligotrophic, with low nutrient inputs throughout most of the sea. Somewhat
higher levels of nutrients are measured in small northern areas off of the Sinai Peninsula,
transition areas between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, and in localized areas of enriched
conditions which are attributed to anthropogenic inputs of nutrients (Gladstone et al. for
PERSGA, 2006). In the southern Red Sea, the higher nutrient concentrations are a result of
nutrient-rich water from the Gulf of Aden. In late summer, the inflow of this water and
upwellings of nutrients in the Arabian Sea in August and September lead to a 25 percent
increase in concentrations relative to the central Red Sea.
Phosphate concentrations follow this general pattern, with a sudden drop in surface water
concentration north of 19 N to concentrations below 1.5 mg/m3 (1.5 g/L; 0.0158
micromoles [M]) in the northern Red Sea and seasonal variations observed in the Gulf of
Aqaba (Sheppard et al., 1992 in Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006) ranging from 0 to 0.25
M in the summer months of May through November and 0.75 to 1.0 M in the winter
months of December through April, with lower concentrations beyond 3 km of the shore
(Badran, 2001, in Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006). Even in highly enriched shoreline
areas such as Jeddah receiving anthropogenic inputs of nutrients, nearby open water areas
not receiving wastewater discharges were identified as having very low or nil levels of total
phosphorus (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006). This is in contrast to total phosphorus
concentrations along the Jeddah coast measuring as high as 0.74 mg/L (23.89 M) in an
open water area receiving wastewater discharges and 0.92 mg/L (30.25 M) in an area
adjacent to a fish market (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006).
These values indicate a range of trophic conditions in the Red Sea, with the dominant
condition being oligotrophic. Based on nutrient scaling carried out by Ignatiades et al., 1992
6-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
(Karydis, 2009), mean phosphate values for similar water bodies were calculated as 0.02 M
in oligotrophic waters, as 0.09 M in mesotrophic waters, and as 0.34 M in eutrophic waters.
Nitrate concentrations in surface waters are highest in the southern Red Sea in the vicinity
of Bab el Mandeb, with a similar pattern of decreasing concentrations northwards to areas of
very low concentrations in the northern Red Sea and Gulf of Suez. Surface water nitrate
levels in the Gulf of Aqaba vary seasonally, ranging between 0.05 M in summer and 0.05 to
0.1 M in winter (Badran, 2001, in Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006).
In localized areas receiving anthropogenic inputs, however, total nitrate concentrations
along the Jeddah coast are as high as 28.3 mg/L (456.4 M) in an open water area receiving
wastewater discharges and 16.5 mg/L (266.1 M) in an area adjacent to a fish market
(Mohorjy and Khan, 2006). Based on nutrient scaling developed by Stefanou et al. (2000),
these concentrations are well above the mean value of 0.32 M nitrate, which is an
indication of the threshold between mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions (in Karydis, 2009).
Average silicate concentrations are also at a maximum in the southern Red Sea, with
seasonal variations in the Gulf of Aqaba.
Distinct from the north/south variations in nutrient concentrations, nutrient enrichment (late
winter to early summer) has been attributed to the regeneration of nutrients from winter
plankton blooms in surface waters near Jeddah (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006).
Productivity
Primary productivity is low throughout most of the Red Sea relative to other seas as a result
of the thermocline, which for much of the Red Sea limits the recycling of nutrients from
deeper water to the photic zone. Nutrient input from rivers also is very low to non-existent,
which tends to limit primary productivity overall.
Despite these relatively low levels, variations in primary productivity are observed in the
pelagic (open sea) zone seasonally and spatially, with largely oligotrophic levels of
productivity observed in the Gulf of Aqaba and Gulf of Suez (annual average of 0.2 to 0.9
and 0.22 grams carbon per square meter per day [g carbon/m2/day ], respectively),
oligotrophic to mesotrophic levels in the northern Red Sea (annual average of 0.21 to 0.50 g
carbon/m2/day ), and the highest productivity level (annual average of 1.6 g carbon/m2/day)
observed in the southern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These higher levels are associated
with nutrient-rich waters upwelling from the Gulf of Aden during monsoon season and into
the southern Red Sea.
In certain areas, such as the Gulf of Aqaba to the north, destratification occurs during the
winter (December to April) when surface water temperatures drop and wind mixing occurs,
resulting in higher nutrient levels and higher associated primary productivity in shallow
waters. Blooms of harmful algae have also been observed in the vicinity of developed areas
experiencing nutrient enrichment (Al-Suwailem, 2011) and in other cases, in response to
eutrophication-induced blooms of other algae (Mohamed, Z. et al., 2007).
6.2.4 Pollutant Sources and Overall Water Quality

KSA has undergone significant development in the past decades from a state of relative
underdevelopment to a modern industrial country, with much of the development occurring in
or having an effect on coastal areas. The largest urban centers on the Red Sea coast are
Jeddah, Yanbu, Jizan, Al Qunfudhah, Al Lith, and Rabigh (www.Geohive.com, 2011). In
addition to these cities on the coast, the largest nearby urban centers that depend on the
Red Sea as a water supply include Makkah, Al Taif, and Al Madinah. Between 1974 and
1992, urban populations grew at more than twice the average annual rate of overall
population growth, with about 15 percent of the population in the Kingdom living in the Red
Sea coastal zone. In more recent years (2004 to 2010), a number of the coastal cities such
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-7
as Jeddah, Yanbu, and Rabigh continued to grow at levels above the country-wide average,
with Al Madinah and Makkah at approximately the country-wide average of 3.2 percent
growth per year. Associated with this development is the urban infrastructure needed to
support the growing population: power and desalination plants, sewage and industrial
wastewater treatment plants, and port development with associated refineries and industrial
uses.
As part of the Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, Country
Reports (PERSGA/GEF 2001 as cited in PERSGA, 2006) presenting data on pollutant
discharges to the Red Sea from various sources along the coast, were compiled. Data from
these reports are presented in Table 6-1. Likely sources of the discharges are described
from a land use perspective and supplemented with data from monitoring locations in and
around Jeddah, an industrial, commercial, and educational center with tourist resorts and
marinas. Sampling stations in areas without direct input of point source discharges and with
TABLE 6-1
Marine Pollution Emissions from Red Sea Coastal Provinces in KSA

Pollutant
Sewage
Industrial Cities
COD
293,200
2,570
BOD
144,580
1,114
Phosphorus
51,580
Desalination
Refineries
Petro-chemicals
Total
270
296,040
1,543
147,237
51,589
TSS
1,623
Suspended Solids
1,071
Nitrogen
29,480
Ammonia-N
10,000
Total Nitrogen
1,623
63
1,134
29,480
88
88
Barium
285
285
Copper
345
345
Cadmium
10
10
Chromium
54
54
Chlorine
630
146
100
876
Iron
825
825
Lead
195
195
Manganese
195
195
2,909
2,909
Nickel
1,164
Oil
Phenol
Phosphorus
49
3,298
Phosphate
95
3.2
Heat load (cal/yr)

Brine
1,533
49
Sulphides
Zinc
369
3,395
3.2
452
13,043
452
13,043
18,250,000
18,250,000
1.73E+09
1.73E+09
Units are metric tons/year except heat load, which is calories/year

Source: From PERSGA/GEF 2001 as cited in PERSGA, 2006 (Table 5.7).
6-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
free exchange of water between the Jeddah coast and the Red Sea generally had water
quality conditions similar to background levels. Somewhat higher pH levels at some
locations were indicative of relatively higher levels of primary productivity.
Wastewater
As described in the discussions of wastewater flows and water reuse and as shown in Table 6-1,
treated and untreated wastewater is discharged into the Red Sea and is largely responsible for
the magnitude of organic matter as measured by BOD and COD, nutrients, and metals.
Although considerable progress is occurring in advancing the expansion of wastewater
treatment infrastructure and increasing levels of treatment, fairly recent estimates of nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations immediately adjacent to the Al Khumra WWTP south of Jeddah
were from 10 to 100 times greater than normal values for the Red Sea (Gladstone et al. for
PERSGA, 2006). Estimated sewage-related pollutant loads by geographic area are shown in
Table 6-2. Estimates of untreated sewage by volume or pollutant loading are unavailable.
Some discussion regarding untreated sewage is provided in Chapter 8.
Effects such as impairment of marine habitat as a result of accumulated solids, oxygen
depletion, and toxic substances that may accumulate in the food chain have been
documented in the technical literature. These effects are associated with eutrophication of
coastal lagoons, nuisance plant growth disrupting fisheries and recreation, odors, lower
transparency, depletion of DO, and high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia,
the reduced form of nitrogen (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006). More recently, monitoring
conducted near the Al Khumra outfall indicated that when discharges occurred in open
waters, the associated mixing reduced the impact. Sampling results showed well
oxygenated water with low oxygen demands, but high phosphorus concentrations
(0.74 mg/L), indicating high eutrophication potential and significant algal growth (Mohorjy
and Khan, 2006).
TABLE 6-2
Estimated Red Sea Pollutants Generated by Saudi Arabias Municipal Sewage Treatment (metric tons per year)
Town
COD
Jeddah
NH3
92,000
37,000
2,200
8,000
99
39
100,000
40,000
2,000
8,700
66,000
26,000
1,300
5,700
48,000
19,000
950
4,200
306,099
122,039
6,452
26,608
Yanbu
Western region, unaccounted for
Northern region, unaccounted for
Southern region, unaccounted for

Total
BOD
10,000
10,000
This amount was estimated by per capita production rates from towns where no information was available
during the study period. The unaccounted for values do not necessarily represent discharges to the Red Sea
and do not include the inland cities of Al Taif, Makkah, Al Madinah, Qassim, and Khamis Mushayt.
Source: Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006 (Table 5-6).
Desalination
Desalination plants discharge chlorine, anti-scaling chemicals, corrosion products, and brine
at salinities of 51 ppt, more than 1.3 times the ambient salinity, each with potential effects on
the marine environment, and varying in quantity based on the treatment technology.
Chlorine, for example, is a biocide that reacts with organic compounds in seawater to
produce chlorinated and halogenated by-products. Anti-scaling agents generally have a
relatively low toxicity and are diluted rapidly, but limited information is available on their
effects in water bodies such as the Red Sea. Copper, which is toxic at high concentrations,
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-9
may be bound in sediment and later remobilized, producing longer-term effects. Finally, the
brine discharge is at an elevated temperature (over 9C above ambient
conditions), which may also stress marine biota living at the
upper end of their temperature tolerance (Gladstone et al. for
PERSGA, 2006).
KSAs desalinated water supply in 2009 for just its six largest
cities is estimated at 2,263,000 m3/day, as previously detailed
in Table 1-7, with 1,296,000 m3/day situated along the Red
Sea. Facility locations are shown in Figure 1-6. Estimates of
the total brine discharge to the Red Sea from all countries
range from 6.4 million m3/day in 1996 to 6.8 million m3/day in
2008 (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011).
Potential Effect of
Desalination in Coastal
Areas
Desalination-related
discharges are a potential
stressor to marine biota in
coastal areas with poor
flushing and dilution.
Potential impacts are
most significant at a local
level.
Based on a literature review conducted approximately 5 years

earlier, desalination-related discharges were not noted as appearing to deleteriously affect
the Red Sea environment, although in coastal areas with poor flushing and dilution,
desalination was noted as a possible stressor to marine biota (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA,
2006).
Future potential impacts associated with brine discharge to the Red Sea have been
estimated for the population bordering the Red Sea in 1950 and 2008, and projected to be
present in 2050, using data on desalination plant capacity from 1996 to 2008. From 1996 to
2008, the volume of brine discharges to the Red Sea was estimated to increase by about
6 percent. Based strictly on modeling using a mass balance approach, salinities in the Red
Sea would be predicted to increase by 1.16 g/L by the year 2050. The potential for localized
impacts was noted as most significant where brine discharges occur (Bashitialshaaer et al.,
2011).
However, on a larger scale, salinity levels are expected to be relatively unchanged because
of circulation and current patterns, which were not incorporated in the modeling analysis. In
particular, the amount of water withdrawn for desalination is small compared to water loss as
a result of evaporation. In addition, increases in salinity would be offset by the change in
density, which would contribute to density-driven currents. The currents would enhance
water exchange with the open ocean, which would contribute lower salinity waters, as
described in Section 6.2.3, and moderate the potential effects associated with desalinationrelated discharges.
Ports
Port-related activities also have the potential to affect coastal waters with major ports,
including:
Dibba: the northern-most port on the Red Sea coast of KSA, with passenger ferries,
cement exports, and livestock, foodstuffs, and general cargo imports.
Yanbu: the second largest port on the Red Sea coast of KSA serving the city of Al
Madinah, importing grain and cement.
King Fahd Port: a port 22 km southeast of Yanbu, serving as an important petroleum

shipping terminal for crude and refined oil, bulk, and general cargo. In addition to
petrochemical industrial uses are other manufacturing plants and light industries.
Rabigh: a port on an inlet 140 km north of Jeddah handling crude oil and related
products from a nearby refinery and undergoing significant expansion.
Gizan: the southern-most port, with oil exports and general cargo, bulk grain, and
livestock imports.
6-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
The effects of ports have been documented through literature reviews. Significantly higher
levels of beach oil have been observed in the northern Red Sea, reflecting its proximity to
the significant levels of shipping traffic passing through the Gulf of Suez. From January
through November of 2010, almost 16,500 vessels passed through the Suez Canal, of which
about 20 percent were petroleum tankers and 5 percent were LNG tankers (Mohorjy and
Khan, 2006; EIA, 2011). Although causes of oil in the Red Sea have not been systematically
reported or documented in a consistent way that allows the source to be determined, such
as loading, unloading, transport, or industrial discharges, potential pollutants associated with
shipping activities also include oil ballast water, bilge water, and anti-fouling agents
(Gladstone et al. for PERSGA, 2006).
In other locations (the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), possible cause-effect
relationships between oil pollution and coral reef health were evaluated and a high potential
for oil-related impacts was noted (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006). Water quality impacts have
also been observed at Yanbu, where about 70 percent of the treated industrial wastewater
from Yanbus industrial area is discharged into the Red Sea (Gladstone et al. for PERSGA,
2006), and elevated levels of nutrients were observed.
Other Other activities also have been observed to result in water quality effects. Samples
collected at a shoreline location near Jeddah where fish handling and processing result in
wastes being dumped into the sea were noted to have high concentrations of BOD, COD,
phosphorus, and nitrogen, even though dilution resulted from the discharge being in an area
where there is free exchange of water with the Red Sea. The corresponding values for
these parameters were 19 mg/L, 352 mg/L, 0.92 mg/L as P, and 16.5 mg/L as NO3 (Mohorjy
and Khan, 2006).
Monitoring conducted in small lakes or lagoons not directly connected to the Red Sea by surface
waters, but with possible connections through underground pipes, also indicated water quality
impacts from adjacent land uses in Jeddah. Three of the four monitored stations near the Red
Sea, suspected of receiving waste from the nearby buildings and recreational areas, had low DO
levels (4.6 to 4.9 mg/L), indicating pollution by biodegradable organic matter. Chlorides and
sulfates were very high at one station. COD was high at another station, as were sulfates.
Although the connection to the Red Sea is not direct, the potential was noted for indirect
connections through underground pipes or groundwater (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006).
A link between boating (and other recreational activities) and water quality effects also has been
documented at a marina and resort location on Obhur Creek in Jeddah. The monitoring
locations, characterized as having waste discharging directly to the Red Sea but without free
mixing, had elevated COD and phosphorus concentrations. Although pollution levels were not
considered to be very high, the potential for additional increases with more intense boating
activity exists (Mohorjy and Khan, 2006).
6.3 Arabian Gulf

6.3.1 Physical and Hydrographic Characteristics
Physical Conditions
The Arabian Gulf is a shallow semi-enclosed sea oriented northwest to southeast, and
approximately 239,900 km2 in size. It is about 1,000 km in length and varies in width from
75 to 350 km, with a mean of 240 km. At its northern end, the Arabian Gulf receives
freshwater inflows from the Tigris, Euphrates, and Karun Rivers, which join to form the Shatt
al Arab. At its southern end, the Arabian Gulf flows to the 56-km wide Strait of Hormuz and
from there to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011; Hamza
and Munawar, 2009). The Arabian Gulf extends from latitudes 240 and 300 N, situated at
approximately the same latitudes as Al Madinah and Suez, respectively.
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-11
Water depths in the Gulf average about 36 m, with a maximum depth of just over 90 m
(Figure 6-2). The shallowest areas, less than 20 m deep, are in the Shatt Al-Arab delta in
the northwest, with depths increasing in a gradual trend to the south. A shallow shelf
extends along the KSA coast, widening toward the United Arab Emirates (UAE) coast, where
the average depth is about 20 m. Mudflats are dominant along the western Gulf coastline,
where currents are gentle. The depth increases to about 80 m to the northeast along the
Iranian coast. The volume is approximately 8,400 km3 (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011).
FIGURE 6-2
Bathymetry of the Arabian Gulf

Note: Modified from Hamza and Munawar, 2009
Wind, Currents, and Tides

Currents and flow patterns in the Gulf are influenced by high evaporation rates, low freshwater
inflow, and restricted water exchange with the Arabian Sea. The combination of high
evaporation rates and low freshwater inflows results in a net loss of water in the Gulf, with
inflows estimated to raise the water levels of the Gulf by 10 to 46 cm and evaporation losses
estimated to decrease the water levels by roughly 10 times this amount, or the equivalent of 140
to 500 cm per year (Hamza and Munawar, 2009). This net deficit results in a reverse flow of
water from the Gulf of Oman and through the Strait of Hormuz and circulates sea water in a
counter-clockwise pattern north along the coasts of Iran and Iraq and then south along the
coasts of KSA and the UAE. The current is strongest along the Iranian coast, then decreases
toward the northern Gulf, and remains sluggish along KSA and southern coasts. Southward
flows are largely wind-driven. This pattern of water inflow and velocity relates closely to salinity,
sediment dispersion, sediment deposition, and pollutant transport patterns, as discussed in later
subsections (Hamza and Munawar, 2009).
Tidal patterns in the Arabian Gulf are complex and are influenced by tidal currents through the
Strait of Hormuz. Throughout much of the Gulf, tides are semi-diurnal (tidal cycle over 12
6-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
hours), with fluctuations less than 0.6 m away from the shoreline and increasing to 1 to 2 m near
shore. In two nearer-shore areas, off the northern KSA coast and off the UAE coast, the tidal
range is zero, with tides rotating around those points.
Temperature and Flushing

The air temperatures in the Gulf area vary between 0C during the winter months and 50C in
the summer, with corresponding water temperatures varying between 10 to 15C in the winter
and 39C in the summer (Hamza and Munawar, 2009; Barth and Kahn,2008). Within these
temperature ranges, water temperature fluctuations are greatest in shallow, near-shore areas,
fluctuating as much as 20C, with somewhat smaller fluctuations between seasons in open
water areas. These temperature fluctuations result in a low diversity of marine species,
consisting of species that are able to tolerate the temperature extremes ranging from tropical to
temperate climates.
Although the Arabian Gulf is semi-enclosed, flushing rates there are much greater than in the
Red Sea and measurements of residence time are much lower, ranging from 350 to 500 days
(Johns and Olson [1988] cited in Hamza and Munawar, 2009). This difference is largely
attributed to flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
6.3.2 Uses
As with the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf supports a
diversity of ecological, economic, and social uses. Oil
and gas exploration, processing, loading, and
transportation are significant industries in the region,
encompassing approximately 800 offshore oil and
gas platforms and 25 major oil terminals with
associated processing and production. The Gulf is a
major shipping route for Middle Eastern and South
Asian ports and for industries associated with the
global transport of oil, with an estimated 20,000
tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz annually
(Sale et al., 2011). Other industrial activities make up
a significant component of the economy and include
petrochemical, fertilizer, rubber manufacturing, and
steel production, to name a few.
TABLE 6-3
Artisanal Ports of Landing in Saudi Arabia (2000)

Landing Site
Number of
Artisanal Vessels
Al Frea
125
Al Jubail
387
Safwa
100
Dareen
304
Al Zour
146
Al Qatif
132
Syhat
143
Dammam
176
Al Khobar
135
Other Ports
177
Fisheries in the Arabian Gulf represent the most
important renewable natural resource, and the
Total
1,825
second most important resource after oil. Estimates
by the FAO place fishery resources in the Gulf (from all Gulf countries) at 550,000 tons annually,
although overfishing is an issue (Kardovani 1995, as cited in Sale et al., 2011). Within KSA,
fishing occurs at a number of locations along the coast, with the shrimp fleet and industrial
landings being centered at Dammam. The 2009 shrimp and prawn catch for KSA was
estimated at 11,058 metric tons, with a total fisheries catch estimated at 42,881 metric tons
(FAO, Regional Commission for Fisheries [RECOFI]; 2011). Aquaculture plays an important
role as well, as discussed previously in Section 6.2.2.
The main ports of landing for the artisanal fleet and the number of artisanal vessels operating
out of these ports in 2000 were as summarized in Table 6-3.
As with the Red Sea, the Gulf is a significant economic resource as a water supply for potable
use, supporting the capital of Riyadh as well as industrial and commercial uses, including
tourism.
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-13
The Gulf also supports valuable habitat, ranging from extensive intertidal mudflats to sea grass,
mangrove, and coral communities, and provides essential habitat and food sources for intertidal
macrofauna. Some of these habitats are critical for endangered species such as the green
turtle, and serve as nursery grounds for shrimp and other commercially important species such
as the pearl oyster. Although the role of different biological communities is still poorly
understood, recent ecosystem studies have indicated the presence of a much richer biota than
previously believed (Barth and Khan in Abuzinada et al., 2008).
Finally, as highlighted in Chapter 1, the Arabian Gulf is a significant economic resource as a
water supply for potable, industrial, and commercial uses, most of which require desalination.
6.3.3 Water Quality

Overview
Water quality issues that have been identified as of the greatest concern throughout the Arabian
Gulf include rapid coastal development, municipal and petrochemical industrial effluents, oil
exploration and production, the remaining effects of massive oil releases during the 1991 Gulf
War, and marine transport activities. There is some evidence of localized eutrophication where
wastewater is inadequately treated, but the most significant water quality and environmental
issue identified is oil pollution. The potential risk to water quality and habitat in the Gulf is
exacerbated by the semi-enclosed, low-energy nature of the Gulf, which provides conditions that
encourage deposition of particulates and associated pollutants.
The need for additional monitoring to further characterize the problems has been identified
repeatedly in the technical literature. The sections that follow describe background water quality
throughout the Arabian Gulf, and where data are available, activity-and location-specific effects
to water quality.
Salinity
Inflows from the Gulf of Oman tend to keep the salinity levels in the Arabian Gulf nearly
constant over time. Sea water from the Strait of Hormuz enters at a salinity of about 36.5 to
37 ppt and as it circulates to the north, increases in concentration as a result of high
evaporation rates to a maximum as high as 42 ppt (Barth et al., 2008). In the northern Gulf,
freshwater input from the Shatt al Arab has a diluting influence. The more dense saline
water with salinities of approximately 40 ppt sinks in the deeper portions of the Gulf and
flows southward in the trough along the Iranian coast, where it exits the Strait of Hormuz as
a deepwater current. This outflow of deeper, more saline water combined with the input of
lower-salinity water from the Gulf of Oman contributes to the flushing rates described above
(Kampf et al., 2005).
Dissolved Oxygen
Gulf waters tend to be well-oxygenated as a result of mixing associated with northwest
winds. In a study covering most of the Gulf, surface waters had DO concentrations ranging
from 4.21 to 5.32 ml/L (Jacob et al., 1995). At depths of 40 m, DO concentrations were
measured at greater than 4.1 ml/L.
Nutrients
Compared to other seas, the Arabian Gulf has relatively low concentrations of nutrients.
Phosphate concentrations decrease rapidly south of Al Khobar and in proximity to shoreline
areas, suggesting rapid uptake in photosynthesis by algae and other plants. Concentrations
offshore of Dammam have been measured as dropping from 0.03 ug/L to 0.01 ug/L in nearshore areas, and further decreasing to 0.005 ug/L in the Gulf of Salwah (Barth and Khan in
Abuzinada et al., 2008).
6-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
Silicates, which are important as a structural component of certain diatoms and flagellates
(protozoans), are found at high concentrations in the Gulf, with concentrations significantly
increasing along the southern KSA shoreline.
Ammonia and suspended solids follow a similar pattern, with concentrations increasing in
near-shore areas, and south in the Gulf of Salwah. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations have
not been observed to follow a clear spatial distribution.
In general, nutrient concentrations are related to salinity and generally correlate inversely. In
the northern Gulf, high nitrate concentrations are inversely related to salinity, suggesting that
their origin is land surface drainage to the Shatt Al-Arab River (Al-Yamani, in Abuzinada et
al., 2008). Phosphorus, which is present at relatively high concentrations in the Shatt AlArab, is usually bound to suspended sediments that are discharged into higher-salinity
waters in the Gulf, resulting in an increased concentration of phosphorus.
Although only limited scientific data are available documenting eutrophication, visual
observations suggest that problems exist in localized areas (Khan, in Abuzinada et al., 2008).
For example, agricultural areas draining to the Shatt al Arab may be the cause of increased
benthic algal growth near the discharge to the Gulf, with historical phosphate concentrations in
the Shatt al Arab (1988) ranging between 0.18 and 0.70 g/L, nitrate at 26.21 to 52.39 g/L
and nitrite at 0.53 to 0.70 g/L. Similarly, nutrient discharges from a methanol/ammonia plant,
an oil refinery, a slaughter-house and livestock industry, and WWTPs on the northern coast of
Bahrain have been identified as potential causes of dense algal mats. Offshore algal blooms
and red tides also have been interpreted as symptoms of eutrophication.
Literature reviews have identified the need for a better understanding of circulation patterns,
water exchanges at the Strait of Hormuz, and evaporation rates as a basis for better
understanding sediment and pollutant effects in the Gulf and adjoining water bodies.
Productivity
Reduced productivity has been attributed to the relatively low nutrient concentrations in the
Gulf. However, because of the extent of shallow water areas and relatively high water
clarity, the coastal sediments support highly productive habitats of intertidal mud flats, sea
grass and algal beds, mangroves, and to a lesser extent, coral reefs. According to one
productivity estimate, the shallow water areas are defined as 10 to 12 m deep and have a
typical productivity rate nine times that of the water column as a whole (1,820 versus 200 g
carbon/m2/yr). These highly productive areas, however, are vulnerable as a result of their
proximity to anthropogenic sources of pollution (Barth and Khan in Abuzinada et al., 2008).
In other parts of the Gulf, particularly in population centers and near point source discharges,
productivity is highly variable and related to nutrient enrichment. In nutrient-enriched areas,
the spread of harmful algal blooms also is believed to have been encouraged by the
introduction of algal species through ballast discharges from vessels (Sale et al., 2010).
6.3.4 Pollutant Sources and Overall Water Quality

