Final programme brochure - 12th IWA Specialised Conference

Transcription

Photo of Prague © CzechTourism.com
www.lwwtp2015.org
12th IWA Specialised Conference
on Design, Operation and Economics
of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants
September 6 – 9, 2015, Prague,
Czech Republic, Diplomat Hotel Prague
Final Programme
lwwtp2015-final-programme-a4-r28.indd 1
31. 8. 2015 20:10:54
CONFERENCE IS BEING HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
31. 8. 2015 20:10:56
www.lwwtp2015.org
Content
Welcome Word
Committees
A – Z Information
Social Programme
Scientific Programme
Programme at a Glance
Detailed Programme
Posters
List of Posters
Plenary Speakers
Selected Full Papers: Plenary Lectures
Selected Full Papers: IWA – EWA Workshop on History of Sanitation and Wastewater
Treatment in Large Towns
Floorplan
Exhibition
2
4
5
8
9
10
11
16
17
20
23
37
75
75
12th IWA Specialised Conference on Design, Operation and Economics of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants
1
31. 8. 2015 20:10:57
Welcome Word
The conferences on Large Wastewater Treatment Plants (LWWTP) are the most traditional specialised conferences organized by IWA specialist groups. The first conference (at that time called “workshop”) was held in Vienna and then was repeated in four-year periods in Vienna and since 1987 also in Budapest and Prague. The history
of this conference and LWWTP Specialist Group is connected with such famous names as von der Emde, Kroiss or Bode. The conference has been always a good place
for meeting with leading experts in the field from Europe, USA and Canada, Australia, South Africa, Latin America, South-East Asia and from many other parts of the
world. The best attended conference ever was probably the conference held in Prague in 2003 which was attended by almost 350 people from 37 different countries.
Since that time the number of people interested in active presentation in IWA LWWTP conferences has been dropping down from three main reasons:
• general increase in numbers of IWA specialized conferences
• increasing role of internet in information exchange
• preference of many authors to publish only in journals with impact factor
Even with those obstacles the Call for Abstracts resulted in 134 extended abstracts received by the conference organizers. The abstracts were evaluated by members
of the conference Scientific Programme Committee (SPC). The SPC of the LWWTP conferences is today a well-established body of internationally recognized specialists
in the conference topics. For the Prague conference in 2015 the committee was partially updated by new and younger professionals, which also helped to broaden the
expertise of the committee. The main task of the members of the SPC is to guarantee that all papers accepted for both oral and poster presentations meet the high
scientific and technical standard, so typical of this traditional series of conferences. Each submitted abstract was evaluated by at least three members of the SPC and
given its score from the scale: Reject – Acceptable – Good – Very Good – Excellent. Then the papers for oral presentation were selected by the conference Management
Committee (MC) from the abstracts with highest achieved scores. The Management Committee of the IWA LWWTP conferences consists of leaders of the IWA Specialist
Group on LWWTPs and Group’s members (and their assistants) from countries hosting the conference series (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary). The members of the MC
allocated the selected papers into individual sessions according the topics. The final programme of the conference consists of eleven sessions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Case Studies (Design)
New Design Approaches (Design)
Tertiary Treatment
Cost and Energy Efficiency 1 and 2
Asset Management and Strategic Planning
Operation 1 and 2
Management of Gaseous Emissions
Sludge and Reject Water Treatment
Microbial Ecology
In addition to the oral presentations based on submitted abstracts, the Management Committee invited also four internationally recognized experts and leading IWA
speakers and asked them to prepare the so-called keynote lectures which would open each of the conference days. The authors of submitted abstracts, which were
evaluated by the SPC members at least as “acceptable”, were invited to present their contributions in a form of poster presentation. Unfortunately, not all of the authors
accepted this invitation. Nevertheless, in spite of that, the poster session consists of almost 50 poster presentations. The conference programme provides time enough
for discussions with poster authors.
The whole conference programme is based on one stream of lectures. This is a traditional feature of the LWWTP conferences so that all participants can concentrate
on the same lectures. On the other hand, it seems to be a drawback for the conference organizers because the programme can accommodate only limited number of
lecturers in comparison with conferences with multiple parallel sessions. And this plays very important role for numbers of paying conference delegates.
The programme of the 2015 LWWTP conference has one exception from the single-session rule, i.e., the second conference day the main lecture stream is accompanied
with a half-day workshop on the history of sanitation and wastewater treatment in European towns. The workshop is organized in cooperation with the European Water
Association and its European Technical and Scientific Committee.
This Final Programme book brings full texts (normally 8 pages) of all keynote lectures and in a separate section the book contains also full texts of all contributions
of the workshop on history of sanitation and wastewater treatment in European towns. All papers in conference proceeding are published as they were received from
authors. The purpose of the conference proceedings is just providing the texts for conference participants. There is no purpose of this book to be used for further distribution after the conference. For this reason the conference book cannot be also equipped with the ISBN book identifier. All papers are considered as unpublished for the
further publishing of conference papers by their authors. According to the contract between the conference organizers and IWA Publishing we can offer 15 papers for
publishing in Water Science & Technology and 20 in Water Practice & Technology from all papers in the conference book. The selection will be done again by members
of the Management Committee. Of course, all the papers offered by the MC to WST and WPT journals will have to pass through standard peer review procedures of both
journals. All texts for the historical workshop will be offered for peer review procedure of another IWA journal - Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology.
2
31. 8. 2015 20:10:58
www.lwwtp2015.org
Abstract authors are coming from the following countries:
Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Korea, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain , Sweden, Taiwan
Republic of China, The Netherlands, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Unites States.
Contrary to our previous conferences and in spite of the enormous effort of conference organizers, we are missing this time from some countries which were often
represented at LWWTP conferences in the past like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, India, etc. With the exception of Austria, Hungary and the Czech
Republic we have no contributions from other central and eastern Europe countries including Russia. The conference organizers are especially disappointed by the fact
that there is no single paper from Mainland China (People’s Republic of China) although we were promised from the China IWA National Committee and from the China
IWA Regional Office that the conference would be “flooded” with the Chinese papers on LWWTPs.
Anyway, the conference organizers believe that the programme of the 2015 LWWTP conference will provide the conference participants with good overview of the
state-of-the-art design, operation and management of wastewater treatment in large plants. It is evident just from the list of conference topics that in addition to
traditional papers on design, operation, case stories, plant economics the conference touches also newly emerging topics like tertiary treatment and water reuse, the
role of large wastewater treatment plants in water management of large towns, their impact on environments or energy aspects.
The conference organizers hope that the conference will help the participants to find proper solutions for problems related to large wastewater treatment plants in the
period of their steadily growing importance. While at the beginning of the 20th century only less than 15 % of the total population on the Globe lived in the towns, in the
middle of the century it was already 29 % and in 1985 about 41 %, the estimates for 2020 predict about two thirds of all people living in the towns. This development,
at least in Europe, can be accelerated by recent flood of immigrants from Asia and Africa to European towns we are witnessing now in summer 2015. Therefore, the
wastewater treatment in large wastewater treatment plants is an inseparable part of water management of cities of the future. The effluent from LWWTP is more and
more considered to be a source of water rather than just a waste discharged to the receiving waters. Our traditional conference thus hopefully reflects by the topics
discussed in Prague this inevitable change in the paradigm in wastewater treatment.
Jiri Wanner
© CzechTourism.com
3
31. 8. 2015 20:11:00
Committees
Scientific Programme Committee
Management Committee
Jiří Wanner, Czech Republic (Chair)
Norbert Jardin, Germany (Secretary)
Harro Bode, Germany
Yeshi Cao, Singapore
Glen Daigger, USA
George Ekama, South Africa
Wolfgang Günthert, Germany
Ulf Jeppsson, Sweden
Jose Jimenez, USA
Andrea Jobbágy, Hungary
Harald Kainz, Austria
Jürg Keller, Australia
Jörg Krampe, Austria
Helmut Kroiss, Austria
Jacek Makinia, Poland
Norbert Matsché, Austria
Fangang Meng, China
Korneliusz Miksch, Poland
Sudhir Murthy, USA
Jan Oleszkiewicz, Canada
Eduardo Pacheco Jordão, Brasil
Hee-Deung Park, South Korea
Miklos Patziger, Hungary
Helle van der Roest, The Netherlands
Karl-Heinz Rosenwinkel, Germany
Hansruedi Siegrist, Switzerland
László Somlyódy, Hungary
Fabio Tatano, Italy
Zhiguo Yuan, Australia
Jiří Wanner, Czech Republic (Chair)
Norbert Jardin, Germany (Secretary)
Andrea Jobbagy, Hungary
Jörg Krampe, Austria
Helmut Kroiss, Austria
Miklos Patziger, Hungary
Iveta Růžičková, Czech Republic
Martin Srb, Czech Republic
Local Organizing Committee
Iveta Růžičková, chair, ICT Prague
Lucie Chovancová, ICT Prague
Iva Johanidesová, ICT Prague
Pavel Kavka, Ondeo
Miroslav Kos, Sweco Hydroprojekt
Jiří Paul, Energie AG Bohemia
Vojtěch Pospíšil, ICT Prague
Bohdan Soukup, Veolia
Martin Srb, Veolia
Jiří Wanner, ICT Prague
© CzechTourism.com
4
31. 8. 2015 20:11:02
www.lwwtp2015.org
A – Z Information
A
Accommodation
Should you need any help with accommodation please contact our staff at the
Registration desk.
Airport
Václav Havel Airport Prague handles flights from within Europe and from
overseas. It is located 30 – 45 minutes by car from the centre of Prague. There
are good connections between the airport and the city centre by public transport
– buses and taxis.
Airport information – nonstop phone line
Tel.: +420 220 111 888
AFTN: LKPRYDYX
SITA: PRGCZ7X, PRVCZ7X
www.prg.aero
An airport shuttle service from your hotel to the airport can be ordered on the
website www.prague-airport-transfers.co.uk or on phone 800 870 888.
Arrival by Public Transport
Prague has a sophisticated underground, tram and bus transportation system.
During peak hours trains run every 1 or 2 minutes and during off-peak hours at
least every 10 minutes. For more information about Prague public transportation
visit www.dpp.cz.
B
Badges
Along with your registration, you will receive your name badge, which must
be worn when attending all sessions and official Conference programme.
Participants without a badge will not be allowed to enter the venue building.
C
Cash Points
CSOB cash point is located in the building right next to the venue in
Banskobystricka street.
CSOB Bank
Banskobystrická 2080/11
160 00 Praha 6
Tel.: 230 023 711
Certificate of Attendance
All registered delegates present on site are entitled to receive a Certificate of
Attendance, which can be picked up at the registration.
City of Prague
For more information please visit following pages:
• www.praguewelcome.cz
• www.czechtourism.com
• www.praha.eu
• www.prague.cz
• www.prague-czechrepublic.com
• www.lonelyplanet.com/czech-republic/prague
Climate
Prague is a city with a mild continental climate. The average temperature in
September varies around 20 °C. Umbrellas maybe useful, however the month of
June is usually more on the sunny side.
Cloakroom
A cloakroom is located on the ground floor, the service is provide free of charge
to all registered participants.
Conference Language
The Conference languages is English. No simultaneous translation is provided.
Currency/Exchange
The Czech currency is called the Czech crown (CZK). Its circulation is in the form
of banknotes of the following value: 5,000, 2,000, 1,000, 500, 200, 100 and coins
of the following value: 50, 20, 10, 5, 2, 1 crowns. Exchange offices are located all
around the city centre (exchange offices, banks, post offices). ALL RATES given
in the program are in EUROS (€). Some big stores and restaurants accept Euro.
D
Disclaimer
The Conference Organisers have taken all reasonable care in making arrangements for the Conference, including accommodation and technical visits. In
the event of unforeseen disruptions, neither IWA, CZWA neither the Conference
Organiser nor their agents can be held responsible for any losses or damages
incurred by delegates. The programme is correct at the time of printing, but
organisers reserve the right to alter the programme if and when deemed necessary. The Conference Organisers act as agents only in securing hotels, transport
and travel services and shall in no event be liable for acts or omissions in the
event of injury, damage, loss, accident, delay or irregularity of any kind whatsoever during arrangements organised through contractors or by the employees
of such contractors. Hotel and transportation services are subject to the terms
and conditions under which they are offered to the general public. Delegates
should make their own arrangements with respect to personal insurance. The
Conference Organisers reserve the right to make changes as and when deemed
necessary without prior notice to the parties concerned. All disputes are subject
to resolution under Czech Law.
5
31. 8. 2015 20:11:03
Doctor / First Aid
Mestska Poliklinika Praha is located 12 minutes from the venue.
Městská Poliklinika Praha
Bechynova 2571/3
160 00 Praha 6
L
Lost & Found
A lost and found service is available at the information desk at the registration.
Lost or stolen credit cards. Call one of the following services to take care of it:
Visa +420 800 142 121
American Express +420 850 882 028
Master Card/Eurocard +420 800 142 494
E
Emergency Call
General emergency
Police
Fire Department
Medical Service
112
158
150
155
Exhibitors
Exhibition is located next to the registration and Main Conference Hall and all
exhibitors are listed on page 75.
Electricity
The electricity used in Czech Republic is 220 Volts / 50 Hz (type E French 2-pin
electrical adapter plug and electrical outlet identified by two round pins spaced
19 mm apart with a hole for the socket’s male grounding pin. Type E outlet
will also accept Type C plugs and Type E plugs will also work in Type F outlets.
A transformer is necessary for your electrical and electronic equipment if using
different voltage (ie USA, Canada).
F
Food and Beverages
Coffee-Breaks will be served in:
1st floor foyer adjacent to Registration and the Exhibition Area.
Lunches will be served in:
1st floor Restaurant Loreta (Buffet lunches – please make sure to have your badge
with you).
G
GSM Operators
There are 3 major GSM Operators in the Czech Republic: Telefonica O2, Vodafone,
T-Mobile.
I
Information Desk
The registration staff will be happy to help you with questions you may have with
regards to the Conference or any other matters.
6
M
Mobile Phones
Participants are kindly requested to keep their mobile phones in the off position
in all meeting rooms while sessions are being held.
P
Parking
Participants arriving by car are advised to use the underground parking space
available. Parking fees are not included in the registration fee.
Pharmacy
The nearest pharmacy is located on the traffic roundabout – Vitezne namesti –
10 minutes by walk from the venue.
Lekarna BENU
Vitezne nam. 817/9
160 00 Praha 6
Lekarna BERYTOS
Vitezne nam. 997/13
160 00 Praha 6
Posters
The poster area is placed in the hall next to the Main Conference Hall . For more
information about Poster Sessions please check pages 16.
Presentations – Speakers Ready Room
Please hand in your presentations to the technician in the Main Conference Hall.
Please make sure to hand in your presentation at least 2 hours prior to the start of
your assigned session. Our staff in the room will be happy to assist you.
For guidelines for presenting authors
Programme Changes
The organizers cannot assume liability for any changes in the programme due to
external or unforeseen circumstances.
R
Insurance and Liability
The organizers will accept no liability for personal injuries sustained by or for
loss or damage to property belonging to Conference participants, accompanying persons either during or as a result of the Conference or during all tours
and events. Upon registration participants accept this proviso. Participants are
strongly recommended to seek insurance coverage for health and accident, lost
luggage and trip cancellation.
Registration Opening Hours
Sunday, September 6
Monday, September 7
Tuesday, September 8
Wednesday, September 9
Internet
There is free Wi-Fi internet connection available.
Registration Desk
The registration desk is located on the first floor of the Diplomat hotel Prague.
15:00 – 19:00
08:00 – 20:00
08:00 – 19:00
08:00 – 18:00
31. 8. 2015 20:11:05
www.lwwtp2015.org
Registration Entitlements: The registration fee entitles all delegates to the
following:
Participant fee:
• Admission to programme sessions, exhibition and poster area
• Conference bag, Final Programme, Proceedings USB
• Coffee breaks
• Admission to ‘Welcome Reception‘
• Gala dinner
• Lunches (for all Conference days)
Accompanying Person:
• Admission to exhibition and poster area
• Admission to ‘Welcome Reception‘
Restaurants – Czech Cuisine
Czech cuisine is typical of Middle European gastronomy, yet clearly reflects
a number of Czech elements – e.g. bread or fruit dumplings, various kinds of
soups, sauces, numerous potato dishes, cakes and a wide range of festive dishes.
In general, Czech gastronomy means roasted pork with dumplings and sauerkraut, potato pancakes, plum dumplings and bilberry cakes … and, of course,
Czech drinks – primarily beer and firstrate wines from South Moravia, not to mention “Slivovice”, a clear Czech plum brandy and “Becherovka” a delicious herbal
elixir with legendary aphrodisiac qualities. People usually have lunch between
12:00 and 14:00 and sit down for dinner between 18:00 and 21:00. However, it is
possible to dine throughout the whole day and every visitor’s needs can be met.
S
Safety
Prague is one of the most popular destinations in the world. Statistics show that
when compared to other major European cities the rate of crime is much lower
in Prague. A night walk around the city is relatively safe but, of course, like in all
other big cities we recommend handling your personal belongings with utmost
care.
Shopping
Most shops in Prague are open from 9:00 to 18:00, Monday through Saturday.
Shops in the city centre are usually open from 9:00 – 20:00, Monday through
Sunday.
Smoking Policy
Please note that smoking is not permitted anywhere within the venue.
T
Taxi
In the city centre taxis are easy to hail from the street but we strongly recommend that you use hotel taxis or obtain taxis by phone through the radio taxi
service e.g. AAA (+ 420 14 014), City taxi ( +420 257 257 257) or Speed cars
(+420 224 234 234).
Boarding charge: approximately 40 CZK.
Journeys within the city: approximately 28 CZK/ 1 kilometre. Do not board the taxi
without finding out if there is a fixed rate.
Time Difference
The Czech Republic is in the Central European Time Zone. Central European Time
(CET) is 1 hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time ( GMT +1). After the last Sunday
in March the time in Czech Republic is shifted back by 1 hour to CET and this
remains until the end of September.
Tipping
Service is usually included in the bill in bars and restaurants but tips are welcome. If you consider the service good enough to warrant a tip, suggested level
is around 10 %.
Transportation in Prague
Prague Public Transit Co. Inc. is the main public transport operator in the Czech
Republic. Almost two thousand metro trains, trams and buses are dispatched
every day in Prague and the surrounding region. Tickets must be bought before
starting your journey.
Metro/Underground
The Metro operates daily from 05:00 to 24:00. We recommend that you use this
kind of transport as the fastest and cheapest way of moving around the city.
The Metro networks consists of 3 lines designated by letters and differentiated
colours: A-green colour, B – yellow colour, C – red colour – with transfer possible
at Muzeum station (line A and C), Mustek station (line A and B), Florenc station
(line B and C).
Tram and Bus
Trams and buses operate 24 hours a day. Night trams from 00:30 – 4:30 (numbers
51 – 58) with traffic intervals of 30 minutes. Night buses from 00:30 – 4:30 (numbers 501 – 514).
Bus schedules are located at individual stops.
Website: www.dpp.cz
Fares www.dpp.cz/en/fares-in-prague/
Transport around Prague: www.dpp.cz/en/transport-around-prague/
V
VAT
Czech legislation requires that all Conference costs includes the Czech VAT (21 %
or 15 %). In case the VAT rate changes, the change will automatically apply to
the service ordered.
Venue
Diplomat Hotel Prague ****
Evropska 15
160 41 Prague 6
Czech Republic
7
31. 8. 2015 20:11:06
Social Programme
Welcome Reception
September 6, 2015, 19:00 – 21:00
Diplomat hotel Prague – Evropa hall & roof terrace – 9th floor
Tickets: An invitation is extended to all delegates and accompanying persons to the Welcome Reception.
Posters Reception – kindly sponsored by SUEZ
September 7, 2015, 17:30 – 20:00
Poster area – (Prague A+B)
Conference Dinner
September 8, 2015, 20:00 – 23:00
Zofin Garden Restaurant, Slovansky ostrov 226, Prague
Tickets: Included in the delegates registration fee. Extra tickets can be purchased extra at the Onsite Registration
Desk. Please note the capacity is limited.
Something is always going on at Slovansky Island on the Vltava river. It is a green oasis of comfort and excellent
gastronomy in the heart of Prague. We spend our summers outside in the beautiful space of our covered outdoor
restaurant located between the Zofin Palace and a romantic gazebo. Slovansky Island has always been a centre of
the Prague social scene and culture. Irrespective of your reason to visit it – a stroll in the park, children’s play date,
a concert, ball or another social gathering at the Palace, the Zofin Garden will always have something to offer. Pop in
for a glass of tasty wine from Moravia or treat yourselves to an exotic cocktail. If you get hungry and order something
from our grill, you will certainly want to wash it down with a glass of exceptional Czech beer on tap.
Transfers are arranged. Meeting at the hotel lobby at 19:30.
© CzechTourism.com
Vo
rš
ilsk
ov
ad
o
ná
eln
í
bř
ež
í
Na
Th tiona
eat l
re
September 9, 2015, 17:30 – 18:00 followed with the cultural tour
ií
Leg
September 9, 2015, 19:00 – 21:00
This tour offers the opportunity to explore enchanted Prague from the deck of a boat. The river cruise allows you
to discover some of the city’s major monuments and sights, while relaxing over dinner or a drink and listening to
music or dancing. During the dinner on the boat which is served buffet-style you can admire the illuminated sights
of Prague passing the Charles Bridge, the Castle district (Hradcany), the National Theatre, the Vysehrad Castle etc.
Transfers to the boat and back are arranged. Meeting at the hotel lobby at 18:30.
ze
ru
St
Na
rykovo
nábře
Masa
Slo
v
ost ansk
rov ý
Mo
st
Cultural Tour – Cruise on the River Vltava
á
Ostr
ovní
Closing Ceremony
an
rod
ní
et
Div
Ná
Sm
Stř
ele
cký
ží
Žo
fín
ost
rov
Technical Excursion – Historical WWTP of the City of Prague – back to 1906
September 10, 2015, 9:00 – 13:00
Tickets: Not included in the registration fee. Tickets can be purchased extra at the Onsite Registration Desk. Please
note the capacity is limited.
The historical plant is in a walking distance from the conference hotel. The duration about 4 hours. The visit will be
finished by a light lunch in the premises of the old plant.
Transfers to the WWTP and back ara arranged. Meeting at the hotel lobby at 9:00.
More at: www.staracistirna.cz
8
© CzechTourism.com
31. 8. 2015 20:11:09
www.lwwtp2015.org
Scientific Programme
This year’s scientific programme has been compiled from more than 150 received abstracts. There will be 4 plenary lectures and more than 30 oral presentations
presented within three conference days.
Oral Presentations
Oral presentations are always accompanied by PowerPoint presentations. The speakers are entirely responsible for the presentation content (order, graphics etc…). Once
onsite every speaker should also verify in the Final programme that the name of the room and the time of the session have not changed.
All presentations and questions must be delivered in English, as English is the official language of the Conference. Time reserved for one presentation is:
• 30 minutes – 25 minutes for speech and 5 minutes for discussion
Presentation Format
All speakers should make sure their presentation is in a commonly compatible format. Please prepare your presentation preferably using PowerPoint version 2010 or
2013 in 16:9 aspect ratio (versions 2007 / 2003 are also supported).
Supported file types:
• Presentation: TXT, DOC, XLS, XLSX, PPT, PPA, PPTA, PPTX, PDF
• Video: AVI, MPG, MKV, MOV, MP4, WMV
• Audio: WMA, MP3, WAV
• Pictures: JPG, GIF, BMP, TIF
Do not forget, when saving the final presentation to CD or USB stick, to make sure to include video files if having any and all links to these multimedia files. Wi-Fi /
Internet connection in the meeting rooms is not provided.
Depositing the File
Presentation must be handed over to the personnel directly in the lecture room which is located on the congress floor, either with a CD or a USB stick, as far in
advance as possible and two hours BEFORE the beginning of dedicated session AT THE LATEST. The presentation for an early morning session should be handed
over the evening before.
In the lecture room, speakers will be assisted by a technician, who will help them to download the presentation to the internal network. The lecture room opens each
morning one hour before the start of a first session and remains open throughout the day until the end of the last session.
