European Commission

MEDAWARE ME8/AIDCO/2001/0515/59341-P033

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EURO-MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP

Development of Tools and Guidelines for the Promotion of the Sustainable Urban Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Agricultural Production in the Mediterranean Countries

(MEDAWARE)

Task 2: Evaluation of the Existing Situation related to the operation of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants and the Effluent Disposal Practices with emphasis on the Reuse in the Agricultural Production March 2004

2 Working Groups

Responsible persons for the preparation of the report: Prof. Maria Loizidou (Project Coordinator) Dr. Despo Fatta Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus (Former position: Researcher of the National Technical Univeristy of Athens)

Ms. Irene Skoula School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens

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

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

Lebanon:

1. Prof. George M. Ayoub, American University of Beirut 2. Prof. Mutasem El Fadel, American University of Beirut 3. Engineer Loai Naamani, American University of Beirut 4. Mr. Rabih Fayyad, American University of Beirut 5. Miss Layale Abi Esber, American University of Beirut

Morocco: 1. Prof. Mohammed Mountadar, Université Chouaib Doukkali 2. Prof. Omar Assobhei, Université Chouaib Doukkali 3. B. Lekhlif, Université Chouaib Doukkali 4. Drs N. Brine, Université Chouaib Doukkali 5. H. Garmes, Université Chouaib Doukkali 6. B. Daraaoui, Université Chouaib Doukkali 7. A. Hamdani, Université Chouaib Doukkali

Palestine: 1. Dr Zaher Salem, Environmental Quality Authority

3 2. Dr Yunes Mogheir, Environmental Quality Authority 3. MSc. Mohamed Eila, Environmental Quality Authority 4. MSc. Ahmed Abu Thaher, Environmental Quality Authority 5. MSc. Taysir Abu Hujair, Environmental Quality Authority 6. MSc. Mohamed keshta, Environmental Quality Authority 7. Mr. Mohamed Tubail, Environment Quality Authority 8. Ms Nyvine Abu-Shammallah, Environment Quality Authority 9. MSc. Zainab Zomlot, Environmental Quality Authority 10. MSc. Adam Ahmad, Environmental Quality Authority 11. Ms. Aleya Shahin, Environmental Quality Authority 12. Mr. Karam Abu Jalala, Environmental Quality Authority 13. Mr Yousef Mahallawi, Environmental Quality Authority 14. Ms. Heba Al-Agha, Environmental Quality Au

Turkey: 1. Prof. Derin Orhon 2. Dr. Idil Arslan Alaton, Istanbul Technical University 3. Dr. Gulen Eremektar, Istanbul Technical University 4. Prof. Aysegul Tanik, Istanbul Technical University 5. Dr. Melike Gurel, Istanbul Technical University 6. Dr. Suleyman Ovez, Istanbul Technical University 7. Engineer Pelin Ongan Torunoglu, Istanbul Technical University 8. Prof. Dr. Celal F Gokcay, Middle East Technical University 9. Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yetiş, Middle East Technical University 10. Prof. Dr. Filiz Dilek, Middle East Technical University 11. Doç. Dr. Dilek Sanin, Middle East Technical University 12. Dr. İpek İmamoglu, Middle East Technical University 13. Dr. Ayşegül Aksoy, Middle East Technical University 14. Hande Yukseler, Middle East Technical University 15. Serkan Girgin, Middle East Technical University 16. Ozge Yilmaz, Middle East Technical University 17. Ipek Turtin, Middle East Technical University

4 INDEX

Acronyms 8 1. CYPRUS 11 1.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 11 1.1.1 Number of plants in big cities 11 1.1.2 Number of plants in municipalities 11 1.1.3 Number of plants in communities 12 1.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 13 1.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment 16 plants 1.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants 22 1.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices 28 1.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal 28 practices applied 1.7 Determination of pollutant removal 29 efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

2. JORDAN 30 2.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 30 2.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 31 2.3 Technologies applied in wastewater treatment plants 31 2.4 Collection of data of the existing effluent quantity and quality in 32 selected plants in each country 2.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices 35 2.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal 36 practices applied 2.7 Determination of pollutant removal 36 efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

3. LEBANON 37 3.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 37 3.1.1 Summary of operating wastewater treatment plants 37 3.1.2 Status of proposed wastewater treatment 38 plants 3.1.3 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant 40 3.1.4 Community-based Wastewater treatment 41 plants 3.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 44 3.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment 45 plants 3.3.1 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant 46 3.3.2 Technologies applied at community-based WWTPs 47 3.3.3 Technologies used at the Young Men’s Christian 47 Association (YMCA)-Funded Plants 3.3.4 Technologies used at the Pontifical Mission (PM)-Funded 47 Plants

5 3.3.5 Technologies used at the Creative Associates International- 48 Funded Plants 3.3.6 Technologies used at the Mercy Corps-Funded Plants 48 3.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants 48 3.4.1 Untreated Wastewater characteristics 48 3.4.2 GHADIR Plant Influent and Effluent Quantity and Quality 49 3.5 Prevailing Effluent Disposal Methods and Practices 50 3.5.1 Wastewater Collection and Disposal 50 3.5.1.1 The Beirut and Mount Lebanon Systems 51

3.5.1.2 Systems in Northern Lebanon 51

3.5.1.3 Systems in Southern Lebanon 51 3.5.1.4 Systems in the Bekaa 52 3.5.2 Coastal Collection System for the Greater Beirut Area 52 3.5.3 Number and Location of Sea Outfalls 53 3.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal 54 practices applied 3.6.1 Marine Pollution 54 3.6.2 Surface freshwater quality 56 3.6.3 Rivers 56 3.6.4 Springs and Wells 57 3.7 Pollutant removal efficiency and needs for upgrading 59

4. MOROCCO 61 4.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 61 4.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 63 4.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment 64 plants 4.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants 71 4.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices 71 4.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal 75 practices applied 4.7 Pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment 77 facilities

5. PALESTINE 79 5.1 Number, Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants and 79 Population served 5.2 The Main Wastewater Treatment Plants in Palestine 83 5.2.1 Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine 83 5.2.2 Communities’ treatment plants in Palestine 90 5.3 Planned Waste Water Treatment Plants in Palestine 92 5.4 Impacts caused by the operation of the Palestinian wastewater 94 treatment plants 5.4.1 Impacts caused by the operation of Gaza Wastewater 95 Treatment Plant 5.4.2 Impacts caused by the operation of Beit Lahia Wastewater 95

6 Treatment Plant 5.4.3 Impacts caused by Israeli colonies 97 5.5 Needs assessment for removal efficiencies and reuse criteria 98 5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 101 5.6.1 Conclusions 101 5.6.2 Recommendations 101

103 6. TURKEY 6.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants 103 6.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants 106 6.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment 107 plants 6.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants 107 6.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices 110 6.5.1 Effluent Discharge 110 6.5.2 Wastewater Reuse 110 6.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal 112 practices applied with respect to the environment, the employees, farmers and public health 6.6.1 Pollution Status and Impacts on the Receiving Bodies 112 6.6.2 Health Impacts 112 6.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected 114 wastewater treatment facilities and assessment of the needs for upgrading to comply with reuse criteria 6.7.1 Removal Efficiencies of UWWTPs 114 6.7.2 Assessment for reuse potential 115 6.8 Concluding Remarks 118

References 120

7 ACRONYMS

1. Cyprus

BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand COD Chemical Oxygen Demand NH3 Ammonia-Nitrogen NO2 Nitrite NO3 Nitrate PE Population Equivalent PO4 Phosphate SS Suspended Solids TDS Total Dissolve Solids TSS Total Suspended Solids WDD Water Development Department WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

2. Lebanon

AS Activated Sludge AUB American University of Beirut BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CAS Central Administration for Statistics CDR Council for Development and Reconstruction CEC Commission of the European Communities CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EA Extended Aeration EIB European Investment Bank ELV Environmental Limit Values EC European Community FAO Food and Agricultural Organization GBA Greater Beirut Area GoL Government of Lebanon IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDB Islamic Development Bank LACEC Lebanese Arab Contracting and Engineering Company O LEDO Lebanese Environment and Development Observatory LRA Litany River Authority METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MHER Ministry of Hydrology and Electrical Resources MIM Ministry of Interior and Municipalities MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids MOA Ministry of Agriculture MOE Ministry of Environment MOEW Ministry of Energy and Water MOH Ministry of Housing MOPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

8 MOSA Ministry of Social Affairs MSC- Management Support Consultant and Investment Planning Project IPP NERP National Emergency Reconstruction Project NGO Non-Governmental Organization PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls PM Pontifical Mission SAFEG Société Anonyme Francaise D’Etudes at de Gestion E SOER State of the Environment Report SPASI Strengthening the Permitting and Auditing System for Industries SS Suspended Solids TSS Total Suspended Solids VSS Volatile Suspended Solids UNDP United Nations Development Program UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

3. Morocco AGR Administration du Génie Rural AH Administration de l’Hydraulique BO Bulletin Officiel CEE Communauté Economique Européenne CNS Comités Normes et Standards CSEC Conseil Supérieur de l’Eau et du Climat DDGI Direction du Développement et de la Gestion de l’Irrigation DEA Direction de l’Eau et de l’Assainissement DGCL Direction Générale des Collectivités Locales DGH Direction Général de l’Hydraulique DPA Direction provinciale de l’Agriculture EU Eau Usée EUE Eaux Usées Epurées GTZ Deutsche Gesennschaft fur Technische Zusannenarbeit (Coopération Technique Marocco -Allemande) Hab. Habitant LPEE Laboratoire Public d’Essais et d’Etudes MES Matière En Suspension MILD Société privé chargée de la gestion du Golf de Ben Slimane OADA Organisation Arabe du Développement de l’Agriculture OCP Office Chérifien des phosphates OMS Organisation Mondiale de la Santé ONEP Office National de l’Eau Potable ONGs Organisations Non Gouvernementales PREM Pérennité des Ressources en Eau au Maroc

9 RAMSA Régie Autonome Multi-Services d’Agadir REU Réutilisation des Eaux Usées SNDAL Schéma National Directeur de l’Assainissement Liquide STEP Station d’épuration des Eaux Usées

4. Palestine Area A According to Oslo agreement 1993, the Palestinian Authority has responsibility for public order and internal security. Area B The Palestinian Authority assumes responsibility for public order for Palestinians, while Israel controls internal security. Area C Israel maintains exclusive control ARIJ Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand Br Boron Ca Calcium Cl Chloride COD Chemical Oxygen Demand EC Electrical Conductivity EQA Environmental Quality Authority K Potassium Mg Magnesium MEnA Ministry of Environmental Affairs MOFAJ Ministry of foreign affairs of Japan Na Sodium NH3 Ammonia-Nitrogen N-Kjd Kjeldahl Nitrogen NO2 Nitrite NO3 Nitrate O&V Organic and Volatile matter PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction pH Negative Log of Hydrogen Ion Concentration PHG Palestinian Hydrologic Group PNA Palestinian National Authority PO4 Phosphate PWA Palestinian Water Authority S.A.R Sodium Adsorption Ratio SO4 Sulfate SS Suspended Solids TDS Total Dissolved Solids TP Total Phosphorus TS Total Solids TSS Total Suspended Solids TVSS Total Volatile Suspended Solids UNDP United Nation Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development USD US Dollar UV Ultraviolet

10 WWT Wastewater Treatment WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

1. CYPRUS

1.1 Number and Location of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants

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

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

1.1.1 Number of plants in big cities

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

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

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

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

1.1.2 Number of plants in municipalities

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

11 1.1.3 Number of plants in communities

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

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

Table 1: Capability of existing Wastewater Treatment Plants

Location and name of No of Treatment Population Served the Treatment Plants Plants Cities Nicosia 2 125000 Limassol 1 70000 Larnaca 1 36000 Pafos 1 55000 Total No = 5 Total population = 286000 Municipalities Paralimni 1 50000 Agia Napa 25000 Total No = 1 Total population = 75000 Communities Askas 1 300 Apostolos Lukas 1 1250 Zinon Kamares 1 6500 Livadia 1 3960 Agros 1 2500 Palaixori 1 3000 Dali- Pera Chorio Nisou 1 5000 Kiperounta 1 3000 Apliki 1 100 Kakopetria 1 2500 Agklisides 1 Kofinou 1 Alassa 1 P.Kivides 1 Gerasa 1 Tersefanou 1 Choletria 1 Total No = 17 Total population = 27510 Under construction

12 Location and name of No of Treatment Population Served the Treatment Plants Plants Platres 1 2000 Pelentri 1 Total No = 2 Total population = 2000 Grand Total =25 Grand Total = 309510

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larnaca Larnaca’s sewerage system serves 50% of city’s needs (36000 PE). The extension of the sewerage system aims to cover the needs in areas that are not currently served from Larnaca’s sewerage system (the whole city of Larnaca). The first part of the extension is expected to be complete by the end of 2006, serving a total of 40000 PE (60%) while the second part will cover all needs (67000 PE) by the end of 2012.