Various forms of coastal pollution have reportedly been associated with population
increases, related development and infrastructure, development and transport of oil
resources, and municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Among these sources, oilrelated pollution, industrial discharges, and desalination discharges are most frequently
identified as the greatest existing or potential sources of water quality problems.
The largest urban centers on the Arabian Gulf coast are Dammam and Al Jubail
(www.Geohive.com, 2011). Between 2004 and 2010, the population of Jubail grew by more
than 11 percent per year and the population of Dammam grew at 3.5 percent per year, both
well over the average KSA growth rate of 3.2 percent per year over the 6-year period. Riyadh
is another large urban center that is dependent on desalinated water from the Arabian Gulf for
its water supply. Riyadh grew at 4.5 percent per year over the same time period.
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-15
Wastewater
As described in Section 1.4 (the discussions of wastewater flows and water reuse) and shown
in Table 6-1 for the Red Sea, treated and untreated wastewater is discharged into the Arabian
Gulf and contributes organic matter as measured by BOD and COD, nutrients, and metals.
Although considerable progress is occurring in advancing the expansion of wastewater
treatment infrastructure and increasing the levels of treatment, there is some evidence of
eutrophication in coastal areas where untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged
(Khan in Abuzinada et al., 2008). According to previous estimates of untreated wastewater
discharges from 1993, discharges from Al Khobar, Al Hasa, and Al Qatif (combined) totaled
40,000 m3/day (Khan in Abuzinada et al., 2008). More recent estimates of untreated or
partially treated wastewater discharges were approximated by the difference between the
capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and the wastewater flow through the plant.
Wastewater flows beyond the capacity of the plant are expected to be untreated or only
partially treated at best. Total untreated or partially treated discharges to the Arabian Gulf are
estimated at 87,002 m3/day (Table 6-4). This increase relative to previous estimates is
attributed to population increases and improved tracking of untreated discharges.
TABLE 6-4
Estimated Wastewater Discharges from Saudi Arabia to the Arabian Gulf

Existing Capacity
(20092010 data)
Amount Treated
3
(m /day)
Amount Potentially
Discharged without
3
Treatment (m /day)
Dammam (Secondary)
209,000
240,000
31,000
Khoba (Secondary and Tertiary)
193,000
158,000
Jarudiyah (Tertiary)
172,000
171,000
Safwa (Secondary)
15,000
16,000
1,000
Al Awwamiyah (Primary)
10,000
28,000
18,000
Al Jish (Primary)
9,000
24,000
15,000
Hofuf 1 (Primary)
30,000
45,000
15,000
303,000
180,000
19,000
26,000
7,000
960,000
888,000
87,000
WWTP
(Type of Treatment)
Hofuf 2 (Secondary and Tertiary)

Umran (Primary)
Totals
Source: ItalConsult, 2009-2010
Note: Many of the untreated discharges are from plants with only primary treatment (Al Awwamiyah, Al Jish,
Hofuf 1, and Umran).
Desalination Plants
As described in Section 6.2.3, desalination plants discharge chlorine, anti-scaling chemicals,
corrosion products, and brine at salinities nearly 1.3 times that of the ambient salinity. Countries
along the Arabian Gulf rely heavily on desalinated water, with a 2009 estimate of 14,451
desalination plants worldwide (Henthorne, 2011) with Saudi Arabia topping the list as the
worlds largest producer of desalinated water with 27 desalination plants (SAMIRAD, 2011).
Older estimates place capacity in the Arabian Gulf region at 58 percent (Al-Mutaz et al., 1989 in
Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011). Water supplied through desalination for Dammam and Riyadh is
estimated at 967,000 m3/day (Table 1-7). The 1996 and 2008 total brine discharges to the
Arabian Gulf from all countries were estimated at 14 million m3/day and 18.4 million m3/day,
respectively (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011).
6-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
As noted above, future potential impacts associated with

brine discharge to the Red Sea have been estimated for the
population bordering the Red Sea in 1950 and 2008, and
projected to be present in 2050. From 1996 to 2008, the
volume of brine discharges to the Arabian Gulf was
estimated to increase by about 30 percent, or about five
times the increase in brine discharge to the Red Sea over
that time period. Based on modeling using a mass balance
approach, the amount of brine discharged in 2008 is
predicted to increase peak salinities in the Arabian Gulf by
0.93 ppt, and result in an increase of 2.24 ppt by the year
2050 (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011).
Potential Effects of
Desalination
Potential stressor to
marine biota in coastal
areas with poor flushing
and dilution.
Potential impacts most
significant on a local
level where brine
discharges occur.
Decreases in efficiency
of recovering potable
water, and related cost
increases of recovery.
As with the Red Sea, the amount of water withdrawn for

desalination is very small compared to water loss as a result of
evaporation. As a result, increases in salinity are expected to
be offset by the lower salinity inflows from the Gulf of Oman, outflows of deeper more saline
waters, and freshwater inflows from the Shatt al Arab. The currents would enhance water
exchange, and moderate effects associated with desalination-related discharges.
The potential for impacts to marine life are more significant,
however, on a local level where brine discharges occur, and
include long-term exposure to effluents that are warmer, more
saline, and lower in oxygen than ambient waters. Seasonal
variations in salinity associated with varying flow regimes
through the Strait of Hormuz may also contribute to potentially
greater impacts during periods of higher natural salinities.
Future Impacts of
Desalination
Potential impacts
expected to increase
with predicted increase
in desalination capacity
In areas within the Gulf having naturally higher salinity levels,

such as the Gulf of Salwah, many species of corals, mollusks,
and echinoderms are absent and lower species abundance is generally observed at salinities
above 45 ppt (Lattemann and Hpner in Abuzinada et al., 2008). The effects of other
associated discharges, including copper and chlorine, are also potential stressors. There is a
need for studies to evaluate the cumulative effects of these constituents with other
environmental stressors, including multiple discharges in proximity to each other and increased
residence time of pollutants in near-shore areas. In addition, at some locations where salinity
levels are locally greater, the efficiency of recovering potable water has decreased, consequently
increasing the cost of desalinated water (Bashitialshaaer et al., 2011).
Ports and Other Industries

Ports, oil-related exploration and processing, and other
Impacts Associated with
industries are considered to be major contributors to pollution
Petroleum-Related Industry
levels in the Gulf, with oil pollution identified as the major
Oil pollution is and will
environmental issue. Pollutant sources include accidental
be a major water quality
discharges in the form of spillage at oil loading terminals,
and environmental
leakage from shallow wells, intentional oil discharges (as
issue.
described in the next subsection), ballast water, atmospheric
deposition, and industrial discharges. In nutrient-enriched
areas, the spread of harmful algal blooms also is believed to have been encouraged by the
introduction of algal species through ballast discharges from vessels (Sale et al., 2010). The
main source of oil appears to be from spills at terminals and discharge of ballast water from
vessels, but other sources, such as the Shatt Al-Arab River, also contribute to the pollutant
inputs. Oil pollution has been observed in the form of floating oil, beached oil, and tar balls,
with related effects on wildlife and marine biota.
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-17
Although available information suggests that hydrocarbons and heavy metals are not
present at significant levels in offshore areas, elevated concentrations are associated with
industrial/port complexes and urban centers. Port and industrial complexes in KSA include:
Al Jubail: The largest industrial complex of its kind in the world, consisting of
petrochemical and fertilizer plants, steel works, port operations, extensive support
industries, the Royal Saudi Naval Base, and a military air base.
Dammam: The second largest port after Jeddah and third largest city in KSA after
Riyadh and Jeddah. The Dammam-Dhahran-Khobar area is a major hub for shipping,
oil, commerce, and industry. The Dammam area is known for a wide variety of
recreational facilities.
Al Khobar: Part of the greater Dammam/Dhahran metropolitan area, it is a commercial

and economic center with manufacturing. Port activities have been relocating, with
Dammam taking over most commercial shipping activities and oil export occurring at Ras
Tanura, leaving more recreational/tourist use of the waterfront.
Ras Tanura: A port and industrial area south of Al Jubail, with a major oil port and oil
operations center for Saudi ARAMCO further out on the peninsula and nearby offshore
oil rigs and production facilities.
Ras Al Khafji: A port on the border of KSA and Kuwait, with oil-related industry.
Port locations are shown in Figure 6-3 and activity-specific pollutant categories are
summarized in Table 6-5.
TABLE 6-5
Major Port and Other Industry Pollutant Sources

Pollution Sources
Types of Substances and Pollutants
Offshore Sources
Oil transport by tankers and pipelines
Oil, bilge cleaning agents, sewage, anti-fouling agents from ship

paints
Offshore oil exploration and development
Oil, drilling muds containing anti-scalants, anti-fouling agents

from ship paints
Natural seepage of oil
Oil and gas
Land-Based Sources
Oil exploration and production
Oil and gas, drilling muds, heavy metals
Petrochemical industries and refineries
Oil combustion products such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs),polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), COD, and BOD
Spillage at oil-loading terminals
Sediments, oil and its combustion products, crank oil
Atmospheric emissions
From flaring, venting, and purging gases;
combustion processes; fugitive gases;
particulates from burning sources;
pesticides
CO2, CO, methane, VOCs, NOx, SO2, H2S, pesticides, PAHs
From aeolian transport (wind) of

contaminated sediments
Source: Khan in Abuzinada, 2008.
6-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
Other
In addition to oil discharges associated with oil-related exploration, extraction, and
processing, regional wars have resulted in pollution associated with massive oil spills, oilwell fires, and sunken and leaking vessels (Khan, in Abuzinada et al., 2008). During the
1991 Gulf War, an estimate of 1 to 1.7 million metric tons of oil (0.9 to 1.9 million barrels)
was released into the marine environment, with the largest release occurring in January
1991, and the majority of the spill reaching the KSA shoreline in January and early February
(Jones et al. in Abuzinada et al., 2008). Surveys conducted 10 years later (2002 to 2003)
found large volumes of oil trapped under sand and microbial mats. Ecological diversity as
measured by various components of the ecosystem was lower in 64 percent of the
mangrove habitats, 70 percent of salt marshes, 88 percent of tidal flats, and 90 percent each
of sand beaches and rocky shores than in non-oil contaminated shorelines (Jones et al. in
Abuzinada, 2008). While recovery is occurring, persistent effects remain.
Other water quality impacts have been attributed to extensive coastal development,
including dredging, artificial island construction such as those built near Ras Tanura to allow
for easier docking, and shoreline modifications, which have altered (and in some cases
destroyed) coastal habitats. In addition to direct water quality effects associated with the
dredging and filling activities, these changes modify coastal water movement, sediment
transport, and near-shore habitats.
Associated with this coastal development has been the use of shallow coastal areas as
repositories for large quantities of solid waste originating primarily from industrial, commercial,
and residential sources. The solid waste includes items such as plastics, metal containers,
wood, and tires. Because the waste is often placed on the ground close to the Gulf, the lighter
debris is often transported along the shoreline by wind and water movements (Regional
Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment [ROPME], 2001).
6.4 Sewage Lakes

In areas where growth and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses
have out-paced the development of centralized wastewater collection facilities and WWTPs,
sewage lakes have been created to temporarily store and treat the wastewater. A complete
inventory of sewage lakes has not been identified; however, these lakes are known to exist
(or have existed) outside of some of the largest population centers such as Jeddah, Riyadh,
and Al Khobar. In addition, there are numerous pits located near industrial and oil-producing
areas where oily wastes and sludges are stored. The situation in KSA regarding sewage
lakes and septage is further discussed in Chapter 8.
In Jeddah, many residential and commercial developments were installed with cesspits
because of the lack of centralized wastewater collection facilities. A significant portion of the
city, estimated to be 80 percent of the area and 40 percent of the 2.8 million residents (2006
estimate), is unsewered and is served by cesspits. Each cesspit has an open bottom that is
typically filled with gravel and is designed to infiltrate wastewater. However, many of these
cesspits quickly become clogged with organic material, grease, and debris, and thus require
frequently pumping to dispose of the sewage. The high groundwater table in the Jeddah
area may also contribute to the lack of success among these types of infiltration systems.
In the mid-1990s, a sewage lake was built about 18 km east of Jeddah by constructing an
earthen dam in a wadi and building a receiving area for trucks to dump their sewage to the
lake. This area received wastewater from approximately 1,500 to 2,000 tanker trucks per
day with an estimated discharge of up to 50,000 m3/day. The lake was never meant to be a
permanent solution to the citys wastewater management needs; however, the lake
eventually grew to cover an area of 2.0 to 2.8 km2) with storage of 7 to 9.5 million m3 of
water and 0.385 million m3 of organic sediments. Wastewater treatment facilities were
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-19
installed near the lake beginning around 2006 to treat the tanker wastewater and the water
in the lake (CH2M HILL, 2011).
In May 2010, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz issued a
royal decree ordering that the hazardous Jeddah Sewage Lake be emptied within 1 year.
MOWE was tasked with pumping water out of the lake. The NWC, which manages water
and wastewater treatment facilities and provides water service in Jeddah, then assumed
responsibility for the project. A lake contractor and a planning consultant were hired and the
lake was successfully evacuated of sewage by early October 2011. A comprehensive
environmental report was prepared for the lake clean-up (CH2M HILL, 2011). One
significant environmental impact of the Sewage Lake was groundwater contamination (Buro
Happold, 2009). Further details of the clean-up efforts are included in Chapter 8.
As a result of the success of the Jeddah Sewage Lake clean-up, the NWC is also initiating
the clean-up of another sewage lake in the Riyadh area known as Al-Nazeem Lake. This
effort was initiated in May 2011.
6.5 Gap Analysis

The review of information on water quality and wastewater discharges has identified a
number of data and information gaps, which are described below.
6.5.1 Monitoring
There is a lack of monitoring information for both the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf. A
comprehensive and consistent monitoring program would allow for long-term tracking of the
health of these water bodies and changes in water quality as a result of increased
development in KSA and the Middle East. In addition, monitoring of localized impacts from
desalination brine discharge and wastewater discharges would be useful in further
characterizing water quality in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf.
6.5.2 Pollutant Loading

Estimates of major pollutant sources to the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf have been compiled
from various publications, although the need remains for an up-to-date, comprehensive
inventory which includes mapped locations of water withdrawal intakes, various point source
discharges, and sewage lakes. Pre-discharge monitoring reports would be one source of
the needed information. Efforts to comprehensively assess these sources of pollution on an
ongoing basis would aid in setting priorities for and further determining the need for various
management actions to address pollution. Estimates of untreated sewage by volume or
pollutant loads would also be useful.
6.5.3 Collaborative Efforts

Since several countries are located along both the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, it would
seem that collaborative efforts to monitor, assess, and manage water quality and pollutant
sources to these water bodies should be considered. PERSGA directs its efforts on behalf
of designated environments; it is an intergovernmental body dedicated to conservation of the
coastal and marine environments of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, Gulf of Suez, Suez Canal,
and Gulf of Aden surrounding the Socotra Archipelago and nearby waters. PERSGAs
member states include: Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, KSA, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
PERSGA has attempted to conduct periodic assessments of water quality and pollutant
sources to the Red Sea. However, this effort is not supported by comprehensive monitoring,
which is necessary as noted above.
Similar efforts are directed by ROPME for the area bordered by its member states, Bahrain,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, KSA, and the UAE. ROPME coordinates regional efforts of
6-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
the member states to protect water quality, protect the marine environment and coastal
areas, and abate pollution. As part of these efforts, ROPME has initiated monitoring,
environmental assessment and management activities, and public awareness and training
activities. However, as with the Red Sea, monitoring efforts in the Arabian Gulf are not
comprehensive.
6.6 Summary
The Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf are unique bodies of water that are critical resources for
Saudi Arabia and the neighboring countries and regions. They serve as a valuable resource
for transportation, fisheries, and water supply (after desalination), and support a variety of
industrial activities, most significantly oil and gas exploration and processing. They also
provide unique and diverse intertidal and marine habitats attracting tourism and supporting
recreational uses.
From a water quality standpoint, consistent documentation of overall degradation of the Red
Sea and Arabian Gulf is lacking. To a large extent, this is the result of the size and depth of
the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf, the complexity of water and pollutant movements throughout
the water column, currents and flows within the water bodies, and flows between connected
freshwater and marine water bodies. Contributing to the complexity are variations in local
climatic conditions, water uses, adjacent land uses, and differences in mixing and dilution
effects based on factors such as shoreline configurations and reef areas.
The Red Sea is not bordered by many populated areas other than Jeddah, nor does it have
large watersheds that are continually or seasonally delivering pollutants to the water body.
The length and depth of the Red Sea plus the water exchange of more surficial waters on
either end make it fairly resilient to pollution effects. Despite these factors, the population
continues to grow and water use (shipping, fishing, wastewater and desalination discharges)
is broad. While these uses, including improperly treated wastewater discharges, vessel
discharges, and other water uses have been demonstrated to have localized effects
especially in the Jeddah area, the linkage between these impacts and the ecosystem on a
larger scale is not well documented. In addition, despite the size of the Red Sea and water
exchange that occurs with adjacent water bodies, pollutants may become entrained in
deeper waters with residence times estimated at 200 years.
The Arabian Gulf is shallower and receives significant water inputs only from the Strait of
Hormuz and connection to the Gulf of Oman on the southeastern end, and lesser inputs from
northern and eastern tributaries; thus it is much more prone to be affected by various
activities. There are indications of pollution from improperly treated sewage and industrial
sources, the effects of shoreline development, and projections of local effects associated
with desalination-related discharges. Of course, the impact of the oil spill in the first Gulf
War had a serious impact on coastal wetlands that is just now being cleaned up. The heavy
use of this water body for transportation, especially for oil, makes it susceptible to
degradation from an accident. Although intensive monitoring has been conducted in
selected areas to document the effects of and recovery from oil spills, the relationship
between specific pollutant inputs and degradation is not well documented.
The water quality conditions of the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf do not necessarily demand
a solution such as strict restrictions on discharges of TSEespecially if properly treated.
However, considering the importance of these water bodies to the region, the scarcity of
freshwater resources, groundwater drawdown, sensitivity of the biota, and the significant role
water resources play in supporting the economy, there is a pressing need for comprehensive
water management. Gaps in water quality data and their relationship to ecosystem health
further contribute to the need for sound water management practices, as does the
opportunity cost of energy.
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-21
A policy of limiting treated wastewater discharges to the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf for
the purposes of comprehensive water management is warranted. While the Red Sea and
the Arabian Gulf are not exhibiting significant signs of stress system-wide, localized impacts
from untreated or partially treated wastewater are documented, and cumulatively impacts
could be felt over time from other agriculture, commerce, and desalination activities as the
population of KSA increases. In addition, projected salinity impacts from desalination could
support a policy promoting emerging technologies for zero liquid discharge to treat highsalinity wastewater(described further in Chapter 2). Collectively, these policy actions would
support reuse goals while maximizing energy investments in treating water. This concept is
discussed further in other chapters and the Summary Report.
6.7 References
Al-Suwailem, Abdul Aziz, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals. 2011.
Communication with CH2M HILL on 17 August, 2011.
Al-Yamani, Faiza. 2008. Importance of the freshwater influx from the Shatt-Al-Arab River
on the Gulf marine environment. Protecting the Gulfs Marine Ecosystems from Pollution.
Abuzinada, Abdulaziz H., Hans-Jrg Barth, Friedhelm Krupp, Benno Ber, Thabit Z. Al
Abdessalaam, editors. Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag AG.
Barth, Hans-Jrg and Nuzrat Yar Khan. 2008. Biogeophysical setting of the Gulf.
Protecting the Gulfs Marine Ecosystems from Pollution. Abuzinada, Abdulaziz H., HansJrg Barth, Friedhelm Krupp, Benno Ber, Thabit Z. Al Abdessalaam, editors. Switzerland:
Birkhuser Verlag AG.
Bashitialshaar, Raed A.I, Kenneth M. Perrson and Mohammad Aljaradin. 2011. Estimated
Future Salinity in the Arabian Gulf, the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea Consequences
of Brine Discharge from Desalination. International Journal of Academic Research. Vol. 3,
No. 1, January, p. 133-140.
Buro Happold. 2009. 025935 Wadi Alasla Remediation Report. Revision 02. November.
Central Department of Statistics and Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as cited in
Geohive. http://www.geohive.com/cntry/saudiarabia.aspx. Population information.
Accessed in June 2011.
CH2M HILL. 2011. Jeddah Sewage Lake Evacuation and Sediment Reuse/Disposal Plan.
Prepared For the National Water Company Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. January 2011.
Drake, C.L., Girdler, R.W., 1964. A geophysical study of the Red Sea. The Geophysical
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 8 (5), 473495.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2011. Accessed on 3
September2011. http://www.raisaquaculture.net/index.php?id=344).
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FICP_SA/en. Information on fisheries. Accessed on 25 May 2011
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/022/
am422e.pdf Information on fisheries statistics capture status. Accessed on 31 May 2011.
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/
SAU/body.htm Information on Fisheries Management in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
including artisanal and industrial landing locations. Accessed on 25 May 11.
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Regional Commission for Fisheries.
http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/SQServlet?file=/usr/Local/tomcat/FI/5.5.23/figis/webapps/figis
6-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
/temp/hqp_30204.xml&outtype=html. Information on fisheries statistics capture status.

Accessed on 4 September 2011.
FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Regional Commission for Fisheries, Regional
Aquaculture Information System. http://www.raisaquaculture.net/index.php?id=344.
Information on aquaculture statistics, Accessed on 3 September 2011.
Hamza, Waleed and Mohiuddin Munawar. Protecting and Managing the Arabian Gulf:
Past, Present and Future. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. Vol 12, No. 4, p.
429439. 2009.
Henthorne, Lisa President, International Desalination Association.
http://www.idadesal.org/PDF/the%20current%20state%20of%20desalination%20remarks%2
0nov%2009%20by%20lisa%20henthorne.pdf. Information on The Current State of
Desalination. Accessed on 1 September 2009.
Hpner, Thomas and Sabine Lattemann. Chemical impacts from seawater desalination
plants - a case study of the northern Red Sea. Desalination. Volume 152, pages 133-140.
Published by Elsevier. 2002.
ItalConsult Draft Wastewater Reuse Planning Reports prepared for MOWE for each of the
13 Regions:

Al Jouf; July 2009
Hail; July 2009
Jizan; March 2010

Najran; August 2009
Tabouk; July 2009
Jacob, P.J. and S. Al-Muzaini. Marine Plants of the Arabian Gulf and Effects of Oil
Pollution. Mahasagar. Vol. 28, No. 1 and 2, pages 83-101. 1995.
Johns and Olson (1988) as cited in Hamza and Munawar. Protecting and Managing the
Arabian Gulf: Past, Present and Future. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. Vol.
12, No. 4, p. 429439. 2009.
Jones, David Alan, Miles Hayes, Friedhelm Krupp, Gino Sabatini, Iain Watt, and Lee
Weishar. 2008. The impact of the Gulf War (1990 - 91) oil release upon the intertidal Gulf
coast line of Saudi Arabia and subsequent recovery. Protecting the Gulfs Marine
Ecosystems from Pollution. Abuzinada, Abdulaziz H., Hans-Jrg Barth, Friedhelm Krupp,
Benno Ber, Thabit Z. Al Abdessalaam, editors. Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag AG.
Kampf, J. and M. Sadrinasab. 2005. The Circulation of the Persian Gulf. Ocean Science
Discussion, 2, p. 129-164. Accessed at http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/2/129/2005/osd2-129-2005.html.
Karydis, M. 2009. Eutrophication Assessment of Coastal Waters Based on Indicators: A
Literature Review. Global NEST Journal. Volume 11, No. 4, p. 373-390.
Khalil, Ahmed S. 2010. Pressures, status and response to marine and coastal biodiversity
in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Report for the contract to Compiling data and
information for biodiversity outlook report in the Regional Seas, in accordance with the set of
indicators developed by MCEB. June.
Khan, Nuzrat Yar. 2008. Integrated management of pollution stress in the Gulf. Protecting
the Gulfs Marine Ecosystems from Pollution. Abuzinada, Abdulaziz H., Hans-Jrg Barth,
STRATEGIC STUDY
6-23
Friedhelm Krupp, Benno Ber, Thabit Z. Al Abdessalaam, editors. Switzerland: Birkhuser

Verlag AG.
Khomayis, H.S. 2002. The Annual Cycle of Nutrient Salts and Chlorophyll-a in the Coastal
Waters of Jeddah, Red Sea. Journal KAU Marine Science., Volume 13, p. 131-145.
Lattemann, S. and T. Hpner. 2008. Impacts of Seawater Desalination Plants on the
Marine Environment of the Gulf. Protecting the Gulfs Marine Ecosystems from Pollution.
Abuzinada, Abdulaziz H., Hans-Jrg Barth, Friedhelm Krupp, Benno Ber, Thabit Z. Al
Abdessalaam, editors. Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag AG.
Mohorjy, Abdullah M. and A. Khan. 2006. Preliminary Assessment of Water Quality along
the Red Sea Coast near Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Water International. Vol. 31, No. 1, March.
p. 109-115.
Mohamed, Z. and I. Mesaad. 2007. First report on Noctiluca scintillans blooms in the Red
Sea off the coasts of Saudi Arabia: consequences of eutrophication. Oceanologia, 49 (3),
pp. 337351
New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Red_Sea.
Bathymetric map of Red Sea. Accessed in March 2011.
PERSGA (The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red
Sea and Gulf of Aden). 2006. State of the Marine Environment, Report for the Red Sea and
Gulf of Aden: 2006. PERSGA, Jeddah. (Prepared by: Gladstone, Dr. William; Facey,
Captain Roy; Hariri, Dr. Khaled).
Sale, Peter F., David A. Feary, John A. Burt, Andrew G. Bauman, Gergenes H.
Cavalcante, Kennety G. Drouillard, Bjrn Kjerfve, Elise Marquis, Charles G. Trick, Paolo.
Usseglio, and Hanneke Van Lavieren. 2011. The Growing Need for Sustainable Ecological
Management of Marine Communities of the Persian Gulf. Ambio: A Journal of the Human
Environment. Vol. 40. 6 October. p. 4-17.
SAMIRAD. http://www.saudinf.com/main/a541.htm Information on desalination capacity in
Saudi Arabia from Saudi Arabian Market Information Resource and Directory. Accessed on
1 September 2011.
Smeed, David. The Circulation of the Red Sea, a presentation for the workshop Red Sea
Research: Past and Present, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. March
2010. http://krse.kaust.edu.sa/downloads/David%20Smeed_Southampton.pdf Accessed on
22 August 2011.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://ei-01.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/
World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Suez.html. Information on shipping traffic. Accessed on 3
June 2011.
Vincent, Peter. 2008. Saudi Arabia: An Environmental Overview. London: Taylor & Francis
e-Library.
6-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 7: Regulatory Considerations

7.1 Introduction
Current technologies make high-quality purified water from wastewater feasible; regulations
are used to ensure that public health and the environment are protected with the application
of RQTSE, which can be used both directly and indirectly in a variety of applications, as
discussed in preceding chapters. The regulatory framework for reuse should also work to
create public trust in the ability of RQTSE to play a major role in water resources
management within KSA as demands on existing groundwater and desalinated water
supplies increase with a growing population and favorable economic climate for industries.
KSA has recognized its water supply limitations as its population has grown and has begun
more defined water resources planning with the National Water Plan in 1985, now updated
as the National Water Strategy. Also, in support of the use of reclaimed water, The Council
of Leading Islamic Scholars in KSA issued a fatwa in 1978, stating that reclaimed water, if
treated sufficiently to ensure good health, is considered pure because the impurities are
removed from it during the treatment process. With progress such as KSAs plan for
complete reuse by 2025 (in cities over 5,000 people), the current regulatory framework
under the authority of MOWE and MOA is built on the following principles:
Achieve at least minimum treatment standards.