In the Lecture Room
Once the presentation is launched on the computer in the respective lecture room, speaker will advance the slides using the remote control.
For all speakers: Please, do NOT come at the last minute with your own computer into the lecture room: you will NOT BE ABLE to connect it. All presentations must
be downloaded in advance.
9
31. 8. 2015 20:11:10
Programme at a Glance
SUNDAY
Sep 6
MONDAY
Sep 7
TUESDAY
Sep 8
WEDNESDAY
Sep 9
THURSDAY
Sep 10
9:00
OPENING SPEECHES
+
PARALLEL SESSION 1
10:00
10:30
PARALLEL
SESSION 5
BREAK
PARALLEL
WORKSHOP 1
BREAK
PARALLEL
SESSION 9
BREAK
11:00
11:30
PARALLEL
SESSION 2
PARALLEL
SESSION 6
PARALLEL
WORKSHOP 1
PARALLEL
SESSION 10
12:00
12:30
LUNCH + POSTER VIEWING
LUNCH SYMPOSIUM
LUNCH
+
POSTER VIEWING
PARALLEL
SESSION 3
PARALLEL
SESSION 7
PARALLEL
SESSION 11
BREAK
BREAK
BREAK
PARALLEL
SESSION 4
PARALLEL
SESSION 8
PARALLEL
SESSION 12
LUNCH
13:00
TECHNICAL
EXCURSIONS
14:00
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
REGISTRATION OPEN
17:30
18:00
18:30
POSTER SESSION
Wine & cheese / beer & snack
LWWTP GROUP MEETING
CLOSING
CEREMONY
19:00
19:30
20:00
MEET & GREET
GET TOGETHER
21:00
CULTURAL TOUR
CONFERENCE DINNER
22:00
23:00
10
31. 8. 2015 20:11:11
www.lwwtp2015.org
Detailed Programme
15:00 – 19:00
19:00 – 21:00
Sunday, September 6
Registration
Meet and Greet
Monday, September 7
Prague C+D
9:00 – 9:30
Opening Ceremony
Jiri Wanner & Helmut Kroiss
9:30 – 10:00
Keynote 1
Helmut Kroiss (Austria)
Quo vadis wastewater treatment (in big cities)
10:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12:00 – 12:30
12:30 – 14:00
14:00 – 15:30
14:00 – 14:30
14:30 – 15:00
15:00 – 15:30
15:30 – 16:00
Keynote 2
Harro Bode (Germany)
Wastewater treatment requirements in the times of Water Framework Directive
Coffee Break
Session 1
Case Studies (Design)
Chair: Norbert Jardin & Martin Srb
LWWTP-0145
Complete Reconstruction and Extension of CWWTP Prague - Project Presentation and Focus on New Water Line
Nathanael Tilly (Czech Republic)
LWWTP-0140
Design of Large BNR Plant for State Capital of California
James Barnard (United States)
LWWTP-0115
Extension of Two Large Wastewater Treatment Plants in Stockholm Using Membrane Technology
Peter Ek (Sweden)
Lunch Break
Session 2
New Design Approaches (Design)
Chair: Harro Bode & Simon Faltermaier
LWWTP-0092
Enlargement of the Treatment Plant Hard Hofsteig from 170.000 PE to 270.000 PE in the Existing Footprint
Bogdanka Radetic (Austria)
LWWTP-0011
SHAFDAN (Greater Tel Aviv Wastewater Treatment Plant) - Recent Upgrade and Expansion
Arie Messing (Israel)
LWWTP-0096
Primary Settling Tanks in State of the Art Wastewater Treatment
Miklos Patziger (Hungary)
Coffee Break
11
31. 8. 2015 20:11:12
16:00 – 17:30
16:00 – 16:30
16:30 – 17:00
17:00 – 17:30
17:30 – 20:00
Session 3
Tertiary Treatment
Chair: Helmut Kroiss & Iva Johannidesova
LWWTP-0094
Large-Scale Investigations on Micropollutant Removal at Schwerte WWTP
Dieter Thole (Germany)
LWWTP-0111
Integrating Organic Micropollutant Removal into Tertiary Wastewater Treatment: Combining Adsorption onto Activated Carbon
with Advanced Phosphorus Removal
Alexander Sperlich (Germany)
LWWTP-0070
Large Scale Tertiary Filtration – Results and Experiences from the Discfilter Plant at the Rya WWTP in Sweden
Britt-Marie Wilen (Sweden)
Poster Reception
Prague C+D
8:30 – 9:00
Keynote 3
Jorg Drewes (Germany)
Reuse (on Large Wastewater Treatment Plants)
Prague C+D
9:00 – 10:30
9:00 – 9:30
9:30 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12
VIENNA I + II
Session 4
Historical Workshop
Cost and Energy Efficiency
Chair: Fabio Tatano & Vojtech Pospisil LWWTP-0090
Towards Energy Neutrality by Optimising the Activated Sludge
Process of the WWTP Bochum-Olbachtal
Norbert Jardin (Germany)
LWWTP-0032
Operating Costs and Energy Demand of Large Wastewater
Treatment Plants in Austria: Benchmarking Results of the Last
10 Years
Julia Haslinger (Austria)
LWWTP-0037
Measured Data Based Mass Balance and Energy Efficiency
of an 800,000 m3/day Water Reclamation Plant in Singapore
Yeshi Cao (Singapore)
Coffee Break
Part 1
Chair: Karoly Kovacs
9:00 – 9:30
Aqua Colonia
Session 5
Cost and Energy Efficiency
Chair: Hansruedi Siegrist & Iva Johanidesova
LWWTP-0015
Forty Years of Experience With Three Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plants
Peter Balmer (Sweden)
LWWTP-0014
Energy Efficient Optimization of Air Distribution in WWTP
Manuela Charatjan (Germany)
Otto Schaaf (Germany)
9:30 – 10:00
Vienna’s Water management during the last 3 centuries
Helmut Kroiss (Austria)
10:00 – 10:30
History of Budapest Sanitation and Wastewater Treat
Katalin Kiss (Hungary)
Historical Workshop
Part 2
Chair: Peter Goethals
11:00 – 11:20
Sanitation history of Gent
Rudy Vannevel (Belgium)
11:20 – 11:40
The cleanup of the Oslofjord
Haakon Thaulow (Norway)
31. 8. 2015 20:11:14
www.lwwtp2015.org
12:00 – 12:30
12:30 – 14:00
LWWTP-0036
11:40 – 12:00
WWTP Stuttgart - Mühlhausen - changeover to air distribution WWTP Wuppertal: Lessons learned over 110 years
control system (ADC)
Susann Eisert (Germany)
Ulrike Zettl (Germany)
12:00 – 12:20
History of Prague sewer system and wastewater treatment
Jiri Wanner (Czech Republic)
12:20 – 12:30
Closing remarks
Jiri Wanner (Czech Republic)
Lunch Break
Prague C+D
13:00 – 14:00
LUNCH SYMPOSIUM
THE ROAD TO SMARTER WWTP - INTELLIGENT DATA MANAGEMENT AND MODELLING
14:00 – 15:30
Session 6
14:00 – 14:30
14:30 – 15:00
15:00 – 15:30
15:30 – 16:00
16:00 – 17:30
16:00 – 16:30
16:30 – 17:00
17:00 – 17:30
17:30 – 19:00
20:00 – 23:00
Asset Management and Strategic Planning
Chair: Julian Sandino & Simon Faltermaier
LWWTP-0143
General Reconstruction and Extension of the CWWTP Prague
Jiří Wanner (Czech Republic)
LWWTP-0138
Planning Reinvestments Using a Risk Based Approach
Burkhard Teichgraber (Germany)
LWWTP-0120
Procuring 230 Football Fields of Membrane – Strategy, Results and Lessons Learned
Jonas Grundestam (Sweden)
Coffee Break
Session 7
Operation
Chair: Helle van der Roest & Martin Srb
LWWTP-0102
Start-up of the World’s Largest Wastewater Treatment Project Ever: The Atotonilco WWTP
Julian Sandino (USA)
LWWTP-0132
Full-Scale Experience of Chemically Enhanced Primary Clarifiers for Wet Weather Flow Treatment in New and Existing
Installations
Henryk Melcer (USA)
LWWTP-0085
From R&D To Application: Membrane Bioreactor Technology for Water Reclamation
Winson Lay (Singapore)
Meeting of the Specialist Group
Conference Dinner
13
31. 8. 2015 20:11:15
Prague C+D
8:30 – 9:00
Keynote 4
Gustaf Olsson (Sweden)
Control of Wastetwater Treatment Plants
9:00 – 10:30
9:00 – 9:30
9:30 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12:00 – 12:30
12:30 – 14:00
14:00 – 15:30
14:00 – 14:30
14:30 – 15:00
15:00 – 15:30
14
Session 8
Operation
Chair: Norbert Matsche & Lucie Chovancova
LWWTP-0018
Factors Potentially Converting Non-Aerated Selectors into Low-S – Low-DO Basins, Effects of Seal-Covering
Andrea Jobbágy (Hungary)
LWWTP-0117
Study of Regeneration Zone in WWTP Liberec and WWTP Plzen
Vojtech Pospisil (Czech Republic)
LWWTP-0083
Strategies for the Reduction of Legionella in Biological Treatment Systems
Regina Nogueira (Germany)
Coffee Break
Session 9
Management of Gaseous Emissions
Chair: Karl-Heinz Rosenwinkel & Martin Srb
LWWTP-0131
Monitoring of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Two Large Wastewater Treatment Plants
Andreas Carlsson (Sweden)
LWWTP-0045
Modelling the WWTP of Nimes and Validating the Ammonair Control Algorithm to Ensure Lower Energy Consumption and N2O
Emissions
Enrico Remigi (Belgium)
LWWTP-0095
Efficient Biogas Desulfurization by Microaeration – Full Scale Experience
Pavel Jenicek (Czech Republic)
Lunch Break
Session 10
Sludge and Reject Water Treatment
Chair: Julian Sandino & Vojtech Pospisil
LWWTP-0091
Thermal Hydrolysis of Sludge to Improve Biogas Yield and Reduce Sludge Disposal Cost for Transport and Incineration
Hansruedi Siegrist (Switzerland)
LWWTP-0035
A Struvite Control Alternative that Complements the Comprehensive Biosolids Management to Traditional Struvite Control
Practices in NYC Water Resource Recovery Plants
Krish Ramalingam (USA)
LWWTP-0029
Continuous Flow Two-Reactor Configuration as a Powerful Tool for Stable and Robust Partial Nitritation – Anammox Process
for Nitrogen Removal from Reject Waters
Lukasz Jaroszynski (Poland)
31. 8. 2015 20:11:16
www.lwwtp2015.org
© CzechTourism.com
15:30 – 16:00
16:00 – 17:30
16:00 – 16:30
16:30 – 17:00
17:00 – 17:30
17:30 – 18:00
20:00 – 22:00
Coffee Break
Session 11
Microbial Ecology
Chair: Jiri Wanner & Lucie Chovancova
LWWTP-0013
Operational Factors and Kinetic Characterization of Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal (EBPR) in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants of Flanders (Belgium)
Alessio Fenu (Belgium)
LWWTP-0112
Searching for Core Microbiome in Wastewater Treatment Plants
Hee-Deung Park (Korea)
LWWTP-0059
Application of 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon Sequencing for the Analysis of Microbial Community Composition Performing Biological
Nutrient Removal and its Influence on Process Performance
Marta Nierychlo (Denmark)
Closing Ceremony and Award Ceremony of Best Poster
Cultural Tour
15
31. 8. 2015 20:11:19
Posters
In total 48 posters will be displayed throughout the whole conference.
Poster reception
Poster reception kindly supported by SUEZ
One poster reception during which all the posters should be presented by their authors has been scheduled to the conference programme as follows
and all delegates are cordially invited to attend it:
Monday, September 7; 17:30 – 20:00
Poster Area will be located on the 1st floor of Diplomat hotel, the congress floor (room Prague A + B).
Poster authors / presenters are expected to be present by their posters during the Poster reception to present their work and answer all questions.
Poster dimension
The maximum dimensions of your poster are 90 cm x 120 cm (portrait orientation).
In order to fit the poster board, your poster should not exceed the recommended size. Prepare your material beforehand so that it will fit neatly into the space available
and can be easily attached to the board. The Congress organizers will provide suitable fixing materials, and on site assistance will be available to help.
Posters will be displayed on the poster boards – each poster board will be labelled with a specific number. Please make sure to mount your poster on the poster board
with the number corresponding to the number assigned to your poster presentation
Poster mounting
Poster Area will be open for poster mounting as Monday, September 7; 08:00. All posters should be set up on the same day by 16:00, prior to the scheduled Poster
reception. All posters will be displayed for the whole conference period.
Poster removing
All materials must be removed by the owner of the poster on Wednesday after 14:00.
The organizers are not responsible for loss or damage to those posters that are not removed by authors within the times of dismantling as indicated above, posters left
behind will be automatically destroyed.
16
31. 8. 2015 20:11:21
www.lwwtp2015.org
List of Posters
Poster reception, Monday, September 7; 17:30 – 20:00, Prague A+B
Design
P 01
P 02
P 03
P 04
P 05
P 06
P 07
Hydraulic and Biochemical Profiles of Primary Settling Process
Vince Bakos (Hungary)
Stockholm’s Future Wastewater Treatment – World Class Wastewater Treatment for the Future
Niklas Dahlén (Sweden)
Aeration Tank: CFD Analysis as a Design Tool to Discover Energy Savings
Anna Karpinska Portela (United Kingdom)
Comparison of Full-Scale a Conventional Activated Sludge Plant and a Ceramic Membrane Bioreactor: Nitrification Efficiency in Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Mingled With Industrial Wastewater
Burcu Ozdemir (Turkey)
New Developments in the Design of Aeration Systems for Activated Sludge Plants
Stephan Sander (Germany)
Return Sludge Side-stream – How to Control GAOs and Ensure Successful EBPR in Hot Climates
Mikkel Stokholm-Bjerregaard (Denmark)
Retrofitting the Emscher Mouth Wastewater Treatment Plant within the Emscher Rehabilitation Program
Burkhard Teichgräber (Germany)
Operation
P 08
P 09
P 10
P 11
P 12
P 13
P 14
P 15
P 16
P 17
Wastewater treatment plant reliability prediction using artificial neural network networks
Messaoud Djeddou (Algeria)
Control of Hydrogen Sulphide in Full-Scale Anaerobic Digesters Using Iron (III) Chloride
Dilek Erdirencelebi (Turkey)
Operation During Reconstruction – Temporary Measures to Meet Effluent Requirements
Jonas Grundestam (Sweden)
Enhancement of Nitrogen Removal by ANAMMOX Granular Bacteria
Ting-Ting Chang (Taiwan (Republic of China))
Efficient Growth of Sulfide-Oxidizing Bacteria (SOB) in a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) under Microaerobic Conditions
Pavel Jeníček (Czech Republic)
Consequences of Seveso-Classification of a Large Wastewater Treatment Plant
Doug Lumley (Sweden)
Optimization Of The Biological Nitrification Process Control In A Large Wastewater Treatment Plant
Giulio Munz (Italy)
MiDAS Field Guide – a Comprehensive Online Source of Information About the Microbes of Activated Sludge
Marta Nierychlo (Denmark)
Effect of operational parameters on nitrifying bacterial biomass and nitrification activity at Full Scale Fusina (Venice, Italy) WWTP
Valter Tandoi (Italy)
Hydraulic loadings of large Swedish WWTPs – key performance indicators and consequences
Britt-Marie Wilén (Sweden)
17
31. 8. 2015 20:11:22
Sludge handling and it’s effect PM wastewater treatment
P 18
P 19
P 20
P 21
P 22
P 23
P 24
Anaerobic Reject Water Characteristics and Effect on Sideline BNR Performance in a Large-Scale WWTP
Dilek Erdirencelebi (Turkey)
Experiences of sludge application as construction material
María Jesús García-Ruiz (Spain)
New Concepts for Economic and Energy Efficient Wastewater and Sludge Treatment – Example Wastewater Treatment Plant Ljubljana
Peter Hartwig (Germany)
Why are large Wastewater treatment plants around the world adopting thermal hydrolysis and digestion in preference to other sludge
treatment options?
Julien Chauzy (Norway)
Algae Process as an Anammox Effluent Post Treatment Method for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Along with Additional Algae-Biomass
Generation for Anaerobic Digestion Process
Tymoteusz Jaroszynski (Poland)
Modeling the Effects of Slowly Biodegradable Substrate at Large WWTP in Northern Poland
Jacek Makinia (Poland)
Oxygen uptake measurements as a tool for the estimation of self-heating capacity of dried sludge granules
Ernis Saracevic (Austria)
Cost and energy optimization
P 25
P 26
P 27
P 28
P 29
P 30
P 31
18
Energy Consumption in Municipal Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Review
Guillermo Baquerizo (France)
Towards a Reduction of Greenhouse Gases: a New Decision Support System for Design, Management and Operation of Wastewater
Treatment Plants
Donatella Caniani (Italy)
Energy audit of a full scale MBR system
Optimization of a full scale alternating activated sludge system by means of ASM2d modelling
Technological and methodical optimisation of the secondary treatment of a large German WWTP (600,000 PE)
Dirk Gengnagel (Germany)
A Rationale for the Use of First Order Kinetics to Model Heterotrophic Oxidation in the Activated Sludge Process
Henry Tench (United Kingdom)
Cost Comparison of Continuous Activated Sludge Systems with SBR Type Cyclic Activated Sludge Systems
Konrad Wutscher (Austria)
31. 8. 2015 20:11:23
www.lwwtp2015.org
Innovative wastewater treatment technologies
P 32
P 33
P 34
P 35
P 36
P 37
P 38
P 39
P 40
P 41
P 42
Removal of Pharmaceutical Residues and Other Priority Contaminants in the Effluent of Sewage Treatment Plants
Christian Baresel (Sweden)
Estrogenic Activity Removal of 17β-estradiol by Integrated Wastewater Treatment
Gabriela de Oliveira (Brazil)
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor Followed by Dissolved Air Flotation Treating Municipal Sewage
Priscila dos Santos (Brazil)
Changes of Nitrite Accumulation Efficiency Depending on Concentration of Influent Ammonium Nitrogen in Nitritation Process
Kyungik Gil (Korea, Republic of Korea)
Determining the Vitality of Bacteria Detected by FISH
Lucie Chovancová (Czech Republic)
Application Of Anammox To Anaerobically Pre-treated Municipal Wastewater
Pavel Jeníček (Czech Republic)
The effect of hydrocarbon on a pilot plant membrane bioreactor system
Giorgio Mannina (Italy)
Greenhouse gases from membrane bioreactor treating hydrocarbon and saline wastewater
Giorgio Mannina (Italy)
Integrating Ozonation or Adsorption on Activated Carbon into Tertiary Wastewater Treatment: Environmental Impacts with Life Cycle
Assessment
Daniel Mutz (Germany)
Full-scale Experiences With Aerobic Granular Biomass Technology For Treatment Of Urban And Industrial Wastewater
Helle van der Roest (Netherlands)
Enhanced Primary Treatment using Microsieving for Increased Removal Rates and Energy Recovery on WWTPs
Christian Walder (Austria)
Large WWTP in “Cities of the Future”
P 43
P 44
P 45
P 46
P 47
P 48
Removal of Pharmaceutical Residues using Ozonation as Intermediate Process Step at Linköping WWTP, Sweden
Christian Baresel (Sweden)
Wastewater Disinfection with Chlorine Compounds
Iva Johanidesová (Czech Republic)
Dubai, Green Economy, Green Sewage Treatment Infrastructure
Rashed Karkain (United Arab Emirates)
Decrease of Ecological Risk caused by Pharmaceuticals in Effluent from Wastewater Treatment Plant
Ilho Kim (Korea, Republic of Korea)
On the Implementation of an MBR Process at Wastewater Treatment Plants
Klara Westling (Sweden)
Inhibition of nitration by short-time exposure to hydroxylamine
Iva Johanidesová (Czech Republic)
19
31. 8. 2015 20:11:24
Plenary Speakers
Monday, September 7
9:30 – 10:00
Keynote 1: Prof. Helmut Kroiss (Austria)
Quo vadis wastewater treatment (in big cities)
Helmut Kroiss is an expert in design and operation of municipal and industrial waste water treatment plants, development of industrial water
protection technology, transfer of scientific research results to full scale practical application, regional water quality management, material flow
analysis, economic evaluation of water quality management strategies (benchmarking), interdisciplinary river basin management.
Consulting at many national and international projects regarding industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plant design and operation, as well as for regional
water quality management projects (Austria, Germany, Singapore, Indonesia, India, China, Hong Kong, Finland, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, pulp and paper industry, beet
sugar factories, chemical industry, food and beverage production, landfill leachates, textile industry etc.).
Member of IAWQ since 1974 as member of the program committee and board of directors, Helmut Kroiss was Chair of the Large Waste Water Treatment Plant Specialist
Group for a total of 8 years (IAWQ and later IWA). Currently he is IWA’s President having started his mandate at the World Water Congress and Exhibition 2014 in Lisbon.
Monday, September 7
10:00 – 10:30
Keynote 2: Prof. Harro Bode (Germany)
Wastewater treatment requirements in the times of Water Framework Directive
Harro Bode is CEO of Ruhrverband (Ruhr River Association – 13 reservoirs, 60 municipalities, 68 sewage treatment plants, 1.200 employees),
which is responsible for the entire water quality and quantity management in the catchment of the German River Ruhr. 4.5 millions of people get
supplied with water from the River Ruhr. Ruhrverband is also engaged in production and distribution of electricity.
As head of Ruhrverband Harro Bode tries to organize the work of this large utility to be efficient and innovative. Water quality and environmental protection should have
a high standard but should still be affordable for the customers of drinking water and wastewater services.
Harro Bode studied civil engineering in Hannover, Germany, and received his doctor degree in connection with research about anaerobic/aerobic industrial wastewater
treatment. Parallel to his job he is involved in the work of the German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste (DWA), the German Association of Energy and Water
Industries (BDEW) and of the International Water Association (IWA). In 2014 he received the “Karl Imhoff and Pierre Koch Medal” from IWA, an award for outstanding
contributions to water management and science. He helds an honorary professorship in water quality management in 1999 from the Technical University of Hannover.
Over the years he has published about 160 papers and has given many speeches about different water related topics.
As a sailor Harro Bode won an Olympic Gold Medal in 1976.
20
31. 8. 2015 20:11:26
www.lwwtp2015.org
8:30 – 9:00
Keynote 3: Prof. Jörg Drewes (Germany)
Reuse (on Large Wastewater Treatment Plants)
Jörg Drewes is Chair Professor of Urban Water Systems Engineering at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany. Previously, he served as
Full Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, USA (2001 – 2013) and Director of Research for the National
Science Foundation Engineering Research Center on Reinventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure (ReNUWIt). Professor Drewes’ research and scholarly activities
are closely related based on the common theme of energy efficient water treatment systems and water recycling.
Dr. Drewes has published more than 300 journal papers, book contributions, and conference proceedings. He served on multiple science advisory panels and chaired
blue ribbon panels on topics related to public health, engineering, and reliability of water reuse projects in the U.S., Australia and the EU. He was awarded the
2007 AWWA Rocky Mountain Section Outstanding Research Award, the Quentin Mees Research Award in 1999, the Willy-Hager Dissertation Award in 1997, and the
2003 Dr. Nevis Cook Excellent in Teaching Award. In 2008 and 2013, he was appointed to the U.S. National Academies/National Research Council Committees on Water
Reuse as an Approach for Meeting Future Water Supply Needs (2008-2012) and Onsite Reuse of Graywater and Stormwater (2013-2015), respectively. He also serves
on the Research Advisory Council of the WateReuse Research Foundation (Alexandria, VA). Professor Drewes currently serves as the chair of the International Water
Association (IWA) Water Reuse Specialist Group.
8:30 – 9:00
Keynote 4: Prof. Gustaf Olsson (Sweden)
Control of Wastewater Treatment Plants
Gustaf Olsson is professor in Industrial automation and since 2006 professor emeritus at Lund University, Sweden. He has devoted his research to
control and automation in water systems, electrical power systems and industrial processes.