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

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

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

Table 2a: Future plans for the urban areas

Capacity of Populatio Y % the Are n ea Treatment a Equivalen r Plant t (PE) (m3/day) 20 03 125000 22200 Nico 20 265000 42000(1) sia 08 300000 50000(1) 20 12 20 70000 40% 10500 03 90000 50% 13600 20 123000 68% 18500 Lim 04 180000 100 28000 assol 20 % 06 20 12 20 50% 03 60% 36000 8500 Larn 20 100 40000 10000 aca 06 % 67000 17000 20 12 20 60% Pafo 03 55000 100 5500 s 20 110000 % 11000 06

14 20 50000 (A) 70% 12000 03 25000 (B) (A) 70000 (A) 65% 15500 Paral 20 27000 (B) (B) imni 06 31000 (B) 100 20000 - (A) Agia 20 80% Nap 12 (B) a 100 % (B)

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

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

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

Table 2b: Rural areas to be served by WWTP

Populati Project’s Popul on Type of Area completion ation Equivale project year nt Evricho 819 1371 u Connectio Temvria 541 805 n with Galata 651 1413 Kakopetria Korako After 2006 499 604 ’s u Treatment Sina 233 398 Plant Oros Kalliana 187 382 P. 917 2003 Individual After 2006 Leukara Pedoula 191 1826 s Moutou Common 294 861 las Treatment After 2006 Kalopan Plant 287 1316 agiotis Oikos 187 388 Aradipp 11459 12395 Connectio After 2006 ou n with the current Treatment Plant in

15 Populati Project’s Popul on Type of Area completion ation Equivale project year nt Livadia Kiti 3141 3642 Connectio Pervolia 1798 5554 n with Dromol Larnaca’s After 2006 aksia- 6191 7538 Treatment Meneou Plant Athieno 4258 4675 Individual After 2006 u Akaki 2653 2851 Astrom Common 2360 2567 eritis Treatment After 2006 Perister Plant 2098 2278 ona Limbia 2167 2353 Individual After 2006 Ipsonas 6430 7060 Kolossi 3865 4024 Episkop Common 3105 3330 i Treatment After 2006 Trachon Plant 3301 3442 i Erimi 1431 1656 Lithrod 2622 3543 Individual After 2006 ontas Pegia 2359 5986 Individual After 2006 Kornos 1862 2057 Individual After 2006 Pissouri 1033 1878 Individual After 2006 Kato 1121 2001 Individual After 2006 Pirgos Poli Chrisoc 1892 3785 Individual After 2006 hous Ormidia 3941 4385 Xilotim 3443 3671 bou Xilofag 4981 5434 ou Derinia 4945 5782 Common Sotira 4258 4939 Treatment Liopetri 3838 4123 Until 2006 Plant in Frenaro 3306 3462 Achna s Augoro 4002 4524 u Achna 1958 2363 Acherit 1649 1835 ou

Upon the completion of the plants listed above, Cyprus will fulfil all the provisions of EU Directive 91/271/EC. The construction of sewerage systems

16 in other rural Communities with a PE less than 2000 is under study from the Water Development Department.

1.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment plants

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

1. Technologies applied in Urban Areas

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

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

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

Facultative Aerated Pond FI Maturation Inflow Lagoon 3 3080m3( )(10571m Pond (6101 3 λ ) )m

Facultative Pond FI )(15387m3 Chlorination Outlet and Filtration

Not in use

Figure 1: Anthoupolis WWTP Flow Diagramme

17 - Mia Milia Wastewater Treatment Plant

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

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

ΑΝ1 AER 4

F1 M1 ΑΝ2 Α Ε R M 2 Inflow 3 F 2 Outlet ΑΝ3

Α Ε R 2 F3 ΑΝ4

ΑΕR 1

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

Figure 2: Mia Milia WWTP Flow Diagramme

18 - Limassol Wastewater Treatment Plant

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

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

After this stage the wastewater enters the secondary treatment unit, consisting of aeration tanks and the secondary Settlement Tanks. At this stage, the reduction of the biodegradable organic load, suspended solids as well as nitrification and denitrification through biological methods has been achieved. Finally the biologically treated wastewater is inserted into the Tertiary Treatment unit consisting of sand filter and chlorination unit. At the Tertiary Treatment further reduction of the suspended solids and other pollutants.

The Flow Diagramme of the Limassol WWTP is presented below:

1 Inlet Bar racks 2 Grid Chamber and Skimmer Tank 3 Flow meter 5 Primary sedimentation Tanks 6 Aeration Tanks 8 Secondary settlement tanks 10, 11 Sludge pumps 12 Thickener Tank 13 Sludge digestion 14 Sludge Storage Tank 15 Sludge dewatering 17 Chlorination 18 Sand filters

Figure 3: Limassol WWTP Flow Diagramme

19 - Larnaca Wastewater Treatment Plant Larnacas’ WWTP serves the majority of Larnaca Municipality’s population and the tourist area. Although no industrial wastewater is discharged in the Sewerage system, the wastewater of Larnacas’ airport discharges, with high concentration in oil. The absence of a skimmer tank causes operational problems to the treatment plant. Firstly, the wastewater is inserted into the primary treatment unit consisting of bar racks and grid chamber. The secondary treatment includes two Aerated tanks and two secondary Settlement Tanks. The Tertiary Treatment unit consists of sand filter and chlorination tank.

The Flow Diagramme of the Larnaca WWTP is presented below:

Mechanical and Oxidation hand-raked Grit Plant Ditches Screens Sewage from Larnaca

Settlement Tanks Effluent Sand Storage Filters Chlorination Reservoir To irrigation

Sludge Sludge Sludge Thickener Digesters Drying Beds Sludge Disposal

Figure 4: Larnaca WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Paphos Wastewater Treatment Plant

Paphos WWTP located at ‘Paleochorafa’ area 2 km southeast of Achelia village. No industrial wastewater is discharged in the system. Primary Treatment consists of bar racks and grid chamber, following by two primary sedimentation tank.

20 At the secondary treatment, phosphorus biological removal, nitrification, denitrification and settlement take place in four tanks. Finally, the Tertiary Treatment, consists of chemical reduction of phosphorous, sand filter and chlorination tank, follows by two anaerobic tanks.

The Flow Diagramme of the Larnaca WWTP is presented below.

ΑΝ 1 Primary T 2 Sedimentation Pre- Tank Treatment Primary T 3 ΑΝ 2 Inflow Sedimentation Outlet Tank

Figure 5: Paphos WWTP Flow Diagramme

- Paralimni – Agia Napa Wastewater Treatment Plant

The WWTP located at ‘Kavo Greco’ area and serves two municipalities of Agia Napa and Paralimni. No industrial wastewater is discharged in the system. The system consist of Primary Treatment, Secondary Treatment (activated sludge) followed, finally, by and Tertiary Treatment (Sand Filter and Chlorination). The mechanical pretreatment and the secondary treatment too place in a common system for the two municipalities, while there are two tertiary treatment plants one for each municipalities followed by two storage tanks.

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

21 6 7

8 9 17

20 19 1 5 2 3 1. Mechanical Pre- 11. Storage Tank Treatment 75000m3 2. Secondary Treatment 12. Tertiary Treatment 3. Settlement Tanks of of Agia Napa 14 15 4 Secondary Treatment 13. Storage Tank 4. Sludge Separation 5000m3 5. Flow 14. , 15. Emergency regulators/distributors Storage Tank to Paralimni and Agia 25000m3 Napa 16. Pipeline to 10 11 6. Storage Tank Paralimni lake 100000m3 17. Irrigation Pipe to 7. Storage Tank Paralimni 100000m3 18. Irrigation Pipe to 18 13 12 8. Tertiary Treatment Agia Napa Paralimni 19. Sewage from Agia Municipality Napa 9. Storage Tank 6000m3 20. Sewage from 10. Storage Tank 75000m3 Paralimni Figure 6: Paralimni, Ayia Napa WWTP Flow Diagramme

22 2. Technologies applied in Rural Areas

The rural population represents 30% of the total island population. Sewerage Networks and Treatment Plants now serve 12% of the rural population. Currently, 17 rural communities have local Wastewater Treatment Plants, while 2 more are under construction. There exist the following systems:  Secondary Treatment (Seven plants)  Tertiary Treatment (Seven plants, 2 under construction),  Stabilisation lagoons (Three plants)  Trickling Filter (One Plant)  Reed beds system (One Plant)

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

1.4 Existing effluent quantity and quality in selected plants

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

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

Table 3a: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l)

BOD5 44 92.17 m a e

Anthoupoli r

CY1 Waste 350 COD t s

(Nicosia)

Stabilizati (filtrated 71 93.49 a

on Ponds sample) i

TSS 73 80.11 s o

VS 58 83.89 p s i

pH 8.855 - D Total P 17.4 40.21 TKN 40.2 62.98 23 NH3-N 16.4 -

Table 3b: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l) s

BOD5 39 92.91 o i a COD 150 85.41 i d TSS 91 83.39 e P

Mia Waste VS 82 82.74 e v i

Milia CY2 Stabilizati 13000 pH 8.435 - r

(Nicosia) on Ponds Total P 10.5 50.00 l a

TKN 36.5 67.09 s o p

Total s 1.1 84.51 i

Sulfides D

Table 3c: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l)

BOD5 5 98.57 COD 24 96.54 12000 SS 2 99.43 n

pH 7.79 - o (winter) i t Limassol CY3 Tertiary 15000 Total N 9.7 82.20 a g i r

(summe NH3-N 2.9 90.82 r I r) NO3-N 6.9 -1625 Total P 7.5 48.28

PO4-P 6.9 31.00

Table 3d: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l) n

Larnaca CY4 Tertiary 5500 BOD5 2.6 99.37 o i t

COD 56 93.10 a g i r

SS 1.7 99.46 r pH 7.5 - I Total N 8.5 90.22 24 NH3-N 2.4 96.76

NO3-N 6.9 - N 17.8 - 3.4 Conducti (mS/ - vity cm) Cl 555 2.97 B 0.8 - P 0.6 92.04 <0.0 Cd - 1 Cu 0.01 - Ni 0.06 - Pb 1.87 - Zn 0.35 - <0.0 Cr III - 1 Total E.Coli/10 5 - 0ml Intestinal E.Coli/10 0 - 0ml Residual 0.2 - Cl

Table 3e: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

BOD5 16.3 96.44 TSS 5.9 98.41 1016. TDS 14.92 7 n

pH 7.5 - o i t Pafos CY5 Tertiary 1000 Total N 6.3 89.29 a g i r

TKN 2.6 97.34 r I NO3 4.7 -104.35

NH3 1.4 - Grease 6.7 - P 7.5 -

25 Table 3f: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l) C O 52.5 92.50 D

BOD5 1.48 99.62 SS 2.65 98.93 Total N 15.1 75.45 + NH4 0.95 97.29 - NO2 52.3 - - NO3 52.3 - Total P 6.65 34.16 pH 6.8 - n o i

T 28.9 - t Paralimni CY6 Tertiary 3400 a g

(Summer) Alkalinit i 1.67 72.17 r r

y I Conducti 1.8 10.00 vity Free Cl 0.81 - Total Cl 1.72 - Total 0 - E.Coli Intestinal 7 - E.Coli Intestine 0 - Worms