Maintain an approval and permitting process for the application of RQTSE.
Monitor RQTSE to ensure that it meets the standards.
Maintain enforcement provisions to ensure that RQTSE practices are following
requirements.
This chapter summarizes current regulations, as well as updates proposed by MOWE and
PME (Figure 7-1).
FIGURE 7-1
Timeline of KSA Actions to Promote Reuse
Varying applications of RQTSE fall under different requirements within the regulations,
depending on necessary treatment level and application type, as agricultural needs may
differ from those of industries. RQTSE, when adequately treated as described in Chapters 1
and 2 and outlined in the regulations, can offset other potable water demands and decrease
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 7: REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
wastewater discharges. These benefits, both environmental and economic, also exist for
using biosolids, such as for a soil conditioner and/or nutrient source, rather than disposing of
them in landfills, as is currently the most popular disposal choice in KSA. Indirect reuse via
groundwater recharge and its regulations and parameters are discussed in Chapter 5.
Regulations and standards are developed by a governing body based on the experience of
all parties involved, technical feasibility, public perception and policy, and economics.
Worldwide, reuse regulations are geared toward making this resource pathogen-free. The
World Health Organization (WHO) has set forth minimum treatment guidelines, most recently
updated in 2006, which have been used as the basis for regulations worldwide. Typical
parameters of concern are noted in Table 7-1 (USEPA, 2004) and summarized by category
in Figure 7-2. The use of RQTSE for industrial purposes may require further effluent limits
for dissolved solids, ammonia, disinfection byproducts and other specific inorganic and
organic constituents.
FIGURE 7-2
Typical Parameters of Concern for Reuse Applications
Considering KSAs goal to reuse all treated wastewater effluent by 2025, regulations must
evolve to protect public health and provide public assurance of safety while at the same time
encouraging and incentivizing reuse. Public policy and management decisions will play a
large role in determining how successful KSA is in reaching this reuse goal. KSA assumes
the responsibility for water resources management and its sustainability through the
implementation of appropriate infrastructure, regulations, and public education programs, as
outlined in proposed regulations.
7-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 7-1
Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse

Parameter
Significance for Water Reuse
Suspended solids
(SS)
Measures of particles. Can be related

to microbial contamination. Can
interfere with disinfection. Clogging of
irrigation systems. Deposition.
Range in Secondary
Effluents
Treatment Goal in Reclaimed

Water
5 mg/L - 50 mg/L
<5 mg SS/L - 30 mg SS/L
1 NTU - 30 NTU
<0.1 NTU - 30 NTU
10 mg/L - 30 mg/L
<10 mg BOD/L - 45 mg
BOD/L
50 mg/L -150
mg/L
<20 mg COD/L - 90 mg
COD/L
TOC
5 mg/L - 20 mg/L
<1 mg C/L - 10 mg C/L
Total coliforms
<10 CFU/100mL 107 CFU/100mL
<1 CFU/100mL - 200

CFU/100mL
<1-106
CFU/100mL
<1 CFU/100mL - 103

CFU/100mL
<1/L -10/L
<0.1/L - 5/L
<1/L - 100/L
<1/50L
Turbidity
BOD5
COD
Fecal coliform
(FC)
Helminth eggs
Organic substrate for microbial

growth. Can favor bacterial regrowth
in distribution systems and microbial
fouling.
Measure of risk of infection due to

potential presence of pathogens.
Can favor biofouling in cooling
systems.
Viruses
<0.001 mg Hg/L
Specific elements (Cd, Ni, Hg, Zn,

etc.) are toxic to plants and maximum
concentration limits exist for irrigation
Inorganics
High salinity and boron levels (>1

mg/L) are harmful to irrigation
>450 mg TDS/L
Chlorine residual
To prevent bacterial regrowth.

Excessive amount of free chlorine
(>0.05) can damage some sensitive
crops
0.5 mg Cl/L - >1 mg Cl/L
10 mg N/L - 30 mg
N/L
<1 mg N - 30 mg N/L
0.1 mg P/L - 30
mg P/L
<1 mg P/L - 20 mg P/L
Heavy metals
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Fertilizer for irrigation. Can contribute

to algal growth, corrosion (N-NH4) and
scale formation (P).
<0.01 mg Cd/L
<0.1 mg Ni/L -0.02 mg Ni/L
Source: USEPA, 2004
7.2 Current Status of Reuse Regulations

Over the past 10 years, KSA has worked to update its regulations to react to growing water
demands, choosing to promote RQTSE as part of its goals concerning sustainable
development and raising environmental awareness throughout society. Regulatory updates
stem from the National Water Strategy, the guiding water use policy in KSA. Updates
specific to RQTSE and biosolids applications, both issued in draft form, reflect the growing
market for these resources. Updates to and expansions of wastewater treatment and
collection systems are necessary. To support a market for RQTSE, public trust must be
raised through education programs (as discussed in Chapter 3) and improving monitoring
and compliance programs through regulations.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-3
7.2.1 Treated Sanitary Wastewater and Its Reuse Regulations

The first regulation specifically focused on
reuse was published in May 2000, Treated
Sanitary Wastewater and Its Reuse
Regulations. Applications requiring secondary
or tertiary treatment were specified. However,
water quality standards were not listed; instead,
the regulation called for the creation of ROI.
The first water quality specifications included
only BOD5, TSS, and FC. Later, specific but
limited ROI were developed and published
(Saudi ARAMCO, 2009).
Private Reuse Practices

Some private entities, such as Saudi
ARAMCO, have established their own
engineering standards to ensure that
public safety is protected as they institute
reuse practices. In the case of
ARAMCO, the standards follow
California Title 22 more closely than KSA
rules.
These implementation rules are typically valid

for a period of 5 years, were validated in 2005, and updated in 2010, but not yet approved.
Further details are in Section 7.3.2.
7.2.2 General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation

The General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation (GER&R) were
adopted in October 2001 and set forth requirements for environmental protection. Under the
authority of KSAs PME, KSA aims to protect the environment and natural resources,
conserving and advancing them, prohibiting any act damaging them, and encouraging
sustainable development while raising environmental awareness throughout society. The
GER&R sets forth rules to protect natural resources with:
The basis for regulating actions having environmental impacts

Procedures for the coordination of response operations
Pollution control and compliance
Types of environmental violations and associated penalties
7.2.3 MOWE Guidance: Using Treated Water for Irrigation; Controls-ConditionsOffences and Penalties
The GER&R did not specifically address water quality standards for the reuse of RQTSE,
groundwater aquifer recharge, or biosolids applications and neither do the current ROI
concerning the Reuse Law. In 2006 MOWE published the booklet entitled, Using Treated
Water for Irrigation; Controls-Conditions-Offences and Penalties. The adoption of these
standards was an important step in establishing safe reuse practices and providing for their
implementation. Treatment parameters are presented in Tables 1-18 and 1-19 in Chapter 1.
The application requirements and restrictions for the use of treated wastewater are defined
by two levels of treatment (Figure 7-3), which address areas of concern as follows:
Restricted irrigation: appropriate for all crop types except vegetables, tuber crops, and
plants where treated water comes into direct contact with the fruit, whether eaten fresh or
cooked.
Unrestricted irrigation: appropriate for all crop types without exception. Transformational,
extraction, and construction industries subject to at least tertiary treatment
In addition, RQTSE is suitable for watering animals and birds that are not designated for
human consumption.
7-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
The current KSA requirements for restricted

irrigation meet the WHO recommendation that
treated wastewater contain no more than one
human intestinal nematode egg per liter. The
more stringent unrestricted irrigation
requirements also meet the WHO
recommendation that references the same
helminth egg value, and additionally no more
than 2.2 fecal CFU per 100 ml of treated
wastewater. In addition, the U.S. State of
Californias rules for unrestricted reuse are often
cited as benchmarks for unrestricted agricultural
reuse requirements. Most of the requirements for
unrestricted irrigation are similar to others around
the world. For example, the requirements for
tertiary treatment and unrestricted irrigation are
generally consistent with the California Title 22
rules enforced by the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) for unrestricted reuse.
FIGURE 7-3
One important difference between California Title
Agricultural Reuse Categories
22 and KSA reuse regulations is the inclusion of
nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate nitrogen) in KSA regulations for both restricted and
unrestricted reuse cases.
Overall, this program is overseen by the MOA, beginning with the application for a license
(for restricted application) and following through with a monitoring program. A license must
be obtained from the MOA for restricted agricultural use.
Infrastructure and Application Requirements

To ensure the separation of potable drinking water infrastructure and wells, regulations
include the following:
TSE cannot be connected to the well networks within farms.
TSE pipes must be labeled with a separate color or warning bar.
If an irrigation system uses TSE for irrigation, piping must be labeled: "Warning: Sewage
Treatment Irrigation Only."
Application should be limited to prevent the formation of ponded or marsh areas where
flies and other insects could multiply and form nuisance conditions.
There are several additional requirements for restricted irrigation, including:
Irrigated fields must be more than 50 m from wells and drinking water reservoirs.
When using spray irrigation, a separation distance of at least 60 m from public places is
required and irrigation must be stopped during windy conditions.
Agriculture
Agricultural productivity should be enhanced by reuse, not impaired by misapplications. As
described in Chapter 1, wastewater reuse for agricultural irrigation is an important option
within the MOAs strategy for maintaining slowly renewable or non-renewable water
resources. The primary constituents of concern in treated wastewater for agricultural use
are:
SS, since filtration may be needed, particularly with micro-irrigation systems
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-5
Nutrients, to adjust fertilization amounts and schedules while limiting algal growth
Salinity, to estimate the leaching fraction and to select appropriate cropping patterns
Pathogens, with precautionary health actions such as selecting cropping patterns and
choosing the appropriate irrigation system
Metals, since high levels can be toxic to plants
To ensure the most beneficial applications of RQTSE in agriculture, farm soils should be
analyzed by an accredited laboratory to evaluate the effects of using RQTSE. These
regulations also include safety requirements for workers, meant to protect their health from
exposure. Specifically, workers on sites must:
Use appropriate gloves and shoes to prevent contact with water.

Be vaccinated against cholera, typhoid, and hepatitis type A.
Have annual medical examinations.
Industrial Applications
Industrial reuse applications may have requirements that extend beyond regulated
parameter limits, to include lower turbidity, dissolved solids, and/or nutrient limitations
(depending on the application) compared to those required of unrestricted irrigation. Largescale industrial users may provide their own treatment. Open communication and
coordination are necessary to ensure that RQTSE is a suitable resource for industries.
Biosolids Uses
The benefits of biosolids, or sludge, applications to agriculture are discussed in Chapter 1.
Given these benefits of providing nutrients and adding soil moisture retention, a market for
the reuse of biosolids in agriculture is present in KSA. To promote the protection of public
health and the maximum reuse benefits, testing and monitoring of biosolids prior to
application are required. Tables 7-2 and 7-3 present current sludge application criteria for
KSA. MOWEs requirements for sludge application are generally consistent with
international best practices, as discussed further in Section 7.4.
TABLE 7-2
Maximum Chemical Criteria for Sludge Application in Agriculture

Concentration in Sludge
Parameter
Soil Limit and Load
Critical Concentration (mg/kg)
Accumulation Limit (kg/hectare)
Yearly Load (kg/hectare/year)
Pb
840
300
15
Hg
57
17
0.85
As
75
41
Zn
7,500
2,800
140
Cd
85
39
1.9
Cr
3,000
3,000
150
Mo
75
Cu
4,300
1,500
75
Ni
420
420
21
7-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 7-3
Maximum Biological Criteria for Sludge Application in Agriculture

Constituent
Maximum
Measurement
Salmonella
Number/4 g of Dry Solids
FC Bacteria
1,000
Number/1 g of Dry Solids
Intestinal Worm Eggs (helminth eggs)
Number of Eggs/4 g of Dry Solids
If criteria in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 are met, sludge can be applied for agricultural uses without
any restrictions. If one or more of these parameters is exceeded, sludge application is
limited. In particular, sludge cannot be used in the following applications:
In the soil during the growth of vegetables or fruit to be harvested
For 6 months prior to harvesting vegetables or fruits (which are consumed fresh) growing
near the application site
In soils with pH less than 7
Aquifer Recharge
Specific aquifer recharge water quality standards are not included in the current regulations;
instead, standards would be assessed using a case-by-case approach for each permit.
7.2.4 Compliance, Monitoring, and Enforcement

RQTSE
A framework of fines and penalties are in place for violations of the requirements. Actions
that carry penalties range from SR 1,000 to SR 25,000. The lowest penalties are for
violations such as failing to mark the irrigation system with appropriate warning signs or
preventing site inspections. The highest fines are for using raw wastewater or sludge in
agriculture or placing raw sewage in irrigation canals or drains. However, no specific
information on the level of monitoring (which identifies violations) and enforcement action is
currently available.
Biosolids
Another conservative compliance measure to protect public health is the use of waiting times
after application of sludge that does not meet the criteria in Table 7-3. MOWE mandates the
following if the sludge exceeds one or more parameters in Table 7-3:
Grazing or harvesting is prohibited for at least 3 weeks following sludge application.
Public access to public spaces such as parks is prohibited for at least 9 months following
sludge application.
Harvests from fruit trees are prohibited for 1 month following sludge application.
Cultivation of vegetables is prohibited for 14 months following sludge application.
Tuber crops such as potatoes cannot be cultivated for 34 months following sludge
application.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-7
7.3 Proposed Regulations

Both MOWE and PME have drafted regulations that would augment the existing GER&R. At
the time of this study, there is no defined timetable as to when these draft regulations will be
implemented. This section summarizes the proposed regulations that will drive KSA toward
achieving its goals of public acceptance of reuse and total reuse of TSE by 2025. The following
section presents some interpretations and potential clarifications to the draft regulations that
would further support KSAs goals for reuse. Comparisons to other international regulations are
also included to provide context for the provisions in the draft KSA regulations and to generally
highlight the progress made by others as they implement their programs.
7.3.1 Draft 2010 Saudi Water Act

This summary focuses on the sections of the
draft Saudi Water Act that pertain to reuse.
Developed by MOWE, the draft rule addresses
the following objectives, which all directly or
indirectly relate to the promotion of reuse:
The draft Saudi Water Act promotes

integrated water resources
management by prioritizing reuse
through policy and actions.
Preserve non-renewable groundwater, considering it part of a strategic reserve.
Optimize use of desalinated water for domestic and office uses, as RQTSE is not
considered suitable for human consumption.
Restrict agricultural and industrial use of water to surface water and treated wastewater
first, followed by renewable groundwater.
Safeguard health and environmental safety of all water resources and uses.
Monitor and consider climate change impacts related to water management.
Promote needed transparency and availability of water information and encourage

exchange of information.
The draft 2010 Act would augment the GER&R and give MOWE responsibilities to
implement water policies and strategic water storage projects in KSA. The Act also
establishes the creation of the Water Regulatory Authority (WRA) while leaving the
responsibilities related to desalination with the Electricity and Cogeneration Regulatory
Authority (ECRA). The creation of the WRA is an important step in improving organization of
the water sector and coordinating monitoring, data sharing, and compliance activities.
Water Management Strategies

KSA intends to monitor and consider climate change impacts related to water management.
Further, the draft Saudi Water Act implements the following prioritized strategies for use of
treated wastewater, in Article (144), in this order:
Restricted agricultural uses (undergoing at minimum secondary treatment)
Unrestricted agricultural uses (undergoing at minimum tertiary treatment)
Irrigation of open green spaces such as sports fields, public spaces, and public parks
and gardens
Irrigation of non-fruit trees, decorative landscaping vegetation, and jungle and forest trees
Transformational, extraction, and construction industries subject to at least tertiary treatment
Water for animals and birds that are not designated for human consumption
Construction vehicles and washing stations
7-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
Treatment Standards
The PME would hold the responsibility, in coordination with ministries and stakeholders, the
development and updating environmental protection standards and criteria along with
controls to regulate discharge and disposal.
Enforcement
In an effort to monitor and enforce reuse where appropriate, the draft Saudi Water Act Article
(145) builds upon the principles and priorities outlined above, stating No license shall be
granted for the use of ground, surface or municipal water for the purposes set forth in Article
(144) if such needs may be fulfilled through use of treated wastewater. The next article also
emphasizes the need to increase infrastructure, indicating that if water supply is going to be
provided to development, industry, or government, then adequate wastewater infrastructure
must also be in place. This statement addresses a major issue in KSA today, as
development often proceeds with only water supply infrastructure in place. It also
emphasizes the importance of the licensing bodies in sending the message that
development cannot proceed as it has in the past with regard to water management. Article
(151) goes on to prohibit the use of municipal water for irrigation of public spaces, including
landscaping and sports facilities, if a suitable reuse source is available.
The draft Saudi Water Act also places the responsibility for identifying violations with MOWE,
giving this ministry inspection rights and the ability to assign fines or imprisonment in more
extreme cases. Penalties are outlined in Part 10 of the draft, and while reuse is not explicitly
listed, the protection of public health is. The ability to appeal is also documented.
Summary
The draft Saudi Water Act lays the groundwork for a change in philosophy toward integrated
water resources management, establishing more intergovernmental collaboration and new
entities to oversee water policy. Using regulations as a driver for reuse promotion and
market creation, the draft Act steps up to a level of requirements previously unseen in KSA
by requiring reuse to meet many non-potable water demands, when appropriate and
available. This will require significant infrastructure investment, both public and private.
7.3.2 Draft Implementation Regulations: Treated Wastewater and Its Reuse

PME issued a draft rule entitled
The draft Treated Wastewater and Its Reuse
Implementing Regulations: Treated
Law recognizes both the environmental and
Wastewater and Its Reuse based on
economic benefits of reuse and sets forth
objectives to maximize the benefits of this
more specific standards for RQTSE.
water resource, while controlling treated
wastewater quality and protecting public
health. This version recognizes the valuable uses of RQTSE, including reducing wastewater
discharges and managing water supply needs.
This draft rule includes more specific rules for water quality standards and the application of
and uses for treated wastewater. Clear water is defined as water having equal or exceeding
specific treated wastewater standards or water having quality not less than receiving water.
This definition is not applicable to RQTSE given the second phrase referencing receiving
water, which could be misleading to the public, as much wastewater is discharged on the
coasts or to dry channels. The phrase or water having quality not less than receiving water
could be omitted to provide clarification and focus on the water quality standards.
Wastewater Treatment Standards

Proposed monitoring requirements at treatment plants are presented in Table 7-4. Records
of sampling must be maintained and MOWE reserves the right to sample effluent at any time
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-9
for these parameters. As documented in Table 7-2, treatment requirements differ between
private and public facilities. Monitoring data records-keeping also differs, with private
facilities only having to keep records for 1 year while public utilities must keep some records
for 3 years and others for not less than 5 years. The rationale behind these differences is
not fully explained.
TABLE 7-4
Proposed Monitoring Requirements for WWTPs

Parameter
Private WWTP Requirements
Public WWTP Requirements
BOD5
1 per week
2 per week
COD
1 per week
2 per week
TSS
1 per week
2 per week
TDS
1 per week
2 per week
pH
1 per week
2 per week
FC
1 per week
2 per week
NH3-N
1 per week
NO3
1 per week
Gastrointestinal worm eggs
1 per week
2 per week
Heavy metals
1 per week
1 each every 6 months
Secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment standards are similar to current rules, with
comparisons presented in Table 7-5. Three metals have been added to the list: lithium,
manganese, and mercury. These standards:
Carry forward the separation of reuse infrastructure and potable water infrastructure from
current rules
Require permission from MOWE for agricultural, irrigation, industrial, aquifer injection,
and sludge application uses while requiring a permit from the MOA for irrigation using
restricted RQTSE
Agricultural Applications
RQTSE is a valuable resource for irrigation, as described above, and to encourage the
most benefit without impacting soils over time, soil testing is required as part of the draft
rule special provisions. This testing of chemical and physical soil characteristics will aid
in determining appropriate application parameters. This protects the long-term viability
of the soil for agricultural purposes.
Other measures to protect public health emphasize the separation of RQTSE from other
potable water supplies, directly consumable foods such as vegetables, and human
contact. These include:
Open channels carrying RQTSE for irrigation from vegetable fields must be separated by
no fewer than 15 m.
Spray irrigation using RQTSE must occur at least 60 m from vegetable fields and areas
accessed by the public.
Spray irrigation must stop during windstorms.
Fields irrigated with restricted RQTSE from potable water tanks and wells must be
separated by a minimum of 50 m to create a distance barrier and thus limit mixing of
these two waters.
7-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 7-5
Maximum Containment Levels for RQTSE Contaminants in Wastewater Receiving Secondary and Tertiary Treatment
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Secondary Treatment
Characteristics
Tertiary Treatment
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
None
None
None
None
TSS
40 mg/L
Same
10 mg/L
Same
pH
6-8.4 pH units
Same
6-8.4 pH units
Same
TDS
2,500 mg/L
Same
2,500 mg/L
Same
BOD5
40 mg/L
Same
10 mg/L
Same
Turbidity
5.00 NTU
Same
5.00 NTU
Same
Oils and grease
None
None
None
None
Phenol
0.002 mg/L
Same
0.002 mg/L
Same
Number of CF colonies
1,000 colonies/ 100 ml
Same
2.2 colonies/
100 ml
1.2 colonies/
100 mL
Number of intestinal worm eggs
1 live egg/L
1 live egg/L
Same
Natural Properties
Floating Materials
Natural Properties
Organic Chemical Properties
Microbial Properties
Chemical Compound Properties

NO3-N (Nitrate-N)
10.0 mg/L
Same
10.0 mg/L
Same
NH3-N (Ammonia-N)
5.0 mg/L
Same
5.0 mg/L
Same
Al (Aluminum)
5.0 mg/L
Same
5.0 mg/L
Same
As (Arsenic)
0.1 mg/L
Same
0.1 mg/L
Same
Be (Beryllium)
0.1 mg/L
Same
0.1 mg/L
Same
B (Boron)
0.75 mg/L
Same
0.75 mg/L
Same
Cd (Cadmium)
0.01 mg/L
Same
0.01 mg/L
Same
Cl2 (Free Chlorine)
>0.5 mg/L
Same
>0.5 mg/L
Same
Cr (Chromium)
0.1 mg/L
Same
0.1 mg/L
Same
Co (Cobalt)
0.05 mg/L
Same
0.05 mg/L
Same
Cu (Copper)
0.4 mg/L
Same
0.4 mg/L
Same
F (Fluoride)
1 mg/L
Same
1 mg/L
Same
Fe (Iron)
5.0 mg/L
Same
5.0 mg/L
Same
Pb (Lead)
0.1 mg/L
Same
0.1 mg/L
Same
Mo (Molybdenum)
0.01 mg/L
Same
2.5 mg/L
0.01 mg/L
Ni (Nickel)
0.2 mg/L
Same
0.2 mg/L
Same
Se (Selenium)
0.001 mg/L
0.02 mg/L
0.2 mg/L
0.02 mg/L
Chemical Properties
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-11
TABLE 7-5
Maximum Containment Levels for RQTSE Contaminants in Wastewater Receiving Secondary and Tertiary Treatment
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Secondary Treatment
Tertiary Treatment
Characteristics
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
V (Vanadium)
0.01 mg/L
Same
0.1 mg/L
Same
Zn (Zinc)
4.0 mg/L
Same
4.0 mg/L
Same
Li (Lithium)
None
2.5 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
Same
Mn (Manganese)
None
0.2 mg/L
0.2 mg/L
Same
Hg (Mercury)
None
0.001 mg/L
0.001 mg/L
Same
Source: PME, 2010 (draft Implementing Regulations: Treating Wastewater and its Reuse Law)
Timing is also used as a protection measure in agricultural applications. Use of restricted