Since 2006 he has devoted part of his time as guest professor at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, the Technical University of Malaysia
(UTM) and the Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. He is an honorary faculty member of the Exeter University in UK. He was earlier the editorin-chief of Water Science and Technology and a member of the IWA Board of Directors. He has received the IWA Publication Award and is the awardee of an Honorary
Membership of IWA. He is also a Distinguished Fellow of the IWA and has an Honorary Doctor degree at UTM.
Gustaf has authored 9 international books - some of them published also in Russian, German and Chinese - and contributed with chapters in another 19 books as well
as about 170 scientific publications. His most recent book called “Water and Energy – Threats and Opportunities” (IWA Publications) was published in May 2015 with
a second edition.
21
31. 8. 2015 20:11:27
LUNCHTIME SYMPOSIUM - IWA 2015
08
SEPT
THE ROAD TO SMARTER WWTP
INTELLIGENT DATA MANAGEMENT AND MODELLING
THE ROAD TO SMARTER WWTP
We are pleased to announce that on 8
September, 2015, we will hold a one-hour
symposium: The road to smarter WWTP –
intelligent data management and modelling.
It is arranged in conjunction with the 12th IWA
Specialised Conference on Design, Operation
and Economics of Large Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTPs) to take place in Prague, Czech
Republic on 6-9 September, 2015.
The symposium delves into best practices on design and operation of WWTP
and it will specifically look at intelligent data management and modelling. The
symposium will include practical case studies presented by members of DHI’s
WEST Development Centres as well as by our DHI experts.
The symposium will provide a lively forum for learning and debate. It will benefit
a large cross-section of waste water treatment plant managers and staff.
We hope that you will join us in this opportunity for exchanging ideas, sharing
knowledge, extending technical skills, and meeting professional colleagues.
ORGANISERS
This symposium is arranged
by DHI as part of the
conference programme of
the 12th IWA Specialised
Conference on Design,
Operation and Economics of Large
Wastewater Treatment Plants to take
place in Prague, Czech Republic on 6-9
September, 2015.
KEY DATES
 Symposium day: 8 September
 Conference days: 6-9 September
BENEFITS
 Meet and discuss with WWTP experts,
operators, and decision makers
 Enjoy excellent knowledge-sharing and
networking opportunities
 Learn from practical applications within
the areas of WWTP and data
management and modelling
SYMPOSIUM PRESENTERS
Marcus Richter
Business Area Manager, Cities, DHI
Dr Enrico Remigi is responsible for
model implementation and technical
support in wastewater modelling. He is
a member of the WEST development
team and has extensive international
experience in WEST modelling projects
and training.
Marcus Richter is an engineer with a
strong focus on water/wastewater
industry solutions to empower our
clients to plan, manage and operate
urban infrastructure systems based on
MIKE Powered by DHI software
products.
© DHI
Enrico Remigi
Environmental Engineer, DHI
VENUE
Diplomat Hotel Prague
Evropská 15
160 41 Prague 6
Czech Republic
REGISTRATION AND MORE
INFORMATION
As the lunchtime symposium is held for
participants of the IWA conference,
registration is not needed.
For more information, please send an email
to [email protected].
31. 8. 2015 20:11:28
www.lwwtp2015.org
Selected Full Papers:
Plenary Lectures
23
31. 8. 2015 20:11:30
Quo vadis wastewater treatment? (in large cities)
H. Kroiss1
1
Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology
Introduction
Waste water treatment of municipal and industrial waste waters have proved
to be the successful method for water protection, mainly surface waters as
rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The main innovations in waste water treatment
were developed in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the
20th century. The most important progress in waste water treatment for water
protection was the invention of the biological processes which dominate up to
now the successful technologies. The processes with fixed biomass were mainly
invented in the 19th century (constructed wetlands and trickling filters) while
the processes with dispersed and flocculent biomass mainly in the 20th century (activated sludge process). Since these pioneering innovations more than
100 years ago a great variety of new technologies has been developed from
both basic processes and even combinations of the two. While in the fixed film
processes the main problem remains to avoid clogging or biofilm control the
main problem with the dispersed biomass processes is bulking or the development of filamentous bacteria deteriorating the settleability of the biomass being
an inherent requirement for these technologies. Meanwhile in both families of
biological waste water treatment processes these problems can be overcome
to a very large extent by optimised and new process configurations and adapted
control strategies.
The development of the mechanical pre-treatment has by far not been subject
to a similar variety of solutions. It still consists mainly of screening or sieving,
grit removal and if advantageous also primary settling. The driving force for
the development of the mechanical treatment processes was the protection of
the biological and sludge treatment processes from coarse (screenings) and
inorganic (gravel, sand) #material as well as from grease and oil.
The physical-chemical waste water treatment processes beyond the mechanical
treatment have had a comparatively low innovation history for municipal waste
water but are still important for industrial waste waters as long as they are not
integrated into biological processes (e.g. membrane bioreactors). The dominant
processes in this category are precipitation by addition of chemicals, commonly
applied for phosphorus removal from waste water. In rare cases of municipal and
in several cases at industrial waste water treatment plants chemicals are added
for pH control. The most widespread chemical treatment process for municipal
waste water is the chemically enhanced primary treatment mainly applied at
coastal cities in combination with long sea outfalls. The chemicals used are
precipitants and polymers for flocculation.
Chemical and physical treatment is applied for disinfection (chlorine and UV)
of waste water treatment plant effluents discharged to bathing waters or as
24
a precautionary principle mainly in the English speaking countries. A typical
physical chemical process applied in waste water treatment plants is the addition of flocculants and organic polymers for sludge thickening and dewatering
Today even the membrane processes for different waste water treatment steps
have also become state of the art. As physical process membranes only can
separate particles from dissolved matter (e.g. for disinfection) or the removal
of dissolved matter from treated waste water for reuse. The remaining problem
which is not yet solved for most purposes is with the treatment and disposal of
the concentrates.
As a matter of fact it can be stated that the treatment processes from drinking
water treatment get more and more applied also for waste water or at least that
the two areas of water treatment mutually enhance the development of new
process schemes.
In conclusion it can be stated that the available technology for waste water
treatment has reached a level, where treatment efficiency requirements for
all possible purposes can be achieved. Application of the best technology for
a specific case today is basically limited by economical and regarding energy and
infrastructure requirements also by ecological considerations.
If we put the question “quo vadis waste water treatment” we could state that
without new challenges regarding health, economy or ecology we would not
have a necessity for new developments. Where source control of heavy metals
and consequent application of mechanical biological treatment to all waste
waters in river basins we are able to achieve a good receiving water quality in
most of the cases. But even at low dilution capacity in our natural waters we
would technologically be able to meet this goal. This is not the case in terms of
economy in many regions even in developed countries and especially in middle
and low income countries where financial strength as well as human capacity are
the main limiting factors.
New Challenges
What are the main challenges for the foreseeable future which will have influence
on the answer to our question and hence the driving force for new developments
in regard to waste water treatment.
The following list of challenges is only an abstract of the rapid changes the
global societies have to cope with in the future:
• A still rapid growth of global population which will come to an end in 2070 to
2100
• The even more rapid growth of the urban population, the forecast is that by
2070 the urban population will double from the actual situation
31. 8. 2015 20:11:31
www.lwwtp2015.org
• As a consequence the fresh water availability in urban areas per inhabitant is
dramatically decreasing.
• This problem will be aggravated by an increasing competition with irrigated
agriculture especially in semi-arid and arid regions as also food production
will have be increased.
• The increasing comfort requirements (hygiene) in water supply increases
water consumption especially in low and middle income countries and hence
waste water flow which is transporting increasing pollution loads to the
receiving waters as adequate waste water treatment is lacking.
• Climate changes have already caused an additional decrease of fresh water
availability in many regions. Even in high income countries the resilience of
water management options has become a driving force for new concepts.
• The value (cost) of land area is increasing in all agglomerations as is a limited
resource. In addition land area is in competition with agriculture for higher
food production.
• There is a new global political trend to make the cities more liveable also in
order to minimise social conflicts. The role of surface waters for recreation of
the urban population gets increasing relevance and this is also linked with
new concepts for using surface waters for flood control and to link it with
rainwater harvesting.
• Despite the availability of adequate technology water pollution by waste water
is still one of the major causes of reduced usability of existing fresh water
resources. In combination with increased utilisation of waters for recreation
urban water management has to be adapted.
• The control of nutrient loads discharged to the receiving waters causing
eutrophication (especially of lakes and coastal waters) and the linked “loss”
of valuable waste water compounds for agriculture (especially phosphorus)
has still not reached the political level in many countries.
• In the case of limited fresh water availability there are several options to solve
the scarcity beyond water demand management:
• Waste water reuse and recycling which has a very long tradition e.g. in the
Ruhr Valley Association with indirect reuse even for drinking water supply
and a recent example in Singapore with direct reuse. In both cases there is
no competition with agriculture.
• Reuse of treated waste water for agriculture where the hygienic and
salinization aspects have to be considered and enough storage capacity
is required
• Improved rainwater management
• Transfer of fresh water from one river basin to another
• Seawater desalination, which is the only additional source of water beyond
precipitation
• As the technology development is mainly taking part in the developed countries there is still a strong trend to apply existing urban water systems from
moderate climatic conditions and powerful economies to countries and cities
with completely different local situations.
• It is actually lively discussed on the scientific level whether excellent biological treatment with nutrient removal alone is sufficient for sustainable water
protection, as some organisms in aquatic ecosystems are even more sensitive
to micro-pollutants in the treated effluents than humans,. This problem is
also increasingly relevant with reuse and recycling of waste water, depending
on the purpose. This topic is closely linked to the decision making on water
protection policy where the two basic concepts environmental standard or
precautionary principles may get into conflict especially in regard to sustainable development which includes social and economic aspects and finally
is always linked to political decisions on acceptable risks for humans and
nature.
• In many cases the close link between waste water management and drainage requirements is not taken seriously enough in promoting new systems
developments
• Lack of human resources and corruption are still major inhibitors to solve the
increasingly pressing water problems in many regions.
• The question whether public, private or PPP construction and operation of
waste water treatment plants is the preferred solution is by far not so relevant
as how the responsibilities are clearly attributed and how an independent
and powerful control can be implemented (regulator) as described in the IWA
Lisbon Charter on regulation.
Economic evaluation in regard to the attractiveness of investments in water
infrastructure reveals that there are several reasons why innovations need very
long periods of time to replace existing infrastructure. Only “ground breaking
innovations” can rapidly penetrate the global market. They have to reduce the
cost for the same effect by at least 25 to 30% or extremely better performance
and effect for the same cost. The main reason is that the reliability requirements
for waste water treatment are extremely high which is not in favour of taking
risks and the life expectance for water infrastructure is normally also very high.
(Reinhard Hübner, LET 2015)
New Concepts
The challenges enumerated above will influence on the development of urban
water systems where waste water treatment is only one component. The first answer to the question in the title is, that waste water treatment design, operation
and economics will have to be embedded into urban water systems development
together with urban planning and water policy in a much more relevant manner
as compared to the past. A second important aspect is that depending on the
specific local situation the relationship between water supply and waste water
will either remain of little relevance or will have to be integrated into one system.
The decisive factors for this decision are local and regional water availability,
population growth, competition with agriculture and the level of socio-economic
development which strongly favours waters for recreational purposed. There is no
need to make reuse and recycling of water mandatory on a global scale but it will
become very relevant in an increasing number of regions and agglomerations.
In the case of reuse and recycling of treated waste water (“used water”) the final
quality of the effluent is decided by the purpose of use and t is not any more easy
to decide where waste water treatment ends and water treatment starts. If waste
water should be recycled the most discussed issue today is at which level of
centralisation even it will again strongly be dependent on the specific local situation. In the case of agricultural use the decision could be based on minimising
the energy for pumping but basically the treatment plant should be at the outer
border of the city where agriculture starts. In the case of water reuse for toilet
flushing the most economical solution will be a decentralised treatment. Already
now such decentralised systems are used in large cities like Tokyo for large office
buildings in regions where the population density has strongly increased over the
history driven by the high costs for land and as a consequence the construction
of high rise buildings. In order to avoid the construction of new water supply
pipes with larger diameter in order to meet the increased water requirements in
the centres of cities local recycling will become more relevant in the future. It is
quite clear from the experience that there is a strong scale factor for the specific
costs of waste water treatment plants which in such cases gets more and more
dependent on the costs for the area required than on the costs for the technology,
25
31. 8. 2015 20:11:32
A very interesting development has been put into practice in Qingdao where
a completely new decentralised water system has been implemented for
a horticulture exposition with all the infrastructure (12.000 inhabitants). It starts
has a source separation between black and grey water, with separate treatment
systems for the two waste water streams in order to produce two different new
sources of treated effluent, one for toilet flushing the other for irrigation (Cornel
2015). The goal is to have an energy neutral water system by using anaerobic
sludge treatment together with separately collected organic waste.
Another interesting development is the use of sea water for toilet flushing as
it has a long tradition in Hong Kong. As a consequence the waste water has
a high salinity which offers the application of new technologies for waste water
treatment (SANI process) using hydrogen sufide from anaerobic sulfate reduction
for denitrification. The reuse of the treated effluents is restricted due to the high
salinity. It also is interesting that the saline waste water is very suitable for
chemically enhanced primary treatment as it causes a markedly higher organic
pollution reduction than for normal waste water. Hong Kong having limited fresh
water availability has also recently developed a new rain water harvesting and
storage system for two purposes. On the one hand rain water storage increases
the fresh water availability for different purposes on the other hand it is an excellent means to reduce the frequency of flooding in the city. It can compensate to
a marked level the increased surface runoff due to increased paved surfaces as
well as the increased rain intensities due to climate change. In Korea a concept
of decentralised rain water harvesting systems (roofs and underground storage)
has been successfully applied in full scale. Also Korea is a typical monsoon area
with high rainfall intensities and relatively long dry seasons.
For the design and even technology of the waste water treatment plants it is
also very relevant whether separate of combined sewer systems are applied in
the cities. Actually there is a trend towards separate sewer systems as they are
in favour of reuse technology and offer a better chance for rain water harvesting
and utilisation. Nevertheless experience shows that in separate sewer systems
rainwater intrusion into the waste water mains cannot be completely avoided
but can be limited to a much higher degree than with combined sewer systems.
The perhaps most relevant criteria for new sustainable urban water systems is
their reliability under all possible conditions. Special emphasis has to be given to
the hygienic aspects linked to waste water where the conventional systems have
proved to be successful even under very critical situations like during the two
World Wars. This aspect is also relevant for the level of decentralisation which
increases the number of plants, not necessarily the manpower requirements as
remote monitoring and control technology offers more and more opportunities
for centralising operational tasks. More problems might be the whole repair and
maintenance requirements. In any case our actual systems and also most of the
suggested new concepts completely rely on continuous reliable power supply
from outside. Maybe in the future the reliability under critical conditions will
become a more relevant driving force for new technology and systems. Actually
the development of energy self-sufficient urban water systems is driven by their
contribution to reduce their energy costs and carbon footprint for climate change
abatement.
Another globally relevant challenge is the fate of the waste water compounds
during waste water treatment and reuse. Up to now the aerobically or anaerobically biodegradable organic compounds of the waste water are mainly introduced
into the natural carbon cycle. The rest of the pollution, if not contained in the
effluent is mainly transferred to sewage sludge which has to be treated and
finally reused or disposed as its production cannot be avoided.
26
Response to the challenges
The actual global situation in regard to waste water treatment can be characterised by the following statements, which are based on literature and personal
experience this has to be considered for the evaluation of these statements:
• There is a global consent that water management will undergo severe
changes in many regions of the world where fresh water availability surpasses
water demand. As water pollution from municipal and industrial discharges of
untreated waste water to the receiving waters is one of the main causes for
the deficiency, waste water treatment will remain a priority task worldwide
and for large cities a minimum requirement.
• It is globally recognised that safe and reliable water supply is a basic requirement for public welfare and development. It has only recently been recognised
at UN level that this goal can only be achieved by linking it to sanitation.
Sanitation is directly linked to waste water treatment if discharged to a receiving water as in most cases they are used downstream as a main source of
fresh water for different purposes. In fact waste water reuse within a river
basin for drinking and industrial water supply has proved to be a sustainable
concept over long periods of time and minimum dilution factors (>1:10) for the
treated waste water with natural flow if treatment efficiency of all the waste
water treatment plants meets high quality criteria. Under these conditions
also the receiving water quality will be maintained at a high level, and the
natural aquatic ecosystem additionally contributes to enhance water quality.
• There is a global slow trend towards the application of a minimum treatment
efficiency standard for all waste waters discharged to rivers which is meeting
the requirements already formulated in 1914 by Ardern and Lokett; full nitrification at any time in order to nearly completely avoid oxygen consumption
in the receiving water. This was the maximum achievable treatment efficiency
of the activated sludge process they have invented. Today we know that full
nitrification is a reasonable indicator for the limits of (aerobic) biological
treatment processes including the removal of many micro-pollutants.
• In order to fight eutrophication in all waters including the coastal waters, this
minimum requirement will be supplemented by requirements for nitrogen
and phosphorus removal in most of the river basins. Meeting this requirement offers the possibility to recover phosphorus and maybe nitrogen for
agricultural use in the future. On a global scale we are very far from meeting
such a minimum standard which can be classified as a precautionary principle
which has a strong political aspect as it forces all users of water to restore its
quality after use to a minimum requirement which is a social aspect. in most
cases it also strongly contributes to meet the most stringent environmental
water standards for a “good status”.
• Whenever waste water is treated for direct reuse or recycling the treatment
efficiency has to be adapted to the purpose of the water utilisation. In any
case it has to be considered that waste water use might not be in line with the
waste water flow at any time. This can be compensated by adequate storage
capacity.
• In coastal regions seawater desalination will become increasingly important
and represents the only new fresh water source. There is ample research work
for reducing the energy consumption which today is in the range of 3 to 4 kWh
/m³ of fresh water, which desalination of WWTP effluents it is only about
1 kWh/m³. As a consequence the reuse of desalinated seawater probably will
become a common technology allowing also multiple reuse. Membrane RO
is actually the most common technology applied in many full scale plants
for both processes. The trend might be to use ceramic membranes instead
of organic as their lifetime should be much longer. But completely new
technologies with much lower energy requirements can cause dramatic
31. 8. 2015 20:11:34
www.lwwtp2015.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
changes in the future (FO; electrochemistry etc.) even for the WWT processes
as pre-treatment. (Singapore’s NEW WATER concept).
Quo vadis WWT? The water challenges a great and still increasing in many
parts of the world. Political relevance as well is increasing which enables
increasing flows of money into the water industry and hence a bright future for
innovations. At the same time existing successful infrastructure will change
very slowly even ground breaking innovations will occur. As most of the
necessary infrastructure for safe water supply, sanitation and water protection
is still not in place there is ample room for new urban water concepts as well
as for the application of new technologies. The specific local situation will
remain a dominant criterion for the selection of urban water systems and WWT
technology and design procedures will have to be much more integrated into
these systems compared to the past.
Space requirements for WWT already play an important role in the urban
environment due to increasing competition for a limited resource. New
developments for efficient biological treatment like the Nereda Process
(Netherlands) with granulated biomass have a great potential to reduce not
only the costs for land but also for construction.
Physical chemical post treatment processes as ozone and AC for micropollutant removal are already successfully applied in full scale. Whether
this technology will become a kind of minimum requirement for waste water
treatment is still a matter of controversial discussion.
Sewage sludge treatment and disposal is even less developed at a global
scale than WWT. From the legal aspect sludge is a waste while WWT normally
belongs to the water legislation. There are two major traditional successful
methods of sludge treatment and disposal for large cities which are applied
since several decennia. One is agricultural use of sludge. Meeting certain quality criteria (mainly hygienic parameters but also heavy metal concentrations)
sludge can be transformed into “biosolids” which is already a market product
in US and UK. Also other countries favour sludge application on land. The other
concept is to go for incineration in order to destroy the organic macro and
micro-pollutants, all pathogens and to dramatically reduce the load and hence
the transport costs. The ashes still contain the whole phosphorus removed
from the waste water all the other valuable compounds are destroyed except
perhaps the heavy metals.
It seems to be obvious that the final sludge disposal method strongly influences the treatment processes. E.g. for land application of sewage sludge it is
important to meet hygienic standards and to reduce the volume or load to be
transported. Processes like high temperature and high pressure pre-treatment
before digestion (e.g. CAMBI Process) result in meeting both goals and therefore have successfully entered the market even the overall energy balance is
not changed very much. For incineration of sludge such processes are less
interesting as hygiene and load reduction are met by the final process itself.
Numerous technologies have been developed to reduce sludge production
already in the treatment process. From the COD balance it has to result in
higher energy consumption either by higher oxygen demand or by adding
chemicals (e.g.ozone) which also need energy for production. The energy in
the solids which finally have to be treated and disposed cannot be changed
by processes only the value of the energy (expressed in entropy level). The
conversion of this energy into methane by anaerobic digestion will probably
remain the most relevant contribution to make optimum use of the energy. By
incineration as the final step most of the energy content can be transformed
into a usable form. The lower the calorific value of the incinerated material the
more external energy has to be applied for sustainable incineration process.
This favours raw sludge incineration. As a consequence it seems that despite
continuous development of new processes the local and historic situation will
finally decide which processes fit and which not – a great variety of solutions
will probably remain.
• The most radical proposal is to totally avoid sludge production and to transform
waste water to a raw material for the chemical industry which produces clean
water on the one hand and to produce a variety of sellable products from all
the waste water compounds one the other hand. The rationale behind is that
we still loose valuable raw materials by dissipation to rivers and finally to the
oceans e.g most of the potassium and heavy metals, while nitrogen is mainly
lost to the atmosphere. This would be a revolution not only for waste water
treatment – or as Verstraete has formulated in IWA World Water Congress in
Lisbon 2014: “100 years of activated sludge process is enough.”
Concluding remarks
I want to close my considerations on the future of WWT by expressing my conviction that with increasing pressure on water availability and increasing concern
about sustainable water and materials management completely new concepts
and technologies will be developed and applied in the future. I assume that we
will have a great variety of solutions also in the future as the specific local situation of our settlements is extremely different which favours such a development.
There are a couple of methods to evaluate new concepts and technologies relying
of sound scientific basis. They are normally included in the life cycle analysis
methods as:
• Material flow analysis applied from the sources of the waste water pollutants
to their final destination in water, air, or soil. At least the elements’ flow is
conservative
• Energy balance according the two laws of thermodynamics: energy is conservative but can change the entropy level and hence the “value”. The second
law also does not allow zero and 100% conversions, destrucions, removal
rates etc.
• Monod and/or Michaelis-Menten relation showing the possible equilibria
between limiting food concentration and growth rate of organic cells
• Adsorption isotherms
There is a very rapid development in monitoring and interpretation of the genetic
information contained in living cells which can have a great potential in better
understanding the relationship between human activity and the living environment but also in new methods for waste water treatment or the conversion of
pollution into valuable products.
The future energy supply increasingly based on renewable i.e. solar energy and
the costs of energy will have a decisive role for the future trends in waste water
treatment and water management. It is clear that without continuous low entropy
energy supply, water nor food supply of the global population of about 10 Bill
inhabitants will be possible. Solar energy is a nearly unlimited resource of low
entropy energy providing us with fresh water via precipitation, photosynthesis
for our food production, our natural environment and driving our climate with
a power of >10.000 kW/inhabitant. Our actual primary power consumption is
“only” ~ 3 kW/inhabitant (corresponding to 30 slaves continuously working
for each of us). Waste water treatment with nutrient removal needs less than
0.03 kW/inhabitant but can be made energy self-sufficient.
The implementation of efficient waste water treatment technology has proven to
be a cornerstone in environmental protection as well as in urban water management.. The solution of the water problems needs continuous innovation which
has an important local but also an increasingly global aspect. Innovation is
enhanced by a global exchange of knowledge and experience as well as by
global co-operation.