Table 3g: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

C n Paralimni CY6 Tertiary 3400 o i O 48.9 t (Winter) 86.23 a g

D i r r

BOD5 1.14 99.43 I SS 1.95 98.89 Total N 23.8 40.50 + NH4 0.31 99.03 - NO2 84.1 - - NO3 84.1 - Total P 6.12 29.66 26 pH 6.7 - T 16 - Alkalinit 1.7 73.85 y Conducti 2.2 15.38 vity Free Cl 2.94 - Total Cl 3.94 - Total 0 - E.Coli Intestinal 5 - E.Coli Intestine 0 - Worms

Table 3h: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l) C O 55 92.14 D

BOD5 1.6 99.59 SS 3.1 98.74 Total N 15.1 75.45 + NH4 0.84 97.60 - NO2 0.09 - - NO3 58 - Total P 6.81 32.57 pH 6.71 - n o

Agia i

T 29 - t CY6 Tertiary 3400 a Napa g

Alkalinit i 1.65 72.50 r (Summer) r

27 Table 3i: Data of existing effluent quality and quantity

Effluent Code Effluent Effluent Quality Type of Removal disposal City Number Quantity treatment 3 Paramet Value efficiency method of TP m /d er (mg/l) C O 50.6 85.75 D

BOD5 1.4 99.30 SS 2.18 98.75 Total N 23.8 40.50 + NH4 0.40 98.75 - NO2 0.02 - - NO3 97.1 - Total P 7.57 12.99 pH 6.62 - n o

Agia i

T 16 - t CY6 Tertiary 3400 a Napa g

Alkalinit i 1.74 73.23 r (Winter) r

Table 3j: Data of urban wastewater treatment plants

Communities Code Type of Effluent Effluent disposal Number of TP treatment Quantit method y m3/d Askas CY7 Secondary Disposal in a river/ 28 irrigation Apostolos Lukas CY8 Secondary Experimental for irrigation Zinon Kamares CY9 Secondary Irrigation Livadia CY10 Secondary Not decided Agros CY11 Tertiary Irrigation Palaixori CY12 Tertiary Disposal in a river Dali- CY13 Tertiary Disposal in a river Pera Chorio Nisou (Alikos)/ irrigation Kiperounta CY14 Tertiary At tanks for irrigation Apliki CY15 Aerated lagoons Disposal in a river Kakopetria CY16 Secondary Irrigation Agklisides CY17 Secondary Irrigation Kofinou CY18 Secondary Irrigation Alassa CY19 Tertiary Irrigation P.Kivides CY20 Stabilization Irrigation (trees) tanks Gerasa CY21 Stabilization Disposal in a river tanks Tersefanou CY22 Stabilization Disposal in a river tanks Choletria CY23 Disposal in a river/ irrigation Platres * CY24 Tertiary Irrigation Pelentri * CY25 Tertiary Irrigation

* Under Construction

1.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices

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

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

29 1.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied

According to the information gathered from the plants’ staff, the major operational problems of the plant are the following:  High concentration of oils inserted in the system (mainly from the restaurants) without any pretreatment.  The actual BOD5 concentration is much higher than the one envisaged in the plant’s design (5000 mg/l instead of 300 mg/l).  High temperature of the water in the summer (30-35oC instead of 20-25oC).

Other problems concerning the reuse of water are the following:  The demand for water exists only during the summer, thus the Sewerage Boards faces problems with the storage and or disposal of water during winter.  There is no systematic monitoring of the water use: as a result in some cases the recycled water irrespective of its analysis is used for irrigation of crops including leafy vegetables.  There is a problem of disposal of treated water at the smaller WWTPs of villages. The farmers in these areas refuse to irrigate with the recycled water their cultivations, due mainly to physiological reasons. The problem is aggravated due to the fact that these treatment plants are located in the mountain area of the island.

1.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

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

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

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

30 31 2. JORDAN

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

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

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

Table 4: WWTPs, Population and house connections:

No. WWTP Cities & Towns Population House served connections 1- As Samra Amman 1816257 113215 Zarqa 459805 Ruseifa 234000 Hitin Camp 46914 2- Aqaba Aqaba 84172 2757 3- Madaba Madaba 73394 4041 4- Irbid Irbid 265106 15464 5- Salt Salt 70427 3211 6- Jarash Jarash & Souf 27061 3257 7- Mafraq Mafraq 52689 3021 8- Baqa’ Baqa’ 73053 9050 9- Karak Karak 23448 1360 10- Abu Nuseir Included with Amman 11- Tafila Tafila 26940 1585 12- Ramtha Ramtha 63566 3167 13- Ma’an Ma’an 30003 1069 14- Kufranja Kufranja 21158 2805

32 15- Wadi Essir Included with Amman 16- Fuhais Fuhais 15999 1498 17- Wadi Arab Wadi Arab Included with Irbid 18- Wadi Mousa Wadi Mousa 14341 900 19- Wadi Hassan Azmi Mufti Camp 18330 Nuayemeh 12660 Total 3,425,923 166400 * Total population of Jordan = 5,329,000 (2002).

2.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants

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

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

2.3 Technologies applied in wastewater treatment plants

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

The treatment method used in the As Samra plant, the largest plant in the country, is the wastewater stabilization pond (WSP). The treatment efficiency of this plant dropped significantly as a result of being overloaded due to the sudden increase in the population served by this treatment. Initially the plant was designed for a maximum load of 68000 M3/day but actually the load currently is 178903 M3/day. The effluent from this plant is entirely stored into the biggest water reservoir (King Talal Reservoir, KTR), which the main source for irrigation in the Jordan Valley. Soon the Government in Jordan is planning to invest about 200 million dollars to upgrade it and change from conventional into mechanical treatment. 33 The rest of the treatments are utilizing different methods of treatments, namely, activate sludge (AS), aeration ponds (AP), extended aeration (EA), trickling filter – activated sludge (TF-AS), trickling filter – maturation ponds (TF-MP) or extended aeration-maturation pond as indicated in Table 5. The extended aeration and activated sludge proved to be the most efficient treatment method while the WSP was the least efficient.

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

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

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

34 Table 5: Existing Wastewater Treatment Efficiency (%)

Treatment Design Load Actual Load Efficiency Degree of Use % WWTP Type Hydraulic Organic Hydraulic Organic (%) Hydraulic Organic (m3/d) (mg/L) (m3/d) (mg/L) As- Samra WSP 68000 526 178903 709 80 263 333* A. Nuseir AS 4000 1100 1977 544 97 49 24 Wadi Essir AP 4000 780 1917 658 94 48 40 Wadi Arab EA 22000 995 7055 836 99 32 27 Irbid TF+AS 11000 800 7121 1174 98 65 95 Ramtha WSP 1920 820 2301 852 74 120 125* Salt EA+MP 7700 1090 3898 764 97 51 36 Baqa’ TF+MP 14900 800 11768 965 96 79 95 Fuhais EA+MP 2400 995 1523 679 98 63 43 Ma’an WSP 1600 970 2155 688 77 135 96 W. Mousa AS 3400 500 866 701 99 25 26 Mafraq WSP 1800 825 1805 696 69 103 85 Jarash EA+MP 3500 1155 2743 1219 97 78 83 Kufranja TF+MP 1906 850 2222 1195 93 117 164* Madaba EA 7600 950 3700 1400 98.5 49 72 Karak TF+MP 785 1080 1487 708 92 190 124* Tafila TF+MP 1600 1050 740 671 91 46 30 Aqaba WSP 9000 900 9329 410 73 104 47 W.Hassan EA 1600 800 768 777 98 48 47

35 where: WSP= wastewater stabilization ponds AS=Activated sludge AP=Aeration pond EA=Extended aeration TF=Trickling filter MP=Maturation ponds

Table 6: Treated Wastewater Effluent Quality (2002)

BOD5(mg/L) COD TSS (mg/L) TDS(mg/L) W (mg/L) WT P 135* 506 130 1191 A s Sa m ra A. Nuseir 18 67 33 924 Wadi Essir 40 169 48 999 Wadi Arab 07 67 8 950 Irbid 22 157 55 940 Ramtha 219* 254 219 952 Salt 24 105 28 568 Baqa’ 41 110 46 1124 Fuhais 12 63 18 799 Ma’an 161* 462 176 957 W. Mousa 09 32 20 1760 Mafraq 215* 527 125 946 Jarash 37 131 93 500 Kufranja 90* 260 92 862 Madaba 17 34 16 1407 Karak 53* 238 66 838 Tafila 37 142 46 736 Aqaba 97* 345 553 933 W.Hassan 9 63.5 23 1082

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

WWTP Ni Zn Cr Pb Mn Cd Fe

36 A 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.27 s m r a A. Nuseir 0.11 0.41 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.00 0.17 Wadi Essir 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 Wadi Arab 0.13 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.22 Irbid 0.03 0.108 0.026 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.09 Ramtha 0.06 0.19 0.32 0.77 0.07 0.02 0.30 Salt 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.08 Baqa’ 0.065 0.40 0.09 0.05 0.105 0.003 0.14 Fuhais 0.05 0.73 0.02 0.654 0.15 0.001 0.61 Ma’an 0.01 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.001 0.28 W. Mousa 0.065 0.155 0.03 0.02 0.015 0.001 0.145 Mafraq 0.059 0.135 0.036 0.056 0.14 0.001 0.36 Jarash 0.09 0.46 0.034 0.04 0.03 0.001 0.15 Kufranja 0.13 0.74 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.002 0.34 Madaba 0.05 0.21 0.35 0.05 0.24 0.004 0.21 Karak 0.05 0.0277 0.008 0.01 0.023 0.0023 0.21 Tafila 0.155 0.22 0.07 0.155 0.11 0.009 0.42 Aqaba 0.153 0.55 0.03 0.14 0.29 0.006 0.11 W.Hassan 0.078 0.298 0.167 0.095 0.09 0.004 0.159

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

No. WWTP Operation Gov. Type of Influent Effluent Tre. MCM MCM 1- A 1985 Zarqa WSP 65.245 53.301 s m r a 2- A. Nuseir 1988 Amman AS+RBC 0.722 0.638 3- Wadi Essir 1996 Amman AP 0.698 0.29 4- Wadi Arab 1999 Irbid EA 2.579 2.516 5- Irbid 1987 Irbid TF+AS 2.6 2.547 6- Ramtha 1988 Irbid WSP 0.839 0.691 7- Salt 1981 Balqa EA 1.425 1.299 8- Baqa’ 1988 Balqa TF 4.296 3.992 9- Fuhais 1996 Balqa EA 0.556 0.556 10- Ma’an 1989 Ma’an WSP 0.79 0.557 11- W. Mousa 2001 Ma’an AS 0.316 0.08 12- Mafraq 1988 Mafraq WSP 0.659 0.506 13- Jarash 1983 Jarash EA 1.062 0.983

37 14- Kufranja 1989 Ajloun TF 0.811 0.585 15- Madaba 1989 Madaba EA 1.525 1.352 16- Karak 1988 Karak TF 0.55 0.449 17- Tafila 1988 Tafila TF 0.27 0.265 18- Aqaba 1987 Aqaba WSP 3.406 2.655 19- W.Hassan 2000 Irbid EA 0.155 0.132 Total 88.554 73.213

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

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

2.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

See table 5.

38 3. LEBANON

Domestic wastewater management is one of the greatest challenges facing the Lebanese municipalities and concerned ministries. Lebanon generates an estimated 249 million m3 of wastewater per year, with a total BOD load of about 100,000 tones. Industries in Lebanon generate an estimated 43 million m3 of wastewater per year (State of the Environment Report (SOER), 2001). With the absence of industrial waste surveys and production statistics, it is difficult to estimate the composition and BOD load of the industrial wastewater. The total BOD load of the industrial wastewater is estimated at about 5,000 tones per year (SOER, 2001; MOE, 1998a, 1998b).