RQTSE for irrigation must cease 1 week prior to harvest of fruits and field crops.
Some exceptions to the parameters listed in the above tables may occur. For example, if
the RQTSE exceeds TDS concentration, dilution may be performed or if the crops are known
to be TDS-resistant, the RQTSE may be used as is. If restricted RQTSE exceeds the
criterion for gastrointestinal worm eggs (1 egg/L), application could still occur if proper
precautions were adopted for the protection of workers and consumers. However, the draft
does not appear to define what these proper precautions are, which may lead to confusion
or misapplication.
Biosolids Applications
With permission from the MOA and appropriate soil analysis, the application of sludge
should benefit agricultural lands. As with the existing regulations, both chemical and
biological parameters must be tested for compliance prior to sludge application. To further
protect public health, time is used as a distancing mechanism: a lag time is proposed
between sludge application and use of the public place of application or agricultural uses.
The criteria discussed below are proposed.
This draft rule is based on the existing chemical and biological criteria for sludge application,
adding selenium (Se) to the list. The maximum concentration in sludge is 100 mg/kg, with a
soil bearing capacity accumulative limit of 100 kg/hectare and an annual limit of 5
kg/hectare/year. In addition, the biological criterion for the presence of FC is lowered tenfold to 100 colonies per 1 g of dry substance from 1,000 colonies.
Municipal Applications
The draft rules exercise caution by requiring tertiary treatment (unrestricted) when the
potential for human contact exists while allowing secondary treatment of RQTSE to meet
other irrigation demands. This includes the beneficial use of RQTSE for irrigation of public
spaces, including public gardens, parks, and playgrounds. Another stipulation is that
irrigation can occur only when the public is not present. Further, spray irrigation must not
occur within 60 m of areas of public activity. This restriction could be difficult to implement
and enforce, causing hesitation by potential users. One solution would be to install timers on
irrigation equipment so that irrigation occurs during off-peak use hours. Other municipal
applications present opportunities to manage demands, including street flushing and fire
fighting.
Where human contact is less likely, secondary treatment would be sufficient for RQTSE
applied to street medians and other areas.
7-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
Industrial Applications
While the MOA has the authority to grant permission for industrial uses of RQTSE, the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry has the authority to establish water quality requirements
for specific industrial applications. One limitation is that RQTSE must not be used in food
industries.
Aquifer Recharge Applications

The MOA also could grant permission for the injection of treated wastewater into aquifers.
Chapter 5 describes how standards could be established on a project-specific basis during
project permitting, without existing or proposed water quality standards specifically for
groundwater recharge projects. Two approaches to public health could be taken: (1)
RQTSE could be treated to tertiary treatment levels so that it poses no public health hazard
even if it were to be consumed unintentionally or (2) the MAR system could be designed with
assurance of little risk that the water could enter a potable water supply.
Enforcement
MOWE and the MOA have rights to monitor and test TSE at treatment facilities and at
application sites, respectively. If violations are identified, appropriate penalties would be
assessed according to the proposed regulations. Fines up to 50,000 SR are proposed, with
the highest fines proposed for the mishandling of raw wastewater and endangerment of
public health. Procedures to remedy the effects of violations are also listed.
7.3.3 Summary of Proposed Regulations

The two sets of draft regulations are complementary. Specifically, the draft Saudi Water Act
signals the policy direction for future integrated water resources management and the
promotion of reuse in KSA, while the PME draft stipulates details regarding environmental
and public health protection.
The proposed rules also offer flexibility for future improvements, as requirements to
reconsider the regulations every 5 years are included. This offers a known timetable for
revisions which could reflect improved technologies and best practices, or changes in
monitoring and enforcement protocols for example.
7.4 International Best Management Practices

Reuse is a key component of water management strategies in many parts of the world,
especially arid regions. Freshwater availability is extremely limited and desalination is very
energy-intensive. Supporting reuse maximizes the return on this upfront energy investment.
While reuse of all treated wastewater is the goal of KSA, this is not a feasible policy in other
parts of world where wastewater effluent is used to augment instream flows in receiving
streams. Other countries have a somewhat more comprehensive approach to water
resources management, placing greater value on aquatic ecosystems and habitat and
balancing aquatic ecosystem instream flow needs with those of growing populations. In
KSA, where wadis are more common than flowing waterways (as discussed in Chapter 6),
instream minimum flows requirements are not as practical as in other, less arid areas.
However, the starting point for any water reuse project for any application is ensuring public
health and safety.
Recent publications provide some overviews of municipal wastewater reuse applications
around the world (USEPA, 2004; Bixio et al., 2008). Selected highlights and key measures
used in other regulations with proven success in supporting reuse as a resource are
discussed in this section. Most differentiate between unrestricted and restricted uses. For
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-13
the most part, KSAs regulations are consistent with those in other countries. Overall, the
focus is to achieve pathogen-free treated wastewater.
A summary of select guidelines and mandatory standards for reclaimed water use in a
variety of U.S. states and other countries and regions is presented in Table 7-6. Some
minor differences are apparent; for example, some measure FC, while others measure total
coliforms. The use of total coliforms is more restrictive than using FC alone, without
necessarily being a more expensive testing method. Most also measure other indicators of
sufficient treatment, such as filtering or otherwise removing suspended particles that could
serve as bacteria substrates: BOD5 and turbidity or TSS. It is also useful to measure
chlorine residuals as evidence of disinfection.
7.4.1 The World Health Organization

The WHO first developed wastewater reuse guidance for agriculture and aquaculture in
1973. The most recent update, driven by the increasing value of reuse considering the
growing global population with limited water resources and concern about public health, was
published in 2006. The WHO has always strived to balance standard recommendations with
the economic costs of treatment, believing that if rules are too stringent and costly, they may
be ignoredcreating greater risk to public health.
The countries that have adopted the WHO
recommendations as the basis for their agricultural
reuse standards use both FC and helminth eggs as
pathogen indicators, at 1,000 CFU/100 ml and 1
helminth egg/L, respectively, for unrestricted
irrigation. The WHO recommends more stringent
standards for the irrigation of public lawns than for
the irrigation of crops eaten raw (FC count at 200
FC/100 ml, in addition to the helminth egg standard).
In the absence of recommendations for particulate
matter, these standards use TSS at concentrations
varying between 10 and 30 mg/L.
WHO Approach to Protecting Public

Health
Identify health risks and

determine risk-based standards
Use treatment and application

measures to minimize exposure
to health risks
Establish monitoring and system

assessment procedures
Define oversight responsibilities

The WHO recommends stabilization ponds, or an
equivalent technology, to treat wastewater. The
guidelines are based on the conclusion that the main
health risks associated with reuse in developing countries are associated with helminthic
diseases; therefore, a high degree of helminth removal is necessary for the safe use of
wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Intestinal nematodes serve as indicator
organisms for all of the large settleable pathogens. The guidelines indicate that other
pathogens of interest apparently become nonviable in long-retention-time pond systems,
implying that all helminth eggs and protozoan cysts will be removed to the same extent. The
helminth egg guidelines are intended to provide a design standard, not an effluent testing
standard. The original 1973 WHO recommendations were more stringent than the 1989
recommendations. With respect to FC, the standard increased from 100 FC/100 ml to 1,000
FC/100 ml. The WHO guidelines have had further revision.
A draft guideline proposed by Bahri and Brissaud (2002) recommended extensive revisions
in the WHO guidelines, making them somewhat more restrictive, while maintaining the
objective of affordability for developing countries. For example, in the draft guidelines, the
helminth egg concentration limit is reduced from the current guideline of 1 egg/L to 1 egg/10
L for unrestricted irrigation. The proposed draft guidelines also cover various options for
health protection.
7-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 7-6
International Examples of Reuse Standards

Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mI)
Total
Coliforms
(CFU/100mI)
Helminth
eggs
(#/L)
BOD5
(ppm)
Turbidity
(NTU)
TSS
(ppm)
DO (%of
Saturation)
pH
Chlorine
residual
(ppm)
Australia (New South Wales)
<1
<2150
>20
<2
California (USA)
2.2
Cyprus
50
10
10
France
<1,000
<1
Germany (g)
100 (g)
500 (g)
20 (g)
1-2 (m)
30
80-120
6-9
Israel
2.2 (50%)
12 (80%)
15
15
0.5
0.5
Kuwait (Crops not eaten raw)
10,000
10
10
Country/Region
Kuwait (Crops eaten raw)
100
Oman 11A
<200
Oman 11B
<1,000
South Africa
10
15
Tunisia
<1
30
UAE
<100
<10
14 for any
sample, 0 for
90%
200 (g)
WHO (lawn irrigation)
20
0(g)
USEPA(g)
10
15
30
6-9
6-9
30
6.5-8.5
<10
10
6-9
1,000 (m)
Note: (g) signifies that the standard is a guideline and (m) signifies that the standard is a mandatory regulation
Two categories of reuse rules are in place in Oman, based on application limitations common in many countries.
Source: Adapted from USEPA, 2004
a
CHAPTER_7_FINAL_16SEP
7-15
7.4.2 United States

The United States is currently the worlds leader in the quantity of RQTSE generated and
used. MAR is also employed in areas of the U.S. where the geology is suitable for this
more indirect reuse technology. The leading national regulating body is the USEPA.
However, reuse regulations were first developed in the state of California, rules commonly
known as Title 22 (California Department of Public Health, 2009). These regulations were
the first to discuss unrestricted reuse and are very cautious in their approach. A proven
track record has been established through monitoring and the protection of public health
over time, making Title 22 a benchmark of sorts as other unrestricted systems are
compared against it (Bixio et al., 2008). Many other states have implemented rules similar to
those of California.
MAR requirements are often determined with a case-by-case approval process including
public input (with hearings required in California) so that site-specific characteristics such as
geology and public health risks can be taken into account.
California also distinguishes between two levels of secondary treatment, using total coliforms
as the standard:
Disinfected secondary-2.2 recycled water: total coliform count that does not exceed
2.2/100 mL over the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and 23/100
mL in more than one sample in any 30-day period.
Disinfected secondary-23 recycled water: total coliform count that does not exceed
23/100 mL over the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and 240/100
mL in more than one sample in any 30-day period.
Tertiary treatment requirements include filtration to an average turbidity of 2 NTU and

disinfection by one of the following:
Chlorine with a contact time (CT) of not less than 450 mg-minutes/L at all times with a
modal CT of at least 90 minutes.
A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been
demonstrated to inactive and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units of Fspecific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as
resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes of the demonstration.
In addition, the total coliform standard for tertiary treatment is the same as for disinfected
secondary-2.2 recycled water, plus no sample may exceed 240/100 ml.
Application limitations for each of these categories are listed in Table 7-7. One noteworthy
difference is the allowance of undisinfected wastewater reuse for certain applications where
there is little risk of human contact or consumption, such as for orchards where the water will
not come into contact with fruit. This flexibility is permissible in tandem with Californias
monitoring and enforcement programs so that assurances of public health protection are
maintained.
California also specifies requirements in Article 3 of Title 22 for other reuse applications such
as in fountains, impoundments, toilet flushing, and snow making, among others.
Other specifications in Californias rules are similar to those of other countries, limiting risk of
human contact or consumption with the following:
7-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 7-7
California Reuse Application Rules by Treatment Category

Disinfected tertiary recycled water
(1) Food crops, including all edible root crops, where the recycled water comes into contact with the edible
portion of the crop,
(2) Parks and playgrounds,
(3) School yards,
(4) Residential landscaping,
(5) Unrestricted access golf courses, and
(6) Any other irrigation use not specified in this section and not prohibited by other sections of the California
Code of Regulations.
At least disinfected secondary-2.2 recycled water
(1) surface irrigation of food crops where the edible portion is produced above ground and not contacted by
the recycled water
At least disinfected secondary-23 recycled water
(1) Cemeteries,
(2) Freeway landscaping,
(3) Restricted access golf courses,
(4) Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms where access by the general public is not restricted,
(5) Pasture for animals producing milk for human consumption, and
At least disinfected secondary-23 recycled water
(6) Any nonedible vegetation where access is controlled so that the irrigated area cannot be used as if it
were part of a park, playground or school yard
At least undisinfected secondary recycled water
(1) Orchards where the recycled water does not come into contact with the edible portion of the crop,
(2) Vineyards where the recycled water does not come into contact with the edible portion of the crop,
(3) Non food-bearing trees (Christmas tree farms are included in this category provided no irrigation with
recycled water occurs for a period of 14 days prior to harvesting or allowing access by the general public),
(4) Fodder and fiber crops and pasture for animals not producing milk for human consumption,
(5) Seed crops not eaten by humans,
(6) Food crops that must undergo commercial pathogen-destroying processing before being consumed by
humans, and
(7) Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms provided no irrigation with recycled water occurs for a period of
14 days prior to harvesting, retail sale, or allowing access by the general public.
Source: California Department of Public Health, 2009
One way to reduce public health risk is to create separation between RQTSE applications
and potable water sources such as wells. Californias rules are not as restrictive of those in
KSA (50-m distance); specifically:
No irrigation with disinfected tertiary recycled water shall take place within 50 feet of any
domestic water supply, with few listed exceptions.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-17
No impoundment of disinfected tertiary recycled water shall occur within 100 feet of any
domestic water supply well.
No irrigation with, or impoundment of, disinfected secondary-2.2 or disinfected

secondary-23 recycled water shall take place within 100 feet of any domestic water
supply well.
No irrigation with, or impoundment of, undisinfected secondary recycled water shall take
place within 150 feet of any domestic water supply well.
Any irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area, unless the runoff
does not pose a public health threat and is authorized by the regulatory agency.
Spray, mist, or runoff shall not enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas, or food
handling facilities.
Drinking water fountains shall be protected against contact with recycled water spray,
mist, or runoff.
No spray irrigation of any recycled water, other than disinfected tertiary recycled water,
shall take place within 100 feet of a residence or a place where public exposure could be
similar to that of a park, playground, or school yard.
All use areas where recycled water is used that are accessible to the public shall be
posted with signs that are visible to the public that include the following wording:
"RECYCLED WATER - DO NOT DRINK.
7.4.3 European Union

In a collaborative effort among the member countries of the EU, a Water Framework
Directive was developed as guiding policy for sustainable water management strategies. As
the EU is still working to include reuse as a more recognizable tool in the toolbox of water
demand management and environmental protection, policy and regulations have been
evolving. The EU has taken a more flexible approach to regulations by identifying Best
Practices to achieve environmental and public health related parameters (Bixio et al., 2008).
7.4.4 Australia
In many areas of Australia, freshwater resources are
scarce. The country has also been plagued by recent
droughts and has increased its stormwater capture and
reuse programs to address water shortages. Australia,
through its National Water Initiative, has also heavily
invested in research regarding topics such as
household reuse and aquifer recharge, created
plumping standards for reuse water in toilet flushing
and irrigation, and supported public education
campaigns. Indirect potable reuse is gaining
acceptance in Australia (Figure 7-4).
National guidelines are published (NRMMC et al.
2009), and water quality standards regarding RQTSE
address the following typical uses:
7-18
Recycled water for drinking

Irrigation of human food
Aquaculture
Irrigation of pasture and stock watering
FIGURE 7-4
Potable Water Augmentation

Source: NRMMC et al., 2009
STRATEGIC STUDY
Industrial purposes, including cooling towers

Dust suppression at construction sites and fire fighting
Dual reticulation for garden watering
Toilet flushing and washing machine.
When these standards were developed, considerations included the following questions:
What are the chemicals of concern?
What are the acceptably safe levels of human exposure to these chemicals during
approved uses of recycled water?
What are the best methods to reduce or remove these contaminants from source
waters?
What is the efficacy of specific recycled water treatment technologies in reducing each of
the contaminants?
What are the most practical means for monitoring these contaminants in finished water?
This scientific risk-based process is similar to that discussed in the draft 2010 Saudi Water
Act, which stresses collaboration and data collection. The guidance documents developed
by Australia could be used as a framework for how the proposed Saudi WRA would function
and share information.
Australia has also recognized the value of aquifer recharge in replenishing groundwater
resources and preventing saltwater intrusion, both of which are issues in KSA, and has gone
a step further to plan for drinking water supply augmentation. Although fatwas issued in
KSA have stated that RQTSE could be considered suitable for potable use, it is not yet
recommended due to public health concerns. KSA must continue its considerable efforts
with wastewater treatment and reuse infrastructure establishment before public trust will
reach the point where indirect potable uses can be considered.
7.4.5 Singapore
Singapore, with its NEWater progam, has been supplying reuse water meeting drinking
water requirements since 2003. With its small island size, Singapore has limited water
supply and has a longer history of employing reuse to meet its demands. To meet growing
demand, Singapore invested in advanced treatment technologies, including reverse osmosis
and UV disinfection, that came online in 2003 and instituted a larger public outreach
program. Indirect potable reuse is part of the program, with NEWater being discharged to
reservoirs. Singapore has recognized economic benefits of its program as well, finding that
NEWater production is approximately half the cost of desalination (USEPA, 2004). Further
discussion of the public education component is provided in Chapter 3.
7.4.6 Biosolids
As with RQTSE standards, the requirements for land application of sludge reflect
international Best Practices for agricultural land application, as defined in rules by the EU
and USEPA. In fact, many of KSAs requirements are identical to the standards set forth in
USEPAs 40 CFR Part 503, Sewage Sludge Regulations. During development of its sewage
sludge rules, USEPA, in turn, took into consideration similar standards adopted by countries
of the EU.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-19
7.5 Implementation Recommendations

Treatment technologies for reclaimed water should be tailored to the intended end uses,
ranging from agricultural to industrial and urban applications, and quality required to support
those uses. Current and proposed regulations differentiate between applications that do and
do not directly result in human consumption or contact. Increasing and further establishing
the market and availability of RQTSE involves:
Continued improvements in coordination between various agencies and the private

sector
Implementation of key components of the draft 2010 regulations
Monitoring of existing reuse examples in various use sectors and promoting those
results to increase public trust in this valuable resource
Further detail regarding each of these focus areas is provided below.
7.5.1 Coordination among Various Agencies and Private Sector

As privatization and public-private partnerships increase to meet the growing demands for
water, wastewater, and reuse infrastructure, coordination and collaboration are necessary
for successfully achieving KSAs goals for environmental protection and integrated water
resources management. Infrastructure planning must incorporate reuse treatment
technologies and infrastructure as appropriate. The National Water Strategy is being
updated, and should include this approach.
The private sector also has a vested interest in coordination and collaboration efforts with
public agencies regarding sustainable water resources management strategies. NWC itself
is part of the public/private sector cooperation and support strategy for KSA. An integration
strategy between public and private sectors should be developed within the framework of
The National Water Strategy and include ways to:
Promote implementation of appropriate technologies to ensure the appropriate quality of

RQTSE is available for industries and other end users.
Create market opportunities for reuse by pairing of RQTSE producers and potential
users.
Share research and monitoring data and collaborate on research efforts.
To create market opportunities for reuse, it will be important to match the producers of the
RQTSE with end users as systems are expanded or constructed such that appropriate
technologies are used to meet the end users needs. Technology options are described in
detail in Chapter 2. Location is a critical part of the needs analysis, as centralized and
decentralized systems have different benefits. These factors should be considered as part
of each regions economic development strategies.
The sharing of information, both data monitoring and research, is also important. One
means of collaboration is a country-wide database which could be created to house and
organize reuse data and its potential availability, maintained by MOWE or another
appropriate government entity. One possibility is the creation of a Water Data Center. This
collaboration would help to maximize infrastructure investments through further promotion of
reclaimed water use. Both public and private entities should be contributing information to
the Water Data Center. These efforts are emphasized in the draft Saudi Water Act.
7-20
STRATEGIC STUDY
7.5.2 Regulatory Efforts

KSA should act on the proposed rules so that industries and agriculture are clear on KSAs
priorities and intent of integrated water resources management and reuse goals. These
proposed rules, with increased emphasis on sustainability, monitoring, and data
collaboration, discussed further below, will further strengthen the understanding of the
existing water resources, water quality issues, and opportunities for reuse.
While the current regulations do list many of the recommendations listed below, including
monitoring and enforcement rules, limited data are available concerning government
monitoring, oversight, and enforcement. Therefore it is difficult to determine if standards are
being met and if they are widely understood. The current rules are sufficient to adequately
protect public health; however, transparency and data collection are necessary to ensure the
public that these regulations are being followed.
This section includes a collection of recommendations regarding regulatory efforts in KSA.
Regulatory influence reaches beyond treatment standards for application and to include
pricing of water and other ways to encourage reuse, such as through building construction
standards.
Agriculture and Other Irrigation Applications

The proposed public contact rules in the draft PME regulations seem overly cautious or
unclear compared to other international regulations and could discourage reuse. The WHO
recommends proper boots, and for those handling produce, gloves (WHO, 2006).
Clarification regarding public contact is needed to ensure an applicants potential users
understand how to meet the intention of the regulations. For example, restricted irrigation
may still be used if the gastrointestinal worm egg criterion is exceeded if proper precautions
are used [Article N (15)], but the precautions are not defined. Monitoring mechanisms to
track this level of flexibility within the regulations, which would be important to maintaining
public health, are not currently in place.
Managed Aquifer Recharge

Currently, regulations specific to MAR are not in place. While permits are required, the
establishment of straight-forward water quality regulations for MAR would reduce uncertainty
regarding this application, as would further monitoring, as discussed in the following
subsection. The draft Saudi Water Act includes a provision for the injection of RQTSE that
has received tertiary treatment into aquifers; however, it is so long as such water is surplus
to the water uses and needs as defined in the Act. Another approach would be to have
more flexibility in regulations such that project-specific requirements can be implemented on
a case-by-case basis. Both have benefits, with one having the benefit of consistent,
coherent regulations upfront so that proper planning can be conducted. The other option
allows for flexibility, with regulations developed on a project-by-project basis, which may
create economic savings for treatment. Any planning process for MAR includes risk
assessment, identifying the likelihood of pathogens entering potable water. Both could
achieve public acceptance with education efforts.
Pricing of Water
The draft Saudi Water Act also discusses the use of pricing to manage water demands
against depletion of water resources, especially limited freshwater resources. Using market
principles through the use of tariffs and fees to promote water conservation would further
promote and establish a market for reuse while helping to manage the investments in water,
wastewater, and reuse infrastructure currently underway in KSA. Further discussion of
market principles is provided in Chapter 4.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-21
Construction Codes and Standards

Another way to promote sustainable water use through regulatory efforts is with
improvements in construction codes and standards. Such improvements that promote
rational use of water, as discussed in the draft Saudi Water Act, should also incorporate the
promotion of reuse infrastructure in structures. The current draft Saudi Water Act does not
explicitly include reuse infrastructure as a way to improve water efficiency; simple revisions
could achieve this.
7.5.3 Monitoring
Public and Private Facilities
The draft PME regulations include some differing monitoring requirements for private and
public facilities, though the reason is unclear. The reason may be economics, as rules may
not intend to be overly expensive or burdensome for private facilities. However, as
privatization occurs and public-private partnerships increase, it is unclear if over time less
monitoring and record-keeping would occur. Options include (1) differentiating the
monitoring requirements by size of facility so as to not burden smaller facilities or (2)
establishing consistent rules. One solution may be to first follow the more frequent
monitoring requirements, and then allow a reduced monitoring schedule as data results
show evidence of consistent compliance with the standards.
Key Parameters
Most monitoring requirements do not produce instantaneous results, leaving doubt about
when the end users and general public would know if there is a public health concern with
the application of RQTSE. More directly, implementation of RQTSE testing requirements
that are more instantaneous would increase assurance that public health is not at risk with
the application of RQTSE. The USEPA recommends this approach so that results are
available before it is too late to take corrective action (USEPA, 2004). For example, the
WHO defines three types of monitoring: validation, operational monitoring, and verification
(Table 7-7). Improving operational monitoring requirements and reporting would improve
transparency and trust in KSAs ability to protect public health.
TABLE 7-7
Definitions of Monitoring Functions

Monitoring Type
Definition
Validation Testing
When a new system is developed, or new processes are added, the treatment
system and its individual components should undergo validation testing to prove that
they are capable of meeting the specified targets (e.g. microbial reduction targets).
Operational
Monitoring
Operational monitoring involves conducting a planned sequence of observations or

measurements of control parameters to assess whether a health protection measure
is operating within design specifications (e.g. for turbidity). Emphasis is given to
monitoring parameters that can be measured quickly and easily and that can
indicate if a process is functioning properly. Operational monitoring data should help
managers make corrections that can prevent hazardous conditions (breakthroughs).
Verification
Methods, procedures, tests, and other evaluations, in addition to those used in

operational monitoring, are applied to determine compliance with the system design
parameters and/or whether the system meets specified requirements (e.g. microbial
water quality testing for E. coli or helminth eggs, microbial or chemical analysis of
irrigated crops).
Source: WHO, 2006
7-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
One potential operational monitoring measure is the use of CT as an assurance that

biological treatment minimum criteria have been met. The use of chlorine for disinfection
appears to be the method of choice at treatment facilities in KSA. The actual testing method
for microbiological criteria is slower, and often application of RQTSE could have occurred
before test results are available. However, the current criteria are appropriate, and the
results (when available) do provide more detailed data than the chlorine CT method. There
are several benefits of this approach:
The monitoring method can identify any treatment problems that have occurred quickly.
The method allows time for action if necessary.
The effort using an on-line chlorine analyzer is relatively inexpensive.
It is reliable, as evidenced by its common use in potable drinking water projects.
For example, the State of California requires a minimum chlorine CT of 450 mg x min/L for
unrestricted reuse projects that use chlorine disinfection to meet biological criteria to protect
public health.
Another instantaneous monitoring method is the measure of turbidity. Organic particles
provide substrate for microbial growth and can limit the effectiveness of disinfection.
Turbidity should be less than 5 NTU. If the turbidity maximum criterion is exceeded, then it
is likely that adequate treatment was not achieved. As with the use of chlorine CT, turbidity
monitoring is inexpensive and a reliable test that could be used to screen RQTSE before it is
distributed from a treatment facility to its end user.
Monitoring of these two parameters, chlorine CT and/or turbidity, could be used as
surrogates to improve the timeliness of monitoring RQTSE before its distribution to users.
Other countries have instituted similar approaches to instantaneous monitoring.
Groundwater Storage Systems