27
31. 8. 2015 20:11:35
European Wastewater Treatment Requirements in the Times of the Water
Framework Directive – Target and Reality
Harro Bode1
Ruhr River Association, Essen, Germany
The directive itself knows three different categories for which it provides effluent
standards for sewage treatment plants:
• less sensitive areas (91/271/EEC, art.6)
• normal areas (91/271/EEC, art.4)
• sensitive areas (91/271/EEC, art.5).
Whereas for less sensitive areas at least primary treatment is required normal
areas need biological wastewater treatment with effluent concentrations of
25 mg/l BOD, 125 mg/l COD and a certain concentration of suspended solids
according to the size of the treatment plant. Within the sensitive areas treatment
plants have to additionally bring down the total phosphorus to 2 mg/l in cases
of treatment plants between 10,000 and 100,000 population equivalents and to
1 mg/l phosphorus in cases of treatment plants of more than 100,000 population equivalents. The nitrogen standards are 15 mg/l between 10,000 and
100,000 population equivalents and 10 mg/l nitrogen in case of more than
100,000 population equivalents. As an alternative way to fulfill the European
Standards instead of guaranteeing the compliance with the mentioned effluent
concentrations the operators can also choose the option to fulfill minimum
percentages of reduction (effluent loads versus influent loads).
Another option instead of requirements for individual wwtp’s is to make sure
that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering urban
wastewater treatment plants in an entire river catchment is at least 75 % for
total phosphorus and/or nitrogen.
28
Because of the granted transition periods and the fact that there are still unsettled court cases between the commission and different nations a sharp analysis
of the present state of compliance is almost impossible. Real reliable figures only
exist until 2011/2012. The time period after that is not thoroughly evaluated. But
if one takes the figures and their previous development up to 2011 one can state
that the amount of collection systems and appropriate sewage treatment have
increased significantly. If one clusters the nations (including some nations which
do not belong to the European Union like Switzerland and Turkey) into the five
sections North, Central, South, East, Southeast, the following results are obtained:
Percentage of population within
the specific European region
Region within Europe
(time period)
Tertiary
treatment
[%]
Water infrastructure belongs to the group of long lasting investments. Normally
they are built to exist for many decades. Their planning therefore requires a high
degree of thoroughness as well as careful investigations and evaluations. Hence
it is not surprising that the countries which joined the European Union within
the last 11 years find themselves in a different degree of compliance with the
European rules and regulations in respect to water management than the ones
which belong to the Union much longer. Since the European administration knows
about these time consuming factors for planning, financing and erection of water
infrastructure transition periods were granted to countries which joined later.
Therefore the overall picture of the fulfillment of the European Urban Wastewater
Treatment Directive (UWWTD) from 1991 is not homogenous.
• This municipal wastewater directive also requires that settlements above
2,000 population equivalents must provide wastewater collection systems.
• Within certain limits it was left to the member states to declare different
regions of their countries as less sensitive, normal or sensitive. The commission watched whether this was done in a reasonable way or whether nations
would declare regions in which the receiving bodies were sensitive by nature
as normal or less sensitive. If cases like this occurred the commission started
to argue with the specific country and took it to court if necessary. The less
sensitive status is only allowed at the coast in cases where the receiving
ocean can cope with the load of organics and nutrients. Shallow maritime
waters such as the Baltic Sea and major parts of the North Sea are not able to
do this to a bigger extent.
Treated
wastewater
[%]
Nowadays the European Union consists out of 28 member states. Within the
57 years of its existence the European Union has grown slowly but steadily:
Starting with six countries in 1958 the Union grew constantly over the following
37 years and had more than doubled its membership to fifteen member states
in 1995. However, within the short span of the last eleven years the number of
countries almost doubled again: In 2004 ten countries entered the Union and
after that three further countries joined.
Connected
to collection
systems
[%]
1
North (1990 – 2010)
65 – 86
65 – 84
59 – 77
Central (1990 – 2010)
83 – 98
83 – 97
16 – 77
South (1994 – 2011)
53 – 98
53 – 96
4 – 60
East (1995 – 2011)
43 – 77
39 – 63
4 – 51
Southeast (1995 – 2011)
12 – 71
12 – 50
0 – 16
Increase of connection and treatment in respect to municipal wastewater
in different European regions within a certain time period (as percentage of population)
The figures show that the wastewater infrastructure is the farthest developed in
Central Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, Germany, Ireland,
31. 8. 2015 20:11:36
www.lwwtp2015.org
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Scotland and Switzerland), whereas the Southeast
with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey is still far behind right now. But at the same
time the progress after 1995 is huge there: The percentage of population of which
the wastewater gets treated increased more than four times (from 12 % up to
50 %!) within the last 20 years.
In 2000 the European Union established the Framework Directive (WFD) besides
the 1991 municipal wastewater directive (UWWTD). This directive serves as an
“umbrella regulation” to all water related directives. Additionally it states that
it must be a target for the Union to have all European surface waters in a good
ecological and chemical status preferably by 2015, at the latest by 2027. To
understand and judge whether this postulation is ambitious or not one has to be
aware of the standards which must be fulfilled to reach a good ecological and
chemical status.
The ecological status is evaluated by comparing the flora and fauna of the
specific water body in comparison to the ones of a totally “untouched” reference
water body in a similar environment (climate, topography etc.).
The chemical status of a surface water body is defined by concentrations of
chemical compounds as Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) which are not
allowed to be exceeded by the annual average (AA-EQS) or by single samples
(maximum allowable concentration (MAC-EQS)).
Data from 2012 show that the different member states of the EU report very
different degrees of fulfillment in respect to a good ecological status of their
surface water bodies. It reaches from a fulfillment of 75 % in Estonia (water
bodies being in the good or even higher status) down to 0 % in the Netherlands
and Belgium. It shows that there is still a long way to go and that countries with
a dense population are exposed to a much bigger challenge than countries
with huge amounts of sparsely populated landscape like Romania or Finland.
It is interesting that many countries which lately joined the Union report higher
proportions of good ecological status than the ones which belong to the Union for
more than 50 years (like Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and The Netherlands).
One has to suspect that there are different scales of evaluation being applied.
In respect to the chemical status it could be reported until recently that the situation was quite satisfying overall. Although the chemical status of about 40 %
of all surface water bodies was reported as to be unknown, about 50 % were in
“good” and only about 10 % failed to achieve “good”. But this is going to change
drastically. The reason for this is that the Commission changed the target values
and lowered the concentrations which should not be exceeded to receive the
title “within a good chemical status”. This shows how arbitrary such targets are.
There has been a lot of criticism in respect to these new environmental quality
standards which are laid down in the directive 2013/39/EU since some of them
are incredibly low. They contain high safety factors and aim for a zero effect
level for all aquatic life. They had to be implemented into the national law by
each member state until September 2015. I want to point out that these requirements do not derive from drinking water standards which are much higher in
concentration compared to these environmental quality standards in most cases.
It is expected that more than 90 % of all surface water bodies in the European
Union will fail to achieve this redefined ambitious new “good status”.
And it is also expected that some of these target concentrations will be exceeded
for a couple of decades even if the nations try very hard to be successful in lowering the output of these substances. Besides the incredible low concentrations
the reason for failure is the pathway of the substances into waterbodies. A lot
of priority substances do not derive from urban wastewater but from industrial
discharges, surface runoff, agriculture and air.
Within the last decades it had been clear that a proper pollution control was
and is a prerequisite for becoming a member of the European Union. Although
pollution control obviously goes together with high investments the economical
advantages of becoming a member of the European Union prevail and therefore
caused a change of mind and a change of behavior towards pollution control
within the candidate states. This is one of the big achievements of the European
Union and has led to great progress. But as outlined above the pollution control
situation in respect to the surface waters is still quite diverse within Europe.
Therefore the question arises whether it is reasonable to chase low concentrations of micropollutants in certain regions whereas in other regions these
micropollutants are totally ignored and high percentages of the population are
either not even connected to sewers or the municipal wastewater gets treated
only poorly.
As an example for the development of far reaching ambitious standards it can
be reported that Switzerland plans to build the so-called fourth stage for municipal wastewater treatment plants to a big extent. This fourth stage (activated
carbon or ozonization) is designed to reduce the amount of micropollutants as
for example of pesticides or of pharmaceuticals. This issue was discussed in
Switzerland for about five years on the political stage and then decided and put
into regulation (because of its historical neutrality Switzerland does not belong
to the European Union).
A similar movement to Switzerland can be observed in the State of North
Rhine-Westphalia in Germany right now. The Environmental Minister proclaims
that in favor of reaching a good status of the surface waters (in accordance with
the EU-standards) a certain percentage of municipal sewage treatment plants
should be extended by this fourth stage. But if one looks closer to the local rivers
it quite often becomes obvious that the major contribution to the exceeding of
the European environmental quality standards (European Directive of 2013) are
not point sources like wastewater treatment plants but diffuse emissions from
agriculture, atmosphere and streets. The waters of the German River Ruhr for
example will exceed the environmental quality standards by eight parameters.
But only two of them stem from municipal wastewater treatment plants. It seems
that there is a lot of further research and discussion needed to decide whether
the financial means for environmental protection are invested with the biggest
benefit for the water environment if they are spent for erecting fourth stages
of wastewater treatment instead of controlling pollution at its source and/or
banning the use of certain substances.
Overall it can be stated that the European Directive from 1991 dealing with
wastewater has led to big investments in wastewater collection and proper
treatment in many regions and therefore is contributing to a better environment
and a healthier and more pleasant life for millions of people in Europe. However,
some deficits have still to be admitted. Some countries have not completed their
duties yet and have still big investments to do. At the same time the Commission
recently has set surface water quality targets which seem to be illusionary high
since it will not be possible to reach many of them within the next 20 to 40 years.
They are not directly linked to wastewater treatment but in some regions they
are interpreted that way. The future will show whether further investments into
extensions of low loaded nutrient removing treatment plants in the form of fourth
stages will lead to significant gains of water quality or will prove to be a false
investment which could have been avoided.

29
31. 8. 2015 20:11:37
Reuse at Large Water Reclamation Facilities – Opportunities and Challenges
J.E. Drewes1
1
Technical University of Munich, Chair of Urban Water Systems Engineering, Garching/Munich, Germany
Water reclamation; water reuse
1. Introduction
Many countries are considering or have implemented large-scale water reclamation schemes to augment local water resources with non-potable and potable
supplies. Early reclamation schemes evolved during the middle of the last
century to establish an alternative to wastewater disposal (NRC 2012). These
projects have mainly resulted in reuse for agricultural and landscape irrigation
projects, which today still represent the majority of non-potable water reuse
applications worldwide employing various secondary and tertiary treatment
technologies followed by disinfection prior to reuse (Asano et al. 2007).
Over the last decades, water reclamation has evolved in many locations to
a viable approach for the establishment of multiple reuse applications rather
than just discharging treated wastewater to streams or the ocean. In particular
large facilities have taken a leading role in this transition. For instance, the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, the largest wastewater utility in the western
United States operates 11 water reclamation facilities with a combined treatment
capacity of 1.93 million m3/d of which 35 percent of treated effluents are used
for multiple reuse applications. Select examples of non-potable reuse applications are provided in Table 1.1 for large water reclamation facilities (with ‘large’
defined as treatment capacities above 20,000 m3/d). While non-potable reuse
does provide a viable alternative to traditional freshwater supplies, the establishment and further expansion of existing systems are challenged by economic and
geographical issues, which are being discussed in this paper.
30
significant conveyance infrastructure and pumping energy (Asano et al. 2007).
However, in areas where local groundwater supplies are already depleted and
alternative supplies are not available, these investments can be well justified.
For example, recent epic drought conditions in California have threatened the
highly productive agricultural areas in the Central Valley due to a lack of water.
Agricultural production in many regions in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia,
have overexploited local non-renewable groundwater supplies instead of using
reclaiming water from urban areas (Drewes et al. 2012).
Urban irrigation projects or other non-potable urban reuse applications also
require dedicated conveyance systems (i.e., purple pipe systems), which are
expensive to build and maintain in communities that are already built out. For
greenfield developments and by considering them as an integral part of urban
planning, these dual-distribution systems can be quite attractive and economically viable (Asano et al. 2007). For reuse applications providing relatively low
quality water to customers, revenue streams from selling reclaimed water are
commonly limited to finance large dual distribution systems. Based on a recent
survey by the WateReuse Research Foundation, the price charged to customers
for recycled water in Australia generally ranged from about US$1.26/m3 to
US$2.12/m3. In the U.S., the price charged to customers ranged from US$0.08/
m3 to US $1.0/m3, which is lower than potable supplies providing an incentive to
switch to reclaimed water, but not high enough to generate significant revenues
(WateReuse Research Foundation 2012).
Regions facing severe water scarcity and rapid population growth have also
established potable water reuse schemes. Given the complexity of these treatment schemes leading to drinking water augmentation and the high standards
to maintain a safe supply (Drewes and Khan 2011), the majority of potable-reuse
installations were established as large-scale water recycling facilities (Table 1.2).
Without the pioneering role of large utilities the development and acceptance
of drinking water augmentation with recycled water would not have happened.
Potable reuse has the advantage of using local drought-proof supplies (i.e., the
wastewater of the community) as well as an already existing conveyance system
to customers (i.e., the drinking water distribution network). However, further
growing potable reuse requires viable treatment barriers, appropriate monitoring
programs, proper institutional arrangements, and most importantly acceptance
by regulators and the general public. Recent trends in potable reuse are being
addressed below.
In addition, reuse facilities serving irrigation or cooling water needs experience
the seasonality of the demand either requiring extensive storage, which frequently is not feasible, or/and highly flexible treatment schemes with treatment
capacities which are not utilized year round (NRC 2012). Thus, alternative reuse
applications were developed including groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance and stream-flow augmentation, process water for industrial applications,
toilet-flushing in commercial and residential buildings, and other urban uses.
Providing higher quality reclaimed water tailored to various applications can represent a significant revenue stream for a utility. The West Basin Municipal Water
Districts operates the Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility in El Segundo,
California with a capacity of 47,000 m3/d utilizing the entire flow for five different reuse applications. These reuse applications include tertiary treatment for
landscape irrigation; nitrified effluents for cooling water; ozone/microfiltration/
reverse osmosis/UV-H2O2 for indirect potable reuse; single pass reverse osmosis
for industrial boiler feed water; and double-pass reverse osmosis for high pressure boiler feed water.
2. Non-potable reuse applications at large water
reclamation facilities
3. Potable reuse applications at large water reclamation
facilities
A significant challenge for non-potable reuse applications in general is the
geographical separation between wastewater treatment facilities and potential
reuse customers. In particular for agricultural irrigation reclaimed water needs
to be conveyed from urban areas to areas with agricultural activities requiring
Drinking water augmentation with recycled water mainly occurs by using
secondary treatment followed by advanced water treatment processes and
discharge into an environmental buffer (reservoir or groundwater aquifer) before
water is abstracted for potable supply (“indirect potable reuse”). Considering
31. 8. 2015 20:11:39
www.lwwtp2015.org
these indirect potable reuse projects across the globe, advanced processes
employed in potable reuse treatment schemes include various combinations of
integrated membrane systems, activated carbon adsorption, ozone, advanced
oxidation processes as well as natural treatment such as riverbank filtration and
artificial groundwater recharge (Drewes and Khan 2015).
Establishing and maintaining a successful potable reuse projects require a utility
that can build upon a track record of proper operation and producing high-quality
water. This is best accomplished by an institutional arrangement where a wastewater utility partners with a drinking water provider. In addition, since drinking
water is the desired quality, assuring proper quality starts with source control
programs in the sewershed, extensive monitoring programs throughout the entire
reuse system, and the establishment of multiple barriers in the treatment train
(Figure 3.1). The complexity of such a treatment train requires properly trained
personnel (preferably certified as wastewater and drinking water operators), well
established and maintained operating procedures, redundancy of key processes
and critical units, real-time monitoring, and a open and ongoing dialogue with
regulators and customers served (Drewes et al. 2013, Drewes and Khan 2015).
These requirements are usually only fulfilled by a large water reclamation facilities rather than small utilities.
Recent developments in the U.S. and Southern Africa also favor the establishment
of direct potable reuse schemes. In particular in the U.S., direct potable reuse is
envisioned to be first implemented at large-scale water reclamation facilities
with demonstration-scale facilities already under way.
4. Conclusions
Large water reclamation facilities have always been the leaders in innovation
of water reuse and this trend will very likely continue in the future. Very recent
developments are now addressing the energy foot-print of water reclamation
processes which can be significantly higher than conventional wastewater
treatment. Integrated approaches are emerging to combine energy recovery
strategies with water recycling. In addition, completely new design philosophies
are being proposed to tailor treatment to multiple objectives (low energy demand,
maximal opportunities for energy and nutrient recovery, high degree of water
reuse) including the direct reuse of wastewater to drinking water.
References
Asano, T., Leverenz, H.L., Tsuchihashi, R., and Tchobanoglous, G. (2007). Water
Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Drewes, J.E. and Khan, S. (2011) Water Reuse for Drinking Water Augmentation.
J. Edzwald (ed.) Water Quality and Treatment, 6th Edition. 16.1 – 16.48. American
Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
Drewes, J.E., Rao Garduno, C.P., Amy, G.L. (2012). Water reuse in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia – status, prospects and research needs. Water Science and
Technology: Water Supply. 12(6): 926 – 936.
Drewes, J.E., Anderson, P., Denslow, N., Olivieri, A., Schlenk, D., Snyder, S.A., Maruya,
K.A. (2013). Designing Monitoring Programs for Chemicals of Emerging Concern
in Potable Reuse - What to include and what not to include? Water Science and
Technology 67(2), 433 – 439.
Drewes, J.E. and Khan, S. (2015). Contemporary Design, Operation and Monitoring
of Potable Reuse Systems. J. Water Reuse and Desalination 5(1), 2 – 7.
National Research Council (NRC) (2012) Water Reuse – Potential for Expanding
the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. The National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
WateReuse Research Foundation (2012). The Future of PurplePipes: Exploring
the Best Use of Non-Potable Recycled Water in Diversified Urban Water Systems.
Final Report WRRF-10-14. Alexandria, Virginia.
Table 1.1 Selected Examples of Established Non-Potable Water Reuse Projects Worldwide with capacities above 20,000 m3/d.
Year
Project
Capacity
(m3/d)
1962
Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts/Water Replenishment
District, California
458,700
2005
Denver Water Reclamation Plant
113,000
Country
Treatment sequence
Non-Potable Water Reuse Type
USA
Secondary treatment-media
filtration-Disinfection
Industrial, commercial, and recreational applications; agriculture;
irrigation of parks, schools, golf
courses, roadways, and nurseries
USA
Secondary treatment – BAFs,
Public park irrigation; cooling water
coagulant rapid mixers, flocculation for power plant; Denver Zoo
basins, inclined plate clarifiers,
and high-rate deep bed anthracite
media filters
31
31. 8. 2015 20:11:40
Table 1.2 Established Potable Water Reuse Projects Worldwide with capacities above 20,000 m3/d (adopted from Drewes & Khan (2011).
Year
Project
1962
Montebello Forebay Spreading
Grounds, Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts/Water
Replenishment District, California
Water Factory 21, Orange County
Water District, California
Upper Occoquan Service Authority,
Virginia
Hueco Bolson Recharge Project,
El Paso, Texas
Clayton County, Georgia
West Basin Water Recycling Plant,
California
Gwinnett County, Georgia
Scottsdale Water Campus, Arizona
1976
1978
1985
1985
1993
1999
1999
Capacity
(m3/d)
165,000
Country
Advanced treatment sequence
Potable Water Reuse Type
USA
Media filtration-SAT
IPR/groundwater recharge
60,000
USA
IPR/seawater intrusion barrier
204,000
USA
38,000
USA
66,000
47,000
USA
USA
Lime clarification-air
stripping-RO-UV/AOP
Lime clarification-media filtrationGAC-ion exchange
Lime clarification-media
filtration-Ozone-GAC-Ozone
UV-Wetland
Microfiltration-RO-UV/AOP
227,000
53,000
USA
USA
Ultrafiltration-Ozone-GAC
Media
filtration-Microfiltration-RO-UV/AOP
Ozone-clarification-DAF-media
filtration-Ozone-BAC/
GAC-ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration-RO-UV
Media filtration-SAT
IPR/surface water augmentation
IPR/groundwater recharge/seawater
intrusion barrier
(not operational)
2002
New Goreangab Water Reclamation
Plant, Windhoek
21,000
Namibia
2003
2003
2007
NeWater Bedok
NeWater Kranji
Chino Basin Recharge Project,
California
Groundwater Replenishment Project,
California
Western Corridor Project, Southeast
Queensland
Loudon County, Virginia
Arapahoe/Cottonwood, Colorado
NeWater, Changi
Prairie Waters Project, Colorado
86,000
55,000
69,000
Singapore
Singapore
USA
265,000
USA
232,000
Australia
42,000
34,000
230,000
190,000
USA
USA
Singapore
USA
348,000
USA
Microfiltration-GAC
Riverbank filtration-RO-UV/AOP
Riverbank filtration-softening-UV/
AOP-BAC-GAC
2008
2008
2008
2009
2010
2010
2014
Groundwater Replenishment Project,
California (expansion)
IPR/seawater intrusion barrier
DPR
IPR/groundwater recharge/seawater
intrusion barrier
Figure 3.1 Key design elements of potable reuse schemes.
32
31. 8. 2015 20:11:42
www.lwwtp2015.org
Control of Wastewater Treatment Plants
G. Olsson1
1
Industrial Automation, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; [email protected]
Instrumentation; Control; Automation
Abstract
Instrumentation, control and automation (ICA) of the activated sludge processes
have attracted much attention since the early 1970s. Even earlier it was recognized that the process was subject to large load variations and that this called for
some kind of control. At that time, however, instrumentation was unsophisticated,
actuators were not flexible, and the control methods were poorly developed. The
developments during the last four decades in on-line instrumentation, computer
technology, power electronics, control theory, process understanding and subsequent model development have been powerful driving forces for advanced
control. With today’s on-line instrumentation and computer technology we take
it for granted that lots of data will be available, but we also know that data-rich
is not the same as information-rich. Data have to be validated and interpreted.
We can readily simulate complex non-linear models, but the challenge is still the
verification and validation of the models and the underlying data base.
Regulatory requirements and increased design complexity as well as economics
and efficiency have pushed the ICA development further and today ICA is a vital
part of most water and wastewater systems. Still, most often ICA is implemented
only as a second step for existing plants. The coupling of design and operation
ought to be improved, so-called control-integrated design. Inflexible or underdimensioned designs cannot be fully compensated by control.
ICA is no longer a supplementary profession to the water and wastewater industry but has become main-stream. Many professionals are now implementing
automation and process control in wastewater installations but unfortunately
not always with the right education or the necessary understanding of process
dynamics to do so. The latter can be problematic, for example when it comes
to identifying new opportunities resulting from implementing ICA tools. Systemwide aspects will become increasingly important. It is possible to address all
the driving forces and performance criteria together and show that with the
right control strategies and settings the most efficient solution can be achieved.
However, this means that better ways to deal with multi-criteria decisions will
have to be developed.
ICA development
Instrumentation, control and automation (ICA) of wastewater treatment systems
and sewer networks have attracted much attention since the early 1970s. The
developments during the last four decades in on-line instrumentation, computer
technology, process understanding and subsequent model development, and
control methods have been powerful driving forces for advanced control making
ICA ever more profitable. Today computational power is almost “for free”. The
instrumentation development shows a progress towards “smarter” sensors with
multiple heads, possible to be placed anywhere in the processes. Actuators such
as variable speed drives for pumps and compressors make control more flexible.
Control engineering today can offer “almost any method” that the water operator
would need.
There are several important “demand pull” driving forces. Regulatory requirements and increased design complexity have stimulated further ICA development. It is expected that the use of ICA for the operation and management of
wastewater systems will increase in the coming years. Other demand pull
driving forces include continued population growth and urbanisation leading to
increased wastewater load, continued increase in the complexity in the function
and capability of wastewater treatment (now more often called resource recovery) plants, ever more stringent regulations, and ever-stronger economic drivers.
The on-going climate change and the associated extreme weather conditions
further add to the challenges.
