GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE For further information please contact: Graham P. Alabaster Chief, Section I, Water, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch Human Settlements Financing Division UN-HABITAT P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya Tel: +254 20 762 3054 Fax: +254 20 762 3588 [email protected] www.unhabitat.org Ronald J. LeBlanc Chairman – Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission Président – Commission d’épuration des eaux usées du Grand Moncton 355 chemin Hillsborough Road Riverview, New Brunswick (Nouveau-Brunswick) CANADA E1B 1S5 Tel: +1 506-387-7977 Fax: +1 506-387-7389 [email protected] www.gmsc.nb.ca Edited by: Ronald J. LeBlanc, Peter Matthews, Roland P. Richard Graphic design and layout: Daniel Vilnersson Cover pho to © Metrogro/Nikki Stefonick World map on chapter title pages is based on UN map no. 4136 rev. 5, September 2006. © United Nations Printed by HS/1030/08E ISBN: 978-92-1-132009-1 DISCLAIMER The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this atlas do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations, the Greater Moncton Sewerage Com- mission and the Editors concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis and conclusions of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its Member States, the Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission and the Editors. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UN-HABITAT, the Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission and the Editors concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city of area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. UN-HABITAT, the Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission and the Editors does not warrant that the information contained in this document is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. Excerpts from this publication may be reproduced without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) UN-HABITAT, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya Tel: +254 20 762 1234 Fax +254 20 762 4266 www.unhabitat.org © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2008. All rights reserved GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE Contents Foreword xv Acknowledgements xvi Introduction 1 Overview 15 Australia 85 Austria 113 Austria: Overview 114 Ecological and economical relevance of sludge treatment and disposal options 120 Brazil 131 Bulgaria 149 Burkina Faso 155 Cameroon 169 Canada 181 Biosolids – A Canadian overview 182 Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission (GMSC) 196 Ontario 202 Ottawa 207 Québec 210 Western Canada 217 China 245 Management of sewage sludge in urban areas 246 Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region (of China) 257 Colombia 261 Cote d’Ivoire 269 Czech Republic 277 England and Wales 283 Ethiopia 297 IV European Union 303 Finland 309 Germany 315 Hungary 323 Iran 331 Italy 335 Japan 349 Japan: General 350 Outline of wastewater treatment In Kobe 357 Sewage sludge disposal and beneficial recycling in Osaka City 365 Overview of sewerage system in Sapporo 375 Outline of Suzu City 381 Outline of sewerage system in Tokyo 387 394 Jordan 403 Mali 413 Mexico 421 Mozambique 431 Namibia 439 Netherlands 443 New Zealand 447 Nigeria 457 Norway 463 V GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE Portugal 471 Russia 479 Senegal 487 Slovakia 497 Slovenia 503 South Africa 513 Faecal sludge management 514 Wastewater sludge management 517 Turkey 527 USA 541 Summary of wastewater treatment solids management in the United States 542 United States Environmental Protection Agency 549 California – City of Los Angeles: Bureau of Sanitation 553 Colorado 560 Delaware – Kent County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (KCRWTF) 571 Illinois – Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 575 Kansas – Lawrence Utilities Management System: For a better environment and safer work place 587 Michigan – City of Grand Rapids Wastewater Treatment Plant 594 Ohio – Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 597 Wisconsin – Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District: Operation by United Water Services, Inc. 602 VI Tables and Figures Overview Figure 1. Map showing countries represented in the Atlas 20 Figure 2. The inevitable progress of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management 21 Table 1. Regulatory standards and measured concentrations of heavy metals from atlas reports 34 Table 2. Regulatory standards for selected chemical contaminants from atlas reports 37 Table 3. Major nutrients in representative wastewater sludges and biosolids 38 Table 4. Land application rates in various conditions and countries 40 Table 5. Estimated percentage of total wastewater costs required for wastewater sludge management 45 Table 6. How the benchmark sludge would be managed 53 Table 7. Estimated sewage sludge production and populations of reporting countries 55 Table 8. Stages of excreta and wastewater infrastructure development 56 Table 9. Levels of wastewater treatment in some middle and, for comparison, higher-income countries 60 Table 10. The most common biosolids use or disposal in middle and higher-income countries 66 Table 11. Changes in reported sewage sludge production, 1996 atlas to current atlas 67 Table 12. The role of biosolids recycling to soils in middle- and higher-income countries 68 Table 13. Comparisons of costs for wastewater treatment, diesel, and electricity around the world and over time 70 Table 14. Estimates of future wastewater sludge production if developing countries attain levels of wastewater service 75 coverage of developed countries Table 15. Estimated percentage of agricultural area required to apply countries’ wastewater sludge 75 Australia Figure 1. Annual production and uses of biosolids in Australia (State/Territory) and New Zealand 87 Figure 2. Schematic of the Woodman Point WWTP 88 Figure 3. Schematic of the Beenyup WWTP 89 Appendix 1 – West Australian biosolids guidelines Table 1. Biosolids production – Metropolitan Adelaide (2006/07) 95 Table 2. Typical analysis of digested biosolids used for agriculture 96 Appendix 2 – South Australian biosolids guidelines Figure 1. Schematic of the Shepparton WMF 101 Figure 2. Mechanically assisted drying in bays at Shepparton WMF 103 Table 1. Contaminant classification of biosolids according to metal concentration 99 Table 2. Acceptable stabilisation processes and stabilisation grading classification 99 Table 3. SA biosolids guidelines – classification requirements 100 Austria Austria: Overview Table 1. Comparison of the Atlas benchmark sludge and the Austrian situation regarding sludge quality 116 Table 2. Comparison of the “benchmark soil concentrations” 116 Ecological and economical relevance of sludge treatment and disposal options Table 1. Relevance of organic matter (dry solids in sewage sludge, situation in Austria) 123 Table 2. Relevance of sewage sludge nitrogen compounds in agriculture 124 Table 3. Relevance of sewage sludge phosphorus compounds in agriculture in Austria 124 Table 4. Relevance of sludge transport 125 Table 5. Relevance of energy contents in sewage sludge (in Austria) 126 Table 6. Economic relevance of sludge disposal for treatment plants (in Austria) 126 Table 7. Economic relevance of sludge for agriculture (farmers) in EU 127 Brazil Table 1. Sludge production by region (2000-2001) 134 Table 2. Final disposal of produced sludge 134 Table 3. Wastewater collected and treated volumes in Brazil for the year 2005 134 Table 4. Mean wastewater sludge composition in Brazil (2000-2001) and Paraná state (2006) 135 VII GLOBAL ATLAS OF EXCRETA, WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT: MOVING FORWARD THE SUSTAINABLE AND WELCOME USES OF A GLOBAL RESOURCE Table 5. Heavy metals limits according to the legislation 136 Table 6. Pathogenic microorganisms limits in Brazil and its states 137 Table 7. Information concerning the first three Prosab research phases 137 Table 8. Sludge production and adopted processing alternative in the State of São Paulo. 139 Table 9. Dewatering process utilized in Sanepar considering the WWTP scale. 140 Table 10. Average sludge characterization for 17 lots from the Belém WWTP after lime addition 141 Table 11. Corn crops production fertilized with wastewater sludge in comparison with chemical fertilization 141 Table 12. Average sludge characterization for Foz do Iguaçu WWTPs after lime addition 142 Table 13. Distribution by percentage of the samples, according to the normative references of limits and the average for WWTPs in the 143 State of Paraná Bulgaria