Another ongoing monitoring effort, of groundwater storage systems, should be continued
and increased as appropriate. A track record detailing how ARR systems function and how
groundwater moves needs to be established to increase public trust regarding indirect reuse.
Again, this information needs to be compiled in such a way as to be publicly available
through the establishment of the Water Data Center or another entity so that researchers
and the end users of this reuse process have access to the data. Fostering a mindset of
collaboration among public and private entities will further support investment in and use of
groundwater storage systems in KSA.
7.5.4 Reporting
Collecting and making available this monitoring and enforcement information will improve
public trust of reclaimed water. The draft Saudi Water Act initiates the formation of a WRA
and Water Data Center, and emphasizes water research, monitoring, and the sharing and
accessibility of water data. This is a very positive step forward in the process of creating
synergies among public and private efforts to understand water demands, improve
wastewater treatment, promote reuse, and improve management of water resources overall
in KSA. Creation of a database is being considered by MOWE, as discussed during the
2011 Gulf Environment Forum (Al-Saud, 2011). Improving the availability of monitoring data
and research information will further generate public trust in KSAs ability to treat wastewater
and promote reuse.
To further disseminate monitoring data to increase public trust of RQTSE, reporting methods
aimed toward industrial users would demonstrate to this user group the ability to consistently
achieve treatment to specific water quality parameters of concern. Annual reports, such as
those required for potable water utilities in the U.S., are one way to show an established
track record of compliance over time. They could also be used to share progress toward
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-23
KSAs total reuse by 2025 goal. Other methods to share information with the public are
discussed in Chapter 3 and could be encouraged or required through regulations. This
would further enhance KSAs message of stewardship of water resources.
7.5.5 Enforcement
While procedures are established for monitoring and enforcement to ensure that rules are
being followed, this information is not readily available or publicized. It is unclear how often
MOWE and the MOA conduct monitoring, and this information could improve transparency in
the process and promote increased trust in the quality of RQTSE. The draft PME
regulations appear to clarify potential penalties, with higher penalties if public health is put at
risk. This further strengthens the message that KSA is committed to improving infrastructure
and treatment throughout the Kingdom.
7.6 Summary
A framework for compliance, monitoring, and enforcement procedures is drafted and, in
some cases, in place. Implementing the draft regulations and promoting consistency in
regulatory decision-making benefits the reuse market by:
Reducing uncertainty for municipalities, industries, and other water customers
Encouraging planning with sufficient technologies and monitoring requirements
Promoting technological advancements through data sharing and collaboration between

public and private entities
Establishing appropriate and sufficient pricing for this water resource as part of an
integrated, sustainable water resources plan for KSA
Promoting responsibility for the protection of public health and safety via clear
regulations, monitoring, and enforcement.
Recognizing that achieving goals of national food security and total reuse go hand in
hand, helping to sustainably meet agricultural irrigation demands.
Consistency in regulatory decision-making aids in the market development for reuse, as

those responsible for infrastructure investment can properly plan for sufficient treatment
technologies and monitoring requirements and assess sufficient pricing for this resource.
The selection of appropriate and cost-effective technologies could be aided by improved
data sharing and collaboration, whether through the creation of a Water Data Center or other
method.
Market pricing for water will aid in the comparison of the use of reclaimed water as a
resource versus the use of other sources and fully value the investment made in
desalination. In Chapter 4, information was summarized showing that the energy investment
in water reclamation is several orders of magnitude less than many desalination
technologies.
Understanding the regulatory responsibility for public health protection will foster generation
of trust among the population as will the proven ability, over time as evidenced by
monitoring, of KSA to provide wastewater treatment and safe reuse water. This will be
accomplished by consistent and transparent monitoring and enforcement and increased
frequency.
Finally, achieving goals of national food security and total reuse go hand in hand. Irrigation
using reuse is one piece of the puzzle needed for sustainable water resources management,
as agriculture is currently KSAs largest water user by sector. An integrated water strategy is
7-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
necessary to determine whether this is a reasonable goal within the context of current
projected water and energy demands from other users.
7.7 References
Al-Saud, Mohammed. The Importance of Developing Sustainable Water Resources in the
Kingdom Strategies for the Future. Presentation at the 2011 Gulf Environment Forum,
Jeddah, KSA. 31 May 2011.
Bixio, D and C. Thoeye, T. Wintgens, A. Ravazzini, V. Miska, M. Muston, H. Chikurel, A.
Aharoni, D. Joksimovic, T. Melin. 2008. Water reclamation and reuse: implementation and
management issues. Desalination 218 (2008) 13-23.
California Department of Public Health. 2009. Regulations Related to Recycled Water.
From Titles 17 and 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Ministry of Water and Electricity. 2010. Draft Saudi Water Act.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Ministry of Water and Electricity. 2006. Using Treated Water for
Irrigation: Controls-Conditions-Offences and Penalties.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Presidency of Meteorology and Environment. 2010. Draft
Implementing Regulations: Treated Wastewater and Its Reuse Law.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Presidency of Meteorology and Environment. 2001. General
Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage
Council, and National Health and Medical Research Council. July 2009. Australian
Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managed Aquifer Recharge. National Water Quality
Management Strategy Document No. 24.
Saudi ARAMCO. 2009. Water Reuse Regulations in Saudi Arabia presented at Water
Arabia, March 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 2010. Guidelines for Water
Reuse. USEPA report EPA/625/R-04/108. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. A Plain English Guide to the EPA
Part 503 Biosolids Rule. Washington, DC.
World Health Organization. 2006. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and
Greywater in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Volumes 1 and 2.
STRATEGIC STUDY
7-25
Chapter 8: Septage Handling and Treatment

8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Septage Overview
In the context of KSA, the term septage has a number of meanings. Septage is material
pumped from septic tanks or, more typically in Saudi Arabia, cesspits that were installed for
individual residences, groups of residences, or combinations of residential and commercial
property. Cesspits or soak pits generally consist of a concrete tank (of about 20 m3) with
no bottom and walls with holes and are designed as infiltration wells for wastewater
(SAFEGE, 2006). Cesspits often lose effectiveness over time, becoming clogged with debris
and grease.
From a quality characteristic standpoint, septage typically has significant levels of grease,
grit, hair, and other debris. It is typically more concentrated than other types of wastewater.
Data on the quality of septage are not readily available. In Jeddah, it was reported that
septage BOD was similar in strength to wastewater in typical sewers and a BOD5 of 700
mg/L was assumed. A study in Jordan focused on small community systems that provided
the following average wastewater concentrations for septage:
BOD5 1,850 mg/L

COD 7,350 mg/L
TSS 3,240 mg/L
TKN 332 mg/L
These values indicate that while septage in some areas may be similar to typical
wastewater, as noted above for Jeddah, some septage in the Middle East may be
considerably more concentrated since the cesspits concentrate waste.
For purposes of this chapter, the term septage is broadly described as wastewater that is not
centrally collected and pumped/trucked for disposal.
8.1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this section are to:
Describe the primary issues associated with septage handling and treatment that arise
from lack of adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities.
Use available data to assess the magnitude of the current problem.
Present alternatives that can provide better management of the situation.
Better management of the current septage handling and treatment issues would mainly
provide temporary alternatives while large investments in wastewater collection and
treatment facilities are underway. Also, better management of septage and other
wastewater not connected to a collection system would aid in the effort to improve public
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 8: SEPTAGE HANDLING AND TREATMENT
perception and trust of the Kingdoms ability to manage its wastewater management efforts.
Overall, this could further support the reuse goals of MOWE and NWC.
8.1.3 Lessons Learned from the Jeddah Situation

A large portion of the Kingdom, especially major cities like Riyadh and Jeddah, have
significant areas that are not connected to wastewater treatment facilities by sewage
collection facilities. Residential and commercial development, and sometimes even
industrial development, has occurred but remains dependent on onsite wastewater disposal
systems and/or storage tanks, which require regular pumping and disposal elsewhere. This
practice causes many problems throughout the Kingdom, including polluting groundwater, as
well as posing a potential public health risk associated with pathogens and vectors (primarily
rodents and insects) for pathogens, nuisance odors, traffic, and even potential flooding
problems in larger municipalities.
In Jeddah, it was estimated in 2005 that only 20 percent of the area of the municipality and
40 percent of the population was served by the wastewater collection systems. Nonsewered portions of the municipality have developed using cesspits or soak pits, as
described above. The functionality of these tanks in Jeddah is also limited because elevated
groundwater levels in the municipality limit infiltration. Elevated groundwater has been
identified as a contributing factor to recent flooding in the municipality of Jeddah, and the
historical wastewater disposal practices may be contributing to these elevated groundwater
levels. An estimated wastewater balance (Figure 8-1) for the Jeddah area in 2005 shows a
potential daily contribution to groundwater recharge of almost 300,000 m3/d (SAFEGE,
2006). It is important to note that the NWC is making aggressive investments in wastewater
collection and treatment infrastructure to quickly address this issue in Jeddah, as discussed
in Chapter 1.
FIGURE 8-1
Estimated Wastewater Balance for Jeddah in 2005 Highlighting Lack of Wastewater Collection System
(Based on SAFEGE, 2006)
A major septage hauling business has developed throughout the Kingdom to haul septage to
the WWTPs, to sewage lagoons, and to other unknown disposal areas. In Jeddah, the 2005
8-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
estimate was that 55,000 m3/d was hauled either to the WWTPs or a surface lagoon
equaling in excess of 3,600 tanker trips per day, assuming tanker truck capacity of 15 m3.
In 2011, it is estimated that 60,000 m3/d is trucked to the Airport-1 WWTP, 15,000 to 20,000
m3/d is trucked to the Briman WWTP at the former lake, and about 40,000 m3/day is trucked
to the Al Khurmah WWTP (personal communication with NWC, 2011). Apparently, and
based on informal discussions with NWC staff, larger tanker trucks are now being used, on
average 20 m3. This would mean the average number of trips has grown to as many as
6,000 per day in 2011.
The sewage lagoon noted in the wastewater balance is the Jeddah Sewage Lake (Lake),
which had been referred to as Misk or Musk Lake. This lake was created by building an
earthen dam along the upper portion of the Wadi Al Mari (upstream of Wadi Al Asla) in the
1990s to temporarily store and dispose of raw wastewater from the growing Municipality of
Jeddah (see Figure 8-2). Tanker trucks (Figure 8-3) discharged wastewater at the dump
station, sometimes at rates up to 50,000 m3/d. The Lake was never meant to be a
permanent solution to the Citys wastewater management needs; however, the Lake
eventually grew to cover an area of 2.0 to 2.8 square kilometers (km2) with storage of 7 to
9.5 million m3 of water and 0.385 million m3 of organic sediments. The dam was
progressively raised as the Lake grew in size.
FIGURE 8-2
Location of Jeddah Sewage Lake Relative to Municipality of Jeddah
Significant efforts continued for many years to provide treatment for the lake water and then
to provide an alternative to the discharge of wastewater into the Lake. As part of this effort,
the NWC is making an investment of approximately $3 billion US (11.25 billion SAR) in
sewer infrastructure and WWTPs that are under construction to eliminate the hauling and
storage of raw wastewater in the wadis. By the end of January 2010, sufficient sewage
treatment capacity was in place at the Briman WWTP, located near the Lake, to discontinue
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-3
the discharge of raw wastewater to the Lake. However, it was several months after that time
before active lake evacuation efforts began.
FIGURE 8-3
Trucks in Line and Dumping Wastewater Near Jeddah Sewage Lake
In late 2009, a strong storm occurred over Jeddah and the foothill areas immediately east of
the City, with precipitation totals from a recorded 70 mm at the King Abdulaziz International
Airport (KAIA) to 140 mm estimated in the foothill areas. This storm caused significant
flooding and loss of life. It also focused media attention on the Sewage Lake because there
was significant concern that the Lake would breach and dump sewage into the already
saturated and flooded portion of east Jeddah.
In May 2010, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz issued a
royal decree ordering that the hazardous Sewage Lake be emptied within 1 year. MOWE
was tasked with pumping water out of the Lake. The NWC, which manages water and
wastewater treatment facilities and provides water service in Jeddah, then assumed
responsibility for the project. In June and July, the NWC Board of Directors approved a
contract for the Lake Contractor to evacuate and clean up the Lake within 11 months and a
planning contractor to assist in directing the effort.
As of 5 October 2010, the Lake had been essentially emptied (to the Briman WWTP,
evaporation ponds at the Lake, and the Airport-1 WWTP (see Figure 8-4). Evaluations were
conducted on flooding, lake sediment, lake area water use and agricultural activities, and
ecological resources, and a plan was agreed upon for sediment clean-up and flood
management. Additional characterization of the lake sediments was conducted in October
and December 2010 to confirm conclusions based on earlier results and to provide more
comprehensive data for the West Lake. During this period, the Lake Contractor was mixing
dried sediments in place with mineral soils and was ditching areas of the Lake to facilitate
further sediment drying (CH2M Olayan, 2011a).
A wide range of treatment alternatives was considered for lake sediments, including options
for sediment mixing and removal from the dry lake bed, sediment treatment and processing,
and sediment transport and end use. All of the sediment characterization data indicated that
the Main Lake sediments are safe for agricultural use, supporting an approach whereby the
sediments would be cleaned up in place. Most of the data for the West Lake samples also
indicated that the sediments are safe for agricultural use, so that an approach similar to
clean-up in place could be considered. However, the presence of elevated levels of TPH
and specific SVOCs exceeding recommended levels for residential and industrial sites in
some of the sediment samples indicated the need to verify that the sediments were safe
prior to returning the site to the municipality (CH2M Olayan, 2011a).
8-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 8-4
Views of the Jeddah Sewage Lake on 25 July 2010 When Evacuation Effort had been
Underway 2 Weeks and on 5 October 2010
The lake sediment clean-up was delayed because of the occurrence of additional storms in
December 2010 and January and February 2011 that partially refilled the Lake. Sediment
clean-up activities were resumed in March 2011 and the clean-up was completed in June
2011. The recommended plan included final sampling on a grid across the former lake bed
to do a final check on the safety of the sediments. The Site Release Sampling has indicated
a very thorough clean-up of the site. No results showed values exceeding the MOWE
(2006) criteria for agricultural use of sludge or USEPA no risk criteria for land application of
biosolids. Some elevated TPH were detected in 3 of the 205 cells of the grid, so additional
mixing of that area to promote volatilization of semi-volatile hydrocarbons was conducted
(CH2M Olayan, 2011b). Figure 8-5 shows photos of the former Jeddah Sewage Lake site
after clean-up activities.
The well-publicized hazardous Jeddah Sewage Lake, the wastewater disposal situation in
Jeddah, and the problems associated with flooding in Jeddah all serve to highlight the issues
associated with septage and inadequate wastewater disposal in the Kingdom. This problem
is addressed in the regional plans developed for MOWE with all areas adopting a goal of
having all towns of 5,000 people and greater being 100 percent served by WWTPs with
collection systems by 2025. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive assessment of this
problem and how it can be addressed consistent with an approach to promote recycled
water usage.
FIGURE 8-5
Views of Former Jeddah Sewage Lake in July 2011. Left is photo of main lake area with the earthen dam along the right
hand side of the picture. Right is photo of the upper main lake where vegetation has established and a herd of camels is
grazing.
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-5
8.2 Current Status of Septage Handling and Treatment

8.2.1 Current Methods for Handling and Transporting Septage
As presented in the previous discussion of the situation in Jeddah and the Jeddah Sewage
Lake, areas that are not served by wastewater collection systems and WWTPs are typically
served by onsite wastewater systems. A survey of systems in the Kingdom has not been
conducted, but the cesspits previously described for the Jeddah area are considered typical.
In rural areas and small communities, these systems may provide adequate treatment;
however, there is always a potential to contaminate precious groundwater in these areas,
which smaller communities are likely to rely on.
Trucks are used extensively for
hauling sewage (Figure 8-6) as
well as for hauling potable water
and for transporting RQTSE,
used primarily for irrigation
purposes. Trucks used for these
various purposes have different
colors, with orange/yellow trucks
transporting wastewater, green
trucks for RQTSE, and white
trucks for potable water.
While the Jeddah Sewage Lake
has received a great deal of
publicity, sewage lakes or
lagoons are fairly common
throughout the Middle East. AlNazeem Sewage Lake is a site
FIGURE 8-6
east of Riyadh that has been
Septage Handling Options
used to receive septage waste
as well as industrial waste via tanker trucks over the last 20 years. The area surrounding the
Al-Nazeem Sewage Lake is generally industrialized and has extremely heavy truck traffic.
Quarries, backfill material, cement/concrete batch plants, and contractor yards are in the
general vicinity. NWC has built a truck unloading station near the lake for the domestic
waste. Now, those trucks have their waste tested prior to being introduced into the sewage
network for NWC treatment facilities. This project removed 1,000 to 1,500 trucks a day from
discharging into the lake since the beginning of 2011. This has resulted in a natural
shrinking of the lake and by late July 2011, the water from the lake had completely
evaporated.
An inventory of sewage lakes has not been conducted, but potential locations can be readily
identified through examination of urban and industrial areas via Google Earth or other aerial
photography. Of course, some of the surface lagoons that are informally identified through
this visual approach may not be septage and may be primarily industrial or oily sludge
wastes.
The wastewater hauling business consists of private contractors that are typically hired by
the businesses requiring their cesspits to be emptied. There is very little apparent regulation
of this business and the trucks may be hauling a wide range of domestic, commercial, and/or
industrial wastes. The NWC conducts screening of trucks coming to their WWTPs to ensure
that the waste is suitable. These screening tests primarily consist of pH and specific
conductivity. Table 8-1 lists the criteria used by NWC to accept or turn trucks away from
their WWTPs, which primarily treat domestic and commercial wastewater.
8-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
If a truck is turned away, the driver often

TABLE 8-1
does not have an alternative location for
Criteria for Evaluating Acceptability of
disposal of the wastewater. Figure 8-7 is a
Trucked Wastewater at NWC Facilities
photograph of a truck that was turned away
Parameter
Acceptance Criteria
from the Briman WWTP near the Jeddah
Sewage Lake and is dumping the
pH
Between 6 and 8
wastewater into an area along the road.
Specific Conductance
<2,500 micromhos per
The driver pretended that the truck was
centimeter (hmos/cm)
broken down so its wastewater could be
dumped. The Al-Nazeem Lake near Riyadh
was receiving 1,500 to 2,000 tanker trucks of wastewater per day until NWC built a receiving
station near the lake in late 2010. However, this station does not receive tankers that carry
industrial waste, so 100 to 150 tankers per day continued to dump wastewater to the Lake.
The NWC was requested to clean up the Lake in March 2011, and an industrial treatment
facility had to be identified in May for the tankers; otherwise, they would have had no place
to dispose of the wastewater. Sludge characterization and clean-up are continuing.
As discussed in these examples, while some improvements and WWTP infrastructure
additions have led to decreased dumping into lakes, adequate treatment for industrial waste
continues to be an issue.
FIGURE 8-7
Wastewater Truck that had been Turned Away from WWTP Dumping Wastewater along Roadside
MOWE has drafted rules to improve and establish wastewater treatment parameters and
recycled water standards. Within these not-yet-implemented rules, these trucking practices
are acknowledged. The trucks must have sealed, non-leaking tanks and the wastewater
they carry may be tested at any time by MOWE. Penalties are identified for illegal dumping
and leaking on roadways, but there is little information available regarding enforcement of
these rules.
8.1.4 Septage Treatment Needs

Without sufficient wastewater infrastructure to treat all wastewater generated, especially in
urban areas, a significant amount of wastewater lacks treatment. In this chapter, all of this
wastewater is referred to as septage because it is often pumped from malfunctioning
cesspits as described previously. To develop an estimate of how much septage lacks
treatment, data in Chapter 1including the recent census population and established
WWTP capacitieswere used (ItalConsult, 2009-2010; CDSI, 2010). It is assumed that 80
percent of calculated water demand will be returned as wastewater. Estimates of 2010
wastewater flows, wastewater capacity, and untreated septage are presented in Table 8-2.
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-7
TABLE 8-2
2010 Untreated Wastewater Flows in KSA, by Region

Region
Calculated Wastewater
3
a
Flow (m /day)
Current WWTP
3
b
Capacity (m /day)
Untreated Septage
3
(m /day)
Al Baha
56,000
56,000
Al Jouf
69,000
38,000
31,000
Assir
294,000
82,500
211,500
Eastern Province
648,000
527,300
120,700
93,000
19,200
73,800
Jizan
203,000
20,000
183,00
Al Madinah
275,000
351,000
none
1,100,000
888,000
212,000
Najran
78,000
78,000
Northern Borders
47,000
24,000
23,000
185,000
131,500
53,500
Riyadh
1,066,000
993,500
72,500
Tabouk
120,000
60,000
60,000
4,234,000
3,135,000
1,175,000
Hail
Makkah
Qaseem
Totals
c
c
Calculated values taken from Chapter 1

Based on IntelConsult 2009-2010 reports and other known information, as presented in Chapter 1
c
While sufficient capacity may be present, collection infrastructure may be lacking
b
It is recognized that WWTP capacity is only part of the story. Many areas may have
adequate WWTP capacity or have capacity that is not fully utilized because of a lack of
collection systems. In Riyadh, for example, there is still significant trucking of wastewater.
There was on the order of 1,500 to 2,000 tanker trucks per day discharging wastewater to
the Al-Nazeem Sewage Lake east of Riyadh until early 2011, when a station was
constructed to receive this wastewater into the collection system of Riyadh. This site alone
accounts for 20,000 to 30,000 m3/day of wastewater, assuming an average tanker truck
volume of 20 m3. There are also receiving stations at the major WWTPs in Riyadh.
In Jeddah, the new Airport-1 WWTP has been commissioned but currently has no
wastewater collection system connected to the facility. As of July 2011, it is treating
approximately 60,000 m3/day of wastewater, all received from tanker trucks. The WWTP
has a capacity of 250,000 m3/day.
To supplement the rough estimate of the magnitude of the septage problem, Figure 8-8
presents this information another way; in regions where WWTP capacity is expected to have
a shortfall, there will be septage being trucked. In the urban areas such as Riyadh and
Jeddah, most trucked wastewater is probably being treated, though inadequately treated
wastewater is clearly also a groundwater quality problem.
The more critical issue is in the shortage of treatment capacity in many rural areas. It is
expected that the volume of septage lacking treatment will decrease by 2035, even as the
population grows, due to the ongoing WWTP infrastructure investments planned in KSA.
Data used to generate Figure 8-8 may not reflect all eventual WWTP capacity and therefore
may not reflect this expected decrease. The data also do not reflect problems caused by
lack of conveyance capacity where WWTP capacity is adequate.
8-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
350,000
Surplus
Wastewater Treatment Capacity Deficit/Surplus by Region

(m3/day)
250,000
Deficit
2010
2025
150,000
2035
50,000
-50,000
Al Baha Al Jouf
Assir
Eastern
Province
Hail
Jizan Madinah Makkah Najran
North Qaseem Riyadh Tabouk

Borders
-150,000
-250,000
-350,000
FIGURE 8-8
Projected Wastewater Treatment Capacity Shortfalls in KSA Regions (Based on ItalConsult, 2009-2010)
The largest amount of septage generated and lacking adequate WWTP treatment apparently
occurs in the Makkah region. This is not unexpected given the extreme fluctuation in
wastewater volume generated in this region during pilgrimages. Other regions with more
than 100,000-m3/d shortfalls in their current treatment capacities are Assir and Jizan.
Regions farther ahead with regard to infrastructure planning, showing excess WWTP
capacities, are the Eastern Province and Riyadh. In Riyadh, for example, the amount of
wastewater generated is expected to double between 2010 and 2025. While capacity in
these areas may be sufficient, collection systems may not be sufficient yet and localized
septage issues may still be occurring. While these septage totals are presented at the
regional level, septage is a very localized infrastructure problem.
8.1.5 Potential Problems Associated with Septage Disposal

Environmental impacts can result from septage that is not treated. If sewage remains in
cesspits, groundwater contamination can occur. This untreated wastewater infiltrates into
the ground, creating both water quality problems and artificially high groundwater levels.
This is especially a problem in coastal areas such as Jeddah that already have high surficial
groundwater levels. There are also potential issues associated with nuisance odors, public
health issues associated with pathogens, and vectors (primarily rodents and insects) for
pathogens.
If sewage is instead held in holding tanks, it must be trucked to a WWTP or sewage lake.
This hauling by trucks has environmental impacts: carbon emissions that increase KSAs
carbon footprint, the potential for leaks onto roadways or into adjacent lands, and the
potential for illegal dumping. This dumping could occur if a truck is turned away from a
WWTP because it does not meet the quality specifications or if the receiving facility simply
cannot accept more trucks that day. This can occur, as there is not sufficient WWTP
capacity in many areas.
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-9
To avoid these potential problems, additional septage handling and decentralized treatment
facilities should be quickly constructed in KSA. In urban areas, septage handling facilities
can be used where there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity. The additional septage
facilities can aid in managing the ancillary issues associated with hauling wastewater,
especially traffic congestion and noise associated with the trucks. Decentralized treatment
facilities for septage can be used in urban or more rural areas as a way to treat septage
locally. These systems also have the advantage of providing RQTSE while reducing the
need for extensive reuse water distribution systems in site-specific applications. Other
disposal options for septage, such as use as an organic source for anaerobic digestion,
composting, or treatment in various types of small treatment facilities, are discussed in the
next section.
8.2 Solutions for Septage Handling and Treatment