Control of unit process operations
In most cases control systems consist of quite conventional control loops
oriented at unit process operations. The aim is to compensate for disturbances,
satisfy the effluent quality and save energy and chemical consumption. These
applications are relatively mature. Some examples of state-of-the-art unitprocess control include:
• Dissolved oxygen (DO) control with a constant or a variable set-point as part
of the aerator unit process operation. Variation in the DO set-point is typically
guided by ammonia sensors indicating the nitrogen removal performance;
• Aeration phase-length control in alternating plants based on nutrient sensors;
• Nitrate recirculation control in pre-denitrification plants based on DO and
nitrate measurements in the aerobic and anoxic zones, respectively;
• Sludge retention time control based on measurements of effluent ammonia
concentration and the estimated nitrification capacity;
• Return sludge control based on sludge blanket measurements in the settler;
• The control of the feed rate to anaerobic processes aimed at stabilizing the
process and maximizing the biogas production;
• Chemical precipitation control based on local measurements of phosphate
concentration.
It has been demonstrated that ICA may increase the capacity of biological nutrient removal plants by 10 – 30 %. With further understanding and exploitation of
the relationship between operational parameters and the microbial population
dynamics and biochemical reactions and increased maturity of advanced on-line
sensors, the improvements offered by ICA will likely reach even higher levels
within the next 10 – 20 years. Comprehensive reviews of these control systems
developments can be found in Olsson-Newell (1999), Olsson et al. (2005, 2014),
Åmand et al., (2013) and Olsson (2008, 2012).
Process interactions
There is an increasing interest in the interaction between various unit processes
that is a result both of the main stream and of recirculation flows. Over the years
the complexity of wastewater treatment systems has increased substantially.
The first ICA applications were implemented in COD removal plants. The designs
33
31. 8. 2015 20:11:43
gradually included COD combined with phosphorus removal using chemical
precipitation and further to biological nutrient removal plants. Today there is a lot
of focus on resource (water, energy and nutrients) recovery. Consequently, the
system complexity has increased substantially, with strong interactions between
different processes units, representing both challenges and opportunities for ICA,
illustrated by a few examples:
• In a pre-denitrification plant a large flow of oxygen rich nitrate is recirculated
to the anoxic zone. The DO control has to satisfy the need of oxygen for the
nitrification towards the outlet of the aeration basin and still prevent too much
oxygen to enter the anoxic zone (Olsson-Newell, 1999).
• Interaction between different parts of the treatment plant can cause unintentional disturbances. Figure 1 illustrates how a sudden release of nitrogen-rich
sludge supernatant from an anaerobic digester back to the influent of the
wastewater treatment plant will cause an unnecessary overload of the plant
if it happens during the high load periods of the day. The oxygen uptake rate
increases significantly as the supernatant is recycled. The controlled release
of such streams during low-load periods will beneficially attenuate the
disturbance.
amount of solids to be buffered in the settler. The operating experiences of ATS
have been very favourable (Sharma et al., 2013).
Integrated control is expected to be a key focus of control design in the coming
years. Such an approach is expected to not only deliver benefits in terms of treatment efficiency and costs, but also enhance the ability of a plant in coping with
increased loading; thus deferring plant upgrading. Control systems have to be
designed to consider plant wide aspects, sometimes including sewer operations
and their interaction with the wastewater treatment plant. The sequential relationship between the sewer, the wastewater treatment plant and the receiving
water is obvious and the need for control of flow in the sewers for the benefits of
wastewater treatment plants and also the receiving water was recognized early
(Olsson, 2012).
The central issue to be resolved in plant-wide control is the translation of implicit plant-wide operating objectives to sets of feedback-controlled variables of
individual control loops. The supervisory control, called STAR™ (Superior Tuning
and Reporting), was presented by Lynggaard-Jensen & Nielsen (1993) and later
commercialized by Krüger AS, Denmark. The system automatically calculates the
setpoints for the individual control loops of the system. Thomsen-Önnert (2009)
reported experiences during 15 years with about 50 wastewater systems.
A successful integrated control requires both accurate dynamic models of the
sewer system and the treatment plant as well as reliable sensors. Progress in
integrated modelling and control has been reported, among others, by Nielsen
et al. (1996), Pfister et al. (1998), Rauch-Harremoes (1999) and Schütze et al.
(1999). The implementations were demonstrated by simulations of real systems,
but the results demonstrated the potential of integrated control. During the
last decade there has been a lot of research on models and control concepts
(e.g. Butler-Schütze, 2005; Vanrolleghem et. al., 2005; Benedetti et al., 2008),
case studies (e.g. Erbe et al., 2002 and Seggelke et al., 2005) and optimization
methods (e.g. Brdys et al., 2008; Muschalla, 2008 and Fu et al., 2008). An overview
of these developments can be found in Schütze et al. (2004), Rauch et al. (2005).
Olsson-Jeppsson (2006) emphasised the role of plant wide control with the inflow considered. The IWA Benchmark Task Group recently presented the result of
more than ten years of model development and integration (Gernaey et al., 2014).
Figure 1 The effect of supernatant recycling in a plant during a 10-day period. The
lower curve shows the flow rate of the anaerobic sludge digestion liquor, which represents
a few % of the total sewage flow but has nitrogen content in the order of 1 g N/L. The upper
curve shows the oxygen uptake rate in the aerobic reactor (data courtesy: M.K. Nielsen,
Denmark).
• The interactions between different parts of the treatment plant can also
be positively exploited through integrated control or plant-wide control, to
derive additional benefits. For example, the bioenergy recovery from waste
activated sludge can be enhanced by controlling the sludge age in the
secondary treatment to a level just allowing full nitrification. This is because
a relatively ‘young’ sludge is more biodegradable giving a higher yield for
bioenergy recovery. This aim can be achieved through the already-established
sludge retention time control (Olsson et al., 2005).
Integrated control
Aeration tank settling (ATS) technology (Nielsen et al., 2000) is a good example of
integrated control. The hydraulic capacity of a treatment plant is typically limited
by its secondary settler. The ATS strategy is to switch off aeration in the last part
of the aerobic reactor a few hours prior to the arrival of storm water. The activated
sludge settles in the reactor, reducing the solids loading to the settler and the
34
Integrated control is now being achieved in real life (e.g. Eindhoven, The
Netherlands: Weijers et al. 2012; Copenhagen, Denmark: Grum et al., 2011;
Wilhelmshaven, Germany: Seggelke et al., 2013), although the number of
successful implementations is still limited. A key barrier for the wider implementation is the fragmented urban water management. Integrated control often
means a compromise. While sewer control will minimize sewer overflow spills
it will cause hydraulic stress to the treatment plant. On the other hand, while
sewers can be used to equalize hydraulic load to the treatment plant, such an
operation does not necessarily improve the sewer performance. In both cases,
the benefit is only apparent when the entire wastewater system is seen as one
system with a unified goal. This is unfortunately still uncommon. Another barrier
for implementation is the absence of standard solutions as each case is different
and requires tailored approaches.
Resource recovery
The paradigm shift from wastewater treatment to resource recovery is also
leading to the development of novel processes. For example, the A/B process
has the aim to reduce aerobic oxidation of organic carbon and enhance bioenergy
recovery. The energy-rich activated sludge is passed on to the anaerobic digester
for the production of methane as renewable energy. Thus the aeration requirement is reduced and more organic carbon is converted to biogas. Supported by
31. 8. 2015 20:11:44
www.lwwtp2015.org
this technology, two municipal WWTPs in Austria are not only achieving energy
self-sufficiency, but also feeding the surplus electrical energy from the plant to
the power grid (Nowak et al., 2011). However, the organic carbon used for energy
production would no longer be available for achieving a high-level of nitrogen
removal. The development of the Anammox process has the potential to provide
a solution to the problem associated with the A/B process.
The novel process designs pose challenging control problems. First of all, the
A-stage should be operated such that a maximum amount of COD is absorbed/
adsorbed/bio-assimilated into the A-sludge, thus making more carbon available for bio-energy recovery. Even more challenging is the provision of suitable
conditions in the AOB/Anammox reactor(s) such that AOB (ammonia-oxidizing
bacteria) and Anammox bacteria develop in partnership while nitrite oxidizing
bacteria (NOB) are eliminated. While a number of strategies are available for
the elimination of NOB in conventional systems (Yuan et al., 2008), the stable
elimination of NOB in a main-stream Anammox system is an unsolved problem,
and ICA may play an important role in achieving this goal.
A further challenge that future ICA systems have to address is the mitigation
of N2O emissions from biological nitrogen removal plants. It is known that
operational conditions such as DO, nitrite and inorganic carbon concentrations,
pH level and biomass specific nitrogen loading rate play critical roles (Law et
al., 2012). The control of these parameters at levels that would minimise N2O
emissions yet allowing satisfactory nitrogen removal is yet to be developed and
demonstrated.
Decentralized systems
There is an increasing interest in decentralised wastewater treatment and
reuse systems in urban areas. Small plants are subject to extreme fluctuations
in both their inflow rates and the wastewater compositions. The flow rates can
be intermittent and wastewater compositions can vary within minutes. Still the
plants have to produce effluent with a quality complying with environmental
regulations reliably. Without professional engineers on site, ICA should and can
play an important role in ensuring stable operation and consistent performance
(Wilderer-Schreff, 2000; Olsson, 2013). A further particular challenge for ICA in
a small, decentralised treatment plant is that monitoring has to be achieved
through relatively simple, low-cost instruments such as flow, pH, level and
pressure meters. Also, early warning systems are critically important for such
systems.
Conclusions
ICA applications are common in urban wastewater systems with significant
benefits reported. The primary applications of ICA have focused on the control
of various process units in water and wastewater treatment plants, leading to
improved performance, reduced operational costs and increased capacity of the
plants. Future research will focus on integrated control of urban water systems.
Through properly recognising the connections and interactions between various
units in a plant, and between various sub-systems, ICA will play more significant
roles in optimised use of existing urban water infrastructure, leading to systemwide optimisation. The use of ICA can allow us to get more out of existing assets,
deferring capital intensive upgrading that would otherwise be needed.
References
Åmand, L., Olsson, G. and Carlsson, B. (2013). Aeration control – a review. Wat. Sci.
Tech. 67(11), 2374 – 2398.
Benedetti, L., Bixio, D., Claeys, F. and Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2008). Tools to support a model-based methodology for emission/immission and benefit/cost/
risk analysis of wastewater systems that considers uncertainty. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 23(8), 1082 – 1091.
Brdys, M.A., Grochowski, M., Gminski, T., Konarczak, K. and Drewa, M. (2008).
Hierarchical predictive control of integrated wastewater treatment systems.
Control Engineering Practice, 16(6), 751 – 767.
Butler, D. and Schütze, M. (2005). Integrating simulation models with a view
to optimal control of urban wastewater systems. Environmental Modelling &
Software 20(4), 415 – 426.
Erbe, V., Risholt, L.P., Schilling, W. and Londong, J. (2002). Integrated modelling
for analysis and optimisation of wastewater systems–the Odenthal case. Urban
Water, 4(1), 63 – 71.
Fu, G., Butler, D., and Khu, S.T. (2008). Multiple objective optimal control of
integrated urban wastewater systems. Environmental Modelling & Software,
23(2), 225 – 234.
Gernaey, K., Jeppsson, U., Vanrolleghem, P. and Copp, J. (2014). Benchmarking
of control strategies for wastewater treatment plants. IWA Publishing, London.
Grum, M., Thornberg, D., Christensen, M.L., Shididi, S.A., and Thirsing, C. (2011).
Full-scale real time control demonstration project in Copenhagen’s largest urban
drainage catchments. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Urban Drainage, Porto Alegre, Portugal.
Law, Y., Ye, L., Pan, Y. and Yuan Z. (2012) Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater
treatment processes. Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society, B (Biology). 367:
1265 – 1277.
Lynggaard-Jensen, A. and Nielsen, M.K. (1993). Superior Tuning and Reporting
(STAR) – a new concept for on-line process control of wastewater treatment
plants. In: 6th IAWPRC (IWA) conference on instrumentation and control.
Muschalla, D. (2008). Optimization of integrated urban wastewater systems using
multi-objective evolution strategies. Urban Water Journal, 5(1), 59 – 67.
Nielsen, M.K., Carstensen, J. and Harremoes, P. (1996). Combined control of
sewer and treatment plant during rainstorm. Water Science and Technology
34(3), 181 – 187.
Nielsen, M.K., Bechmann, H. and Henze, M. (2000). Modeling and test of aeration
tank settling (ATS). Water Science and Technology, 41(9), 179 – 184.
Nowak, O., Keil, S. and Fimml, C. (2011). Examples of energy self-sufficient
municipal nutrient removal plants. Water Science and Technology, 64(1), 1-6.
Olsson, G. (2008). Process Control. Chapter in Biological Wastewater Treatment
– Principles, Modelling and Design (M. Henze, M. van Loosdrecht, G. Ekama, D.
Brdjanovic, Editors) UNESCO, IWA Publishing, London.
Olsson, G. (2012). ICA and me – a subjective review. Water Research 46(6),
1585 – 1624.
Olsson, G. (2013). The potential of control and monitoring. Chapter 12 in Source
Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management (T.A. Larsen, K.M.
Udert and J. Lienert, editors). IWA Publishing, London. ISBN – 9781843393481
Olsson, G., and Newell, B. (1999). Wastewater Treatment Systems. Modelling,
Diagnosis and Control, IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Olsson, G., and Jeppsson, U. (2006). Plant-wide control: dream, necessity or reality? Leading-Edge Technology 2005 – Wastewater Treatment, 53(3), 121 – 129.
Olsson, G., Nielsen, M., Yuan, Z., Lynggaard-Jensen, A. and Steyer, J.P. (2005).
Instrumentation, Control and Automation in Wastewater Systems, IWA Publishing,
London.
Olsson, G., Carlsson, B., Comas, J., Copp, J., Gernaey, K.V., Ingildsen, P., Jeppsson,
U., Kim, C., Rieger, L., Rodríguez-Roda, I., Steyer, J.-P., Takács, I., Vanrolleghem, P.A.,
35
31. 8. 2015 20:11:45
Vargas Casillas, A., Yuan, Z. and Åmand, L. (2014). Instrumentation, Control and
Automation in wastewater – from London 1973 to Narbonne 2013. Water Science
and Technology 69(7), 1373 – 1385. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.057
Pfister, A., Stein, A., Schlegel, S. and Teichgräber, B. (1998). An integrated approach
for improving the wastewater discharge and treatment systems. Water Science
and Technology 37(1), 341 – 346.
Rauch, W. and Harremoes, P. (1999). Genetic algorithms in real time control
applied to minimize transient pollution from urban wastewater systems. Water
Research 33(5), 1265 – 1277.
Rauch, W., Seggelke, K., Brown, R., and Krebs, P. (2005). Integrated approaches in
urban storm drainage: Where do we stand? Environmental Management, 35(4),
396 – 409.
Schütze, M., Butler, D. and Beck, M.B. (1999). Optimisation of control strategies
for the urban wastewater system—an integrated approach. Water Science and
Technology 39(9), 209 – 216.
Schütze, M., Campisano, A., Colas, H., Schilling, W. and Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2004).
Real time control of urban wastewater systems—where do we stand today?
Journal of Hydrology, 299(3), 335 – 348.
Seggelke, K., Rosenwinkel, K.H., Vanrolleghem, P.A., and Krebs, P. (2005). Integrated
operation of sewer system and WWTP by simulation-based control of the WWTP
inflow. Water Science and Technology, 52(5), 195 – 203.
Seggelke, K., Löwe, R., Beeneken, T., and Fuchs, L. (2013). Implementation of an
integrated real-time control system of sewer system and waste water treatment
plant in the city of Wilhelmshaven. Urban Water Journal, 10(5), 330 – 341.
Sharma, A.K., Guildal, T., Thomsen, H.A.R., Mikkelsen P.S. and Jacobsen, B.N. (2013).
Aeration tank settling and real time control as a tool to improve the hydraulic
capacity and treatment efficiency during wet weather: results from 7 years’ fullscale operational data. Water Science & Technology, 67(10), 2169–2176
Thomsen, H.R. and Önnerth, T.B. (2009). Results and benefits from practical application of ICA on more than 50 wastewater systems over a period of 15 years.
Keynote presentation, 10th IWA conference on instrumentation, control and
automation, Cairns, Australia, June 2009.
Vanrolleghem, P.A., Benedetti, L. and Meirlaen, J. (2005). Modelling and real-time
control of the integrated urban wastewater system. Environmental Modelling &
Software 20(4), 427 – 442.
Weijers, S.R., De Jonge, J., Van Zanten, O., Benedetti, L., Langeveld, J., Menkveld,
H.W., and Van Nieuwenhuijzen, A.F. (2012). KALLISTO: cost effective and integrated
optimization of the urban wastewater system Eindhoven. Water Practice and
Technology, 7(2), 1 – 9.
Wilderer, P.A. and Schreff, D. (2000). Decentralized and centralized wastewater
management: a challenge for technology developers. Water Science and
Technology, 41(1) 1 – 8.
Yuan, Z., Oehmen, A., Peng, Y., Ma, Y and Keller, J. (2008) Sludge population optimisation in biological wastewater treatment systems through on-line process
control: a re/view. Re/View in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology. 7(3):
243 – 254.
36
31. 8. 2015 20:11:47
www.lwwtp2015.org
Selected Full Papers:
IWA – EWA Workshop on History
of Sanitation and Wastewater
Treatment in Large Towns
37
31. 8. 2015 20:11:48
IWA – EWA Workshop on History of Sanitation
and Wastewater Treatment in Large Towns
The end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century was characterized by an increased interest in history of sanitation of European towns. In this period many towns
marked the 100th – 150th anniversary of modern sewerage systems. The interest in historical issues accelerated around the 100 years anniversary of activated sludge
process which was celebrated by special conference organized by IWA Specialist Group on Design, Operation and Costs in Essen, 12 – 14 June 2014. This tendency
inspired some organizers of the 12th IWA Specialized Conference on Design, Operation and Economics of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants to use this conference
as an opportunity for organizing such event. Prague is very suitable venue for a historical workshop because its sewerage system was equipped with one of the first
wastewater treatment plants on the European continent.
As the main idea was to commemorate for the beginning just the history of sanitation of European towns, the chairman of the conference scientific programme
committee contacted the European Technical and Scientific Committee (ETSC), which is a specialized committee of the European Water Association. One of the roles of
ETSC is to organize seminars, conferences and other scientific events in water sector in Europe. The ETSC approved at its meeting in Munich during the IFAT trade fair the
idea of such joint IWA – EWA workshop. The workshop was then announced in the 1st Announcement and Call for Abstracts of the IWA LWWTP conference.
The conference organizers contacted possible authors from universities and operating companies in many European towns. From the beginning the response was not
very promising and that is why the programme of the workshop was put on the agenda of the next ETSC meeting held in March 2015 in Budapest. With the help of the
European Water Association and its ETSC we finally collected abstracts of several interesting contributions. The abstracts were evaluated in cooperation with the ETSC
and then the authors were invited to prepare the final texts. In the meantime we received a proposal from the editor-in-chief of the Journal Sustainability of Water
Quality and Ecology, Peter Goethals to include the papers of this workshop in a special issue of the journal.
The history of sanitation and wastewater treatment of the following European towns is included in this part of the conference book:
Cologne, Vienna, Budapest, Gent, Oslo, Wuppertal and Prague.
This is quite representative selection of European towns which illustrate different approaches to the same goal: safe collection of wastewater and its treatment to
prevent pollution of receiving waters. The organizers believe that this is just a beginning and that the history workshops will become a part of the future LWWTP
conferences. There are many towns with interesting history in this field and we hope that next time we will receive papers about history of sanitation and wastewater
treatment from such towns like Rome, London, Paris, Sankt Petersburg and many others. The organizers believe that this topic can be interested also for young
professionals in the sense of the Latin expression, taken from Cicero's De Oratore:
Historia magistra vitae est.
Jiri Wanner
© CzechTourism.com
38
31. 8. 2015 20:11:51
www.lwwtp2015.org
“Aqua Colonia” History of the Municipal Drainage In Cologne
Dipl.-Ing. Otto Schaaf1, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Jutta Lenz1
1
Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe, Köln, Germany
Cologne is one of the oldest cities in Germany. The exposed position on the floodfree terrain ridge directly on the banks of the Rhine was already appreciated by
the Romans and in AD 50 they elevated this staging post in Germany to be the
colony of Roman law with the name “Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium‘. In
order to satisfy the function of a Roman city comprehensive improvements in the
infrastructure were necessary, such as the building of a city wall and a supply
of fresh water, the expansion of the street network and, accompanying this,
a comprehensive sewer system for the drainage of the city area. Already at that
time the city, which later was to receive the name Cologne, became a significant
commercial metropolis and later a university city and thus a melting pot of different cultures. Over centuries it was at the same time an important political as well
as religious and economic centre in Germany. Again and again there were severe
changes in the corporate life, in the cityscape and thus also in the infrastructure.
And thus water management and in particular the disposal of wastewater were
also always characterised by the respective historic epochs.
Figure 2: Roman Sewer.
© Römisch-Germanisches Museum Köln
Figure 1: Reconstruction Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium.
© Römisch-Gaermanisches Museum Köln / R. Stokes
During their more than 500 years continuous presence in Cologne the Romans
built the first technically highly developed systems for water supply and the
discharge of wastewater. As they disposed of their refuse and wastewater into
the Rhine, they did not use the river for the water supply, but rather fresh spring
water from the nearby foothills. As these sources became no longer sufficient
due to steadily rising number of inhabitants, they built one of the longest aqueducts in the Roman Empire: The supply line for fresh water for the then some
20,000 inhabitants of the city from the head waters of the Urft 95 kilometres away
in the hill range of the Eifel. With this, the wells and thermal springs within the
city walls were operated using some 24,000 cubic metres of fresh spring water
daily.
With the strict, geometric street network probably ten large parallel wastewater
collectors at a depth of down to six metres ran in the direction of Rheinhafen.
The main collector sewer was made of masonry and had a headroom of 1.20 to
2.50 metres. Domestic wastewater was discharged and the drainage from the
streets and public open spaces was ensured by this collector. As building material for the large masonry sewers the Romans used mainly tuff and bricks. For
the smaller downpipes and inlet pipes they used clay pipes or wooden channels.
At the latest the Roman epoch came to an end with the capture of Cologne by
the Franks in AD 455. This was preceded by a longer sorrowful period for the
population. Parts of the city were destroyed as well as many of the Roman
buildings and facilities. With regards to a functioning infrastructure this was
a significant setback. There was now no longer any recognisable system for the
following more than 1,400 years for the supply of fresh water and also for the
disposal of wastewater. People supplied themselves with water via wells and
from the Rhine. For the drainage of paths and open public places the stormwater
39
31. 8. 2015 20:11:52
again followed the natural terrain conditions into muddy puddles and holes.
These were more or less large open pools of water in which the water collected
in order to percolate or evaporate. Some had a channel to the ditch alongside
the former Roman city wall, which finally discharged the water into the Rhine.
Faeces from humans and animals were collected in pits and used as manure. In
the late Middle Ages, between 950 and 1180, there were three large expansions
of Cologne which, however, had no noteworthy influence on water management.
Although the population density within the Middle Age city wall was very different, the numbers of inhabitants from 1180 to the beginning of the 19th century,
with 40,000 to 48,000 people, were quite stable.
From the 14th to 17th century the whole of Europe was struck several times
by catastrophic plagues. The first Black Death pandemic between 1347 and
1353 Europe-wide cost more than 25 million people their lives. Cologne was also
hit heavily due to its comparatively dense population. It is said that in the city
alone from August to October 1564 ten to twelve thousand people fell victim to
the plague. Above all the lack of medical knowledge and bad general hygiene
were responsible for the rapid spread of the pathogen. The plague is a highly
infectious illness which, within a few hours or days in most cases led to death,
spread in particular by fleas carried by rats and humans or through direct human contact. The spread of the plague was thus not influenced significantly by
the water management “without system“, although the generally poor hygiene
presumably exacerbated the situation.
Figure 3: Stadtbaurat Carl Steuernagel 1848 – 1919.