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

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

3.1.1 Summary of operating wastewater treatment plants

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

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

3.1.2 Status of proposed wastewater treatment plants

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

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

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

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

Location and Name of the Treatment Plants Number of Plants

Cities Caza Region Aley Ghadir 1 Total No = 1 Regional (Group of Municipalities in Villages) Caza Region Baabda Hammana 1 Chouf Bchetfine 1 Hasbaya Ain Jarfa 1 Hasbaya Hasbaya 1 Hasbaya Ain Qanya 3 Hasbaya Hebbarieh 1 Hermel Hmaire 1 Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk 1 Nabatieh Kfarfila 1 Total No = 11 Municipalities Caza Region Akkar Andket/Qobayat 1 Akkar Bqerzla 1 Akkar Charbila 1 Akkar Karm Asfour 1 Akkar Kawss Akkar 1 Akkar Mrahat 1 Akkar Wadi El Jamous 1 Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar 1 Baalbeck Jabbouleh 1 Dinnyeh Markibta 1 Hasbaya Marj El Zouhour 1 Hasbaya Mymess 2 Jezzine Barteh 1 Marjayoun Deir Mymess 1 Marjayoun Wazzani Village 1 Rashaiya Ain Harcha 1 Rashaiya Yanta 2 Total No = 19 Grand Total = 31 * Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4,5, 2003

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

3.1.3 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant

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

Figure 8: Ghadir Pre-Treatment Plant

42 3.1.4 Community-based Wastewater treatment plants

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

43 Table 10: Community Based Wastewater Treatment Plants* Caza Village NGO Status Population Technology Remarks served (design year) Baalbeck Jabbouleh CHF Operational in 2000 600 (2020) AS; EA; Tertiary Design for 80 m3/day treatment Chouf Bcheftine Creative Assoc Operational in 2002 3,500 (2022) AS1 Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar Creative Assoc Operational in 2003 3,500 (2022) AS Nabatieh Jbaa 1 Creative Assoc Ongoing 2003 3,500 (2023) AS Nabatieh Jbaa 2 Creative Assoc Start construction 2003 3,500 (2023) AS Nabatieh KfarKila Creative Assoc Operational in 2003 3,500 (2023) AS Marjayoun Debbine Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 NA2 Anaerobic Hasbaya Chebaa Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2015) Anaerobic Hasbaya Hasbaya & Ain Qanya Mercy Corp Completed 14,000 (2015) Anaerobic Marjayoun El Khiam Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2015) Anaerobic Marjayoun Wazzani Village Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 175 Anaerobic Hasbaya Ain Jerfa Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 2,500 (2015) Anaerobic Hasbaya Abou Qamha Mercy Corp Completed in 2002 600 (2015) Anaerobic Hasbaya Ain Qanya Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 7,500 (2015) Anaerobic Hasbaya Hebbaryeh Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 5,000 (2015) Anaerobic Jezzine Rihane Mercy Corp Ongoing 2003 NA Anaerobic Akkar Wadi El Jamous Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 109 Anaerobic Akkar Bqerzla Mercy Corp Operational in 2000 2,310 Aerobic Hermel Hmaire Mercy Corp Operational in 2002 840 Anaerobic Karm Asfour NA Completed 840 Akkar Charbila Mercy Corp Operational in 1999 1,000 Anaerobic Akkar Kaws Akkar YMCA Operational in 1998 1,125 EA3 Design capacity 155 m3/day Akkar Akkar Atika (Mrahat) YMCA Operational in 2000 550 EA Design capacity 64 m3/day Akkar Akkar Atika (Maakouda) YMCA Ongoing 2003 650 AS Design capacity 120 m3/day Rashaiya Ain Harcha YMCA Operational 750 EA Design capacity 120 m3/day

44 Hasbaya Marj El Zohour YMCA Operational in 2001 1,000 EA Design capacity 168 m3/day Rashaiya Yanta 1 YMCA Operational in 2003 1,250 AS Design capacity 240 m3/day Rashaiya Yanta 2 YMCA Operational in 2003 750 EA Design capacity 120 m3/day Marjayoun Mymess 1 YMCA Operational in 2003 375 AS Design capacity 60 m3/day Marjayoun Mymess 2 YMCA Operational in 2003 750 AS Design capacity 120 m3/day Hasbaya Kfair YMCA Ongoing 2003 2,750 AS Design capacity 447 m3/day Dinnyeh Markibta PM Operational in 2001 1,300 (2020) EA Design capacity 195 m3/day Akkar Andket/Qobayat PM Operational in 2003 9,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 1350 m3/day Baabda Hammana PM Operational in 2001 7,000 (2020) EA+AS Design capacity 1050 m3/day Baabda Kornayel PM Ongoing 2003 6,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 900 m3/day Saida Barteh PM Operational 2002 1,300 (2020) EA Design capacity 195 m3/day Marjayoun Deir Mymess PM Operational 2003 1,250 (2020) EA Design capacity 200 m3/day Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk PM Operational in 2003 4,000 (2020) EA Design capacity 825 m3/day 1 Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk PM Ongoing 2003 1250 (2020) EA NA 2 * Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4,5 2003 1AS: activated sludge 2NA: not available 3EA: extended aeration

45 VII. 3.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants

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

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

Table 11: Location and Number of Operational Wastewater Treatment Plants, and Overall Population Served* Location and Name of the Treatment Number of Plants Population Served Plants (Design Year) Cities Caza Region Aley Ghadir 1 977,000 Total No = 1 Total Population = 977,000 Regional (Group of Municipalities in Villages) Caza Region Baabda Hammana 1 7,000 (2020) Chouf Bchetfine 1 3,500 (2022) Hasbaya Ain Jarfa 1 2,500 (2015) Hasbaya Hasbaya 1 5,000 (2015) Hasbaya Ain Qanya 3 14,000 (2015) Hasbaya Hebbarieh 1 5,000 (2015) Hermel Hmaire 1 840 Marjayoun Klayaa & Bourj El Moulouk 1 4,000 (2020) Nabatieh Kfarfila 1 3,500 (2023) Total No = 11 Total Population = 45,340 Municipalities Caza Region Akkar Andket/Qobayat 1 9,000 (2020) Akkar Bqerzla 1 2,310 Akkar Charbila 1 1,000 Akkar Karm Asfour 1 840 Akkar Kawss Akkar 1 1,125 Akkar Mrahat 1 550 Akkar Wadi El Jamous 1 109 Baalbeck Deir El Ahmar 1 3,500 (2022) Baalbeck Jabbouleh 1 600 (2020) Dinnyeh Markibta 1 1,300 (2020) Hasbaya Marj El Zouhour 1 1,000 Hasbaya Mymess 2 1,125 Jezzine Barteh 1 1,300 (2020) Marjayoun Deir Mymess 1 1,250 (2020) Marjayoun Wazzani Village 1 175 Rashaiya Ain Harcha 1 750 Rashaiya Yanta 2 2,000 Total No = 19 Total Population = 27,934 Grand Total = 31 Grand Total = 1,050,274 * Source: MSC-IPP Environment Project; Personal Interviews 2,3,4, and 5, 2003

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

47 3.3.1 GHADIR Pre-Treatment Plant

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

Figure 9: Lifting Area inside Ghadir Plant

Figure 10: Screening Area inside Ghadir Plant

Figure 11: Grit Chamber inside Ghadir Plant

48 3.3.2 Technologies applied at community-based WWTPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.5 Technologies used at the Creative Associates International-Funded Plants

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

3.3.6 Technologies used at the Mercy Corps-Funded Plants

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

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

3.4.1 Untreated Wastewater characteristics

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

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

Table 12: Wastewater Quality in Lebanon*

BOD (mg/l) SS (mg/l) No. of Year Location Avg. Range Average Range Samples 1963 Beirut 9 940 420-2650 430 245-670 1971 Beirut 72 369 20-990 417 40-2800 1975 Hammana 70 448 440-470 766 565-981 1965 Zahleh 70 350 100-950 705 294-2030 1980 Rabieh 4 145 NA1 465 NA 1980 Kaifoun 1 400 NA 610 NA Beirut/Project 1981 1 500 320-614 360 130-631 Jouneh 2003 Ghadir plant 4 222 185-257 526 422-893 * Modified table adopted from Khatib and Alami, 1994 1 NA: Not available

3.4.2 GHADIR Plant Influent and Effluent Quantity and Quality

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

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

Month Flow rate (m3/day) BOD5 (mg/l) June, 2000 24,419 371 July, 2000 30,348 527 August, 2000 39247 494 September, 2000 41,612 418 October, 2000 41,000 445 November, 2000 40,967 411 June 22, 2003 to July 21, 2003 26,297 222 Average 34,841 412.8571

51 * Modified table adopted from SOER, 2001

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

Parameter After screen After Aerated De- Removal efficiency gritting (%) Temp. (°C) 27.9 28.2 1.1 PH 7.91 7.71 2.5 DO (mg/l) 1.75 2.19 25.1 TSS (mg/l) 526 410 22.1 VSS (mg/l) 342 266 22.2 COD (mg/l) 1040 793 23.75

BOD5 (mg/l) 222 NA1 NA Ammonia (mg/l) 116 NA NA Phosphate (mg/l) 30 NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity (mg/l) 485 NA NA Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 525 NA NA * Source: Monthly report No. 11 submitted to CDR, Ghadir Laboratory, 2003 1 NA: Not Available

3.5 Prevailing Effluent Disposal Methods and Practices

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

3.5.1 Wastewater Collection and Disposal

According to the CAS census of building and establishment (1996-97), about 37 % of nearly half-a-million buildings are connected to sewer networks, the remaining 64 % either use cesspools, septic tanks, or simply release raw sewage directly into the environment, including sea, rivers, streams, valleys, and dry wells. The sewer systems that survived the war were badly damaged; as a result there is wide clogging and silting

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

3.5.1.1 The Beirut and Mount Lebanon Systems

The Beirut municipal system serves the city and portions of the adjacent southern suburbs, and discharges into the sea through 15 short outfalls located along the shore. In a number of cases, the discharge occurs above the seawater level. Two lift stations located at Minet-El-Hosn and Sarba areas provide drainage for these low-lying areas. The Ghadir system caters for communities south of Beirut in the Aley and Baabda Cazas. It is served by a preliminary treatment plant (Ghadir Treatment Plant) followed by an outfall, from which water discharges at a depth ample to achieve reasonable dilution of the disposed wastewater. An emergency outfall, which allows discharge by gravity and operates in the event that the discharge pumps are shutdown, was constructed along its side. In Mount-Lebanon part of the communities discharge the sewage into the GBA system, while others discharge directly into rivers used by downstream communities for water supply, or into seasonal streams, or along the shore. The North Metn system serves 65 % of the population inhabiting the northeast and east of Beirut sections. Some individual systems in the area serve inland communities which discharge raw sewage into local streams (MOE, 1998c).

3.5.1.2 Systems in Northern Lebanon

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

3.5.1.3 Systems in Southern Lebanon

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

53 3.5.1.4 Systems in the Bekaa

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

3.5.2 Coastal Collection System for the Greater Beirut Area

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

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

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

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

3.5.3 Number and location of sea outfalls

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

Table 15: Distribution of existing short Sea Outfalls in each Caza* Caza Number of sea outfalls Akkar 2 Tripoli 5 Koura 1 Batroun 4 Jbeil 5 Kesrouan 6 Metn 7 Aley 1 Chouf 3 Saida 6 Sour 3 * Source: SOER, 2001

55 Table 16: Planned Sea Outfalls* Caza Locality Status Features Study managed by Financer Self- Beirut Dora Existing-to be rehabilitated Main: L=2500m Diam=1700mm CDR financed Beirut Ghadir Existing-rehabilitated Main: L=2600m Diam=1200mm CDR Saida Sainek Studied L=2100m Diam=900mm CDR Japan Sour Sour Studied L=1500m Diam=800mm CDR World Bank Kesrouan Tabarja Studied L=1400m Diam=1000mm CDR World Bank Tripoli Tripoli Proposed CDR EIB Akkar Abdeh Proposed Jbeil Amchit Proposed Batroun Selaata Proposed Batroun Chekka Proposed L = 650m Diam= 300mm Chouf Ras Nabi Younis Proposed * Source: Jaber, 1997

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

3.6.1 Marine Pollution

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

56 Table 17: Bacterial Count along the Coast* Location Bacterial Count (# per 100ml) Ras El-Saker 35 Al-Buhsas 1,100 Jbeil 1,100 Dbayeh 93 Ramlet El-Baydah 11,000 (Cholera organism found) * Source: Commission of the European Communities, UNDP, EIB, WB; “Lebanon: Assessment of the State of the Environment”, Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Report, 1995.