Septage has a relatively high organic content (i.e., COD exceeding 5,000 mg/L), typically an
offensive odor and appearance, and a resistance to settling and dewatering. Septage is also
a host for many pathogenic microorganisms (USEPA, 1994). As a result, septage requires
special handling and treatment. The most convenient option is to bring septage and treat it
in an existing WWTP. Currently, this approach has a limitation because the existing WWTPs
in KSA have limited capacities and only accept a small fraction of the septage generated in
KSA. While current infrastructure has limited capabilities, it is recommended that the WWTP
expansions planned for the near future provide storage facilities and additional capacities for
septage handling and treatment. The most benefits can be gained in large treatment
facilities where degritted and concentrated septage after liquid/solids separation can be fed
into the anaerobic digesters to maximize biogas production. The biogas benefits, in most
cases, can offset the investment needed for additional infrastructure for holding and
pretreating septage. Infrastructure investments are necessary and the development of
business opportunities for reuse will assist in addressing the untreated septage issues in
KSA.
8.2.1 Septage Handling and Treatment Options

Despite having limited opportunity for treating septage in existing WWTPs, there may be a
wide range of solutions to treat septage while recovering water, nutrients, and energy from
the septage.
Septage handling and treatment options may include:
Pre-treatment systems for providing treatment prior to input to other WWTPs, including
new treatment facilities
Stabilization of septage before land application. The most common stabilization

techniques include, but are not limited to:
Chemical addition
Aerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion
Composting
Land application
Decentralized septage treatment facilities for treatment and production of RQTSE
Pretreatment System
A pretreatment station is an ideal first step for septage that is received from trucks,
regardless of the type of treatment system receiving the wastewater, because some of the
8-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
material in septage may cause problems at the WWTP. Pretreatment accomplishes

adequate removals of solids fats, oil, and grease (FOG) and other coarse material. An
example design of a pretreatment station is in rural Jordan, part of a small wastewater
system design from a USAID project (USAID, 2008). For this facility, screens are used to
separate the coarse solids and floating materials which are then compacted and hauled to
nearby landfills.
Stabilization
Stabilization is a treatment method that decreases pathogenic organisms and odors.
Physical, chemical, and biological methods can be used for stabilization. The most
commonly used stabilization techniques include:
Chemical stabilization: lime or other alkaline material is added to liquid septage to raise
the pH to 12.0 for a minimum of 30 minutes to kill pathogens and reduce odors.
Aerobic digestion: Septage is aerated for 15 to 20 days in an open tank to achieve

biological reduction in organic solids and odor potential. The time requirements
decrease with increased temperatures. Aerobic digestion is an energy-intensive process
and does not provide any useful end products (i.e., biogas).
Anaerobic digestion: Septage is digested in an enclosed tank for about 15-30 days to
achieve biological reduction of solids. Mixing and heat are often provided to improve
digestion performance. Produced biogas during anaerobic digestion can be converted to
heat and electricity. However, biogas to energy benefits can primarily be recognized
only in large-scale applications and when septage and wastewater solids are digested
together. Blending wastewater solids with septage can minimize digester overloading
and ensure stable operation.
Composting: Septage is mixed with wood chips, sawdust, or other material and aerated
mechanically or by turning. Biological activity generates temperatures that are sufficient
to destroy pathogens. The composting converts septage into a stable, humus material
that can be used as a soil amendment. This process tends to create odors which need
to be handled properly.
Land Application and Soil Amendment

After the septage is stabilized, it can be used for land application. Land application of
septage is a commonly used disposal method in many parts of the world. It is relatively
simple, uses low amounts of energy, and recycles organic material and nutrients to the land.
Domestic septage is a resource containing nutrients that can condition the soil and decrease
reliance on chemical fertilizers for agriculture (USEPA, 1994).
Decentralized Treatment Facilities. There are a wide number of options for decentralized
small systems ranging from lagoon systems and treatment wetlands to a range of package
and designed wastewater systems.
Small Satellite Package Units. When existing WWTPs do not have adequate capacity, or are
too far to transport septage, septage can be treated via package treatment facilities.
Package membrane bioreactor facilities (500-2,000 m3/day) are designed to treat septage in
a small footprint while producing very high quality treated water. With the addition of a
disinfection step (i.e., package UV light disinfection or chlorine disinfection), these package
facilities can produce reclaimed water that meets unrestricted reuse criteria. Multiple
package MBR suppliers (General Electric, Siemens, Dow, etc.) are in the KSA market,
allowing procurement of facilities in a timely manner.
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-11
Sewage Lagoons. Sewage lagoons may be ideal if sufficient land is available outside a city
and if WWTP treatment capacity has not yet caught up to demand. A sewage lagoon should
be designed with:
A lining or other method to limit the potential for groundwater and soil contamination that
sewage lakes without barriers can cause
A proper dam to hold a final storage volume, so that many iterations of construction do
not occur
An operations plan, with a design of many cells, to rotate annual clean-up activities such
as sludge removal to maintain capacity
A plan for clean-up from the start, so that waste entering the lagoon is tested, a plan to
empty the lake is developed, and where treatment would occur is known
A sludge management plan, so that during clean-up, sludge can be treated and
beneficially used for agriculture if appropriate
A lagoon system could be coupled with a septage pretreatment facility as described above.
A design option could include multiple primary cells dredged annually on an alternating
basis, with solids dried on sludge drying beds and liquids sent to the other cells or to a
WWTP for treatment. This would preserve storage capacity. Such improved design of
sewage lagoons could also mimic the oxidation ponds design, allowing more significant
organics and nutrient reduction.
Constructed Wetlands. Constructed wetlands alone cannot typically be used for septage due
to the high loading found in septage (solids, BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus). Combining
this process with other more conventional steps can, however, achieve the desired treatment
quality. Constructed wetlands could include reed beds as one polishing treatment step, as
has been done in some regions in MENA. Such effluent is typically suitable for reuse
(USAID, 2008). Figure 8-9 shows a reed bed used for effluent polishing followed by a
storage basin for RQTSE storage.
FIGURE 8-9
Photographs of Reed Bed Effluent Polishing System Followed by Storage Basin for RQTSE (USAID, 2008)
Low Technology Septage Treatment Systems. Two low technology septage treatment plants
serving small, remote municipalities and neighboring villages were recently put into
operation through a USAID Project in Jordan (USAID, 2008). Those plants were
implemented as model systems for dispersed areas where wastewater collection by
conventional sewers was too expensive (capital and operating costs). Those centralized
facilities, one in the south of Jordan (Shobak) and one in the north of Jordan (North
8-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
Shouneh) include multiple treatment steps, producing effluent in full compliance with water
reuse standards currently in place in the country. The Shobak Septage Treatment Plant is a
zero discharge facility, while North Shouneh has a dedicated RQTSE irrigation system
serving neighboring farming operations.
Shobak (a village located on the road to Petra) has cold winters and inexpensive water for
irrigation; as a result, effluent reuse could not be implemented cost-effectively. The plant
was designed to receive an average of 350 m3/day of septage from cesspits brought in by
tankers from Shobak and neighboring municipalities (mainly Qadissiyeh and Husseiniyeh),
benefitting a dispersed population of about 3,000 people. This treatment plant includes the
following unit processes:
Pretreatment system for removal of floating materials, FOG, and other coarse objects;
screenings discharged to nearby landfill
Imhoff Tanks for solids separation and digestion
Drying of solids from the tanks on sludge drying beds designed for the arid climate in
Jordan
Liquid subsequently sent to several retention/evaporation ponds designed based on

regional water balance calculations (rainfall and evaporation rates)
The other unique aspect of this plant is its operation by Shobak Municipality, which signed a
20-year agreement with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in Jordan.
The septage treatment facility serving North Shouneh and several neighboring villages was
designed to receive approximately 3,000 m3/day of septage (Figure 8-10). The treatment
plant includes the following unit processes:
Septage receiving stations are used to accept septage from tankers.
Pretreatment (coarse in-channel screens) is used for removal of floating and coarse
materials and FOG. In the larger septage treatment plants (such as Ain Ghazal),
mechanical screens, oil/water separators, and sand removal are commonly used.
The plant has two parallel treatment trains providing full redundancy during clean-out
and maintenance periods.
Sludge from Imhoff Tanks (deep static sedimentation tanks with conical bottoms
designed to receive and digest solids over several months) is removed during the hottest
months of the year and spread on drying beds. Sludge drying beds are considered the
simplest, most reliable, and cost-effective method of drying in the region.
Liquid from the Imhoff Tanks enters a series of anaerobic denitrification cells. Primary
effluent from the Imhoff Tanks is mixed with recirculated nitrates from the reed beds.
The next treatment step includes semi-facultative lagoons that allow significant organics
and nutrients reduction. Surface aerators could be added in the future for eventual
increased treatment capacity.
Multiple intermittent sand filters provide additional organics, solids, and nutrient removal.
Those filters are manually raked, as the local choice was not to add technology but to
allow for more jobs.
The constructed wetlands are the polishing step, providing effluent in compliance with
current Jordanian standards for reuse; the reed bed type was selected based on
excellent viability of this type of vegetation in the area.
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-13
The final step (the only mechanical component of the plant) is a nitrified effluent pumping
station conveying the clean water to the front of the plant into the plants denitrification
cells.
Two treated effluent storage ponds (earthen basins with lining) are the last treatment
plant component. Nearby farmers can take water from those ponds for irrigation
depending on their seasonal needs.
This type of approach reduces infrastructure investment and provides benefits to local end
users.
FIGURE 8-10
Process Flow Diagram of North Shouneh Septage Treatment Facility
8.2.2 Removal of Septage Lakes

As adequate infrastructure is established, existing sewage lakes will require cleanout plans
and actions, similar to those conducted at the Sewage Lake east of Jeddah and those in
progress for Al-Nazeem Lake outside of Riyadh. The presence of these sewage lakes is not
widely publicized. Currently, MOWE infrastructure plans are focused on communities with
populations of 5,000 or more, with the goal of having adequate WWTP and reuse
infrastructure in place by 2025. This approach will eventually address many of the impacts
associated with septage. However, it does not provide information related to the magnitude
of the required clean-up effort or a plan to address issues in smaller communities. While the
situations in Jeddah and Riyadh are significant, these issues will likely be addressed
relatively quickly due to the progressive efforts of the NWC. However, in other areas there is
not enough information to truly assess the magnitude of the problem.
In order to comprehensively assess the issues with septage, the following need to be
obtained:
Locations of existing septage lakes
Estimate of current wastewater inputs to the lake
Evaluation of the likelihood of additional industrial contamination or petroleum

contamination to allow assessment of potential issues associated with proper disposal of
water and/or sludge
8-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
Assessment of alternative disposal locations for septage
This information would allow assessment of the magnitude of the problem, evaluation of the
time necessary to develop alternatives, and determination of funding needs. The specific
sewage lake issues can then be prioritized by regions and it will be possible to assess
whether (1) planned WWTP and reuse infrastructure improvements will aid in addressing the
issue in a reasonable time frame or (2) one of the small system solutions summarized above
needs to be implemented to address the situation.
Although each sewage disposal situation has unique features, some likely outcomes can be
presumed from the cases to date:
With the significant evaporative losses in KSA such as an estimated 2.1 m per year in
the humid western regions near Jeddah (CH2M Olayan, 2011a), water will not remain in
any sewage lake for a significant period of time after septage inputs are eliminated.
Sludge resulting from primarily domestic wastewater will be fairly well digested in the
bottom of highly productive sewage lakes and will have a high likelihood of being
remediated in place as a soil amendment or transported to other areas for agricultural
use. The need for treatment with lime to address potential pathogens should be
addressed in every case, although this was not necessary for the Jeddah Sewage Lake
(CH2M Olayan, 2011b).
Even petroleum-contaminated sludges may have a high likelihood of in-place

remediation with activities designed to assist in volatilization of volatile and semi-volatile
hydrocarbons and mixing with mineral soils, as is the case with the Jeddah Sewage
Lake.
Issues associated with industrial contaminants such as heavy metals, solvents, or other
organic chemicals need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate
disposal methods employed.
Sewage lakes are a remnant of inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure and can be
remediated in a way that utilizes the remaining material, the organics and nutrient content of
sludge, as a resource. Reuse of the water in sewage lakes for irrigation or other purposes
depends on the proximity of suitable areas close to the lake, as well as the quality
characteristics of the water. Once a solution to dumping septage in the lake is implemented,
thus eliminating water inputs, any use of the lake water would need to be implemented
quickly, since evaporation is rapid in the arid environment of KSA.
8.3 Summary
The technologies and examples discussed in this chapter present several alternatives for
managing septage. These include issues within larger communities that primarily lack
conveyance infrastructure to transmit wastewater to WWTPs as well as options for treatment
and disposal for smaller communities. Smaller decentralized systems have an advantage of
producing reuse water that can be used locally in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment
facility. The technologies and examples show how various treatment steps can be achieved
efficiently and how different combinations of treatment can still achieve RQTSE or utilize
septage in ways that take advantage of the nutrient value. An example shows how natural
treatment systems provide the final steps in generating RQTSE, which farmers can then use.
Reuse infrastructure was not installed; however, reuse benefits are achieved by producing
quality effluent and making it accessible to users. This greatly reduces infrastructure
investment costs and yet provides benefits to local end users.
The biggest gap in dealing with septage is the lack of comprehensive information necessary
to assess the problem and develop solutions. The Draft MOWE Regional Planning Reports
STRATEGIC STUDY
8-15
provide very little information regarding the issue other than the plan to move forward for the
communities of 5,000 or more to provide wastewater treatment infrastructure, including
production of RQTSE (ItalConsult, 2009-2010). The septage issue should be
comprehensively assessed such that specific plans can be incorporated to address this
issue on a short-term basis for areas where infrastructure is under development, and
permanent solutions can be identified for septage issues in more rural communities.
8.4 References
CH2M Olayan. 2011a. Jeddah Sewage Lake Evacuation and Sediment Reuse/Disposal
Plan. Prepared for National Water Company, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
CH2M Olayan. 2011b. Jeddah Sewage Lake: Site Release Sampling Draft Report.
Prepared for National Water Company, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
ItalConsult. 2009-2010. Wastewater Reuse Planning Reports prepared for the Ministry of
Water and Electricity (MOWE) for each of the 13 Regions:

Al Jouf; July 2009
Hail; July 2009
Jizan; March 2010
Najran; August 2009
Tabouk; July 2009
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Central Department of Statistics and Information (CDSI). 2010
Census Population. www.cdsi.gov.sa. Accessed June 2011.
Personal communication with NWC, 2011. Discussions with Engineer Turki M. Al-Thubaiti,
Manager of Aleskan Treatment Plants, National Water Company.
SAFEGE, 2006. Full Audit of Water and Wastewater Services in Jeddah City Detailed
Diagnosis Report Final. August 2006.
U.S. AID. 2008. Wastewater Treatment Plants for Two Small Communities.
USEPA, 1994. Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal. EPA Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/625/R-94/002.
8-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
Chapter 9: Patent Landscape

9.1 Introduction and Objectives
The chapter presents an analysis of the patent landscape for water treatment technologies
that could have water reuse applications. The analysis provides readers with a high-level
overview of trends in invention and patenting of technologies for water reuse.
Because this chapter focuses on water-reuserelated technologies, it covers similar ground
to others in the report (e.g., Chapter 2). However, by analyzing the patent landscape, the
chapter provides a somewhat different perspective. In particular, it enables analysis of trends
in technology innovationby technology category, by geographic region, and over time.
Most readers will primarily be interested in the summary section of this chapter (beginning
on page 9-33), which presents the key commercially relevant insights drawn from the patent
analysis. The remainder of the chapter is laid out as follows:
Methodology: describes the approach taken for assembly and analysis of the patent
portfolio.
Overview of the patent landscape: sets out conclusions at the highest level, covering all
water-reuserelated technologies.
Category-level landscapes: presents findings at a more detailed level for key technology
categories.
9.2 Methodology
The following steps were undertaken to analyze the patent landscape for water-reuse
related technologies:
A search of patent databases to find relevant technologies

Screening of the resulting patent portfolio to remove irrelevant records
Analysis of the final patent portfolio to identify trends
The search strategy included both key term and patent classification-based approaches. Key
terms searched for included the following:
Water reuse and recycling

Wastewater and water treatment/management, sludge treatment/management
Membranes, reactors, bioreactors, filtration, purification, disinfection, microorganisms,
and ozonation
The search looked for these key terms in both the original patent fields and the Derwent
World Patent Index (DWPI) patent content. DWPI is a value-added system that offers not
only manually rewritten titles, abstracts, and first claims using more standard vocabularies,
but also a series of additional searchable fields such as technology focus, use, novelty, and
detailed technology descriptions to considerably enhance coverage and accuracy.
STRATEGIC STUDY
CHAPTER 9: PATENT LANDSCAPE
Classifications searched encompassed those listed below (including subclasses of each

code):
International Patent Classification (IPC) code C02F: Treatment Of Water, Waste Water,
Sewage, Or Sludge
IPC code C02F 0003: Biological Treatment Of Water, Waste Water, Or Sewage
DWPI manual code D04-A: Treating Water, Waste Water And Sewage -> Treatment Of
Water [Process General]
DWPI manual code D04-B: Treating Water, Waste Water And Sewage -> Impurity
Removal From Water
The search undertaken was restricted to applications made after the beginning of 2000.
The searches were also restricted by geographycovering the US, Japan, and the
European Union.
The 40,000 patent records generated by the search strategy were screened to ensure that
only those relevant to water reuse treatment were capturede.g., using patent codes, text
filtering. Records duplicated across different geographies were removed. In addition, where
two or more records existed for the same basic invention (for example, one patent exists for
the original invention, and then several subsequent patents are granted to cover incremental
improvements to the invention), only the most recent record was retained. After this
screening process, around 24,000 unique records remained.
A process of assignee unification was also undertaken to facilitate a more thorough analysis.
Patent assignees are frequently listed under various names; for example, the Japanese
conglomerate Hitachi was listed in the patent portfolio with over 70 different names
(including subsidiary companies). Because of the size of the patent portfolio, it was generally
only possible to carry out assignee unification on the basis of companies with similar names.
It was generally not feasible, therefore, to identify all subsidiary organizationsalthough
attempts were made to do this in some instances with well-known companies.
Results of the patent portfolio analysis are presented in the remainder of this chapter). The
most significant analysiscategorizing all the patent records into different technology
areaswas a challenging exercise, particularly for such a large portfolio that is both diverse
and interrelated. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches were used to identify categories
within the portfolio. The top-down approach entailed looking for key terms describing
expected technology categories, for example, biological treatment or disinfection. The
bottom-up approach used text-mining techniques and reviewing of patent codes to reveal
categories within the portfolio in a more organic fashion.
9.2.1 Distortion Caused by Trends in Japan

Analysis of the patent portfolio quickly revealed that trends in Japanese patenting activity
can distort the global picture. At issue is the steep decline in patent applications since 2000
that completely dominates trends in activity over time at the global level (see, for example,
Figures 9-3 and 9-5)due to both the rapid rate of the decline and the large proportion of
Japanese patents in the global portfolio.
While this trend is useful to observe, it is necessary to ensure that its importance is not
overemphasized as it appears to be representative of a broader trend in patenting strategy in
the Japanese system, rather than any decline in innovative activity related to water treatment
technologies. As the Japan Patent Office (2010) recently noted, more applicants are
changing their intellectual property strategy from acquiring and filing a large volume of
patents to acquiring high-quality patents . Therefore, wherever possible, analysis of
patenting activity over time has been done at a sub-global level, and conclusions have been
9-2
STRATEGIC STUDY
drawn on the basis of changes in European and US activity, with Japanese trends largely
ignored.
9.3 Overview of Water Reuse Technology Patent Landscape

This section presents an overview of the water reuse technology patent landscape at the
highest level. It sets out the main technology categories that make up the landscape and
analyzes trends in patenting activity across different geographies and over time. It also
explores leading patent assignees.
9.3.1 Technology Categories

As described above, the patent portfolio was analyzed to identify the key technology
categories captured in the patent searches. The results of this categorization are set out in
this section. Table 9-1 describes the different technology categories identified.
TABLE 9-1
Categories within Patent Portfolio

Category Name
Description
Disinfection
Disinfecting or decontaminating wastewater and sludge using various

methods, including halogenation, oxidization, ozonation, pasteurization,
ultrasound, UV, and other.
Removal/Recovery and
Petrochemical Technologies
Removal or recovery of sulfur, phosphorous, metal- and nitrogencontaining compounds, and petrochemicals from wastewater and sludge.
Sludge Treatment Technologies
Pyrolysis of sludge, hydrolysis, and sludge pretreatment.
Bioreactors and Microbial

Technologies
Biofuel/biogas, aerobic and anaerobic treatment, bioreactors, and

microbial technologies associated with treating, recycling, and energy
generation of wastewater and sludge.
Filtration, Membranes, and

Solids
Separating or removing solids or particles from fluids, processing wastes

such as sludge, contaminated soil, animal manure, and organic waste
from food; and membrane (including FO and RO) and filtration
technologies.
Ecosystems, Domestic, and

Miscellaneous
Treatment and water management of rivers, lakes, wetlands, and ponds.

Home applications. Aquifer recharge.
Figure 9-1 shows the breakdown of patents across the different categories identified. The
category Filtration, membranes & solids is by far the largestwith over 40 percent of the
total patent set, it is over twice the size of any of the other categories. The smallest category
overall is that of sludge treatment with just 1 percent of the total patent data set.
Further breakdown of the technology mix within each of these categories is provided in the
sections below.
Many patents or published applications fall into more than one of the defined categories. The
graph below (Figure 9-2) illustrates this overlap by showing what proportion of technologies
within a given category either are unique to that category alone (black bar) or fall into one of
the other categories.
To some extent this overlap is an artifact of the categorization system being a hybrid of
treatment technologies (e.g., filtration, disinfection) and applications (i.e., removal/recovery &
petrochemical technologies and ecosystems, domestic, & misc). However, some of the
overlap is suggestive of the enabling role of some technologies. In particular, filtration
technologies would appear to be the most important enabling technology as they play a role
in a large proportion of inventions in other technology categories.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-3
Filtration,
Membranes, &
Solids
11%
Ecosystems,
Domestic, &
Misc
1%
Bioreactors &
Microbial
12%
Disinfection
42%
Sludge
Treatment
15%
Removal &
Petrochemical
19%
FIGURE 9-1
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Category

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Disinfection
Removal &
Petrochemical
Sludge Treatment
Bioreactors &
Microbial
Filtration,
Membranes, &
Solids
Ecosystems,
Domestic, & Misc
Unique to this category
Disinfection
Removal & Petrochem Techs
Sludge Treatment Techs
Bioreactors & Microb. Techs
Filtration, Membranes, & Solids
Ecosystems, Domestic, & Misc
FIGURE 9-2
Overlap between Technology Categories
9.3.2 Trends in Patenting Activity by Geography

Figure 9-3 below illustrates the geographic spread of the patents identified in the search.
Clearly, Japanese activity dominates the global picture, with over two-thirds of total patenting
activity (i.e., patent applications and granted patents) in the time period. The US is next with
just over a quarter of all patenting activity between 2000 and 2009. Activity in Europe is
significantly lower with just 7 percent of total patenting activity during the same time period.
As discussed in Section 9.2, the very large number of Japanese patents is the product of the
Japanese patent system where the focus until recently has been on quantity of patents
rather than quality. The move away from that strategy is also evident in Figure 9-3, which
shows a steady rapid decline in Japanese patenting from a point in 2000, where Japanese
patents accounted for 83 percent of all patents in the three regions, to 2009, when Japanese
and US patenting activity were virtually equal.
9-4
STRATEGIC STUDY
The tendency to focus on quantity of patents in Japan is illustrated, to some extent, by the
patent pipeline in Japan (see Figure 9-4), which shows the relative dominance of published
applications in the Japanese patenting systemparticularly when compared to the US.
100%
75%
US
50%
JP
EP
25%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
FIGURE 9-3
Patenting Activity (Published Applications and Granted Patents) by Geography

100%
18%
75%
23%
51%
50%
82%
25%
0%
77%
49%
Japan
US
Published Applications
EU
Granted Patents
FIGURE 9-4
Patent Pipeline Published Applications versus Granted Patents, by Geography, 2000-09
9.3.3 Trends in Patenting Activity Over Time

Patenting activity related to water reuse technologies at a global level 1 has been in a fairly
steady decline since around 2000, decreasing at a rate of around 4 percent per year. 2
However, when viewed at a regional level (see Figure 9-5), it is clear that this global-level
1 Global is used throughout this chapter to refer to the collective portfolio of patents and applications across the three
geographic regions of Japan, the United States, and Europenot to the entire world.
2 Measured as a compound annual rate.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-5
trend is entirely driven by the rapid decline in Japanese patenting activity. Patenting activity
in Europe and the US has, in fact, been steadily increasing. Over the period from 2000 to
2009, the compound annual growth rate in US activity was 9 percent, while the rate in
Europe was 3 percent.
2500
Number of filings
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
EU
Japan
US
FIGURE 9-5
Patent Filings over Time by Geography

Note: application year data for 2010 are incomplete due to the 18-month delay between application and
publication.
Similar trends exist at the technology category level, as shown in Figure 9-6. Growth in the
US is particularly strong, with all categories growing by at least 5 percent per year. The two
categories with the strongest growth in the US are Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical
Technologies and Filtration, Membranes, and Solids.
Growth in Europe is slower for all categories and is more variable across categories. For
example, growth is particularly slow in these technology categories:
Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical Technologies