© StEB Köln
Considered overall the natural water cycle functioned with a quite well-balanced
equilibrium and was still not overburdened by the influence of humans. This
changed abruptly with the beginning of industrialisation. As in all European
large cities the population numbers also exploded in Cologne. By 1881, with
145,000 persons, there were almost three times as many inhabitants as in
1815. Originating from England, which had already been hit at the beginning of
the 19th century, cholera and typhus epidemics also reached Cologne. Alone in
1849 more than 1,300 people died of cholera. Medical science soon recognised
the connection between the epidemics and the poor hygiene when dealing with
drinking water and wastewater as this pathogen was spread mainly through
drinking water polluted by faecal matter. This medical knowledge prompted the
engineers and those responsible in politics to develop central systems for water
supply and, shortly thereafter, new wastewater networks.
In 1872, for the city, Cologne built the first central fresh water supply of the
modern age. This already significantly defused the risks of new epidemics. The
large city expansion began in 1881, which ten years later made it, from a surface
area point of view, the largest city in the whole of the German speaking area.
The mighty Prussian fortifications had fallen out of use and were given up in
40
favour of new residential areas. At the same time, under Stadtbaurat Steuernagel,
the expansion of the first coherent drainage system of modern times began. The
hydraulic configuration of the main collector sewer of this new water-borne
sewage system was conceived extremely far-sightedly. The structural execution
conformed with professional and careful brick mason skills.
Figure 4: Concert in Kronleuchtersaal.
© StEB Köln / Fotograf Peter Jost
Therefore many of the former collector sewers and structures are still in operation today, such as for its time with 4.60 metres width and 3.80 metres height the
largest combined and overflow structure in the system, the so-called chandelier
hall. The construction is a particularly fine example for the carefully elaborated
details of the former special structure and the impressive workmanship – after
all the structures have been flown through by biologically and chemically aggressive wastewater from a large city now for 125 years without noticeable damage.
The structure received its name because the Kaiser had personally given notice
of his attendance at the inauguration of the new sewer network. In his honour
a functioning chandelier was installed whose “successors” today also grace the
hall. Once a year the optically and especially acoustically imposing structure
is converted for several days into an extraordinary, always booked-out concert
hall for classical music or for jazz – despite the clearly noticeable neighbouring
flowing wastewater. In order to divert the nose a little from the “scent“, each
concert goer receives a nosegay of fresh mint.
Figure 5: First WWTP in Cologne.
© StEB Köln
31. 8. 2015 20:11:55
www.lwwtp2015.org
The question of wastewater treatment remained to the end of the 19th century
a controversial subject between the city of Cologne and the royal state government. All treatment processes known at that time, such as broad irrigation areas
or treatment towers and deep wells, the forerunner of the so-called Imhoff tank,
had for the Cologne conditions serious spatial or operational disadvantages.
In addition, the Rhine, as a large river offered very favourable receiving water
conditions with an enormous self-cleaning capacity. Eventually, agreement was
reached on the construction of a large, mechanically operated settling tank with
upstream screens and sieves. The plant was commissioned in 1900.
Already at the end of the 1920s this sewage treatment plant on the left-hand
side of the Rhine was overloaded and, moreover, technically obsolescent. In
addition, due to the preceding city expansions on the right-hand side of the Rhine
new solutions were also required there for the treatment of wastewater. After
the difficult times of the depression and national socialism, which subsequently
ended in the Second World War, at the beginning of the 1950s the concept for
wastewater disposal could finally be implemented which, still today, represents
the basis of wastewater disposal. In Cologne, the greatest part of the wastewater
is treated in one central wastewater treatment plant, which is dimensioned for
the catchment area on both sides of the Rhine. Wastewater from the left-hand
side of the Rhine is pumped through a Rhine inverted siphon to the central
wastewater treatment plant on the right-hand side of the Rhine. This 470 metre
long and 1.25 respectively 1.85 metre diameter, wide double pressure pipeline
underneath the bed of the Rhine was already finished in 1928, but only commissioned in 1953 at the same time as the central large wastewater treatment works.
Figure 6: WWTP Cologne in 1953.
© StEB Köln
Today, more than a million people live in Cologne, 99 percent of whom are
connected to highly modern systems for water supply and wastewater disposal.
Eight waterworks supply the inhabitants of Cologne with fresh drinking water
from the Kölner Bucht (lowlands around Cologne). All the waterworks together
can deliver 30,000 cubic metres of water per hour, primarily groundwater and to
a small extent additionally also Rhine surface-irrigated bank filtrate.
The wastewater is transported via a network of almost 2,400 kilometres of public
sewers to a total of five wastewater treatment works. In the central large wastewater treatment works which, incidentally, is the largest wastewater treatment
works along the German catchment area of the Rhine, on average 225,000 cubic
metres of wastewater are treated daily. Today, one is concerned with a highly
modern biological wastewater treatment plant which includes efficient technologies for the removal of nitrogen and phosphorous. The sewage sludge yielded is
processed and is utilised energetically as co-combustion material in the nearby
brown coal power stations.
Figure 7: WWTP Cologne Stammheim today.
© StEB Köln
In order also to be well prepared for the challenges of the future, the
Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe Cologne (Group of Municipal Drainage Operations,
Cologne) already at the beginning of the decade have set up the “Concept for
the future 2020”. Here, for the multitude of challenges, sustainable approaches
are highlighted, for example for climate change, for energy efficiency, water
pollution control, new technology developments or for demographic change. The
subjects are also repeated in the modernisation strategy of the German Federal
government. The “Scientific Year 2015 – Future City” shows how research today
can already contribute to making cities sustainably liveable. Science, together
with municipalities, industry and local citizens is tackling the great social challenges. With many of the subjects focused on there, water management plays
an important role. For example with the implementation of the energy transition and the expansion with renewable energy sources. As greatest municipal
energy consumer the wastewater treatment plant here is accorded a particular
responsibility. Wastewater treatment plants are not only energy consumers but
can recycle a considerable part from the digestion process of the sewage sludge.
Together with other renewable suppliers such as the sun, wind or the utilisation
of other organic residues, the energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment plant
can thus become reality.
A further central question is how we can satisfy the demands of the European
Water Framework Directive. With this the target is, in several management cycles,
to achieve a good biological and chemical condition in all European water bodies,
both the surface waters and also the groundwater. Considered are always the
complete catchment areas of the water body, independent of country or federal
state boundaries. In order to achieve this, the collaboration of many different
sectors is absolutely necessary – both technically and with administrative policy.
Thus the loading of water bodies can only be reduced if, cross-border, not only
the wastewater treatment plants implement advanced treatment methods but
non-point discharges from agricultural areas or from traffic zones are also incorporated. Thus, in the long-term, one can achieve the reduction of anthropogenic
trace elements only if, already at the point of origin, the appropriate abatement
measures take effect, because the best treatment methods have no 100 percent
effectiveness and cannot, in the long run, prevent a certain concentration in the
water cycle.
41
31. 8. 2015 20:11:57
At the same time new social challenges have to be mastered: How do we ensure
also in the future an equitable and stable financing for the operation of the plants
and for the necessary investment in the infrastructure? How do we create a social
consensus – standards for charges, which are accepted and supported by the
population, which is subject to a more or less strong demographic transition? In
Cologne we are concerned with medium-term growing population numbers. The
situation with charges will accordingly remain stable. Nevertheless, the subject
of charges equity is always topical. Split standards for charges, separated according to wastewater and precipitation discharges or the introduction of a basic
charge for the general availability of the infrastructure are discussed repeatedly.
Water management in Cologne has an impressive history – both structurally and
technically. The objective was always to achieve the long-term greatest possible
benefits for the customers – the inhabitants of Cologne. Up until now this has
always been very successful, if you consider that for the same price as you pay
for one bread roll, you can enjoy sufficient fresh water in absolute best quality
and which, after use, as a matter of courses is discharged and fed back treated
into the water cycle.
Literature:
M. Kasper, O. Schaaf (Hrsg.), Aqua Colonia-Die Geschichte
der Stadtentwässerung in Köln, Köln 2000
O. Meißner, Eine kurze Geschichte der Stadt Köln, Köln 1997, unter
www.cologneweb.com/koeln-1.htm, download am 13. 07. 2015
G. Rath, Dr., Pestepedemien des ausgehenden Mittelalters und der Neuzeit,
Ciba-Zeitschrift 1955, unter www.amuseum.de/medizin/CibaZeitung/cibazeit.htm
download am 13. 07. 2015
Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe Köln, Perspektivkonzept 2020, Köln 2010
RheinEnergie AG, Kölner Trinkwasser, Köln 2012
www.wissenschaftsjahr-zukunftsstadt.de, download am 07. 07. 2015
Address of the authors:
Dipl.-Ing. Otto Schaaf
Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe Köln, AöR
Vorstand
DWA – Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V.
Präsident
Ostmerheimer Str. 555
51109 Köln
E-Mail: [email protected]
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Jutta Lenz
Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe Köln, AöR
Referentin des Vorstandes
DWA – Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V.
Referentin des Präsidenten
Ostmerheimer Str. 555
51109 Köln
E-Mail: [email protected]
42
31. 8. 2015 20:11:58
www.lwwtp2015.org
Vienna’s Water management during the last 3 centuries from cholera
abatement by sewerage and safe water supply in a fast growing city
to energy self sufficient water supply and waste water treatment
H. Kroiss1
1
Vienna University of Technology, Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, 1040 Vienna, Karlsplatz 13/226
Introduction:
The specific local situation and the historic development
of Vienna:
• In regard to climate and water availability: moderate climate, mean temperature 12.3°C, low precipitation 550 mm/a, Danube river flows through the city
(mean flow 1800 m³/s, max. high flow 15.000 m³/s, velocity 1 to 4 m/s)
• In regard to topology and geology: the city is surrounded by hills in the north
and west inclined to the Danube river with mainly impervious underground
(clay) to the East and Northeast flat areas prevail with gavel underground
• In regard to historic development Vienna is situated at the crossing between
Danube as shipping route and a very old trade line from north to south. As
excavations reveal the Roman fortress Vindobona (1st century) situated at the
northern borderline of the Roman Empire was already equipped with gravity
water supply and sewer system.
• In the 2nd millennium Vienna in competition with Prague became the capital
of the Holy Roman Empire. After having defeated two attacks by the Osman
Empire (1529 and 1683) Vienna started an important political and cultural
development. It is reported that In 1739 Vienna, still protected by a huge city
wall, was the first European city with a complete sewer system. Rapid growth
of the population outside of the walls caused cholera epidemic in 1830 with
2000 deaths. This resulted in the rapid construction of new sewers and
a comprehensive sewerage development.
• The most relevant city planning occurred in the 19th century when the development of technology and industry were causing rapid population growth.
In 1858 the decision was made to remove the city walls and to include all
the villages around Vienna into a large modern agglomeration with the entire
infrastructure.
• Water supply in Vienna became a severe thread for hygiene already in the first
half of the 19th century and after long debates the city government abandoned
the idea of a conventional water supply from Danube water and decided to use
spring water from the Alpine Karst region about 100 km South of the city. When
the first gravity supply main was finished in 1873 its capacity was already
much to low and finally led to the construction of a second main for spring
water from a distance of about 200 km in the South-west. Even today about
98 % of Vienna’s drinking water supply is pristine spring water needing no
treatment.
• The most relevant sewer system development occurred in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century in order to prevent water borne diseases. This development was strongly influenced by the conversion of the extended Danube flood
plains and wet lands with numerous branches and lakes into a constructed
river and lake system (1870 to 1875) including a high level of flood protection.
With this engineering solution huge new building areas could be recovered
for the expansion of the city. The historic centre of Vienna got separated from
the Danube and is now situated along the Danube Canal serving as a shipping
connection to Danube. It was decided to discharge the dry weather flow of all
sewers to Danube and mainly Danube Canal. Most of the densely populated
city on the west side of Danube canal is built on impervious underground and
this was one of the reasons to mainly use combined sewer system. Most of
the small rivers coming from the Vienna Woods area were included into the
sewer system with the argument to have enough capacity for sewer sediment
transport.
Urban water management during the last 50 years
A comprehensive approach
The development of water management in Vienna during the last 50 years was
driven by important changes in goals and public perception:
• Improving flood protection after the devastating high flow in 1954
• River restoration in order to use it’s potential for recreation of Vienna’s population
• Improving reliability of the very high quality of drinking water supply
• Fighting river pollution from sewer discharge
• Integrate a Danube hydropower dam in Vienna
• Quite recently: Energy self-sufficiency of waste water treatment and phosphorus recovery
During this period water management and environmental protection got a high
political relevance as Vienna has decided to promote the idea to become a model
case for an environmentally sound city for its population but also in order to attract
tourism and high level working places to national and international companies.
The following chapters try to illustrate some key elements of this development
without going into details.
Improving flood protection and river restoration
In 1954 a 100 yearly high flow situation led to flooding of large parts of the city
because the existing flood protection system was not reliable enough. After long
43
31. 8. 2015 20:11:59
discussions on the level of protection and the engineering solution it was decided
to completely rebuild the course of the river and to increase the level of flood
protection to a 1000 yearly probability (highest flow ever registered) with a max.
flow of 14.000 m³/s. The high flow in 2013 (11.000 m³7s) was higher than the one
in 1954 and caused no unplanned inundations.
The flood protection project started in 1972 and was finished in 1988. The new
concept included the construction of two separate “rivers” one for normal flow
and both for high flow and between the two rivers an island with a length of about
21 km and a width of up to 250 m. The newly dug river bed on the left side of River
Danube under normal flow conditions serves as a series of two lakes enabling
a great variety of recreational purposes. Actually up to 200.000 people make use
of this opportunity on the island close to the centre of the city.
For the sewer system the consequence was that no combined sewer overflow
is allowed to enter the “lakes”. This resulted in the construction of the new Left
Danube Mains along the “lakes” with a total capacity of 60m³/s and a high flow
pumping station at the end with the same capacity. Dry weather flow from this
main is pumped to the Main Treatment Plant of Vienna via two pipes in a collector
below River Danube and Danube Canal.
During the period 1992 to 1998 the hydropower station Vienna–Freudenau
(170 MW) was erected with a sluice and a fish migration river after a positive
outcome of a related referendum in 1991. As a consequence the level of the river
on both sides of the island remains quite constant and increases the attractiveness of the recreational area. Also other rivers in Vienna have undergone or are
on the way of river restoration projects in order to fulfil legal requirements (EU
WFD) on the one hand and improving the recreational value of the river shore
areas (Liesing, Danube Canal, Wienfluss) on the other hand. These projects also
strongly affected the sewer system development especially in order to decrease
the frequency of combined sewer overflows or the first flush storage for rain
water from separate sewers.
Improving reliability of the high quality drinking water supply
Without going into any detail the development of drinking water supply in Vienna
during the last decades is quite interesting. After World War II the population of
Vienna remained quite constant over a long period of time. Until about 1985 nevertheless the water consumption increased in parallel to the growth of the GNP.
The reaction of the Vienna water Works to this constant increase comprised i.a.
• Extension of the 2 water mains (both ~200 km) to additional springs in the
Alpine region
• Connecting new groundwater sources to the network
• Improving the management of the huge water protection area (600 km²) of
the springs
• Minimising water losses in the network (to less than 10 %)
• Awareness campaign which resulted in a continuous reduction of the specific
domestic water consumption since 1985 from about 140 to 120 l/capita/day
Waste water treatment for water protection
The first WWTP in Vienna was a trickling filter for a small part of Vienna with
separate sewer system, and was in operation from 1950 to 1970. It was erected
to protect the small receiving river.
The first large biological waste water treatment plant in Vienna, the Blumental
plant, went into operation in 1970 and was operated until 2005. This plant was
designed for 150.000 population equivalents as activated sludge treatment plant
without primary sedimentation and with simultaneous sludge stabilisation. The
background for the decision to build this plant quite ahead of the Main Treatment
44
Plant of Vienna was the rapid population growth in the south of the city where
a separate sewer system was developed, and the dry whether flow had increased
to a level where the long already existing sewer (14 km) towards the river Danube
became overloaded. There were two options to solve the problem: either to build
a new larger sewer or to install a treatment plant and to discharge the treated
effluent to the small river. The latter solution was economically more favourable. As the receiving water Liesing could only provide low dilution the most
efficient biological treatment concept at that time was chosen (MCRT ~25 d, full
nitrification). The basic design was developed by Willy von der Emde, head of the
institute for Water Supply, Waste Water Treatment and Water Protection at Vienna
University of Vienna together with Rolf Kayser, later Professor at Braunschweig
University.
This plant became internationally well known starting at the first LWWTP workshop in 1971 where Norbert Matsché presented the first results on simultaneous
nitrification/denitrification, detected in this plant. The plant consisted of two
oxidation ditch like aeration tanks (6000 m³ each) with 12 mammoth rotors
each, followed by two circular secondary sedimentation tanks and return sludge
pumps. This plant was internationally recognised and became a model for many
plants in Austria and worldwide. One of the most relevant “copies” is the Tel
Aviv Treatment Plant in the Dan region which actually serves more than 2 Mio
inhabitants and where the whole treated effluent is reused.
This plant became a very important research topic for the Vienna Institute. I was
probably the first activated sludge plant with an aeration control system (number
of aerators in operation) based on measured oxygen uptake rate. This very robust
and simple system provided constant nitrogen removal efficiency markedly
higher than 80 % and very low ammonia concentrations (<1 mg/l) at any time,
only based on DO sensors and without any computer control. [Austrian Plant
Knocks Out Nitrogen, Matsché, Spatzierer 1975].
The history of Main Waste Water Treatment Plant of Vienna (MTPV) is very special
and cannot be described in detail here. The basic design consideration in the
1960 was to have at the end only one waste water treatment plant in Vienna
treating all the waste waters situated at the lowest point of the city in order
to have mainly gravity flow for the sewer system and to discharge the treated
effluent to the Danube Canal about 2 km ahead of it discharge to river Danube.
The dilution capacity of river Danube is about 1:100. During the permit procedure
it was W. v.d. Emde who had to convince the Limnologists, claiming primary treatment only, that a biological treatment would be beneficial even for river Danube.
Using his experience from Hamburg Köhlbrandhöft Treatment Plant he suggested
to design the Main Treatment Plant of Vienna for 3 Mio population equivalents,
a maximum flow of 24 m³/s for wet weather and 9 m³/s dry weather flow. The
basic concept was a conventional pre-treatment with screens, grit chambers and
primary sedimentation followed by a high rate activated sludge plant with MCRT
of 1 to 1,5 days. Treatment efficiency requirements were >70 % BOD removal
for up to 12 m³/s, only primary treatment for another 12 m³/s. The waste water
treatment plant was part of the so called WABAS 80 project which included all
the consequences for sewer construction caused by the new flood protection
along River Danube.
The first design considerations in the 1960ies already included energy selfsufficiency of the WWTP by sludge digestion, gas motors and agricultural sludge
utilisation. But during the construction of the plant it was decided to go for raw
sludge incineration with fluidised bed incinerators operated by a private contractor. The incineration plant includes a hazardous waste incinerator, is situated
across the street of the MTPV and is connected to the Vienna district heating
system. After important upgrading investments this plant is still in operation.
31. 8. 2015 20:12:00
www.lwwtp2015.org
The first phase of MTPV was extremely cost efficient but could not cope with
the development of the Austrian and finally EU-UWWD effluent standards for
“sensitive areas” with nutrient removal (1990, 1996). It therefore was necessary
to extend the MTPV for nitrification and nutrient removal. The extended plant
went into operation in 2005. It is designed for a pollution load of 4 Mio PE
(240 t BOD5/d) and a maximum flow of 18m³/s, which is 2 times the maximum
dry weather flow.
The process technology of this plant is the result of long term research work of
the Institute at Vienna University of Technology under the leadership of W. v.d.
Emde and later H. Kroiss and was proved in long term pilot scale investigations
before it was implemented in full scale. Also this plant has got international
recognition as an investment cost and energy saving system with high flexibility
in regard to temperature and load changes (G. Wandl, et al. The main wastewater
treatment plant of Vienna: an example of cost effective wastewater treatment
for large cities; Water Science and Technology, 54 (2006), 10; S. 79 – 86.) . It
is a two stage activated sludge process with two modes of operation. The so
called Bypass mode results in a maximum nitrogen removal efficiency of 84 %
(yearly mean) and Hybrid mode for reliable bulking prevention with a little bit
lower nitrogen removal efficiency. This design concept made optimal use of the
already existing MTPV and is adapted to the specific Austrian effluent standards
for nitrogen compounds (<5mg/l NH4-N in daily composite sample, >70 %
N-removal as yearly mean). P-removal (TP< 1mg/l) is achieved by biological
P-removal and chemical precipitation. Excess sludge of the second stage with
pre- denitrification and simultaneous nitrification/denitrification is transferred to
the first stage. Excess sludge is only withdrawn from the first stage activated
sludge plant. Primary and excess sludge are thickened together. The thickened
raw sludge is dewatered by centrifuges and incinerated as already before the
extension in 2005. The actual mean nitrogen removal rate is 84 % and the total
energy consumption of the MTPV is~ 20 kWh/PE/a.
Meanwhile the EOS-project (Energy Optimisation System) is in the construction
phase and will start operation in 2020. This project comprises the following
changes at the MTPV with the goal to produce more energy from the waste water
pollution as required for the operation of the plant on a yearly basis:
• Rebuilding of the first treatment plant (start of operation in 1980) as it has
reached its life expectancy and to save space for the new digestion and energy
plant
• New mechanical thickening by centrifuges prior to mesophilic digestion
(6 x 12.500 m³)
• New gas-motor station for the conversion of biogas to electric energy and heat
• New reject water nitritation stage, denitritation in first activated sludge plant.
• (Adaptation of existing incineration plant to digested sludge dewatering and
incineration)
The treatment efficiency will remain unchanged. The EOS process design concept
was proved in one year pilot investigations. It allowed to adapting a dynamic
mathematical model of the whole waste water treatment plant including the
reject water treatment and the whole sludge line including digestion, gas and
energy production.
Actually post treatment with ozone and AC pilot scale investigations are
performed at the MTPV for micro-pollutant removal. Also pilot investigations on
phosphorus recovery from the sludge ash are on the way.
Summarising it can be concluded that the policy of the city of Vienna is trying to be on the forefront of water protection, energy minimisation and public
participation. Vienna will have an energy self-sufficient urban water system by
2020 and is well prepared for future waste water treatment requirements and
resource recovery.

Fig. 1: Vienna’s spring water supply system.
45
31. 8. 2015 20:12:01
Fig. 2: Development of drinking water consumption and
GNP over time.
Fig. 3: Danube Vienna 1780.
Fig. 4: Rivers and sewer system 2005.
46
31. 8. 2015 20:12:06
www.lwwtp2015.org
Fig. 5: Vienna Blumental Treatment Plant 1970 to 2005.
Fig. 6: MTPV operation 1980 to 2005.
Fig. 7: Actual situation at MTPV (since 2005).
Fig. 8: Operational modes of MTPV as 2-stage activated sludge plant.
47
31. 8. 2015 20:12:08
W/PE
Fig. 8: Left: Yearly mean power requirement for WWT at
MTPV with a 1-stage process + AD (green), production
with the 2-stage process + AD (red). Right: actual power
requirements MTPV (red) and mean power requirements
for large WWTP in Austria (blue).
Actual
Beyond 2020
35
30
MTPV
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
1
2
+4.4
-5.2
3
4
Fig. 9: Areal view of MTPV after completion of EOS project
in 2020.
Fig. 10: Sankey diagram of COD mass flow („energy flow“) for MTPV after 2020.
48
31. 8. 2015 20:12:10
www.lwwtp2015.org
History of Budapest Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment
E. Juhász1, K. Kiss2, M. Patziger3, K. Kovács4
1
2
3
4
Hungarian Water and Wastewater Association (H-1111 Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3.), [email protected]
Budapest Sewage Works (H-1084 Budapest, Asztalos Sándor u. 4.), [email protected]
Abstract
Buda and Pest settlements were unified to Budapest capital city in 1873 which
city was the cradle of the modern sanitation of Hungary. In the middle of the
19th century, the sanitation in many foreign cities was begun, and London provided the sample for Hungary, because its pioneer Public Health Act was become
to an example throughout Europe.
in which a storm water collection channel with diameter 5 m was built. Now
this channel is one of the most important element of the Pest sewerage system.
