|
|
|
Product News, Updates & Downloads:
Downloads of Product Brochures & other documents:
Documents are in PDF, MS Word or JPEG format. Click here to download Adobe Acrobat 7.
Should we drink Recycled Effluent, or can we do something more cost effective & sustainable?
Grey/Black Water reuse is a viable option, but it's uses should be considered carefully. Should we consider the use for drinking water or should we use it for industrial and agricultural purposes? One proposal is to Ultra-treat and then pump into potable supplies or top up dams. But have we thought this through enough?? As many studies indicate, we have a very limited knowledge of the many different types of Viruses and Bacteria that are present in the water. In fact we know very little on the effect they have on us, or how we can treat them. Or what treatments do we have for infection if we were infected? For example to boil water kills blue green algae, but this releases the toxins which is very harmful to us. We are still only identifying many of these infections, so how can we say it is safe to drink or what detrimental effects can they have on potable water sources. Should we add this to our drinking water like they do in Europe where bottled water is sold more than soft drink? These questions remain:
So far we are not 100% positive on any of these questions, so why do we still consider drinking the water when we can use for so many other things. One comment from the CSIRO, is that if we don't start drinking it the cost of water will go up. The truth however is that by treating and constantly monitoring too the levels required. The cost will actually be much higher then using for industrial and agricultural purposes. It is clear that these people have done studies, but have not done the cost-efficiencies very well. It is extremely expensive to treat the effluent water to drinking level and in some cases it is cheaper to desalinate. More importantly the power consumption is very high and we then use more Hydro-electricity. So what have we saved?
This link is a Wastewater health study for the Queensland Government. Subsurface dispersal of effluent water and what is best! The truth is they are part of the treatment process, not just for getting rid of the water. For many years now these systems have used, but still today there is far too much confusion with these systems. This is simply due to incorrect classification of systems. For example some refer to them as Land Application Areas (L.A.A) and other call them Subsurface Drip Irrigation Systems (SSDI), but in fact both are the same and yet could not be further apart. Land Application Areas by definition are any areas you apply something and could be a Mound, Trench, above ground sprinklers or any other form of dispersal. This is why the AS 1547 adds to the confusion and we need to reclassify these systems and there design parameters for each system. The Section 4.2.B in the A.S. 1547 should apply to any Low Pressure systems similar to trenched Drain-coil and Poly/PVC pipe with holes drill in to the wall or shallow trenched pipe and aggregate. A new classification should be Pressurized Subsurface Drip Disposal systems with Non or Pressure Compensated emitters and designed as per the manufacturers design Parameters. Another should be Gravity Fed Application Area and comprise of an area that has even distribution over the entire field and be supplied by gravity. These systems are similar to what is being used on sports ovals and other turf applications. For above ground spray or sprinkler systems then these must be designed differently again and should remain as with 4.2.B. There is much more work required to be done with this, but this will ensure these systems will work properly and eliminate the failures currently occurring.
This presentation is from Onsite 03 Armidale. |