Sludge Treatment Technologies
Ecosystems, Domestic, and Miscellaneous
9.3.4 Leading Patent Assignees

Trends in the leading assignees of water-reuserelated technologies are similar to those seen at
a geographic level. Table 9-2 shows the top five assignees of patents or published
applicationsglobally, and for US and EU patents. The top five assignees globally are also the
top five assignees of Japanese patents, with an order of magnitude more patents or applications
than the top assignees of European or US patents.
In another reflection of trends at the geographic level, patenting activity among the top five
assignees of Japanese patents has markedly dropped off. Top holders of US and European
patents on average have increased their activity slightly. Particularly noteworthy is the increase
in patenting activity by Siemens, Veolia, and (to a lesser extent) General Electric in recent years.
9-6
STRATEGIC STUDY
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2000-2009
15%
10%
5%
EU
0%
Japan
-5%
US
-10%
-15%
Disinfection
Removal &
Petrochemicals
Sludge
Treatment
Bioreactors &
Microbial
Filtration,
Membranes, &
Solids
Ecosystems,
Domestic, &
Misc
FIGURE 9-6
Change in Patenting Activity over Time by Technology Category and Geography

Company
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Top 5 assignees of patents / published applications
Hitachi
198 120 122
99
99
83
72
58
36
36
7
930
Kurita Water Industries
118 142 115
63
92
99
85
60
67
28
10
879
Mitsubishi
88
131 100
66
59
67
55
40
36
19
10
671
Toray Industries
50
58
33
41
35
48
45
42
48
16
7
423
Sumitomo
64
61
37
39
46
39
34
21
32
20
4
397
Siemens
Top 5 assignees of US & EU patents / published applications

0
2
0
2
2
6
14
16
18
10
12
Veolia
11
12
82
50
General Electric
Suez
2
9
3
3
1
4
4
2
1
0
6
5
5
2
4
3
6
5
9
5
5
5
46
44
Hitachi
42
TABLE 9-2
Top Assignees of Patents and Published Applications

Note: Darker shading indicates greater activity.
The majority of the companies that are leading assignees of water-reuserelated patents are
very large (e.g., revenues in the tens to hundreds of millions annually) industrial
conglomerates such as Hitachi, Suez and GE.
Table 9-2 helps to reveal the different patenting approaches companies take in different
jurisdictions. Hitachi is an assignee on nearly 1,000 Japanese patents or applications.
However, it is an assignee on just 42 US and European patentsfar less than in Japan, but
comparable to other top five assignees in those jurisdictions.
It is also possible to observe in Table 9-2 that leading assignees tend to hold a small
percentage of the overall patent portfolio. The top five assignees of US and EU patents or
published applications, for example, account for just 3 percent of the total portfolio. The
remaining patents/applications (approximately 7,500) are held by over 3,500 organizations.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-7
This illustrates how innovation in the water technology sector is diffuseand suggests that a
partnership or open innovation approach to technology development is critical to success.
9.3.5 Key Findings at Overview Level

Based on the preceding analysis, the following high-level conclusions can be drawn:
Since 2001, patenting activity related to water treatment technologies in the US and EU
has steadily increased. Patenting activity in Japan has dramatically declined; however,
that appears to be the result of a change in patenting strategy (i.e., focus on quality)
rather than a decline in innovative activity.
Patenting activity by leading assignees of US and EU patents and applications has

tended to increase or remain broadly steady. Patenting by Japanese companies has
declined significantly; however, they still retain by far the largest patent portfolios in this
technology space.
Growth in US-based patenting activity is strong (above 5 percent) across all technology
categories. European activity at the technology category level is more variable. The
strongest growth rate across both geographies is in the Filtration, Membranes, and
Solids category.
A significant number of patents can be grouped into multiple technology categories,

showing that in some cases the technology is enabling, or applicable to multiple topics.
Patenting activity is diffusespread across several thousand companies, each with only
a few patents. A partnership or open innovation approach to technology development in
the water treatment technology sector is therefore critically important.
The remainder of this chapter explores each of the six technology categories in more detail.
9.4 Category 1: Disinfection

This category explores patents related to the disinfection of waterthat is, processes by
which a significant percentage of pathogenic organisms are killed or controlled. The category
includes the following seven technology areas as subcategories, characterized by the
mechanisms that are used to kill the pathogens:
Ultraviolet use of UV radiation (e.g., from a low-pressure mercury lamp) to destroy

pathogens
Halogenation use of halogens (e.g., chlorine) to destroy pathogens
Oxidation use of strong chemical oxidants to destroy pathogens
Ozonation use of ozone to destroy pathogens
Ultrasound use of ultrasound as a source of cavitations that destroy pathogens
Pasteurization use of heat to destroy pathogens
Other other disinfection technologies not included in the above categories; for example,
use of PAA, microwave radiation, or photocatalysis to kill micro-organisms.
9.4.1 Key Findings

Analysis of disinfection-related patents is presented in Section 9.4.2 below. From that analysis,
the following key findings are highlighted.
On the share of different technologies
9-8
STRATEGIC STUDY
Oxidation clearly dominates the landscape of disinfection technologies with around twice the
number of patents and applications in the next largest categoryozonation.
UV, halogenation, and other disinfection technologies, with a share of between 10 percent
and 15 percent globally, are small but important categories in the patent landscape.
Ultrasound and pasteurization disinfection appear to be niche technologiesat least on the

basis of the patent landscape alone.
On trends across different geographic regions
The spread of disinfection patents and applications across the three geographic regions is
broadly similar to trends at the global level. The only subtlety is that US patents appears to
include a slightly larger share of the disinfection portfolioand Japans share is
commensurately smaller.
Generally, the breakdown of different technologies across regional portfolios mirrors the
breakdown at the global levele.g., ultrasound patents and applications represent around 4
percent of disinfection patents at the global level as well as in each of the three regions
individually. The only minor exceptions are as follows:
UV disinfection in Europe, which has a slightly larger share (20 percent) of the European
portfolio than the global average (13 percent)
Ozonation disinfection in the US, which has a slightly smaller share (16 percent) of the
US portfolio than the global average (21 percent)
On temporal trends over the last 10 years
Reflecting macro-level trends, disinfection-related patenting activity in Japan has been

decreasing across all subcategories.
In other regions, patenting activity is up in all subcategories with the single exception of
other disinfection technologies in Europe. This result is somewhat suggestive of US
dominance in emerging disinfection technologies.
In the US and Europe, growth is strongest in the UV and ultrasound subcategories, and
reasonably strong in halogenation.
In the oxidation and ozonation subcategories, US activity is exhibiting strong growth while
Europe is showing only weak growth. For the pasteurization subcategory, the reverse is true,
with strong growth in Europe and only a small increase in activity in the US.
On assignees
Patenting activity is dominated by the typical large industrial players (see Table 9-3 for
details).
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in disinfection include Miki Osamu, Isaka Kazuichi, and Kataoka
Katsuyuki.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Markus Baumann, Thomas DeBusk,
and Bei Yin.
9.4.2 Analysis of Disinfection Portfolio

The analysis of the disinfection portfolio is summarized in Figures 9-7 and 9-8 and Tables 9-3
and 9-4 below.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-9
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Japan
EU
US
FIGURE 9-7
Compound Annual Growth Rate 20002009
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Subcategory, 2000-09
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
EU
Japan
US
-30%
FIGURE 9-8
Change in Patenting Activity over Time by Technology Subcategory and Geography
9-10
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 9-3
Leading Patent Assignees, by Geography and Technology Category

Company
Ultraviolet
Halogenation
Oxidation
Ozonation
Ultrasound
Pasteurization
Disinfection:
other
Total
Top 5 assignees of JP patents/published applications

Kurita Water
26
24
156
54
12
281
Hitachi
17
127
35
37
229
Mitsubishi
14
20
96
70
14
219
Ebara Corp
17
57
32
12
14
141
Fuji Clean Kogyo
16
35
47
15
130
Top 5 assignees of US & EU patents/published applications

Siemens Water
13
28
Veolia
12
28
Suez
Environment
12
24
Sanyo
17
General Electric
16
TABLE 9-4
Leading Patent Inventors, by Geography and Technology Category

Category
Leading inventors of patents

from all regions

from US & Europe
Ultraviolet
Miki Osamu(5), Miyanoshita Tomoaki(4),

Watari Takakiyo(4), Yamazaki Kazuyuki(4)
Abe, Norimitsu(4); Bagley, David(4);

Butters, Brian E.(3); Girodet, Pierre(3);
Kawai, Chihiro(3); Polak, Walter(3);
Wedekamp, Horst(3)
Halogenation
Mizumoto Masahiro(5), Sorenson, Jr., Kent

S.(5), Miyake Junichi(4), Mori Hiroyuki(4),
Nagai Masahiko(4), Okutsu Noriya(4)
Sorenson, Jr., Kent S.(5); Scalzi,

Michael(3); Schlingloff, Gunther(3); Yin,
Bei(3)
Oxidation
Miki Osamu(23), Isaka Kazuichi(22), Kataoka

Katsuyuki(16), Miyake Junichi(15), Sumino
Tatsuo(11), Wakita Masaaki(11), Yamazaki
Kazuyuki(11)
Bagley, David(7); Isaka, Kazuichi(7);

Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(6); Butters, Brian
E.(4); Carson, Roger W.(4)
Ozonation
Shioda Hiroichi(14), Kadokawa Komei(12), Ike

Hideaki(10), Kataoka Katsuyuki(8),
Muramatsu Yuichi(8),
Hsu, Maxwell(6); Bagley, David(5);

Kerfoot, William B.(4); Campo, Philippe(3);
Jensen, Lonald, H.(3)
Ultrasound
Fujita Toshihiko(4), Nomura Makoto(4),

Fuchigami Shinichiro(3), Kobayashi
Takuya(3), Sakakibara Takashi(3), Sun,
Darren Delai(3)
Carson, Roger W.(3); Sun, Darren

Delai(3); Chiba, Kousuke(2); Gysling,
Daniel L.(2); Janssen, Robert Allen(2)
Pasteurization
Whitekettle, Wilson Kurt(5); Leatherman, Mark

D.(2); Millard, Robin(2)
Whitekettle, Wilson Kurt(5); Leatherman,

Mark D.(2); Millard, Robin(2)
7Disinfection - other
Date Masaki(11), Nishiyama Shuji(7),

Okamura Atsushi(6), Sugita Kazuya(5), Hibino
Atsushi(4), Katagai Nobuyoshi(4)
McKinney, Jerry L.(3); Yamasaki,

Kazuyuki(3)
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-11
9.4.3 Landscape: Oxidation

This section provides a slightly more detailed landscape of the oxidation-related patents identified
during this review. Equivalent sections are provided for three other subcategories that were
selected for their potentially high relevance to water treatment for reuse applications in Saudi
Arabia: Bioreactors (Section 9.7.3), Anaerobic Treatment (Section 9.7.4), and Forward Osmosis
(Section 9.8.3). The section is based on a quick review of the claims and abstract of each patent
or application published in the last five years, as well as analysis of patent classifications.
Care should be taken when reviewing these sectionsthey are based on a quick review of a
large and relatively diverse set of patents. It is therefore inappropriate to treat the findings as
anything more than initial. Clearly, further review that is both more targeted and more rigorous
would be necessary before drawing any definitive conclusions.
Introduction to Landscape
Figure 9-9 provides a summary of the patent classifications that appear in the oxidation
subcategory. All of the patents and applications published in the last five years were analyzed to
identify the IPC codes listed. Each patent lists at least one (and often many) IPC codes
indicating the subject of the invention that is patented. The IPC codes analyzed for this exercise
were manually ascribed to the patents by specialist editorial staff.
The Figure 9-9 presents a synthesis of the main patent codes found in the oxidation
subcategoryindicating the frequency (the # columns) with which a particular code is
mentioned. Three levels of classification are shown, for example:
1. Treatment of water, waste water, sewage, or sludge
1.1. Biological treatment of water, waste water or sewage
1.1.1. Anaerobic digestion
The first two levels in the hierarchy are arranged in descending order of frequency.
Because of the diversity of IPC codes listed, it is not useful to provide an exhaustive list of
code. In general, an attempt has been made to show around 75 percent of the codes. It is
highly likely that this results in each patent being represented at least once (since each
patent typically has several IPC codes listed).
Key Findings
IPC codes suggest that the following approaches to oxidation are the most prevalent in the
portfolio:
Using ozone
Using halogens or compounds of halogens
Using air
Using UV light
Using heat
Use of distillation or evaporation or heat treatment approaches is rare in this technology

subcategory.
IPC codes show that both water and sludge oxidation have been specifically addressed
in the portfolio.
A number of patents in this technology subcategory cover the combination of several

different technologies in a staged configuration (e.g., first biological treatment followed by
UV treatment)
9-12
STRATEGIC STUDY
FIGURE 9-9
Landscape of Oxidation-Related Technologies 2005-2010
Relatively few patents are ascribed IPC codes specifying the nature of the contaminants the
technology is intended to remove. Those that do mention the following contaminants:
Halogens or halogen-containing compounds

Nitrogen compounds, e.g. ammonia, Cyanides
Heavy metals or heavy metal compounds, e.g., Chromium or chromium compounds
Organic compounds e.g., containing oxygen or nitrogen
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-13
Another application observed in a quick review of the patents was the removal of oil or other
petroleum products.
In some cases details about the nature of the catalysts used for oxidation are divulged,
including the following:
Molybdenum
Manganese
Noble metal such as the platinum group metals (e.g., platinum, palladium), silver, and
gold
Iron, including in combination with catalysts from the following categories: noble metals,
manganese, technetium, or rhenium.
A few technologies specified the structure of catalysts. In all cases, the technologies use
solid catalysts.
9.5 Category 2: Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical

Technologies
This category explores patents related to the treatment of petrochemicals and to the removal
and/or recovery of specific contaminants. The category includes the following five technology
subcategories, in the case of contaminant removal or recovery they are described by the
specific pollutant:
Petrochemical treatment
Phosphorus removal
Nitrogen removal
Sulfur removal
Metal removal
9.5.1 Key Findings

Analysis of patents related to contaminant removal/recovery & petrochemical technologies is
presented in Section 9.5.2 below. From that analysis, the following key findings are
highlighted.
Patents and applications related to nitrogen removal clearly dominate this categorywith
approximately twice the number of records as any other category.
The subcategories of petrochemical treatment, phosphorus removal, and sulfur removal

are all similarly sized. Metals removal appears to have received the least attention.
The spread of this technology categorys patents and published applications across the
three geographic regions is relatively similar to trends at the global level. The European
patent portfolio includes a larger share of this technology category (37 percent) than is
present in the global portfolio (29 percent)and Japans portfolio has a commensurately
smaller share.
Generally, the breakdown of different technologies across regional portfolios mirrors

the breakdown at the global level. Notable exceptions are as follows:
9-14
Petrochemical treatment patents are more dominant in the Japanese portfolio.
STRATEGIC STUDY
Phosphorus removal patents are more dominant in the European portfolio.
Nitrogen removal makes up a larger share of patents in the US and European

portfolios, than they do in the Japanese portfolio.
Reflecting macro-level trends, Japanese patenting activity in this category has been
decreasing across all subcategories.
In the US, patenting activity has shown very strong annual growth (8 percent20
percent), while for Europe the picture is more mixed.
Experience in the US and Europe suggests the following:
Interest in metal removal/recovery technologies has grown very strongly over the last
10 years.
Sulfur removal and petrochemical treatment technologies have seen a significant

increase in activity.
On assignees
details).
It is notable that three Japanese companies (Ebara, Hitachi, and Sanyo) are leading
holders of US and European patents in this category.
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in disinfection include Miki Osamu, Kataoka Katsuyuki, and
Sumino Tatsuo.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Christian Uphoff, Kazuyuki

Yamasaki, and Bei Yin.
TABLE 9-5
Leading Patent Assignees, by Geography and Technology Subcategory

Company
Petrochemical
treatment
Phosphorus
removal
Nitrogen
removal
Sulfur
removal
Metal
removal
Total

Kurita Water
36
112
32
23
209
Hitachi
48
117
17
19
205
Mitsubishi
30
78
38
32
186
Ebara Corp
47
55
16
20
142
Fuji Clean Kogyo
19
42
12
14
88

Ebara Corp
16
Siemens Water
16
Hitachi
11
15
Sanyo Electric Co
15
General Electric
14
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-15
TABLE 9-6
Leading Patent Inventors, by Geography and Technology Subcategory

from all regions

from US & Europe
Petrochemical
treatment
Yin, Bei(6), Gysling, Daniel L.(4), Miki

Osamu(4), Miyake Junichi(4), Sakurai
Kenichi(4)
Yin, Bei(6); Gysling, Daniel L.(4);

Dancuart Kohler, Luis P. F.(3); Happel,
Henry(3); Hoffjann, Claus(3); Liu,
Chunqing(3); Perriello, Felix Anthony(3)
Phosphorus removal
Kataoka Katsuyuki(17), Shimamura

Kazuaki(9), Yoshida Teruhisa(9), Miki
Osamu(7), Hagino Takao(6), Katagai
Nobuyoshi(6)
Wanielista, Martin P.(3)
Nitrogen removal
Sumino Tatsuo(16), Miki Osamu(15),

Yamazaki Kazuyuki(12), Isaka
Kazuichi(11), Yamada Katsuhiro(11)
Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(5); Sumino,

Tatsuo(4); Tokutomi, Takaaki(4)
Sulfur removal
Miki Osamu(11), Yamada

Katsuhiro(11), Oishi Toru(9),
Miyanaga Toshiaki(7), Sugimoto
Hideo(7), Uphoff, Christian(7)
Metal removal
Kataoka Katsuyuki(5), Hayashi

Hiroshi(4), Matsumoto Akira(4), Miki
Osamu(4), Ono Nobuyuki(4)
Category
Cotoras Tadic, Davor(2); Efraty, Avi(2);

Fassbender, Alexander G.(2); Krogue,
John A.(2); Lee, T. Richard(2); Mitchell,
Michael Donovan(2); Moniwa,
Shinobu(2); Yen, David(2)
9.5.2 Analysis of Removal/Recovery and Petrochemical Technologies Portfolio

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Petrochemical
treatment
Phosphorus removal Nitrogen removal

Japan
EU
Sulfur removal
Metal removal
US
FIGURE 9-10
Breakdown of Patent Portfolio by Technology Subcategory
9-16
STRATEGIC STUDY
25%
20%
15%
10%
EU
5%
0%
-5%
Japan
Petrochemical
treatment
Phosphorus
removal
Nitrogen
removal
Sulfur removal Metal removal
US
-10%
-15%
-20%
FIGURE 9-11
9.6 Category 3: Sludge Treatment Technologies

This category explores patents related to the treatment of sludge. It includes three
technology subcategories that emerged from the patent portfolio:
Pyrolysis: thermochemical decomposition of sludge at elevated temperatures in the

absence of oxygen
Sludge Hydrolysis: hydrolysis of organic solids in order to solubilize them
Sludge Pretreatment: preparing sludge for further processing, for example, by

destroying sludge flocs and the rupturing cell walls
9.6.1 Key findings

Analysis of sludge treatment-related patents is presented in Section 9.6.2 below. From that
analysis, the following key findings are highlighted.
The pyrolysis subcategory has the largest share (around 50 percent) of sludge
treatment-related patents and published applications. Hydrolysis and pretreatmentrelated patents each make up about a quarter of the overall portfolio.
The spread of sludge treatment patents and published applications across the three
geographic regions is more diverse than in any of the other technology categories. The
share of Japanese records is lowest of all subcategories across the entire portfolioand
virtually the same as the share of US records. European records have substantially
higher share than is typical.
The share of different technologies across regional portfolios is different from the
breakdown at a global level:
Pyrolysis patents are more dominant in the Japanese portfolio.

Pretreatment patents are more dominant in the European portfolio.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-17
Reflecting macro-level trends, sludge treatment-related patenting activity in Japan has

been decreasing, except in the hydrolysis subcategory. This subcategory is one of only
two in which Japanese patenting activity has increased.
In other regions, patenting activity is up in all subcategories with the single exception of
pretreatment technologies in Europe.
In the US and Europe, growth is strongest in the pyrolysis subcategory and otherwise
slow or declining.
On assignees
Patenting activity is somewhat less dominated by the typical large industrial players (see
Table 9-8 for details), than in other categories.
Notable is the presence of Sanyo and Hymo Corp in the Japanese portfolio, as well as
Novozymes and SCT Technologies in the US and European portfolios.
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in disinfection include Miki Osamu, Funato Harurou, and
Sasaki Hidenori.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Catherine Daines-Martinez,

Joseph W. Dendel, Paul John Hart, Son Le, and James H. Wang.
9.6.2 Analysis of Sludge Treatment Portfolio

250
200
150
100
50
Pyrolysis
Sludge - Hydrolysis
Japan
EU
Sludge - Pretreatment
US
FIGURE 9-12
9-18
STRATEGIC STUDY
30%
20%
10%
EU
0%
Pyrolysis
Sludge - Hydrolysis
Sludge - Pretreatment
Japan
US
-10%
-20%
-30%
FIGURE 9-13
TABLE 9-7

Company
Pyrolysis
Sludge Hydrolysis
Sludge Pretreatment
Total

Hitachi
16
Sanyo
11
11
Mitsubishi
Hymo Corp
Kurita Water

Veolia
Novozymes
SCF Technologies
Hitachi
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-19
TABLE 9-8

from all regions
Category

from US & Europe
Pyrolysis
Miki Osamu(3), Sasaki Hidenori(3)
Sludge - Hydrolysis
Delporte, Claude(2), Ikeda Kotaro(2), Nakayama

Yoshio(2), Okuno Yasuyuki(2), Une Hiroshi(2), Wang,
James H.(2)
Wang, James H.(2)
Sludge Pretreatment
Daines-Martinez, Catherine(2), Funato Harurou(2),

Kanetani Hideaki(2), Nakayama Yoshio(2)
Daines-Martinez, Catherine(2)
9.7 Category 4: Bioreactors and Microbial Technologies

This category explores patents related to biological treatment of water. It includes the
following five technology areas as subcategories:
Bioreactors: broadly, any device in which a biological reaction or process is carried out
Anaerobic: biological treatment of wastewater in the absence of oxygen to convert

organic pollutants to (primarily) carbon dioxide and methane
Aerobic: use of oxygen-dependent bacteria to convert organic pollutants to carbon

dioxide and water
Microbial: patents particularly concerned with the microbial aspects of biological water
treatment (e.g., their cultivation)
Biofuel (including biogas): production of a biofuel as part of a water treatment system or

process
9.7.1 Key Findings

Analysis of biological treatment-related patents is presented in Section 9.7.2 below. From
that analysis, the following key findings are highlighted.
Aerobic treatment approaches is the largest source of patenting activity found in this
subcategory.
Anaerobic and microbial technologies are also significant sources of activity.
Biofuel and bioreactor-related patents are relatively small contributors of activity to the overall
biological treatment category.
The spread of biological treatment patents and applications across the three geographic
regions is broadly similar to trends at the global level.
Generally, the breakdown of different technologies across regional portfolios mirrors

that at the global level. The only minor exceptions are as follows:
9-20
Bioreactor-related technologies in the US, which have a slightly larger share (11
percent) of the portfolio than the global average (6 percent)
Microbial technologies in Europe, which have a slightly smaller share (20 percent)
than the global average (26 percent)
STRATEGIC STUDY
Reflecting macro-level trends, biological treatment-related patenting activity in Japan has

been decreasing across all categories, with the exception of biofuel technologies. This is
one of only two subcategories in which Japanese patenting activity has increased.
In other regions, patenting activity has been growing in all technology subcategories.
In the US and Europe, the following trends can be observed:
Growth is very strong in the biofuel subcategory.
European patenting activity in the bioreactors subcategory has been very stronggrowth
in the US has been slower, but still significant.
Patenting activity in the microbial subcategory has also been rapid.
On assignees
As in other categories, patenting activity is dominated by the typical large industrial players
(see Table 9-10 for details).
Notable is the presence of Sumitomo in the Japanese portfolio, as well as the Japanese
companies Hitachi, Ebara, and Sharp in the US and European portfolios.
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in biological treatment include Hibino Atsushi, Kataoka Katsuyuki,
Date Masaki, Sawayama Shigeki, and Suzuki Tomio.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Kazuyuki Yamasaki, Christian

Uphoff, and David Bagley.
9.7.2 Analysis of Biological Treatment Portfolio

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Biofuel/Biogas
Bioreactors
Biological Anaerobic
Japan
EU
Biological Aerobic
Biological Microbial
US
FIGURE 9-14
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-21
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
EU
10%
Japan
5%
0%
-5%
US
Biofuel/Biogas
Bioreactors
Biological Aerobic
-10%
-15%
-20%
FIGURE 9-15
TABLE 9-9

Company
Biofuel/
Biogas
Bioreactors
Biological
Anaerobic
Biological
Aerobic
Biological
Microbial
Total

Hitachi
155
219
51
435
Kurita Water
80
128
58
277
Ebara Corp
85
97
28
226
Sumitomo
62
93
27
191
Mitsubishi
62
82
31
187

Hitachi
13
14
29
Suez Environment
10
26
Ebara Corp
10
10
25
Siemens Water
20
Sharp
19
9-22
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 9-10

Category
Leading inventors of patents from all

regions
Leading inventors of patents from all

US & Europe
Biofuel/Biogas
Ashikaga Nobuyuki(4), Kida Kenji(3),

Mizutani Hiroshi(3), Suzuki Tetsushi(3)
Bertolotto, Antonio(2); Bttcher,

Joachim(2); Choate, Chris E.(2);
Datschewski, Peter(2); Friedmann,
Hans(2); Jrventie, Jussi(2); Kamachi,
Kazumasa(2); Le, Son(2); Li, Xiaomei(2)
Bioreactors
Uemoto Hiroaki(7), Uphoff, Christian(4), Hu,

Qiang(3), Liao, Zhimin(3), Livingston,
Dennis(3), Morita Yoshihiko(3), Sato,
Takaya(3), Zha, Fufang(3)
Uphoff, Christian(4); Hu, Qiang(3); Liao,

Zhimin(3); Sato, Takaya(3); Zha,
Fufang(3)
Sawayama Shigeki(17), Suzuki Tomio(16),

Date Masaki(15), Sumino Tatsuo(14), Isaka
Kazuichi(13), Kataoka Katsuyuki(13),
Komatsu Kazuya(13)

Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(5); Bttcher,
Joachim(4); Hansen, Conly L.(4); Yin,
Bei(4)
Biological Aerobic
Hibino Atsushi(23), Kataoka Katsuyuki(18),

Date Masaki(17), Sawayama Shigeki(17),
Suzuki Tomio(17)

Mckinney, Jerry L.(7); Yamasaki,
Kazuyuki(6); Koopmans, Richard J.(5);
Yin, Bei(5)
Yamazaki Kazuyuki(11), Takashima

Yasutoshi(10), Ito Yoshitaka(8), Yamasaki,
Kazuyuki(8), Uphoff, Christian(7)
Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(8); Uphoff,

Christian(7); Bagley, David(6);
Whitekettle, Wilson Kurt(5); Sorenson, Jr.,
Kent S.(4)
9.7.3 Landscape: Bioreactors

Key Findings
Patents that focused on the design of bioreactors largely centered on improving efficiency
suggesting a degree of maturity in this technology space. Strategies mentioned for improving
efficiency include the following:
Analysis of IPC codes (see table below) highlights the use of the following component
technologies:
flow path manipulation

gas injection
use of waste heat (from industrial sources)
Packings, fillings, grids

Submerged filters
Trickle filters
Moving contact bodies
Some patents tend to focus more on a specific application of a bioreactor (albeit with some
design improvement as well); examples are listed below:
Treating hydrocarbon/oil-contaminated water

Treating formaldehyde-contaminated water
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-23
FIGURE 9-16
Landscape of Bioreactor-Related Technologies 2005-2010
9-24
STRATEGIC STUDY
9.7.4 Landscape: Anaerobic Treatment

Key Findings
The vast majority of patents in this category are for configurations that claim to increase
the efficiency of the processhighlighting the fairly developed nature of the technology
space.
Many patents relate to the coupling of aerobic and anaerobic fermentation (e.g., the IPC
classification of Aerobic and anaerobic processes appears 54 times).
Some technologies involved recycling the phosphates or nitrogen into fertilizer. A

number of patents also mention the use of anaerobic processes for sludge treatment,
and the resulting production of biogaswhich can subsequently be used for energy
recovery.
Of those patents that specify particular applications:
Nearly 40 percent mention both sewage and industrial wastewater as applications.