The sanitation plan of the Capital city went through many modification, meanwhile the wastewater treatment was not an issue in the beginning. According
to the Danube protection against the wastewater and other diseases, four
wastewater treatment plants were designed in concept level. Finally the planned
concept were changed and now all wastewater of Budapest is treated by three
large municipal wastewater treatment plants in compliance with the European
Union limits.
1. Introduction
Budapest, the capital city of Hungary, is situated in the middle of the Danube
basin surrounded with Carpathians. The city area is 525 km2, its inhabitants
number is 1.75 million capita (Figure 1).
The previously of the city history was the three settlements merger along the
Danube: Óbuda, Buda (German name was Ofen) and Pest in 1873 (Figure 2). It can
be seen that a Danubian stream served the surface water collection at the Pest
side, which was refilled by the fabulous urban engineer, Ferenc Reitter in the last
third of the XIXth century. From this emerged the present-day “Grand Boulevard”,
Figure 2: The three settlements at the bank of Danube in 1873 (Garami, 1972).
One picture can sketch the slowly increasing metropolis, situated in the two sides
of the Danube (Figure 3).
Figure 1: Situation of Budapest (Wikimedia).
49
31. 8. 2015 20:12:12
Figure 3: The city view at the beginning of the century XIX (Garami, 1972).
In the Roman age the booming Aquincum was in the neighbourhood of Óbuda
with 6 000 people military camp and belonging civil city area, which was built
with sanitary and storm water collection system, and an aquaduct served the
hot water. (The remained ancient ruins are popular tourist visiting destination.)
Buda is a suburban area which is located among gentle hills. The Royal Castle
from the age of Matthias King was an outstanding cultural centre its own time
and now as well, and since it is considered watchful eye on the rapidly developing modern city.
The high-walled Pest represented the frequented area for the traders and the
skilled crafts. All area had channels without any operating system which mainly
served the rainwater collection, and trying to find the shortest path to the Danube
River or any other streams. Into this open channel, naturally, the wastewater was
led as well (Figure 4).
Figure 4: The wastewater collection in barrels in the century XVII-XVIII (Juhász, 2008).
2. The beginning of the modern sanitation
The cradle of the Hungarian modern sanitation was the Capital city established
from the already mentioned three settlements. In the middle of the XIXth century the sanitation of many foreign metropolis had already begun, among which
50
London served as a sample to Hungary, because its pioneer Public Health Act was
become to an example throughout Europe.
The fear from the epidemics which decimated the large cities population like
plague, typhus, cholera, and the industrialization, the demand of the higher
comfort as well as the increased population required the implementation of the
sewerage construction in the capital city.
However the sewerage system construction has been taken, the “Municipal
Regulation” related to the sewerage was published in 1847 (Figure 5). The cost
of the War of Independence in 1848 postponed all other investment for a long
time. The question of the modern sanitation appeared on the agenda after twenty
years.
Figure 5: The Municipal Regulation about the sewerage in 1847 (Juhász, 2008).
In the second third part of this century the sanitation has become to the cardinal
issue of the public health-science, and János Fodor professor of medicine
was the outstanding forerunner of this tendency. He was the innovator of the
implementation of the conscious and system-established modern sanitation. In
the last part of this century it was discussed after a long debate that not only in
31. 8. 2015 20:12:14
www.lwwtp2015.org
Figure 6: Budapest first sanitation plan made by Ferenc Reitter in 1869 (Juhász, 2008).
Budapest, but in the other parts of the country the floating sewerage system had
to be applied.
In 1869 the first sanitation plans of Pest have already included combined sewerage system (called in today’s terminology) which made by Ferenc Reitter (Figure
6). However, the existing trenches of the hilly Buda territory joined directly into
the Danube, and it was not even a part of this sanitation plan. The inlets without
sluice gates could cause backflows with inducing huge damage in terms of flood
on both sides, which gates liquidation was done through the imposing river wall
construction. The Figure 6 shows the inlets to the river as well. (At the side of
Buda the liquidation of the direct untreated inlets was done almost 140 years
later.)
The plans by Reitter forecasted to 500 000 population of Budapest, and the
specific wastewater discharge was envisaged in 160 L capita-1. After a long
discussion term the modified Bazagatte English engineer’s sanitation plan finally
was accepted, and the development of the details was entrusted to Ottó Martin
Hungarian designer after tendering. In 1892 the first construction steps were
started, and the designed construction at the side of Pest was finished in 1910.
At this time the planning of Óbuda, Újpest and other suburbs took place. The
plans of main collection channels in Újpest have already done in 1880, but the
implementation have been completed after the turn of the century.
Figure 7: The plans of the main collection channels made by masonry stone in
1880 (Garami, 1972).
The Figure 7 shows some cross sections as a sample made by masonry stone can
be seen well. Parallel with the previous case, the Óbuda main collection channels
plans was begun in the last decade of the century and the implementation was
started. The construction work was hampered along the sewerage by the found
cemetery finds from the Avar times. The exploring of a riding warriors remains
can be interesting, where they were buried with their horse clearly (Figure 8).
Figure 8: The remains of a riding warriors at the construction work in the century III
(Garami, 1972).
At that time the basement of the implementation was the hand-excavation.
The work ditch had to fit for the horse-drawn carriage which was used for the
material handling (Figure 9).
51
31. 8. 2015 20:12:15
Figure 9: The work ditch which was fitted for the horse-drawn carriage in 1910 (Juhász,
2008).
Figure 11: Masonry cross section made by brick (left) and two superimposed channels
(right) (Juhász, 2008).
For the pipes construction very different equipment was built according to the
materials of this age, the hydraulic demands and the local makings and possibilities. The oldest masonry sewerages were changed to concrete structures,
then at the recent years to the different quality plastic pipes. The Figure 10 shows
the built sewerage cross sections into the Capital city system, which has circle-,
egg-, semi-circular, Paris-type and half Paris-type cross sections.
From the end of XIXth century, with the exception of the years during and immediately after the 2nd World War, the development of the sanitary system has been
taking until nowadays. Beside the pipe materials modification, the change also
manifested after 1945 that the separated systems were built in the suburban,
which formed by the connection of the outskirt settlements.
On the Figure 11 a masonry sewerage cross section made by brick can be
seen on the left side and an interesting solution reflects in the creation of two
superimposed channels on the right side.
The pump station houses were belonged naturally to the linear sewerage facility, which stations served the inlet of the wastewater and storm water into the
recipient. The Figure 12 and 13 represent the construction of the steam driven
pump station in Ferencváros at the bank of Danube in 1892. This station, after
many reconstructions and modernization, is the central facility of the Budapest
Sewage Works in the recent days. The begun development was halted by the
1st World War, but shortly afterwards the connections of the other parts of the city
were started as well.
Figure 10: Typical sewerage cross sections built into the Budapest sewerage system (Garami, 1972).
52
31. 8. 2015 20:12:17
www.lwwtp2015.org
Figure 12: The installation of the pump station in 1890-1894 (Juhász, 2008).
Figure 14: The plan of the Angyalföld mechanical treatment plant in 1936 (Juhász, 2008).
Nevertheless the engine house was built, the construction of the plant was
“washed away” by the preparation for the 2nd World War. At this time in order to
getting biogas three so-called screenings digester tanks were built at the already
mentioned pump station in Ferencváros. Unfortunately, the operation was not
efficient because of deficiency of sufficient organic matter, therefore in some
years later this plant was demolished (Figure 15).
Figure 13: The pump station house in 1894 (Garami, 1972).
3. The necessity of the wastewater treatment was not
the central issue…
In the first third of the XXth century the wastewater treatment was out of question.
Next to the economic causes, the main reason from the decision-makers was
that the almost 200 times dilution of the Danube abounding in water does not
necessitate the intervention, on the other hand “with this treatment the nutrients
were withdrawn from the aquatic life”. This principle reflected in the founding letter of the Sewerage Company, but the wastewater treatment was not mentioned.
The sanitation and the wastewater treatment was not a part in the upper education. The Hungarian engineers have acquired the knowledge by working next to
the foreign – mainly German and English – engineers. Only after the end of 1930s
some young students could get out to Swiss or German University and study the
profession.
Figure 15: View of the screenings digester tanks in Ferencváros in 1936 (Garami, 1972).
4. The reconstruction and new approach…
At the end of the War, the continuously bombing and the months-long siege of
the Capital city caused enormous damage in the sewerage system. The shots by
the bombing and the shelling induced more than 500 collapses, pump stations
fell into decay (Figure 16).
To hold back the contamination the practical knowledge spread up to the level of
the screens-grit tanks-primary settling tanks. The appearance of the wastewater
treatment emerged in aspect of the drinking water wells of Budapest. For this
purpose in 1936 with 30 km far to North from Budapest, a two-storey sedimentation tank was built for Vác city, which efficient was cca. 20 % in aspect of the
suspended solids removal, and cca. 8 % in aspect of organic materials removal.
In 1936 at North periphery of Budapest, namely Angyalföld (today District
XIII), a mechanical stage plant (screens, grit tanks and primary settling tanks)
was designed before one of the Danubian storm water inlet pumping stations
(Figure 14).
53
31. 8. 2015 20:12:19
5. New development conception was made…
In 1974 “The program of the sanitary and wastewater treatment of the Capital
city” was born, which contained subcatchments based on four WWTP. The quantity of wastewater was envisaged to 2.45 million m3 d-1 for all the four WWTP
with the inlet of the agglomeration wastewater.
The occurred substantial decrease of water consumption after the political
regime change required the complete revaluation of the previous concepts. After
the millennium according to the new situation, new conceptions were developed
which was only limited to three WWTP with the extension of the subcatchment
borders. The quality and quantity loading parameters of the WWTPs were
changed as well (Figure 18).
Figure 16: War damage at the pump station (1944-1945) (Juhász, 2008).
For some years after the War the economic strength was engaged by the reconstruction tasks. The sanitation unfolding was retarded by not only the system
reconstruction, but the reorganization of the operator organization itself as well.
In terms of numbers, typically before the 1st World War (until 1914) the already built
sewerage length was 80 km. For the periods of 1915 – 1945 and 1945 – 1949 the
constructed channel lengths were 266 km and 13 km, respectively.
In point of wastewater treatment it was popular knowledge for a long time
that the Danube can treat the contaminants. Due to the influx of the European
developments news the effective treatment of the wastewater of the South
industrial areas was decided. The plan was very modern activated sludge system
compared to then. To get the knowledge of the new technology and experience an
experimental activated sludge plant (800 m3 d-1) was built with Kessener brush
in the border of Budapest (in Pest-Szentlőrinc), which served as a basis of the
implementation of first phase of South-Budapest, in perspective 3 x 36 000 m3
d-1 capacity wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Finally in 1965, after clearing
greater or lesser problems the plant was installed (Figure 17). In Hungarian
relation it was novelty that four mesophilic digesters were constructed for the
sludge treatment.
Figure 18: Three sewerage system subcatchments of Budapest with the pump stations in
2008 (Brochure).
The already operative South-pest WWTP (SP WWTP) was expanded to
393 000 PE (80 000 m3 d-1) after several modernization from 2005. Therefore, the
deep air blowing was preferred instead of the surface aeration, and electrical and
thermal energy was gained from the ~8 000 m3 d-1 biogas made by 4 x 2 650 m3
mesophilic and 2 000 m3 thermophilic digesters. Further unique feature was that
the communal organic waste was taken to the thermophilic reactor to produce
significant biogas surplus and due to the gas engines electrical and heat energy
gained with the so-called co-digestion, from which the 90 % energy demand
of the SP WWTP can be covered. The recipient Danube branch needs restricted
treating efficiency, of which the WWTP complies in all respects (Figure 19).
Figure 17: The first activated sludge WWTP: South-Budapest in 1965 (36 000 m3 d-1)
(Juhász, 2008).
54
31. 8. 2015 20:12:20
www.lwwtp2015.org
The co-digester equipment can produce significant biogas surplus, which can
ensure the WWTP heat-energy demand in 100 % and the electrical energy
demand in 80 %. The sludge dewatering is solved by two membrane – and one
chamber press. The sludge then is transferred to the open prism composting
plant which operated by Budapest Sewage Works. The compost is then used for
reclamation purposes (Figure 21).
Figure 19: South-pest WWTP in 2003 (Brochure).
Because of the city growing, appearance of the new housing estates, the textile-,
leather- and other pollution emitter industry in the North part of Budapest, urgent
intervention was required related to the Danube protection. Near the deficiency of
economic strength the location of the WWTP caused problems in its really small
inhabited environment. Then, the professional authority announced tender, based
on which the WWTP was built to the alluvial Palota Island called North-pest
WWTP (NP WWTP). After the long preparation and with political decision, the
implementation was entrusted to a foreign design company with less experience
in wastewater treatment and to install equipment of an even less specialized
mechanical engineering company. The construction was made by a Hungarian
company. The plant was envisaged to 4 x 140 000 m3 d-1. The biological equipment of the first phase was delivered with several problems in 1986.
After many reconstruction and modernization, with EU financial support a thirdstage 1.035 million PE (population equivalent) (200 000 m3 d-1) WWTP was
reconstructed which fulfils the treating criteria. At the last construction phase
two 12 000 m3 anaerobic mesophilic digester were established, in which the mixing is solved by lance gas blowers. It can receive either the activated sludge or
(with appropriate pretreatment) communal (mainly from food industry) organic
waste (~900 m3 a-1) (Figure 20).
Figure 21: Open prism composting plant in Csomád (Brochure).
Besides after very long preparation (almost twenty years) in 2002, a consortium
leaded by the Sweden SEVECO was entrusted to make a feasibility study, whereby
the technical, economic conditions and possibilities of the largest Hungarian
plant, the Budapest Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (BC WWTP) were
examined. The project contained the planned WWTP on the North part of the
Csepel Island with size of 29 ha, the main collection channel at the Danube bank
of Buda, the related pump stations, the collected wastewater leading under the
Danube, the liquidation of the inlets at the bank and more than 350 km collection
system. The plant have been built with the third treatment stage, 1.35 million PE
(350 000 m3 d-1) capacity. 3 x 5 800 m3 anaerobic thermophilic digester reactors
were established within the framework of the sludge treatment, and it served
the biogas utilization to cover the energy demand of the BC WWTP. It can be
interesting that the sludge before the digestion is pasteurized in order to the
better efficiency. The dewatered sludge has ~28 % dry matter content and it
utilized to the recultivation purposes (Figure 22).
Figure 20: North-pest WWTP in 2010 (Brochure).
55
31. 8. 2015 20:12:22
The Figure 24 serves the comparison with the Figure 3 presented which shows
the city view 200 years ago. This contrast shows gorgeously the temporal change
of one of the most beautiful situated European metropolis.
Figure 22: The covered Budapest Central WWTP in 2010 (Brochure).
The BC WWTP with completely covered design in aspect of environmental interest, treating of all the air quantity can increase extremely the electrical energy
(~2.0 million m3 d-1). (The emission limit values: BOD5<25 mg L-1; COD<125 mg
L-1; TSS<35 mg L-1; TN<30 mg L-1; TP<2 mg L-1.)
Like all European countries, including Hungary the sludge disposal is persistent
problem. However there is not higher poisoning (heavy metal) emission material
than the emission limit, but its utilization has difficulties in the agricultural area.
Actually the sludge of all the three WWTP is used for recultivation.
In 2015, namely after the last 120 years, it can be said that the Capital city has
100 % covered area in sanitation. The household and industrial wastewater in all
sewerage system is connected to the recipient after the third treatment stage.
~1.8 million inhabitants live in the 525 km2 area of the Capital city. The combined
and separated pipes length approach to the 5 700 km. The all capacity of the
three plant is 2.7 million PE (630 000 m3 d-1). The total system and the three
WWTP is property of Budapest Municipality.
The operation is made by two organisation. The North-pest and the South-pest
WWTPs with associated ~5 300 km collection system is property of the Budapest
Sewage Works, the representative consortium partners with 25+1 % share: the
operator holding made by Berlin Wasser and Veolia Environment SA. The largest
Hungarian Budapest Central WWTP built in the Csepel Island with its related
equipment – pursuant to the political decision - is operated by the Budapest
Waterworks (Figure 23).
Figure 24: The view of Budapest nowadays (Google).
References
Garami et al.: Budapest Csatornázása 125… (Sanitation of Budapest 125…) (FCSM,
1972).
Juhász E.: A csatornázás története (The history of the sanitation) (MaVÍZ, 2008).
Juhász E.: A szennyvíztisztítás története (The history of the wastewater treatment) (MaVíz, 2011).
FCSM Zrt.: Magyarország legnagyobb környezetvédelmi szolgáltatója (Budapest
Sewage Works: One of the greatest Hungarian environment management
company) (Brochure).
FCSM Zrt: Zöldhulladék fogadás (Budapest Sewage Works: Green waste receiving)
(Brochure).
BKSZT: Budapest Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (Brochure).
commons.wikimeda.org.
www.google.com.
Figure 23: The three WWTP in Budapest with the operation organisations.
56
31. 8. 2015 20:12:24
www.lwwtp2015.org
The water pollution and sanitation history of Ghent (Belgium)
R. Vannevel1
1
Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Sanitary revolution; urban water pollution; Pentatope Model
Introduction
Any city is a concentration of human activities and any activity causes environmental harm in some way. Cities were depending on water for centuries, and
many still are. Urban developments have significantly changed waterways
over the centuries, affecting water quantity and quality, hydromorphology and
aquatic life. Even only considering water quality, the history of pollution and
sanitation is diverse and complex. To understand this urban process, it is essential to describe its socio-economic developments and related policy, which
always exceeds urban boundaries. The best way to illustrate this, is to focus on
the industrial development of Ghent in the 19th C., a remarkable turning point
in European economic and social life, and on the 20th C., in which governance
became decisive for environmental decision-making. Compared to other cities,
sanitation in Ghent became, a long and complicated geopolitical process and
the waste water treatment issue dominated the whole 20th century. To visualise
these developments, a simplified version of the Pentatope Model (Vannevel,
2013) is used. This model shows basically an interaction between governance
(decision-making) and societal capitals (activities, including the spatial factor)
with respect to the water cycle (Fig. 1).
With about 250.000 inhabitants today, Ghent is a large city on a Belgian scale, but
modest at European or global level. Ghent was founded in the 7th C. at the confluence of the rivers Schelde (Scheldt) and Leie (Lys), a wetland area dominated by
sandy hills and marshlands, frequently ravaged by floods. From the 10th – 11th C.
on, the city became an important centre of the Flemish wool industry, depending
on the large number of sheep and geese providing food, leather and wool. By the
end of the thirteenth century, Ghent was the biggest producer of cloth in Western
Europe (Carson, 2001). During the next centuries, the fabrication of linen (flax)
and cotton (19th C.) completed the textile industry.
Strategically located, Ghent dominated for many centuries a large part of the
County of Flanders and the northern area of France. In addition, Ghent always
strived to secure its import and export by having access to the sea. Several canals
were created and with the construction of the Canal from Ghent to Terneuzen in
the 19th C., shipping through the Scheldt and the canal continued the lifeline of
Sanitation history of Ghent
Simplified Pentatope Model
Water
chain
Governance
Law
Polics
Policy &
Management
Science
Societal capitals
Water
Quanty
Social
capital
Economic
capital
Spaal
Infrastructure
Natural
capital
Water
Quality
Public
Administraon
Water
system
Water cycle
Figure 1. Simplified Pentatope Model. Showing interactions between factors of the governance and societal capitals frameworks, this schema serves as a template for describing
environmental processes, in this case related to the water cycle. The water cycle is an interaction between the water chain (including any form of abstraction, treatment and use)
and the aquatic (eco)system on the one hand, and water quantity and quality on the other hand.
57
31. 8. 2015 20:12:25
the city, turning the entire region north of Ghent into an industrial port area. This
explains why water quantity issues related to floods and navigation were the first
concerns of the city for centuries as they secured the city life, both in terms of
people’s safety and the city’s economy.
110,000 tons of flax were treated annually in the open water from April to October
along a stretch of about 75 km.
Two times a revolution
In mediaeval times, and in some streets until the 16th – 17th C., the city did not
dispose of a closed underground sewage system. Rainwater and waste water
were collected in an open ditch in the middle of the street. In the 17th C., streets
were paved with cobble stones and provided with a drain in the middle of the
street. This system remained in place until the mid of the 18th C. In the second
half of the 18th C, some sewers (underground pipes) were constructed, but with
little planning. Sewers were made of bricks and this resulted very often in the
vaulting of polluted inner waters.
Ghent was the first city on the mainland that could profit of the Industrial
Revolution and became industrial from 1801 on by an integrated cotton industry
(see: Blanchard, 1906). By the end of the 19th C., Ghent was the biggest industrial
agglomeration in Belgium, favored by the Canal Ghent-Terneuzen allowing easy
access and unloading of American cotton. The socio-economic developments
were very similar to those in the UK (see: Barty-King, 1992), the cradle of the
Industrial Revolution (see: Murray, 2003). The industrial expansion in Ghent was
initiated by the introduction of a new type of spinning machine from England,
attracting thousands of impoverished workers from the country side, being
concentrated in factory slums in very unhealthy conditions. The increase of
industrial plants and housing required both space and water, very soon exceeding their limits and their combination offering a perfect opportunity for cholera
outbreaks. Social conflicts as a result of the American cotton crisis, unhealthy
living conditions and social exploitation of workers caused an opposite effect:
well-skilled textile workers migrated to northern-France (Lille) to enforce the
flourishing textile industry, and in Flanders emerged a cottage industry outside
the city walls. This transboundary and regional economy had an enormous
impact on the urbanisation of the countryside and on the water quality of Scheldt
and Leie, the polluted water being diverted and flowing to Ghent. Water pollution
and sanitation was no longer a local urban problem. (Fig. 2).
The city was not the only pollution source. From the Roman period until 1938,
flax retting – an extremely polluting activity – was a common seasonal practice
in the Leie basin, in particular near the French-Belgian border. In the 20th C.,
The cholera epidemics of the 19th C. were the most dramatic consequences of the
industrial expansion. Like many industrial cities in Europe, Ghent suffered from
the ‘Asiatic cholera’ as ‘the Blue Death” came from the orient and was caused
Economic activities require large amounts of water, but surface water was also
used for most of the household activities in the Middle-Ages. Because of its
sandy soil, Ghent disposed of a sufficient amount of wells for drinking water
(‘fountains’) and compared to other cities, the drinking water distribution system
was less developed in the Middle Ages. From the 19th C. on, with the massive
growth of the city as a result of the industrialisation, drinking water supply
became an issue, the wider area of Ghent no longer being capable to provide
the required volumes of water and the deeper brackish groundwater layers being
unexploitable. At the same time, the industrial pollution also affected soil and
ground water.
Sanitation history of Ghent - Industrial revolution
Migraon
rural > urban area
Industrial expansion
FL
Coage industry
Industrial
migraon
Ghent
(1801-)
NFR
W.chain
Water
Quality
Water
Quanty
Spaal
Infrastructure
Science
Technological
developments
UK
(17701880)
W.system
Economic
capital
Social
capital
Transb.
& Regional
economy
Slums
W.polluon
W.abstracon
Cholera
Transboundary &
regional
urbanisaon
Transboundary & regional
polluon
Figure 2. The industrial revolution. Starting with the scientific developments in the UK, the industrial expansion of Ghent resulted in an economic boost, with huge effects on social life
and urbanisation. Both water use and pollution were high, with a series of cholera outbreaks as a result. Social conflicts in the nineteenth century enlarged the water pollution issue
to a regional (Flanders) and transboundary level (northern-France).
58
31. 8. 2015 20:12:27
www.lwwtp2015.org
a number of reasons. The poor workers were relocated to the edge of the city, now
called “the 19th century girdle”. The focus was clearly on improving living conditions. Despite the presence of a sewer system and the available English waste
water treatment technology, there was no clear intention to build an installation.