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

Table 18: Evaluation of Ghadir Pre-Treatment Plant Quality* Existing Limiting Parameter Value Value Temperature, °C 28.18 35 pH, unit 7.7 6-9 TSS, mg/l 335.2 60 COD, mg/l 792.5 100 BOD5, mg/l 222 60 Phosphate, mg/l 29.75 5 Iron, mg/l 0.12 1.5 Zinc, mg/l 0.04 5 Nickel, mg/l 0.014 0.1 Cadmium, mg/l <0.002 0.05 * Source: Al Ghadir Laboratory analysis, 2003; B/ MOE, 1996

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

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

57 3.6.2 Surface freshwater quality

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

3.6.3 Rivers

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

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

Furthermore, rigorous agricultural and industrial activity within the Bekaa has adversely influenced the Litani River, Nahr Ibrahim, and Nahr Sainiq. The water generated from tanneries in the Northern Bekaa and disposed into the Litani River mixes with the drinking water used at Jabal Aamil and is not treated for poisonous chemicals, like arsenic, before use. Several studies aiming at evaluating the contamination level of the Litani river were performed (Jurdi, 2001; Swedish Study, 2000; AUB, 2003) and all studies showed high levels of Coliforms at many locations along the river, indicating severe pollution incurred

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

Table 19: Total and Faecal Coliform Count at different locations along the Litani River* Sample Location Total Coliforms in Faecal Coliforms in 100 ml 100 ml Hawsh Al Refka: near Stone CuttingNC1 776 Industry Temnine El Tahta: before TileNC 752 Producing Factory Temnine El Tahta : after TileNC NC Producing Factory River near Mimosa 710 480 NC 370 Effluent tunnel from Mimosa Joub Jinnine river NC 424 Karaoun Lake 44 2 Karaoun: near Dam 50 0 Tanmia: chicken poultry NC NC Al Marj: near Uniceramic Factory NC NC

Wastewater from Taalabaya NC NC

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

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

3.6.4 Springs and Wells

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

Jaber (1997) reported a contamination accident at Racheine Spring which is the principal water source that supplies Zghorta and the whole city of Tripoli in North Lebanon. The

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

Table 20: Bacteriological Analyses of some springs*

Faecal Total Coliforms in Faecal Streptococcus in Aquifer Coliforms 100 ml water Springs 100 ml water Geology in 100 ml water Dbayeh Ghorra Ghorra Lab Lab Lab Nabaa El Maghara Limestones of (Hrajel) >80 >80 260 100 J6

Nabaa El Assal Limestones and Dolomites0 9 2 0 of C4 Nabaa El Laban 0 42 5 0 Jiita Cavern Limestones J4 17 >80 35 10 * Source: Chammas, 2003; CDR, MHER: “Water and Wastewater Feasibility Studies in Saida Drainage Zone”, Beirut, January 1995

Table 21: Bacteriological Seasonal Analyses of Jiita Waters, and other Water Locations (laboratory at Dbayeh Station)* Total Date of SampleColiforms inFaecal Coliform in Spring or Well Extraction 100 ml of100 ml of water water Cavern Source 28/07/92 >80 0 12/10/92 17 0 27/10/92 20 2 13/01/93 0 0 14/04/93 25 0

60 3/8/93 >80 17 Nabaa Kachkouch 28/07/92 >80 >80 3/8/93 >80 5 Upstream of Jiita Nabaa El Assal 12/10/93 >80 0 27/01/93 4 0 5/4/93 6 0 29/07/93 9 0 4/8/93 4 0 Well at Dar Ali (Faraya) 12/10/92 >80 0 25/01/93 >80 0 22/07/93 >80 2 Well at Coin Vert (Faraya) 12/10/92 35 0 25/01/93 524 0 * Source: Chammas, 2003; CDR, MHER: “Water and Wastewater Feasibility Studies in Saida Drainage Zone”, Beirut, January 1995

3.7 Pollutant removal efficiency and needs for upgrading

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

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

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

A feasibility study for expanding and upgrading the Ghadir wastewater treatment plant was undertaken to determine the most suitable and cost-effective treatment alternatives (SOER, 2001). Initial project screening indicated that the plant should be located on land

61 reclaimed from the sea at a site opposite to the existing preliminary wastewater treatment facility. Specifically, the study then examined two technical alternatives:

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

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

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

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

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

62 4. MOROCCO

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

- Number of UMTP in municipalities (from which only 4 are located 49 in cities where the population exceeds 100.000 inhabitants (i.e Agadir, Beni Mellal, Khouribga et Nador)

- Number of UMTP in communities or rural centres 23

Table 22: UWTPs in Morocco

Operating UW Province or Prefecture Community type Opening year Connection TP status Aïn Jemaâ Al Ismailia C 1984 - Aïn Sebaâ Ain Sbaa CR - Béni Bouayach Al Hoceima M 1982 - Ait Youssef OuAli Al Hoceima CR 1977 - Al Hoceima Al Hoceima M 1997 + Aït Ourir Al Haouz CR 1958 - Oukaïmeofn Al Haouz CR ° N Amizmiz Al Haouz C 1965 -

Lamzar Agadir M +/-

Drarga Agadir Ida Outanane CR 2000 +

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

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

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

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

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

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

where:

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

4.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants

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

Table 23: Population Served by the UWTPs in Morocco

Quantity of Number of Incoming treated Localisation inhabitants Flow wastewater served m3/day m3/ y

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

65 NOUACER Airport 550 200 750 Sl NESTLE EL JADIDA Industry 503 183 595 ud ge

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

BEN SERGAO 5 000 750 273 750 DRAGA 8 000 1 000 365 000 Inf MARRAKECH (T) 750 225 82 125 iltr AGADIR 350 000 43 000 15 695 000 ati on - Pe rc ola tio n

HATTANE- OCP 3 600 375 136 875 BOUJNIBA -OCP 3 600 225 82 125 Ba YOUSSOUFIA-OCP 25 000 27 500 10 037 500 cte ria l Be d (T) : touristic sector * AP = prolonged aeration Sources : ONEP for all stations except OCP stations OCP : for OCP stations

The whole of the UWTP serve a population of approximately 900000 inhabitants, out of a total of 13, 4 millions. The operating units for which data are not available, are found in touristic (Kabila, Restinga) or industrials areas, or in rural communities with very low

66 population (Bouferkane : 4 368 Hab ; Rissani : 5 047 Hab ; Ofmnate : 18 866 Hab ; El Aioun : 32 030 Hab ; Immouzer Kandar : 12 042 Hab ; Skhirate : 32 458Hab).

Table 24a Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 135 78 O2/l

Town of COD mg O2/l 365 83- 79 Benslimane : SS mg/l 148 91 5 600 NTK mN/l 56,11 Aerated 56 -75 Tertiary Total 6,71 lagoon 40 -41 phosporus Municipality mgP/l CF 106 100 germ/100ml Eggs 9 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24b Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg O2/l 168 66 - 75

COD mg O2/l 493 57 - 71 Bouznika : SS mg/l 269 65 - 76 NTK mN/l 68,7 12,5 - 14 Ptot mgP/l 11,4 7,55 - 18 Municipality CF of town of Tertiary 1404-2910 germe/100ml 1,9 107 Lagoon 87,4 - 99,9 Benslimane SF germe/100ml - 102 – 4,3 106 Eggs d’helminthes nb/l 5,8 100

67 Table 24c Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Boujaâd : BOD5 mg O2/l 85 SS mg/l 81 Municipality Secondary 2500 NTK mN/l 85 of town of Pt mg P/l - Lagoon 81 Khouribga CF 0,3 103 germe/100ml

Table 24d Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Hattane : BOD5 mg 40mg/l O2/l Municipality Secondary 375 Activated of town SS mg/l Sludge 30 mg/l Khouribga

Table 24e Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Town of BOD5 mg 70 Khouribga : O2/l 73 Activated Secondary 7500 COD mg 126 Sludge 77

Municipality O2/l SS mg/l 83,6 32

Table 24f Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

68 Boujniba :

BOD5 mg 582,5 Activated 93 mg/l Municipality Secondary 310,5 O2/l Sludge of Khouribga SS mg/l 83 mg/l

Table 24g Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 300-336 O2/l 80

COD mg O2/l 422-607 72 Town of SS mg/l 306-336 28 Ouarzazate1: NTK mN/l 31,5 Tertiary Pt mg P/l 48,5 3- 430 P-PO4 mg/l 27,9-30 Lagoon 48 Municipality + (stabilisation NH4 mg/l 31,2-35,2 44 CF germe 3,7 105-2,3 basin) <103 /100ml 106 SF 1,7 105-3,7 germe/100ml 105 Eggs 8,7-11,5 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24h Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 300-336 65 - 82 O2/l

Town of COD mg O2/l 422-607 61-77 Ouarzazate2 : SS mg/l 306-336 25-49 3- P-PO4 mg/l 27,9-30 40-72 Municipality Pt mg/l 54 + Tertiary 430 NH4 mg/l 31,2-35,2 Algae 23-78 NTK mg/l channel 48 CF germe 3,7 105-2,3 98,6 - 99,6 /100ml 106 SF germe 1,7 105-3,7 69-93,5 /100ml 105

69 Eggs 8,7-11,5 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24i

Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 92 Ben Sergao : O2/l 454 COD mg 1239 90-95

Municipality O2/l SS mg/l 327 100 Province Tertiary 750 NTK mN/l 196 Infiltration- 85-100 d’Agadir Ptot mgP/l 35 Percolation 50-75 N tot mgN/l 53 20-50 CF 2,6 106- 99,9-100 germe/100ml 7 107 SF 1,6 105-3,6 99,9-100 germe/100ml 106 Eggs - 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24j Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 886 97 O2/l COD mg 1306 96 - 92

Drarga : O2/l SS mg/l 1102 96,6 - 100 Commune NTK mN/l 110 65 - 85 rurale of la Tertiary 1 000 Pt mg P/l - Infiltration- 72 -36 + Province NH4 mg/l 51 percolation 100 d’Agadir CF 1,5 108 99 - 99,5 germe/100ml SF 2,1 108 99 germe/100ml

70 Eggs 241 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24k Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Lamzar BOD5 mg O2/l Opening in 2003- Tertiary 43 000 COD mg O2/l Infiltration- 2004 Municipality SS mg/l percolation d’Agadir:

Table 24l Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 65 O2/l Municipality COD mg 53 of O2/l Marrakech : SS mg/l 58 + Tertiary 380 NH4 mg/l Lagoon 38 (Experimental CF 98 stage) germe/100ml Eggs 100 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24m Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

El Attaouia : BOD5 mg 340 85 mg/l O2/l Algae Province of El Tertiary 780 CF germe 108 channel 103 Kalaa Sraghna /100ml

Table 24n Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

71 BOD5 mg 365.4 - Institut O2/l Agronomique COD mg 692.5 58 et Vétérinaire O2/l Aerated HASSAN II Tertiary 85 NTK mg/l 68 lagoon 37 Pt mg/l 8.5 13 + - Municipality NH4 mg/l 51 of Rabat P-PO4 12 CF 2.15 102 germe/100ml concentration à la sortie

Table 24o Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Nouasser : BOD5 mg 400 82,5 O2/l Province SS mg/l 269 64,7 3- Ain Chok PO4 mg/l 1,82 49 + NH4 mg/l 46,6 96,5 Wilaya of Secondary 1600 CF 133 106 Imhoff 46 Casablanca germe/100ml Cone SF 33,6 106 71 (Aéroport) germe/100ml Eggs 2 > 50 d’helminthes nb/l

Table 24p Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

Nestlé – BOD5 mg 1270 El Jadida O2/l Activated 94,5 Tertiary 500 COD mg Sludge

Municipality O2/l 2036 83,3 of El Jadida

Table 24q Type of Effluent Treatment Treatment Area treatment quantity Quality method efficiency