25 percent mention only sewage as an application.
20 percent specify only industrial applications.
Nearly 20 percent specify applications in treating food waste.
Two applications mentioned in particular include treating wastewater from starch

manufacturing and from semiconductor manufacturing.
Sewage applications generally referred to denitrification.
A large number of patents focused on design improvements, including the following:
Simplification of the process

Increasing the speed of the process
Reducing the footprint of the process
9.8 Category 5: Filtration, Membranes, and Solids

This category explores separation technologies. It includes the following six subcategories,
characterized by separation mechanism or application:
Filtration: physical removal of pollutants

RO osmosis: physical removal of pollutants by means of reverse osmosis
FO: physical removal of pollutants by means of forward osmosis
Separating solids: separation of solids from water
Waste processing/recycling: processing and/or recycling of waste from water treatment
Membrane (not osmosis): physical removal of pollutants using membranes by means other
than osmosis
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-25
FIGURE 9-17
Landscape of Anaerobic-Related Technologies 2005-2010
9.8.1 Key Findings

Analysis of separation-related patents is presented in Section 9.8.2 below. From that analysis, the
following key findings are highlighted.
9-26
STRATEGIC STUDY
By far, the largest amount of patenting activity in separation-related technologies has been in
the filtration subcategory.
Waste processing/recycling has also seen a significant amount of patenting activity.
Membranes, RO, and solids separation have all had much less patenting activity. However,
when compared across the entire range of technology subcategories (i.e., beyond just the
filtration category), they are still significant subcategories.
By far, the smallest amount of activity has occurred in the FO subcategory.
The spread of separation-technologyrelated patents and published applications across the

three geographic regions is broadly similar to trends at the global level.
Generally, the share of different separation technologies across regional portfolios mirrors
that of the global level. The main exceptions are as follows:
Filtration technologies, which make up a larger proportion of patents in both Europe (51
percent) and the US (48 percent), than in Japan (39 percent)
Waste processing/recycling-related technologies, which make up a smaller proportion of

patents in Europe (14 percent) and the US (16 percent), than in Japan (34 percent)
Reflecting macro-level trends, separation-related patenting activity in Japan has been

decreasing across all categories.
In other regions, patenting activity has been growing in all technology subcategories,
although activity in the US has grown substantially faster than in Europe.
In the US, growth has been particularly strong in RO and the other membranes
subcategories.
Data is not available for FOrelated patents at the regional level. However, growth globally
has been extremely strong at around 80 percent (compound annual growth rate) for the
shorter period from 2006 to 2009.
On assignees
details), with the exception of Toray industries in the Japanese portfolio
Also notable is the presence of Sanyo among the leading holders of nonJapanese patents.
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in disinfection include Yamazaki Kazuyuki, Yoneda Takeshi,

and Kataoka Katsuyuki.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Kazuyuki Yamasaki, Maurizio

Moretto, Andreas Wawrla, and David Bagley.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-27
9.8.2 Analysis of Separation Portfolio

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Japan
EU
US
Global
FIGURE 9-18

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
EU
Japan
US
Global
-20%
FIGURE 9-19
9-28
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 9-11

Filtration
Company
Membrane
(not
osmosis)
Reverse
osmosis
Forward
osmosis
Separating
Solids
Waste
Processing/
Recycling
Total

Kurita Water
223
201
119
187
311
1041
Hitachi
271
165
15
133
309
893
Mitsubishi
185
164
29
126
283
787
Toray Industries
243
239
115
48
126
771
Fuji Clean Kogyo
183
79
40
193
503

Siemens Water
29
23
11
74
General Electric
27
14
15
63
Veolia
28
11
62
Suez
Environment
17
11
47
Sanyo Electric
Co
30
45
TABLE 9-12

from all regions
Category

from US & Europe
Filtration
Yoneda Takeshi(40), Kadokawa Komei(22),

Katsura Yousei(21), Kumami Kazuhisa(19),
Nakayama Takeyuki(19)
Hsu, Maxwell(10); Umezawa, Hiroyuki(10);

Bagley, David(8); Fritze, Karl(7); Moretto,
Maurizio(7); Wawrla, Andreas(7)
Membrane
(not
osmosis)
Hamada Toyozo(25), Takemura Kiyokazu(24),

Kadokawa Komei(21), Kumami Kazuhisa(17),
Yoneda Takeshi(16)
Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(9); Zha, Fufang(7);

Konishi, Takahisa(5); Langlais, Chrystelle(5)
Reverse
Osmosis
Sato Yuya(14), Ikuno Nozomi(12), Yoneda

Takeshi(12), Kawakatsu Takahiro(11), Kihara
Masahiro(9)
Ando, Masaaki(5); Schmitt, Craig A.(5); Yin,

Bei(5); Musale, Deepak A.(4); Brouwer, JanWillem(3); Daines-Martinez, Catherine(3);
Efraty, Avi(3); Kawakatsu, Takahiro(3)
Separating
Solids
Kataoka Katsuyuki(28), Katsura Yousei(18),

Komatsu Kazuya(16), Akamatsu Kozo(10),
Misawa Kihachiro(10), Rajiv Goel(10), Yoshida
Teruhisa(10)
Robinson, Earl T.(5); Carapezzi, Giuliano(3);

Dancuart Kohler, Luis P. F.(3); Hughes,
Jonathan(3); Josse, Juan Carlos(3);
Theodore, Marcus G.(3)
Waste
Processing/
Recycling
Yamazaki Kazuyuki(42), Kataoka Katsuyuki(27),

Yoshida Teruhisa(25), Hamada Toyozo(20),
Hibino Atsushi(16), Mizutani Hiroshi(16)
Yamasaki, Kazuyuki(9); Bagley, David(8);

Yin, Bei(5)
9.8.3 Landscape: Forward Osmosis

Key Findings
Approximately one-third of the patents identified in this search were for an apparatus to carry
out FO in general, while another third were for membranes to be used in FO applications.
The remaining 40 percent were for specific applications of FO technologies.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-29
Membrane forms identified include hollow fiber membranes, composite or ultra-thin

membranes, and dynamic membranes.
Spiral-wound membrane structures are the most frequently mentioned. Other structures
mentioned include flat modules, tubular modules, and multiple spiral-wound assemblies.
Five different categories of membrane materials are listedsee below for details.
Seawater desalination is the only application listed in the IPC categorization.
FIGURE 9-20
Landscape of Forward Osmosis-Related Technologies 2005-2010
9.9 Category 6: Ecosystems, Domestic, and Miscellaneous

This category explores a broad range of patents related to water treatment within the home as
well as water treatment technologies interaction with the wider water ecosystem. It includes the
following four subcategories:
9-30
STRATEGIC STUDY
Aquifer: water treatment technologies that specifically mention sourcing water from or
treating water for discharge to aquifers
River/Lake/Wetland: water treatment technologies that specifically mention sourcing water

from or treating water for discharge to rivers, lakes, or wetlands
Home Applications: water treatment technologies that specifically mention having

applications in a residential setting
Other: miscellaneous water treatment-related technologies not categorized elsewhere
9.9.1 Key Findings

Analysis of patents in the Ecosystem, Domestic, & Misc category is presented in Section 9.9.2
below. From that analysis, the following key findings are highlighted.
The two categories of lakes/rivers/wetlands and home applications clearly dominate the
landscape of this technology cluster. Patenting activity related to aquifers has been sparse.
The spread of patents and applications across the three geographic regions is somewhat
different from the spread for the whole patent portfolio, with the share of Japanese patents
being significantly larger.
There is substantial variation in the share of different technologies across regional portfolios.
For example:
The majority of aquifer-related patents are US.
The US and Europe have smaller shares of river/lake/wetland-related patents (18

percent and 10 percent, respectively) than the global average (25 percent).
The US and Europe have larger shares of home-applicationrelated patents (29 percent
and 34 percent, respectively) than the global average (20 percent).
Reflecting macro-level trends, Japanese patenting activity in this category has been
decreasing across all subcategories, while activity in Europe and the US has generally been
increasing.
On assignees
details).
On inventors
Globally, leading inventors in disinfection include Katagai Nobuyoshi, Suzuki Eiichi,

Kobayashi Hisahiro, and Yamazaki Kazuyuki.
Leading inventors on US and European patents include Markus Baumann, Thomas DeBusk,
and Bei Yin.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-31
9.9.2 Analysis of Ecosystems, Domestic, and Miscellaneous Portfolio

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Aquifer
River/Lake/Wetland
Japan
EU
Home Applications
US
FIGURE 9-21
20%
15%
10%
5%
EU
Japan
0%
US
-5%
-10%
-15%
FIGURE 9-22
9-32
STRATEGIC STUDY
TABLE 9-13

Aquifer
Company
Other
River/Lake/
Wetland
Home
Applications
Total

Hitachi
183
72
49
304
Fuji Clean Kogyo
78
51
82
211
Kurita Water
104
53
23
180
Mitsubishi
86
58
15
159
Ebara Corp
48
47
100

Suez Environment
14
Veolia
12
General Electric
11
Hitachi
10
Siemens Water
10
TABLE 9-14

from all regions
Category

from US & Europe
Aquifer
Kerfoot, William B.(3),
Kerfoot, William B.(3)
River/Lake/Wetland
Ishii Koichi(10), Hayashida Keisei(9),

Makino Masaki(8), Kataoka Katsuyuki(7),
Kojima Hisao(7)
Debusk, Thomas A.(6); Abe, Norimitsu(3);

Flowers, David A.(3); Hsu, Kenneth J.(3)
Home Applications
Suzuki Eiichi(13), Katagai Nobuyoshi(12),

Ichinari Takeshi(8), Niino Kiyonori(8),
Sawayama Shigeki(7)
Yin, Bei(6); Donald, Hubbard H.(3);

Duplessis, Samuel Vincent(3); Wang,
James H.(3)
9.10 Summary
Analysis in this report (e.g., Chapters 2 and 4) suggests that growth in water reuse in KSA will
lead to increased demand for water treatment technologies. The current status of water
treatment in KSA and the potential applications of water reuse suggest possible growth in
demand for a wide range of technologies. Secondary treatment technologies of particular
interest include CAS and MBR. Tertiary treatment technologies (particularly filtration and
disinfection) will also be in demand. There could also be some interest in advanced treatment
technologies (particularly low- and high-pressure membrane applications), including for niche
industrial applications. Finally, interest in nutrient recovery, biosolids to energy, and sludge use
or disposal technologies also appears likely.
Trends identified in the patent analysis in this chapter can help companies build an
understanding of the state of innovation in different water treatment technology areas. These
trends can identify technology areas that are maturing and therefore likely to be more suitable for
application today. The trends can also identify technology areas that are emerging and therefore
potentially attractive investments because they may be able to meet technology needs in the
future. Table 9-15 summarizes the status of technology development implied by the patent
trends identified in this analysis.
STRATEGIC STUDY
9-33
TABLE 9-15
Status of Key Technology Areas Relevant to KSA Water Treatment for Reuse Applications Implied by Patent
Analysis
Emergent technology areas
FO
RO
Biofuels (including biogas)
Pyrolysis of sludge
Metals removal
Ultrasound disinfection
Pasteurization
Relatively mature technology areas,

with strong patent growth rates
Filtration
Microbial treatment
Phosphorus removal / recovery
UV disinfection
Mature technology areas

Aerobic treatment
Anaerobic treatment
Nitrogen removal / recovery
Bioreactors*
* Trends in Japan and the US suggest a mature technology, but growth in patenting in Europe has
been strong.
Within the disinfection patent portfolio, oxidation and ozonation are the two dominant
technologies, and therefore might be expected to be mature in nature. However, the growth rate
of patenting activity in these two technologies areas is still rapid and suggests that the
technologies have not yet reached a point of maturitytechnology developers therefore should
not ignore these areas. UV disinfection is an area of interest since its medium-sized patent
portfolio is suggestive of a somewhat established and de-risked technology, while the rapid
growth in patents suggests there is still significant technology development available to leverage
commercially. Finally, at the higher-risk end of the spectrum, ultrasound disinfection and
pasteurization both appear to be emergent technology areaswith low numbers of patents
today, but rapid growth. Opportunities to establish a relatively early technology position may
therefore exist.
Filtration is a major area of patenting activity identified in this intellectual property landscapeby
far the largest at the technology category level. Growth rates in patenting activity suggest that
this technology area is far from reaching maturity. Osmosis technologies (both RO and FO) are
clearly more emergent. Patenting activity within FO is particularly indicative of an emergent
space. For example, since many patents cover device design, it would appear that no dominant
design has been achieved. A significant amount of patenting activity is related to the membranes
used for FO, highlighting a particular focus area for potential technology development.
Even within mature technology areas, technology development continues. Analysis of patents
within these categories suggests that most of the activity pertains either to small improvements
in a proven technologys efficiency or to adaption of technologies to increasingly specialized
applications (e.g., treatment of wastewater from nuclear power plants). Businesses and other
stakeholders need to maintain an awareness of this kind of technology development, particularly
efficiency improvements, to ensure that their offerings remain competitive (in the case of
technology suppliers) or are sourcing the most cost-effective option (in the case of technology
buyers).
In addition to the technology-specific findings outlined above, it is worth noting that innovative
activity in water treatment technologies is diffusewhile there are a number of large companies
that are leading patent assignees, they ultimately hold only a very small proportion of the overall
patent portfolio. The remaining patents are held by a very large number of companies with
typically only a small number of patents. This suggests that a partnership-based or open
innovation approach to technology development is critically important in this sector. Such an
approach not only enables access to a broader array of technology options, but also helps
established players to mitigate technology risks through maintenance of a balanced portfolio of
innovations.
9.11 References
Japan Patent Office (2011). Annual Report 2010. Tokyo.
9-34
STRATEGIC STUDY
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA
AD
AD
AEM
AH
AMBR
AnMBR
AOB
AOP
ARR
ARROW TM
ASR
ASTR
atm
AWTF
AWWA
acrylamide
Adsorption Desalination
Anno Domini
anion exchange membrane
Anno Hegirae
Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor
Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor
ammonia oxidizing bacteria
advanced oxidation process
aquifer recharge and recovery
Advanced Reject Recovery of Water
aquifer storage and recovery
aquifer storage, transfer, and recovery
atmosphere
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility
American Water Works Association (USA)
bbl
BNR
BOD
bpd
BTEX
BWRO
barrel
biological nutrient removal
biochemical oxygen demand
barrel per day
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
brackish water reverse osmosis
cal/yr
CAS
CD
CDPH
CDSI
CDT
CEC
CEE
CEM
CFR
CFU
CIP
COD
CT
CWOA
calories/year
conventional activated sludge
capacitive deionization
California Department of Public Health (USA)
Central Department of Statistics and Information
Capacitive Deionization Technology Systems, Inc.
compound of emerging concern
The Consortium for Energy Efficiency
cation exchange membrane
Code of Federal Regulations (USA)
coliform forming unit
clean-in-place
chemical oxygen demand
contact time
closed-water open air
$
C
F
DBP
U.S. dollar
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
disinfection byproduct
STRATEGIC STUDY
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DC
DDD
DEMON
DO
DOC
DWPI
direct current
diffusion-driven desalination
DEamMONification
dissolved oxygen
dissolved organic carbon
Derwent World Patent Index
ECRA
EDC
EDM
EDR
EfOM
EMCV
EMWD
EU
Euro
Electricity and Cogeneration Regulatory Authority
endocrine disrupting compound
electrodialysis metathesis
electro-dialysis reversal
effluent organic matter
Encephalomyocarditis virus
Eastern Municipal Water District
European Union
FAO
FC
FO
FOG
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

fecal coliform
forward osmosis
fats, oil, and grease
g carbon/m2/day
g/L
GER
gfd
GHG
GOR
gpd
gpm
GWI
GWRS
grams carbon per square meter per day

grams per liter
General Environmental Regulations and Rules for Implementation
gallons per square foot per day
greenhouse gas
gained-output ratio
gallons per day
gallons per minute
Global Water Intelligence
Groundwater Replenishment System
P
HAA
HDH
HIDA
HIX-NF
HRT
hydraulic pressure
haloacetic acid
humidification-dehumidification
Al-Hassa Irrigation and Drainage Authority
hybrid ion exchange-nanofiltration
hydraulic retention time
I&C
IFAS
IPC
ITC-WGT
IWRM
IX
instrumentation and control

Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
International Patent Classification
Institute for Technical Chemistry, Water, and Geotechnology Division
integrated water resource management
ion exchange
JCBU
Jeddah City Business Unit
KACST
KAIA
KAUST
kgal
kHz
KICP
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology

King Abdulaziz International Airport
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
1,000 gallons
kilohertz
KAUST Industrial Collaboration Program
STRATEGIC STUDY
kJ/m2
km
km2
kPa
KSA
kW
kWh
kWh/m3
kiloJoules per square meter

kilometer
square kilometer
kiloPascal
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
kilowatt
kilowatt-hour
kilowatt-hours per cubic meter
L
L/capita/ day
L/m2/hr
L/min
L/s
L/s/m
LCC
liter
liter per capita per day
liters per square meter per hour
liters per minute
liters per second
liters per second per meter
life cycle cost
g/L
m
M
M
m2/d
m2/g
m3/d
m3/y
MAA
MABR
MAR
MBfR
MBR
MD
MDC
MED
MENA
MEPCO
MF
MFC
mg/kg
mg/L
mgd
mg-min/L
mL
mL/min
mm
MOA
MOH
MOMRA
MOWE
MPN
MSABPTM
MSF
MUS
micrograms per liter

micrometer
micromoles
million
square meters per day
square meters per gram
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per year
methacrylic acid
Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor
managed aquifer recharge
Membrane Biofilm Reactor
membrane bioreactor
membrane distillation
microbial desalination cell
multieffect distillation
Middle East and North Africa
Middle East Paper Company
microfiltration
microbial fuel cell
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
million gallons per day
milligrams per minute per liter
milliliters
milliliters per minute
millimeters
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
Ministry of Water and Electricity
most probable number
Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process
multistage flash
managed underground storage
NASA
NDMA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)

N-nitrosodimethylamine
STRATEGIC STUDY
NF
NGO
NOB
NOM
NPV
NTU
NUS
NWC
nanofiltration
non-governmental organization
nitrite oxidizing bacteria
natural organic matter
net present value
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
National University of Singapore
National Water Company
O&M
ORE
osmotic pressure gradient

operation and maintenance
operational recovery efficiency
PAA
PAC
PAH
PCB
PERSGA
pKa
PME
ppm
ppt
PRO
P-RoC
PV
PVC
PW
peracetic acid
powdered activated carbon
polyaromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
acid dissociation constant
Presidency of Meteorology and Environment
parts per million
parts per thousand
pressure restrained osmosis
Phosphorus Recovery from Wastewater by Crystallization
photovoltaic
polyvinyl chloride
present worth
R&D
RCBU
RCJY
RE
RECOFI
RNA
RO
ROI
ROPME
RQTSE
research and development

Riyadh City Business Unit
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu
Recovery Efficiency
Regional Commission for Fisheries
ribonucleic acid
reverse osmosis
Rules of Implementation
Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment
Reuse Quality Treated Sewage Effluent
SAL-PROC
SASO
SAT
Saudi ARAMCO
SBR
SE
SHARONTM/
ANOMMOX
SHARON
SPARRO
SR
SRE
SRT
SS
STP
Salt Solidification and Sequestration

Saudi Arabian Standards Organization
soil-aquifer treatment
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
sequencing batch reactor
storage efficiency
ANerobic AMMonia Oxidation Process
Single Reactor High-activity Ammonia Removal Over Nitrite
Slurry Precipitation and Reverse Osmosis
Saudi Riyal
system recovery efficiency
solids retention time
suspended solids
sewage treatment plant
STRATEGIC STUDY
SVOC
SWCC
semivolatile organic compound

Saline Water Conversion Corporation
TDH
TDS
TFN
THM
TiO2
TKN
TMP
TN
TOC
TPH
TSE
TSS
TWPS
total dynamic head

total dissolved solids
thin film nanocomposite
trihalomethane
titanium-based advanced oxidation
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
trans-membrane pressure
total nitrogen
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbon
treated sewage effluent
total suspended solids
Tactical Water Purification System
hmos/cm
UAE
UASB
UCT
UF
USBR
USEPA
UV AOP
UV
mircromhos per centimeter

upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
University of Cape Town
ultrafiltration
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ultraviolet advanced oxidation process
ultraviolet
V
VRM
volt
Vacuum Rotation Membrane
W/L
W/m3
WAS
WEF
WERF
WHO
WRA
WTP
WWTP
watts per liter

watts per cubic meter
waste activated sludge
Water Environment Federation
Water Environment Research Foundation
World Health Organization
Water Regulatory Authority
water treatment plant
wastewater treatment plant
ZDD
ZLD
Zero Discharge Desalination

zero liquid discharge
STRATEGIC STUDY
Through Inspiration, Discovery
An Economic Development Publication

Innovation Water

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Innovation Water

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The KICP Annual Strategic Study

Promoting Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse

KAUST Industry Collaboration Program (KICP)

KAUST Industry Collaboration Program (KICP)

KAUST Center for Water Desalination and Reuse

KAUST Red Sea Research Center

KAUST Coastal and Marine Resources Core Laboratory

National Water Company

Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE)

Saudi Geological Survey

Presidency of Meteorology and Environment

1 Current Status of Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia

3 Public Education and Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use

5 Aquifer Recharge and Recovery

Schlumberger Water Services

6 Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal Impacts

8 Septage Handling and Treatment

RTI International (under separate

Timeline of KSA Actions to Promote Reuse

Study Goals and Organization

Chapter 1: Overview of Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

A current barrier to reuse is the lack of sufficient infrastructurecollection network and/or

Chapter 2: Technology Overview

Continued collaboration among the research, industrial, and governmental communities is

Chapter 3: Public Education and Awareness to Promote Recycled Water Use

Chapter 4: Business Opportunities

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Reuse water providers and prospective customers should collaborate to identify

Chapter 5: Managed Aquifer Recharge

An evaluation of MAR feasibility in four regionsGreater Riyadh area, Madinah Region,

MAR should be a component of a local or regional reuse program wherever feasible,

Chapter 6: Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal Impacts

Chapter 7: Regulatory Considerations

Together, two sets of recommended requirements (when implemented) will embody

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Chapter 8: Septage Handling and Treatment

Chapter 9: Patent Landscape

Recommended Path Forward to Successfully Promoting Wastewater Reclamation and

Adopting regulations to support an integrated water resources planning approach.

Coordinating specific actions and milestones, including strengthened regulations, to ensure

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

2.3.5 Natural Treatment Systems ........................................................... 2-96

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Findings and Recommendations ............................................................... 4-38

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

6.3.4 Pollutant Sources and Overall Water Quality ................................. 6-20

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

9.3.1 Technology Categories.................................................................... 9-3

Established Physical-Chemical, Biological, and Natural Treatment Technologies

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Overview of Regions and Major Cities .................................................................... 1-4

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

City of Makkah Major Wastewater Treatment Facilities ........................................ 1-25

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Bathymetry of the Arabian Gulf ............................................................................. 6-16

Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................

Chapter 1: Overview of Water Reuse in

Existing Urban Water Cycle in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Reserving the use of

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF WATER REUSE IN SAUDI ARABIA