72 m3/day % BOD mg Town of 5 O /l 818 Béni Mellal : 2 Activated Municipality Tertiary 9 386 SS mg/l 861 Sludge Opening in 2004

Table 24r Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 61,8 mg O2/l Nador Tertiary 10 000 COD - 178

Municipality mg O2/l SS mg/l Activated 120,8 Ptot mg/l Sludge 9,17 NTK mg/l 56,7

Table 24s Effluent Treatment Type of Treatment quantity Quality efficiency Area treatment method m3/day %

BOD5 mg 512,5 26,1 Al Hoceima: O2/l

COD mg O2/l 1082,5 71,4 Municipality Secondary 8 400 SS mg/l 566,25 Activated 32,13 Pt mg/l 17,17 Sludge 7,44 NTK mg/l 88,1 46,5

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

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

UWTP Ouarzazate Ben Sergao Ben Slimane Drarga

73 Opening year 1989 1990 1997 2000 Treatment capacity 430m3/d 750 m3/d 5 600 m3/d 1 000 m³/d Served population (p.e.) 4 300 15 000 37 000 8 000 Treatment method Lagoon Aerated Infiltration- Aerated lagoon percolation lagoon Infiltration-percolation Retention time (days) 25 21.9 - 30-40 -

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

Source: ONEP-FAO (2001)

Examples of successful projects of “Treatment – Reuse”

UWTP Treatment Method Opening Year Treatment Capacity Population

Ben Slimane Aerated Lagoon 1997 5 600 m3/d 37 000 Drargua Infiltration –percolation 1999 600 m3/d 5 700

- CASE OF BENSLIMANE Geographical Location: 80Km north-west of Rabat Population 40000 habitants Connection to the treatment network: 80% Canadian financial support

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

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

UWTP characteristics  Treatment capacity: 5600 m3 / day  The method is based on a combination of techniques of natural lagoons improved by a light ventilation

- Primary treatment: wastewater passes through a filter and ends up in anaerobic basins - Secondary Treatment: wastewater is treated in aerobic basins

- Tertiary Treatment: Wastewater is transferred to optional basins before being stored in the deep and tight basins for the refining of the pollutants.

Treated wastewater is used for the irrigation of golf areas, after being decontaminated by chlorine.

Treating Performance of Benslimane Station during 2000-2002 Parameters Entering Exiting Reduction in % Prescription CEE1991 BOD5 (mg O2/L) 135 23 83 79-90 COD (mg O2/L) 365 63 83 75 SS (mg /L) 148 14 91 90 NTK (mg N/L) 56.11 24.43 56 70-80 P tot (mg P/L) 6.71 4.02 40 80 Coliforms 6Ulog 220 100 - Fecal (germs/100m) Eggs of helminthes 9 0 100 - (number/L)

Reuse of Treated wastewater for irrigation

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

Costs estimation

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

- THE CASE OF THE UWTP OF DRARGUA

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

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

The Drarga Community

 Drarga is a community that grows rapidly in Souss-Massa (8 .000 inhabitants)  Drarga has installed drinking water and the collection of wastewater  Wastewater which was rejected untreated to the natural recipients created great pressures

Stages of the project 1997: Feasibility study 1997: Environmental impact assessment 1998: Signature of an agreement of partnership 1998: Observation tour in USA 1998: Design of the UWTP 1999 - 2000: Construction October 2000: Opening May 2001: Start of the reuse

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

76 Treating performance in the case of DRARGUA (2000) Parameters Reduction in % Entering Prescription CEE (1991) BOD5(mg O2/L) 98 625 79-90 COD (mg O2/L) 94 1825 75 SS (mg /L) 99 651 90 NTK(mg N/L) 96 317 70-80 P tot (mg P/L) 72 - 80 Coliforms 99,.9 1.6x107 - Fecal (germes/100m) Eggs of helminthes 100 - - (number/L)

Project costs

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

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

Wastewater Reuse

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

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

77 4.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied

1. Impact of the UWTP of DRARGUA

Reuse impact Biomass yield

Yield of the Discount yield Mean yield Yield of first crops (T/ha) (T/ha) California- (T/ha) Davis (T/ha)

2.85 28.5 14 31 Alf alfa Ray-Grass 9.75 48.7 21 - Italien

Profit in Fertiliser Tomato Courgette Alfalfa Ray wheat Corn Grass ((Italien Water need 000 8 000 5 000 12 000 10 000 4 800 4 ((m3/ha Nitrogen 248 155 372 310 124 149 (kg/ha) Phosphorus 352 220 528 440 176 211 (kg/ha) Potassium 408 255 612 510 204 245 (kg/ha)

Project impacts

- The village of Draga is totally cleaned up and there is more available water for irrigation

- The yield has been increased and the farmers spare with the use of fertilizer. - The value of land has been increased in Drarga. - The project provoked the interest of others places to apply similar technologies

78 Agronomical and economic aspect:

-Net water profit: approximately 61 – 159 Euro/ha -Fertiliser profit: 120- 361 Euro/ ha -Increase of the yield (Double)

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

2. Impact of the UWTP of BENSLIMANE

- Economy of 1000m3/d (98-2000) and 3000 - 5000 m3/d (2000-2005). - Contribution of approximately 308 kg/ha of nitrogen. - The purifying performance complies with the recommendations of the OMS for the irrigation of Golf and allows for an efficient protection of the environment and the public health - Development of the touristic potential of the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 Pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities

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

Table 26: Performance level of two selected UWTPs

UWTP of Drarga UWTP of Benslimane : Area Province of Agadir Municipality Treatment type Infiltration-percolation Aerated lagoons Standards for the Quantity of effluents 1 000 m3/d 5 600 m3/d reuse of wastewater in irrigation Quality Quality Quality Quality Moroc CEE Parameters (entry of the (exit of the (entry of (exit of the co 1991 plant) plant) the plant) plant)

BOD5 mg O2/l 886 26,6 135 30 - 79-90

COD mg O2/l 1306 78,4 365 69,7 - 75 SS mg/l 1102 0-37,5 148 13,3 100- 90 2000 NTK mN/l 110 16,5-38,5 56,11 24,7 70-80 Pt mg P/l - 36-72 % 6,71 4 80 + NH4 mg/l 51 0 CF germs/100ml 1,5 108 241 106 220 200- 1000 SF germs/100ml 2,1 108 <1000 <1000 Eggs of helminthes 241 0 9 0 0 nb/l

It should be noticed that in the majority of UWTPs built in Morocco, the treatment processes are not adapted to the socio-economic context of the areas concerned. This partly fact justifies the improper operation of this UWTPS. The wastewater network of

80 the majority of the local communities is of unit type. Industrial, domestic and rain wastewater is transferred to the WTP via the same collector thus affecting the treatment efficiency of the plants.

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

81 5. PALESTINE

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

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

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

Table 27: Wastewater treatment plants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Population served Location Name No of Treatment Plants (Capita) Municipalities Beit lahia one 250,000* Gaza strip Gaza one 300,000 Rafah one 80,000 Sub total (a) Three 630,000 Al- Beirah one 50,000 Hebron one 328,700* West Bank Jenin one 20,000 Ramallah one 47,500 Tulkarem one 114,400* Sub total (b) Five 560,600 Communities Birzeit university- one 6,000 Ramallah Deir-Samit/Hebron one 400 Ijnisnya - Nabuls one 250 Kharas-Hebron one 2,000 Sarha- Nabuls one 600 Sub total (c) Five 9,250 Total (a+b+c) 13 1,199,850

82 * 2003 estimation (PCBS) Complied by EQA, Dec. 2003 To gain a good knowledge about the wastewater status in Palestine, remind that, Palestine occupied territories consists of two geographical entities – the West Bank and Gaza Strip – with an estimated population of 3.52 million. About 2,237,194 live in the West Bank, and the remainder in Gaza Strip. Approximately 52% of the population of the West Bank lives in 12 urban areas, 42% in over 500 villages and around 6% in 19 refugee camps. In Gaza Strip, approximately 64% of the population lives in the five main urban areas, 5% in rural areas and the remaining 32% in eight refugee camps (PCBS, Children Statistics No. 5, 2002).

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

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

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

Table28: General Characteristics of Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine.

83 Location Municipalities Type of treatment Effluent Quantity Effluent Quality Removal Effluent Disposal Efficiency method pH= 7.65 - TDS=1078 mg/L 0.50% Settle Solids= 0.1 mg/L 98.60% TSS=87 mg/L 81% 1

TS= 1157 mg/L 29%

a Primary Sedimentation i

h 3 a BOD5= 87 mg/L 83.50% l To sand dunes

Anaerobic lagoon 10,000m /day t i

a COD=223 mg/L 77% B TVSS=65 mg/L 83% Ammonia= 60 mg/l 18% N-Kjd= 71 mg/l 27% Fecal Coliform/100 mL = 99% 3.28*106 pH= 7.8 - TDS = 1700 mg/L -11% SS=0.0 mg/L 100% TSS= 28.5 mg/L 92.50%

Primary Sedimentation TS= 1727 mg/L 12% Anaerobic lagoon BOD5= 22.5 mg/L 93% Mediterranean Sea p i COD=81 mg/L 86% 2 r

t Aerobic lagoon Irrigation a S

3 z TVSS = 17 mg/L 94.70% a 50,000m /day a

z Trickling filter Infiltration G a Ammonia= 46 mg/L -21% G Secondary Sedimentation Drying bed for sludge N-Kjd= 56 mg/L 12.50% Fecal Coliform/100 ml = 95% 9*106 - - NO3 =0.8 mg/L CL = 600 mg/L -

-3 PO4 = 13 mg/L - pH= 7.45 - TDS = 1528 mg/L 4.30% SS =0.53 mg/L 96.25% TSS= 152 mg/L 73.30% TS= 1680 mg/L 22.40% 3 h

a 3 BOD = 259 mg/L 69% f Aerated lagoons 8,000m /day 5 Mediterranean Sea a

R COD=635 mg/L 57% TVSS = 122 mg/L 75% Ammonia= 66 ppm 35% N-Kjd= 94 ppm 33% Fecal Coliform/100 mL = 95.70% 7.5*107 1: Common Services Council –North Gaza 2003. 2: Gaza municipality, 2003. 3: Rafah municipality, 2002.

Table 28: continued

84 Removal Effluent Disposal Location Municipalities Type of treatment Effluent Quantity Effluent Quality Efficiency method Settle Solids=10 mg/L 4 screening TSS= 152 mg/L

3 h Aeration tanks 3200m / day TS= 1680 mg/L 99% Irrigation e r l i disinfection by UV BOD5= 259 mg/L A - B radiation COD=635 mg/L pH= 6.924 -

BOD5= 593 mg/L 50%

5 SS = 220 mg/L 83%

n i Aerated lagoon 3 92% Valleys n 1500m /day Oil and grease= 10.3 e J mg/L. Nitrates =0.22 mg/L -83%

k 22% n N-Kjd= 242 mg/L a B

pH= 7.3 - t s 6 e COD=2000 mg/L 40% h W a

l DO = 0.1mg/L - l 3

a Two aerated lagoons Wadi Bitunia 1370 m /day N-Kjd= 45.6 mg/L 32% m a

R Fecal cloiform/100 mL =4x105 99.90% 6

o 3 Currently the plant not r 1650 m /day - Wadis on the b functioning e Three Stablization ponds outdistrict of Hebron H 6

a Stabilization ponds. 760m / day Not available 15% Not available k l u T .Al-Bireh municipality, 2003 :4 5: Jenin municipality, 1999. 6: Environmental Quality Authority, 2002.

Table29: General characteristics of communities’ treatment plants in Palestine

Location Communities Type of treatment Effluent Quantity Effluent Quality Removal Effluent Disposal Efficiency method pH = 8 - The effluent is used Duckweed-based pond TDS = 1476 mg/L - for producing system BOD5= <20 mg/L - Al Aroub seedling in a forest- COD=<50 mg/L >70 % tree nursery agriculture 12-15 m3/day Small-scale biochemical pH = 8.3 - constructed for school 1 system (JOHKASOU TDS = 900 mg/L - reuse in irrigation or system) BOD5= <20 mg/L - groundwater Aeration tank COD=20-30 mg/L 80% recharge. Screen. pH=7.4 - Equalization Tank. BOD =<50 mg/L 88% Birzeit 5 k 3 n 2 Activated sludge 100m /day COD =<100 mg/L 85% Irrigation a University B

Sand Filters. SS=45 mg/L 85% t s

e N-Kjd= 28 mg/L 53% W Deir-Samit- Sedimentation tank 3 COD= 250mg/L - 1 40m /day Valleys Hebron bio-filters BOD5 =100mg/L - Ijnsnya- Septic tank. 30m3/day Valleys Nabuls 3 Anaerobic filter. Not available - Anaerobic stage. COD = 150 mg/L 95.80% Kharas - Wetlands. NH = 20 mg/L - 120m3/day 4 Valleys Hebron 1 Sludge drying beds. Effluent storage tank . Septic tank. COD = 324 mg/L 70% Sarha- Nabuls3 40m3/day Valleys Constructed wetland. TSS= 84 mg/L 95% 85 1: Environmental Quality Authority,2002. 2: Birzet University, 2003. 3: Nablus municipality, 2003.

5.2 The Main Wastewater Treatment Plants in Palestine

5.2.1 Municipal Treatment Plants in Palestine

Beit Lahia Wastewater Treatment Plant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inlet Champer

Wastewater Sedimentation tank Sludge bed

Anaerobic Anaerobic Lagoon Lagoon

Aerobic

Lagoon

Trickling Filters

Sludge bed

Secondary Sedimentation tankٍٍ

Infiltration

Chlorination Irrigation

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 15: Treatment Process System of Gaza WWTP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final treated wastewater effluent planed to be used for the agricultural purposes in Dir-Dabwan land where large uncultivated areas existed. About 2% of the treated wastewater (60 m3/day) is suppose to be used to irrigate 0.54 ha open area and 600 m2 plastic houses. This plan is not yet implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parameter Effluent Quality*

BOD 16 mg/l TSS 30 mg/l TN 20 mg/l TP 6.2 mg/l Fecal Coliform 937 Helminth Egg Removal Efficiency 95

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

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

5.2.2 Communities’ treatment plants in Palestine

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

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

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

94 Influent Setting Reservoir Coarse Tank Effluent Screen

Duckweed Pond

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

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

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

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

95 5.3 Planned Waste Water Treatment Plants in Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khan Yunis The Japanese government concluded a feasibility study and a master plan on the construction of sewage network in Khan Yunis City in 1997. A basic design study mission was dispatched in April, 1998, and discussion on the technical problems is now

96 under way to implement the project as promptly as possible. Proposed WWTP location is in Al Fukhary area in the eastern part of Khan Yunis Governorate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Impacts:

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

Economic Impacts

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

98  Ability to produce exportable vegetables and fruits, which meet international standards by not using raw or partially treated wastewater.  By not polluting the nearshore environment, the tourist industry is protected from any potentially damaging public health episode.

Environmental Impact

 Discharge of poorly treated effluent into the near shore and estuaries is adversely affecting the marine environment.  Irrigation of arid lands will increase the organic content of these lands reducing erosion and increasing water retention, within the salinity limitations.  The reclaimed water contained in the storage reservoirs and treatment ponds will attract and support migratory and resident bird populations. In the same manner these reservoirs will serve as a water source for a wide variety of terrestrial animals.  Use of reclaimed wastewater in maintaining trees in arid regions will reduce the effect of wide erosion (desertification).

5.4.1 Impacts caused by the operation of Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant

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

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

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

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

Table 30: Water-borne diseases reported in North Gaza, 2003 Disease New Cases in January I. Meningoc occal Meningitis 3

99 Hepatitis A 7 Typhus 2 Aerial Diseases 182 Pneumonia 16 Ascariasis 47 Enuresis 75 Giardiasis 83 (Diarrhea (children under 3 years) 231 Source: Al-Mezan center for human rights, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

5.4.3 Impacts caused by Israeli colonies

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

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

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

Gaza Strip 18 1763.6

Total 185 10183.5 PASSIA,2000

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

 Precluding the Palestinian people from using the groundwater reservoir because these colonies are constructed over their lands.  Contaminating groundwater by discharging wastewater into the areas of sand dunes and valleys where the best-quality water is available.  Polluting the marine water  Erecting sewage-processing stations over the best-quality groundwater reservoir.

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

5.5 Needs assessment for removal efficiencies and reuse criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 32: Recommended Microbiological Quality Guidelines for Wastewater Use in Agriculture Category Reuse Exposed Intestinal Fecal coliforms Wastewater treatment Conditions Group nematodes (geometric no. expected to achieve the (arthmetic per 100 ml) required microbiological mean no. of quality eggs per liter) Irrigation or crops likely to Workers, < 1000 A series of stabilization ponds be eaten designed to achieve the A consumers, < 1 ( 2 (for public uncooked, microbiological quality indicated, public lawns) sports fields, or equivalent treatment public parks Irrigation of cereal crops, Retention in stablization industrial crops, No standard ponds for 8-10 days or B Workers <1 fodder crops, recommended equivalent helminth and pasture crops faecal coliform removal and trees Localized irrigation of crops in category B if C None Not applicable Not applicable Pretreatment as required exposure of workers and the public does not occur. Source: World Health Organization, 1989.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.6.1 Conclusions

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

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

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

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

5.6.2 Recommendations

 Urban wastewater infrastructure should be rehabilitated.

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

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

104  The conceptual Palestinian standard for reuse should be updated.

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

105 6. TURKEY

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

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

Figure 23: Provinces of Turkey and distribution of UWWTP

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

Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Population Served No Province City Municipalities Communities Total City Municipalities Communities Total 1 Adana, TR-01 2 2 0 4 1.500.000 106.000 0 1.606.000 2 Adıyaman, TR-02 0 1 1 2 0 18.700 6.920 25.620 3 Afyon, TR-03 0 1 0 1 0 150.000 0 150.000 4 Ankara, TR-06 1 0 1 2 3.000.000 0 10.000 3.010.000 5 Antalya, TR-07 1 10 3 14 250.000 454.181 17.331 721.512 6 Aydin, TR-09 0 3 2 5 0 287.396 11.160 298.556 7 Balikesir, TR-10 0 3 1 4 0 46.500 24.038 70.538 8 Bolu, TR-14 0 1 1 2 0 23.929 6.364 30.293 9 Burdur, TR-15 0 1 0 1 0 17.300 0 17.300 10 Bursa, TR-16 2 2 3 7 1.194.687 190.624 19.440 1.404.751 11 Canakkale, TR-17 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.950 1.950 12 Corum, TR-19 0 1 0 1 0 160.000 0 160.000 13 Elazig, TR-23 0 1 0 1 0 185.000 0 185.000 14 Erzincan, TR-24 0 1 0 1 0 125.000 0 125.000 15 Eskisehir, TR-26 1 0 0 1 300.000 0 0 300.000 16 Gaziantep, TR-27 1 1 0 2 860.000 71.820 0 931.820 17 Hatay, TR-31 0 1 0 1 0 438.000 0 438.000 18 Isparta, TR-32 0 2 0 2 0 166.905 0 166.905 19 Icel, TR-33 1 1 2 4 537.842 217.500 8.037 763.379 20 Istanbul, TR-34 11 0 2 13 12.790.000 0 11.370 12.801.370 21 Izmir, TR-35 2 2 2 6 2.600.000 41.163 215 2.641.378 22 Kayseri, TR-38 1 0 0 1 525.000 0 0 525.000 23 Kocaeli, TR-41 3 0 3 6 456.000 0 19.600 475.600 24 Konya, TR-42 0 3 1 4 0 109.000 4.286 113.286 25 Kutahya, TR-43 0 2 0 2 0 205.000 0 205.000 26 Manisa, TR-45 0 3 1 4 0 388.600 3.001 391.601

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

Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Population Served No Province City Municipalities Communities Total City Municipalities Communities Total 27 Kahramanmaras, TR-46 0 0 1 1 0 0 5.316 5.316 28 Mugla, TR-48 0 1 4 5 0 29.004 25.100 54.104 29 Nevsehir, TR-50 0 1 1 2 0 16.000 11.912 27.912 30 Nigde, TR-51 0 2 0 2 0 107.900 0 107.900 31 Ordu, TR-52 0 3 0 3 0 226.912 0 226.912 32 Sakarya, TR-54 2 0 0 2 515.000 0 0 515.000 33 Samsun, TR-55 0 2 1 3 0 106.347 10.000 116.347 34 Tekirdag, TR-59 0 1 0 1 0 91.112 0 91.112 35 Trabzon, TR-61 0 3 0 3 0 257.449 0 257.449 36 Sanliurfa, TR-63 0 2 0 2 0 425.979 0 425.979 37 Van, TR-65 0 2 0 2 0 208.352 0 208.352 38 Zonguldak, TR-67 0 3 1 4 0 194.530 5.836 200.366 39 Aksaray, TR-68 0 1 0 1 0 150.000 0 150.000 40 Karaman, TR-70 0 1 0 1 0 74.900 0 74.900 41 Igdir, TR-76 0 1 0 1 0 59.880 0 59.880 42 Yalova, TR-77 0 1 1 2 0 68.716 8.863 77.579 43 Duzce, TR-81 0 2 0 2 0 120.000 0 120.000 TOTAL 28 68 33 129 24.528.529 5.539.699 210.739 30.278.967

108 6.2 Population served by wastewater treatment plants

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

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

109 6.3 Presentation of the technologies applied in the wastewater treatment plants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effluent Quality Code Number Fecal Effluent Quantity No of Treatment 3 Coliform (m /year) 2- - Plant pH COD TSS TKN TP Conductivity SAR SO4 Cl (CFU/100ml Boron (-) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (µS.cm) (-) (mg/l) (mg/l) ) (mg/L) 1 TR-03-01 7.300.000 7,80 130 30 22,2 3,4 1.650 41,9 145 202 43.200 0,400 2 TR-16-03 23.360.000 8,15 195 50 12,7 0,7 2.200 119,4 160 325 14.500 0,220 3 TR-34-04 1.095.000 7,20 40 25 4,0 1,2 620 8,0 105 45 5 0,140 4 TR-34-05 23.725.000 6,60 60 15 2,2 0,9 825 17,9 105 95 3.500 0,570 5 TR-34-06 82.125.000 7,40 165 35 24,3 3,0 9.250 164,9 535 2.390 12.000 0,700 6 TR-34-07 1.905.665 7,30 93 20 17,9 6,2 1.700 50,1 150 410 5.000 0,500 7 TR-48-02 1.241.000 7,70 170 50 1,5 0,5 13.000 168,9 684 3.740 9.600 0,650 8 TR-81-01 87.600.000 7,35 107 10 8,1 2,6 700 16,7 50 98 27.000 0,470 9 TR-48-03 109.500 6,80 63 15 3,9 8,0 2.500 64,9 125 690 300 0,500 10 TR-35-05 87.600 7,65 107 60 31,1 7,2 1.650 24,9 65 260 17.000 0,250 11 TR-54-01 36.500.000 7,05 30 15 1,2 0,9 800 12,9 60 97 26.000 0,280 12 TR-32-01 13.870.000 7,50 126 30 30,7 1,7 1.125 23,6 60 110 28.800 0,450 13 TR-09-03 3.942.000 7,78 248 34 60,0 63,0 1.764 20,6 223 127 106 0,066 14 TR-43-02 14.892.000 7,66 32 10 48,0 7,4 941 6,6 65 44 106 0,043 15 TR-45-03 10.585.000 7,98 110 50 39,2 11,4 1.119 11,1 80 76 106 0,028 16 TR-45-01 3.504.000 7,33 285 50 94,0 44,0 1.902 34,7 88 472 106 0,035 17 TR-45-02 1.024.920 7,40 100 60 47,3 15,0 1.289 34,7 196 69 106 0,055 18 TR-07-11 8.030.000 7,33 17 2 28,5 21,3 1.074 16,3 112 132 106 0,042 19 TR-07-12 3.914.625 7,45 50 15 23,1 14,2 745 17,0 37 195 106 0,036 20 TR-55-03 146.000 6,90 60 55 24,2 14,3 1.319 18,4 52 104 106 0,049 21 TR-35-01 144.740.240 8,03 22 7 5,0 5,1 8.590 99,1 440 3.276 0 1,180 22 TR-48-01 2.190.000 7,86 30 26 11,2 12,2 7.380 153,1 308 2.380 0 0,865

112 6.5 Prevailing effluent disposal methods and practices

6.5.1 Effluent Discharge

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

Table 35: Overall effluent discharge methods and practices in Turkey

Effluent Effluent Number % of Total Total % of Disposal Disposal Method of Plants Number of Effluent Total Code* Plants Flow Effluent (m3/year) Flow 1 Land (agricultural 17 13 area) 131,319,517 13.2 2 Dams, lakes 10 8 68,622,832 7.8 3 Coastal and marine 49 38 1,150,746,062 38.0 4 Streams, rivers and 53 41 creeks 732,780,646 41.1 Total 129 100 2,083,469,057 100

* As indicated in Appendix Table A2

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

6.5.2 Wastewater Reuse

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

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

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

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

TP Code Name of Treatment Plant Discharge Receiving Body Irrigation (m3/year) Status/Type TR-01-03 Kozan Municipality WWTP 278.000 Kozan Stream Indirect / Field TR-01-04 Yumurtalik Municipality Packet WWTP 11.000 Ayas Creek Indirect (Winter) 219.000 (Summer) TR-02-01 Adiyaman WWTP (Egricayi Stabilization) 3.153.600 Ataturk Dam No TR-68-01 Aksaray Municipality WWTP 9.125.000 Karasu Creek Indirect TR-06-01 ASKI Ankara WWTP 192.695.545 Ankara Stream Indirect / Field TR-07-01 Hurma Biological WWTP 16.425.000 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-02 Alanya Municipality Central WWTP 16.425.000 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-06 Kemer Municipality WWTP 3.847.392 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-03 Beldibi Municipality WWTP 4.099.680 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-04 Camyuva Municipality WWTP 4.162.752 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-05 Goynuk Municipality WWTP 3.532.032 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-07 Tekirova Municipality WWTP 2.049.840 Akdeniz (Creek) No TR-07-10 Colakli Municipality WWTP 912.500 Mediterranean Sea No TR-07-08 Manavgat Municipality Sewerage TP 5.500.000 Mediterranean Sea No TR-15-01 Bucak Municipality WWTP 160.600 Kizilbucak Canal No TR-23-01 Elazig Municipality WWTP 14.600.000 Keban Dam No TR-24-01 Erzincan Municipality WWTP 8.760.000 Karasu River No TR-26-01 ESKI WWTP 24.820.000 Porsuk Stream Indirect / Field TR-27-01 GASKI WWTP 73.000.000 S. Creek Indirect / Field TR-27-02 Nizip Domestic WWTP 3.650.000 N. Stream No TR-31-01 Iskenderun Municipality WWTP 10.950.000 Gulf of Iskenderun No TR-76-01 Igdir Municipality WWTP 2.185.620 Aras River Direct TR-32-01 Isparta Municipality Domestic WWTP 10.950.000 SHW Discharge Canal No TR-38-01 Kayseri WWTP 32.850.000 Karasu Creek Indirect / Field and Feed Plant TR-33-01 Mersin Greater Municipality WWTP 52.560.000 Mediterranean Sea No TR-33-03 Aydincik Municipality WWTP 6.800.000 Mediterranean Sea No TR-33-02 Tarsus Municipality WWTP 12.045.000 Berdan Stream No TR-42-01 Aksehir Municipality Sewerage TP 3.784.320 Aksehir Lake No TR-42-02 Ilgin Municipality WWTP 1.095.000 Bulasan Stream Indirect / Field TR-42-03 Kadinhani Municipality WWTP 1.356.048 Drainage Canal Direct / Field TR-50-01 Avanos Municipality Ananas WWTP 912.500 Kizilirmak River No TR-50-02 Urgup Municipality Biological WWTP 32.850.000 Damsa Stream Indirect TR-51-02 Nigde Municipality WWTP 6.832.800 Akkaya Dam No TR-51-01 Bor Municipality WWTP 2.828.750 Emen Plain Direct / Field TR-52-01 Fatsa Municipality WWTP 2.000.000 Black Sea No TR-52-03 Unye Municipality WWTP 1.780.000 Black Sea No TR-63-01 Sanliurfa Municipality WWTP 15.833.198 Land No TR-61-02 Moloz-Degirmen Dere-Cimenli Pumping 1.900.000 Black Sea No Station and DSD TR-61-01 Arakli Canal 1.642.500 Black Sea No TR-61-03 Yomra Municipality WWTP 473.040 Black Sea No

114 6.6 Impacts caused by the operation of the WWTP and the disposal practices applied with respect to the environment, the employees, farmers and public health

6.6.1 Pollution Status and Impacts on the Receiving Bodies

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

Table 37: Receiving Body Water Quality Classes and Impacts Caused by TP discharges RB RB CLASS TP-Q RB- Q Impact Province TP name DSC RB CLASS* (down m3/yr m3/yr Caused (upstream) stream) Adana Doğu Adana Seyhan NA NA 6.2x106 II II No impact WWTP River Aksaray Aksaray Karasu Very high Municipality 9x106 NA 5.3x106 II IV Creek impact WWTP Ankara ASKİ No impact Ankara Ankara (already 192x106 Yes NA IV NA WWTP Creek polluted upstream) Eskişehir ESKİ Porsuk 24.8x106 Yes 286x106 III III Low impact WWTP Stream Gaziantep GASKİ 73x106 Yes S.Creek NA NA III Not known WWTP İçel Tarsus Berdan Municipality 12x106 Yes 2.8x109 II II Low impact Stream WWTP Kayseri Kayseri Karasu 33x106 Yes 123x106 IV IV Low impact WWTP Creek RB: receiving body; Q: flow rate; DSC: discharge standard compliance; NA: data not available * The RB classes refer to the Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation Quality Classes

6.6.2 Health Impacts

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

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

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

116 6.7 Determination of pollutant removal efficiencies of selected wastewater treatment facilities and assessment of the needs for upgrading to comply with reuse criteria

6.7.1 Removal Efficiencies of UWWTPs

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

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

Pollutant Removal Assessment Due to Reuse as Code of Efficiency (%) Irrigation Water* Treatment COD TKN TP SS SAR Fecal Boron Conductivity Cl- Plant Coliform TR-03-01 66 NA 29 77 IV V I III II TR-16-03 69 35 82 71 IV V I IV III TR-34-04 23 30 29 NA I II I II I TR-34-05 80 91 53 97 II V II III I TR-34-06 81 49 79 96 IV V II V V TR-34-07 70 7 23 86 IV V II III IV TR-48-01 81 66 NA 86 IV I II V V TR-48-02 19 86 NA 29 IV V II V V TR-48-03 74 81 NA 81 IV IV I IV IV TR-43-02 76 34 55 94 I V I III I TR-45-01 42 11 42 87 IV V I III IV TR-45-02 74 18 53 90 IV V I III I TR-45-03 10 48 NA 57 II V I III I TR-09-03 40 28 NA 95 III V I III I TR-07-11 71 NA NA 99 II V I III I TR-07-12 67 7 NA 85 II V I III II TR-35-01 90 88 83 96 IV I II V V TR-35-05 28 33 38 NA III V I III III TR-32-01 82 7 85 89 III V I III I TR-54-01 76 88 44 79 II V I III I TR-55-03 86 55 NA 27 III V I III I TR-81-01 86 76 51 97 II V I II I

*Class of Irrigation Water NA:Not Avaliable

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

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

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

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

Code of Treatment Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%) Plant COD BOD5 SS TKN TP TR-06-01 87,4 94,9 92,1 35,5 0 TR-07-01 93,2 96,4 96,0 82,8 77,2 TR-23-01 53,3 43,8 94,1 NA NA TR-24-01 NA 87,5 90,6 NA NA TR-26-01 77,5 81,5 87,8 NA NA TR-27-01 83,8 92,0 94,0 NA NA TR-38-01 91,7 91,7 97,1 73,7 93,3 TR-51-02 88,5 94,0 95,0 NA NA TR-07-02 93,2 96,0 96,9 94,2 82,8 TR-27-02 83,3 96,7 67,2 NA 71,4 TR-31-03 94,3 94,0 90,0 NA NA TR-33-02 98,2 98,9 99,7 93,6 NA TR-51-01 34,5 59,7 38,3 65,9 57,5

6.7.2 Assessment for reuse potential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.8 Concluding Remarks

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

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

SS Conformity Classification UWWT SS class type UWWTP Name Process * P Code (mg/L) to Mediterranean Turkish Guidelines Israeli Std. Std**** TR-06-01 ASKI, Ankara Central WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 15 2 A, B I-III(N) TR-07-02 Alanya Central WWTP 1+2+4+7+8+11+12** 8 1 A, B I TR-07-01 Antalya Hurma WWTP 1+2+4+7+8+9+11+12** 10 1 A, B I-II(N) TR-23-01 Elazığ Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12 16 2 A, B I-II(BOD5) TR-24-01 Erzincan Municipality WWTP 2+4+7+8 15 2 A I-III (BOD5) TR-26-01 ESKİ WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 12 2 A, B I-III (N) TR-27-01 GASKİ WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 15 2 A, B I TR-27-02 Nizip Municipality WWTP *** 1+2+4+5+7+8 174 none NONE IV-V TR-31-03 Iskenderun Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12** 15 2 A, B I TR-32-01 Isparta Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8 25 3 A, B I TR-38-01 Kayseri WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12** 10 1 A, B I-III (EC) TR-42-03 Kadınhanı Municipality WWTP 5+12 48 none A I-III (SS) TR-33-02 Tarsus Municipality WWTP 1+2+4+7+8 3 1 A, B I-III (EC) TR-51-02 Sarıköprü WWTP 1+2+4+5+7+8+12 20 2 A, B I TR-51-01 Bor WWTP 1+10 39,5 none A, B I-III (SS) * 1= coarse screen 2=fine screen 3=communitor 4=grid trap 5=primary sedimentation 6=Trickling filter 7=activated sludge aeration tank 8=secondary sedimentation 9=aerated lagoon 10=oxidation ditch 11=disinfection 12=0ther ** Process 12 in these TPs indicate additional anaerobic+anoxic tanks for nutrient removal *** There is evidence that heavy industrial effluent is mixing to the municipalityeffluents **** Classification according to the Turkish standard is carried out according to the available data. With the microbiological data lacking therefore this is only a provisional classification. Parameter in parenthesis show the lowest quality parameter

122 REFERENCES

Cyprus

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

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

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

Personal Interview 4: Evgenios Nicolaou, Technical Director Sewerage Board of Nicosia

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

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

Jordan

Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Annual Reports

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

Lebanon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

El Fadel, M. and Alameddine, I.; Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plants in North and South Lebanon, Mercy Corps Lebanon, December, 2002. Jaber, B.; Water Pollution in Lebanon: Solutions-Case Studies, April 1997 Jouzy and Partners, Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study-Saida drainage Area, 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morocco

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

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

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

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

BO (1995). Loi 10-95 sur l’eau. Bulletin officiel n°4325. Bouhoum K., Ouazani N., Mandil L., Aboufirassi M., Bouarab L., Bontoux J., and Schwartzbord J. (1995). 2end International Symposium on wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Iraklio, GREECE

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

Commune de BIR MEZOUI .

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

CSEC (2001). Economie de l’eau.

DGCL (1995). Epuration des eaux usées au Maroc.

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

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

Direction de contrτle de qualitι des eaux – ONEP-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministère de l’Intérieur DEA .1995.

Municipalité de BOUJAAD.

126 Municipalité de KHOURIBGA. ONEP- FAO (2001). Développement de l’alimentation en eau potable et de l’assainissement en zone rurale. Amélioration des connaissances dans le domaine des procédés de valorisation des eaux usées épurées. Projet UTF/MOR/023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCBS, Children Statistics No. 5, 2002

Palestinian Environmental Authority, 1999. Marginal water and reuse using duckweed (lemna gibba) in Palestine. Palestine News Agency - WAFA, 2004

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

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

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

World Health Organization, 1989.

Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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