Effective waste water treatment was delayed for decades as it became part of
a regional, even transboundary geopolitical conflict.
by polluted and contaminated water. The public infrastructure could simply not
keep pace with the massive immigration of people. Combined with an insufficient
and less diverse nutrition and bad working conditions, cholera aggravated the
personal health of the workers, already suffering from tuberculosis, diarrhea,
typhus, influenza, bronchitis, smallpox and other diseases (Backs, 2001). The
measures and inventions to cope with these and other problems cover a period
of almost 100 years and are known as the Sanitary Revolution, including technological and medical developments, environmental legislation and adapted policy
and management, and administrative reforms (see: Barty-King, 1992). Most of
the sanitary developments originate from the UK and were applied elsewhere in
Europe and spread worldwide through the Common Wealth. (Fig. 3).
Waste water treatment: a geopolitical matter
Application of innovative wastewater treatment in Ghent and Flanders – as far as
there should have been any intention to – was overruled by the changing socioeconomic circumstances, enlarging the pollution issue to a spatial and thematic
multi-level scale. In the 20th C., the pollution issue became part of a mixture of
international, regional and local economic and environmental interests (Fig. 4).
The unsolved water pollution heritage of the 19th C. coincided with the economic
globalization of the 20th C. in which harbor expansion and inland water navigation
was of national and regional importance. Important loads of mainly toxic chemicals from the French textile industries in the wider area of Lille were discharged
in (the tributaries of) Scheldt and Leie. Harbor development was at the same
time an international competition between Belgium and The Netherlands and
a regional competition between Flemish harbors (Zeebrugge, Ghent, Antwerp).
Ghent improved its waterway navigation and solved its flood problem by the
construction of a semi-circular canal (Ringvaart) in 1969. Antwerp strived for
a connection between the Lower-Scheldt and the Rhine, which resulted in the
inclusion of the Meuse river basin in the discussions.
The extremely unhealthy living conditions were a result of the urban planning, allowing the construction of hundreds of factory slums. Aside of the urban planning,
personal hygiene gained attention in the second half of the 19th C. By the end of
the century, there was a growing fear among the politicians insalubrious conditions would contribute to social conflicts. Like in many other countries, a drinking
water network was gradually installed. Private sanitary accommodation, such as
flushing toilets and bath tubs, was a privilege of the upper class. Public sanitary
accommodation served the lower class; most slums had a modest sanitary block.
Not surprisingly, the first indoor swimming pool of Ghent (including individual
bath tubs) was opened in 1886 in a slummy area.
The abatement of the pollution of the inner waters was an end-of-the-pipe
approach. Direct measures related to visual effects including the cleansing of
water courses, the extermination of rats, and the removal of waste and dunghills.
In the 1850s – 60s, expropriation laws came into force, allowing the ‘sanitation’ of
unhealthy areas and paving the way for the execution of large-scale urban plans.
Between 1845 and 1902, many inner waters disappeared or were vaulted, for
As a result, Ghent was facing the environmental consequences of not only its own
industrial revolution, but of the whole industrialized upstream area of Scheldt
and Leie, including parts of northern-France, Wallonia and Flanders. Without any
Sanitation history of Ghent - Sanitary revolution
Private & public hygiene
Sanitary comfort
Ghent
(1801-)
W.treatment systems
Social conflcts
W.chain
Law
UWWTPs
Policy &
Management
Social
capital
DW
Supply
Economic
capital
Water
Quality
Water
Quanty
Expropriaon (1858-)
DW network (19c)
Public
Administraon
Science
Spaal
Infrastructure
W.system
Technological
& medical
developments
UK
(18301890)
Sewerage (18c)
Hygiene measures
Filling / vaulng inner waters
Figure 3. The sanitary revolution. Situated close to England, Ghent was highly influenced by the technological developments related to environmental sanitation. Measures improving
private and public personal health, in particular drinking water supply, were successfully implemented. Sanitation of water systems were end-of-the-pipe oriented, often resulting in
the disappearence of inner waters. Spatial changes were used to expropriate the lower class people. Despite the available knowledge, there was no attempt to build an urban waste
water treatment plant.
59
31. 8. 2015 20:12:28
Nederland – The Netherlands – les Pays-Bas
Zeeschelde
Noordzee – North Sea – Mer du Nord
Canal Gent-Terneuzen
(1827)
Bruges
Brugse Vaart (1750)
Deule: distilleries
Leie
i – Lys – lla Lys
Leie: flax retting
Lille: dyed linen
Antwerp
Ghent
Ringvaart (1969)
Tourcoing-Roubaix: woolwashing
Maas - Meuse
Frankrijk – France - la France
Rijn - Rhine
Figure 4. The water pollution impasse of Ghent. A schematic view of the conflictuous situation of Ghent and Flanders, including: historic pollution of Northern-France via Scheldt and
Leie, the disclosure of the city center by the construction of a circular canal (Ringvaart), the harbour development in Flanders (Zeebrugge, Ghent, Antwerp) and the Netherlands.
treatment, polluted surface water passed Ghent by the Canal Ghent-Terneuzen
and the Lower-Scheldt towards The Netherlands. This made any sanitation effort
a local, regional and national, but also a transboundary issue. The discussions
that started in the 19th C. with the pollution of the Spiere, the heaviest polluted
tributary of the Scheldt, and the need of an UWWTP in Ghent was for decades
part of a much broader socio-economic conflict: economic because of the harbor
policies, social because of the increasing environmental awareness from the
1960s on. The next figure (Fig. 5) illustrates the complexity: a combination of
several parties (France, Wallonia, Flanders and The Netherlands) striving for
welfare and well-being, in a different way safeguarding their interests in trade
and navigation, and public and environmental health. A mixture of combined
issues determined the negotiations for years, essentially dealing with water
and sediment quality and quanty of the rivers Scheldt and Meuse and some
canals. The Netherlands were the driving forces in these negotiations with
respect to environmental impacts as the combination of water pollution from
Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine has severe downstream effects. These negotations
include i.a. the installation commissions (the Technical Scheldt Commission in
1948), treaties (e.g. between Belgium and the Netherlands in 1960 to adapt the
Canal Ghent-Terneuzen to future needs of vessel traffic; the Scheldt and Meuse
treaties of 2002). External influences including public environmental awareness,
EU environmental directives (1970s, in particular the UWWT directive of 1976)
and the Helsinki Convention (1996) directed this process in a significant way.
A detailed description of the negotation process is provided by Meijerinck (1998).
Waste water treatment at last
In the 1970s, the organic water pollution of the river Upper-Scheldt was estimated to be higher than 400,000 inhabitant equivalents (of which 250,000 i.e.
discharged within the Flemish region), of the Leie more than 92,000 i.e., of the
60
Canal Ghent-Terneuzen about 275,000 i.e. In 1986, pollution of the Upper-Scheldt
was estimated at 463,000 i.e. By the last decade of the 20th C., water quality improvement in the Scheldt-Leie area became visible as a result of some important
investments. It is important to note that a regional/transboundary water policy
was needed to achieve this, the water quality depending on the construction of
a large number of UWWTPs, covering the whole Upper-Scheldt and Leie area.
There were early attempts to treat the transboundary water pollution. The Spiere,
a rather small tributary of the Scheldt river is an almost iconic example of transboundary pollution of the 19th C., transporting for decades enormous volumes
of waste water from the northern-French wool washing and spinning mills of
Tourcoing and Roubaix. From 1892 till 1902, the flow of the stream tripled by
the waste water discharges. The Spiere case was already in the 19th C. subject
of a political transboundary discussion and after many decades of studying
and debates, the French government decided to build a waste water treatment
installation at Grimonpont (Wattrelos), near the Belgian border. Although the lime
process was suddenly replaced by a process using cancellous iron, the French
government admitted in 1889 the malfunctioning of the installation, designed to
treat 35.000 m³ a day and the exploitation stopped in 1902. (Verbruggen, 2002).
Another attempt in 1935 by king Leopold III to treat the waste water near the
confluence of the Spiere and the Scheldt was also unsuccessful. But the pollution continued: in the 1970-80s, the annual discharge of chromium from France
was estimated at 130 tons! In 2005, as a result of a French-Belgian agreement,
a waste water treatment installation was inaugurated at Wattrelos-Grimonpont,
designed to treat 350,000 i.e. of French waste water.
Successive research and monitoring campaigns in the 1970s revealed the deplorable state of the surface waters in Belgium. In the 1980s, the responsibility of
waste water treatment was gradually transferred from community to regional
level, allowing a more coherent planning. Growing public and political pressure,
31. 8. 2015 20:12:30
www.lwwtp2015.org
W.Flow & w.level management
Sediment treatment
W.Quality improvement
Env. impacts
Polical pressure
North Sea
+
Dredging
Navigaon
Shipping
FR
RB Scheldt
W.Qnt
+
+
+
BE Wallonia
DW supply
Canals
x Sediments x
BE Flanders x
+
+
+
Nature
RB Meuse
W.Qlt
NL
protecon
Harbour
policies
Intern. trade
Public health
Env. health
~ Economic
welfare
~ Social
well-being
+
RB Rhine
Environmental
awareness
Negoaons :
- BE-NL Treaty Scheldt-Rhine Commission (1925-1963)
- Technical Scheldt Commission (1948)
- BE-NL Treaty Canal Ghent-Terneuzen (1960)
- EU Direcves on Env. Protecon (1970s-)
- Helsinki Convenon (1996)
- Scheldt- & Meuse treaes (2002)
Sanitaon efforts:
Transboundary – Regional - Urban
Figure 5. The geopolitical water issue. A more detailed analysis shows a stepwise pattern of interactions between governance and the socio-economic capital as a strategic interplay
between countries and regions (left side) and the safeguarding of (competing) social and economic values (right side). This complex resulted in numerous water-related issues and
explains why negatiotions lasted for decades before effective measures were taken. Note the increasing importance of international decision-making.
supported by international legislation at least partly influenced the administrative reorganization of responsibilities in the water domain in Flanders and the
provision of financial means for the execution of a large scale waste water
treatment program from 1992 on. Most of the UWWTPs and collector works in
the Upper-Scheldt and Leie basin were completed after this date. The UWWTP
of Ghent was already in place, but important collectors and additional smaller
UWWTPs needed to be constructed in the city in the last two decades.
construction and location of the UWWTP Ghent (Ossemeersen) and engineering
studies started shortly after. The installation should be designed for the treatment of about 350,000 i.e., with a capacity of 175,000 i.e. in the first phase. But
the building of the UWWTP Ossemeersen was delayed by a few disputes and,
started in 1981, the works were completed in 1987.By the end of the 1980s, the
largest part of the western city area was collected and connected to the UWWTP.
In the 1990s, the collector network was extended towards the city center.
The first efforts to collect waste water in Ghent started in 1967 with a study on
the water pollution in the region of Ghent. In the next step, from 1973 on, the
City of Ghent and private engineers developed a phased planning for constructing waste water collectors. The City of Ghent already decided in 1972 on the
Monitoring of the water quality in the city center is always measuring a combined
effect of urban and upstream sanitation efforts. In 1991-92, oxygen concentration
was about 4 mg O2/l. In the meantime, biological quality improved from very
polluted to moderate.
References
Backs J., 2001. Mortality in Ghent, 1850 – 1950. – A social analysis of death. BTNG / RBHC, XXXI (3 – 4): 529 – 556.
Barty-King H., 1992. Water: The Book. An illustrated history of water supply and wastewater in the United Kingdom. Quiller Press. 256 p.
Blanchard R., 1906. La Flandre. Etude Géographique de la Plaine Flamande en France, Belgique et Hollande. Société Dunkerquoise pour l’Avancement des Lettres,
de Sciences et des Arts. 530 p. (Facsimile-uitgave Familia et Patria p.v.b.a, Handzame. 1970.)
Carson P., 2001. The Fair Face of Flanders. Uitgeverij Lannoo, Tielt. 264 p.
Meijerink S.V., 1998. Conflict and Cooperation on the Scheldt River Basin. A case study of decision making on international Scheldt issues between 1967 and 1997.
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft. 372 p.
Murray Ch., 2003. Human Accomplishment – The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. HarperCollins Publishers. 668 p.
Vannevel R., 2013. The Pentatope Model: A holistic approach for analysing and reviewing environmental complexity. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology
1 – 2 (2013): 10-23. DOI: 10.1016/j. swaqe. 2014.06.001.
Verbruggen C., 2002. De stank bederft onze eetwaren. – De reacties op industriële milieuhinder in het 19 de-eeuwse Gent. Universiteit Gent, Historische Economie
en Ecologie. Academia Press, Gent. 174 p.
61
31. 8. 2015 20:12:31
The Cleanup of the Oslo fjord: from the past to the future
Haakon Thaulow1, Sigurd Grande2
1
2
Norwegian Institute for Water Research, NIVA.Gaustadallen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
Oslo City Water Works, Herslebs gate 5, 0561 Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Oslo is located around the inner part of the Oslo fjord which is very vulnerable to water pollution due to sills that severely limits the water exchange
with the outer fjord. Efforts to improve hygienic conditions by cleaning up the streets and small rivers in Christiania (the name of Oslo before 1924)
started more the 150 years ago. The story of the clean-up of the fjord is told through some of the most interesting developments in policy, plans,
knowledge developments and measures from the 1840-ties till today, and through todays intensive recreational activities and the vast improvements
in the in the fjords water quality and ecology.
1. Introduction
Oslo, the capital of Norway is located around the inner part of the Oslo fjord,
which is best described as an extended inlet form the Skagerrak strait, connecting the North Sea and the Kattegat Sea area which leads to the Baltic Sea. Figure
1. The fjord is a recreational area of paramount importance for 1,2 mill people
of which 0,9 mill discharges waste water to the inner fjord. The inner part of the
fjord, defined as north of the city of Drøbak, is very vulnerable to water pollution
due to sills that severely limits the water exchange with the outer fjord and
Skagerrak/ Kattegat.
The aim of this article is to “tell the story”, highlighting some of the most interesting developments in policy, plans, knowledge developments and measures. The
success story is told through todays extensive recreational activities even in the
harbor area, the improvement in water quality and ecology.
2. The Oslo fjord – vulnerable to water pollution
The bathymetry of the inner Oslo fjord, hereafter only named “Oslo fjord”, is
shown in fig 2.
Fig. 1. Location of inner Oslo fjord.
The departure point for the story of the cleanup of the Oslo fjord is the efforts
to improve hygienic conditions by cleaning up the streets and small rivers in
Christiania (the name of Oslo before 1924) more the 150 years ago. The developing story is an interesting example of the close interaction between available
knowledge and technology, limited resources and very strong public engagement.
Particularly from the 1930-ties with the massive installation of Water Closets
- WC’s, the pollution led to intolerable conditions for recreational activities such
as bathing and swimming. It was strong public engagement, not authorities,
laws or regulations that laid the ground for the implementation of the extensive
measures that so far has led to the successful clean-up of the fjord.
62
Fig. 2. Bathymetry of the inner Oslo fjord with important sills.
31. 8. 2015 20:12:34
www.lwwtp2015.org
Two sills are crucial to water exchange; the Drøbak sill less than 20 m deep
and two sills ca. 50 m deep separating the two major basins Vestfjorden and
Bunnefjorden. The exchange of water in the two basins depends on longer
periods of northern winds. Lighter surface water will then be driven south and
heavier water from the outer fjord will pass over the sills and renew the water;
firstly in Vestfjorden and later in Bunnefjorden.
The local watershed is small, the large rivers Glomma and Drammenselva
enters the sea outside Drøbak. The discharges to the fjord is dominated by urban
regions, agriculture and natural runoff are of minor importance.
The fjord is exposed to all kinds of water pollution from urban areas; debris, garbage, organic matters, bacteria/virus, nutrients, toxic elements etc. However, the
main pollution problem for the fjord as an ecosystem is eutrophication caused
by the nutrients phosphorous and nitrogen. Decay by bacteria of excessive algae
biomass caused by nutrients leads to oxygen depletion in the water.
3. History of wastewater management
3.1. Sewage and waste go underground
Oslo was a small city; and still is in a global context. In the year 1800 there were
8900 inhabitants, in 1880, ca. 100 000, growing fast to 220 000 in 1900. Today
the city of Oslo has 650 000 inhabitants. I including neighbor municipalities
900 000 inhabitants drain to the Oslo fjord.
Water supply through wooden pipes, started around year 1600. Before the
1840- ties there was no system or policy to handle toilet waste. Streets, urban
rivers and creeks were the main sewers. But in 1843, included in the plan to build
a new main water supply pipeline through the city, both the “Water Inspector” and
“Health Inspector” proposed to build main sewers in three main streets.
Circular or egg-shaped sewers dominated in England and Germany at that time,
however in Christiania a more simple construction was chosen; stone channels
with no masonry and with wooden bottom as shown in fig. 3. The channels were
not tight, sewage leaked into the ground and channels easily clogged by debris.
Why Oslo did choose the second best solution?
Fig. 3. Crossection of stone/wooden sewer in Christiania introduced from the 1840-ties.
The main reason was the city’s economy; channels were much cheaper than
masonry. Another reason was their multifunction; they were designed for the
transportation of rainwater, melting snow, surplus water from wells and water
posts, gray water from kitchen and cloth washing, industrial wastewater, horse
waste and other debris. However human waste should not be dumped in the
channels.
According to the 1843 plan, 7,5 km channels were constructed the next 10 years,
but from 1853 on clay pipes with and from 1861 circular or egg-shaped masonry
came in use for larger dimensions. From 1844 to 1879, 64 km sewers were laid.
3.2. The introduction of Water Closets – a highly
controversial issue
In the 1860-ties it became possible to have piped water in-house in Christiania.
WC’s came in widely use in England from around 1840 and many European and
north American cities installed WCs during the last half or the 19th century. And
Christiania looked to Europe and particularly to Great Britain
However, the pressure to install WCs in Christiania resulted in decades of fierce
discussions. Hygiene, economy, politics and water pollution were key issues.
Many arguments were raised against the introduction of WC’s:
Costs: new pipes and new systems had to be installed, the existing sewage
system was not designed to handle the increased water flows.
Cold climate: practice in Great Britain was that WC’s had to be separate from the
house and the pipes from the WC should be placed at the outside of the houses;
the climate in during wintertime in Christiania would prohibit the installation of
outside pipes.
Water pollution: toilet waste had to be discharged in the harbor with little water
exchange.
According to city regulations it was strictly forbidden to discharge human waste
to the sewage system or to rivers or the fjord. The human waste was collected
and transformed to “poudret” and sold as fertilizer. Thus some political pressure
existed to maintain this “poudret” system.
In 1893 the renovation/sewage system was evaluated by a commission. However,
the old arguments prevailed: WCs should not be installed in Christiania, costs
were too high and the climate was still considered a major obstacle. And the
municipality decided to establish a renovation agency to introduce a better
system for the handling of human waste.
The pressure to install WCs on a larger scale, particularly in the western part of
the city, was mounting. The Grand Hotel, at that time and also now Oslo’s most
prominent hotel, (the Nobel Peace Prize winners stay at the Grand) had for a long
time worried about how their prominent foreign guest would react to bucket
toilets and had installed WC’s in 1897. Hotels, companies, banks and private
villas in the west got dispensation from the ban to install WCs if they installed
holding tanks to be regularly emptied – septic tanks – before discharge to sewers,
rivers or the fjord.
Again the massive installation of WCs abroad brought the issue high up on the
political agenda in Christiania. Engineer Carl L. Salicath with studies from Dresden
held key positions in the new Renovation Agency. He visited several European
cities with modern sewage systems and argued strongly in for a modern sewage system with WC s as a key element. He also proposed investigations of the
sewage and the water quality in the harbor area. In 1899 another commission
to consider the future sewage system including the issues of introducing WCs
was established. Its recommendations on the WC issue were opposite of the
1893-commission: “The bucket system is not suitable for larger cities. Any city
having reached a certain size will have to transport its waste away. The introduction of WC’s in our time in larger cities is only a question of time”.
The final report from the investigation of water quality in Akerselva and the harbor basin stated that outside all sewage outlets there were large banks of sludge.
Even if human waste was not supposed to be led to the sewers other debris and
a large part of waste from 3700 horses (1900) created the large sludge banks.
The decay of organic matter produced gases and the lower part of Akerselva the
methane gas bubbles gave an image of raining. The report tells it was a sport
63
31. 8. 2015 20:12:35
among youngsters to put fire on the gas bubbles thus creating a firework as
several bubbles caught fire on the surface! The whole harbor area smelled badly,
and the report speculated in possible negative health effects.
During the coming years 6 similar treatment plants were built. At Skarpsno
a large septic tank was built. New collective sewers and introduction of separate
systems really opened up for installation of WC’s.
The report concluded that the pollution of the river Akerselva and the harbor
area was massive, the conditions for self-purification were very bad and that the
content of bacteria was so high that bathing in the established harbor bathing
facilities would certainly result in deceases. Even outside its mandate, the report
proposed primary treatment to reduce sludge deposits and the smell
It was now time for a new Waste Water Master Plan. It was presented by Oslo
Water Works in 1913 and was based on Salicaths principles with collecting sewers and treatments plant away from the harbor area, but now with outlets even
further out (Bygdøy/Lindøya).
A new (1899) commission initiated the first waste water management plan for
Christiania including costs, new infrastructure for introduction of WCs and for the
further treatment of the sewage.
Carl Salicath was commissioned to the planning and he visited over 40(!) smaller
and larger cities abroad. The plan strongly criticized the existing renovation
system: In no other comparable city you could experience stinking transport
of human waste through the streets in the middle of the day! The introduction
of WC`s would eliminate the need for renovation systems in the houses. The
climate argument was no longer valid; he had visited Swedish cities having
installed WCs with even colder climate than that of Christiania. The status of the
old systems was very bad; and new systems had to be built anyway, thus the
economy argument against installation for WC was weakened.
The plan proposed a combination of separate and combined systems in different
parts of the city and introduced a system of large collective sewers. Finally the
plan stated that the main sewers could not be discharged in the harbor area, nor
should treatment be located there. It would be necessary to go to the outskirts
of the city.
The water quality investigation and Salicaths plan initiated the final rounds
of discussions. Another commission’s work ended in 1910; thereafter the city
council adopted general regulations stating that urban runoff, sewage including
water from WCs could be led to the public sewer system with sewage treatment
or via private septic tanks.
3.3. The first Waste Water Treatments Plants –
massive installation of WC’s
The “WC- battle” was over. The new policy was adopted, investments according
to the Salicaths plan started including proposals to build new treatment plants.
The first Waste Water Treatments Plants – WWTPs at Filipstad was finished in
1910 shown in fig 4.
Due to technical and economic constraints, it was proposed a two-step approach;
the first phase included large collecting sewers and a primary treatment plant
at Vippetangen. The outlet at Vippetangen was finished in 1931, the adjacent
treatment plant Festningen in 1933 extended with primary treatment in 1943.
In 1910/11 when the Filipstad and Skarpsno WWTPs started up, there were
1269 WC’s in Christiania of which 469 connected to the plants, the rest had
private septic tanks. In 1925 there were 15 000 WC`s, but it was after 1928 when
he city decided to abandon the requirement for septic tanks if sewage was not
connected to treatment plan, that the number of installed WC’s really took off. In
1948 Oslo had 82 000 WC’s of which more than 8000 had no following treatment.
It proved, as in many other cities, very difficult to implement approved waste water
management plans fully. Collection sewers, treatment plants, pumping stations
are capital-intensive investments. With reference to the 1914 plan, it took more
time, collection sewers were shorter and treatment plants smaller with lesser
treatment than planned. This first step of the 1914 plan was comprehensive; and
it took time. It was supposed to take 5 years, but was not finished till 1936! The
second phase, outlet and treatment plant at Lindøya was not implemented.
3.4. More WWTP’s are build – but fjord pollution gets worse
Investments in waste water infrastructure continued including new treatment
plants. The first biological treatment plan started to operate in 1931 at Skarpsno
for 60 000 p. Then Festningen came in 1933 with primary treatment in 1943 for
200 000 p. According to revised master plan from 1944 sewage from Oslo’s east
should be collected at treated at Bekkelaget. Sewage went untreated to the
fjord till 1964 when Bekkelaget WWTP with biological treatment designed for
240 000 p started up. For Oslo west of Majorstua, Lysaker treatment plant with
primary treatment was finished as late as in 1974.
The treatment plants produced sludge, and from 1931 sludge was dumped in the
inner Oslo fjord, later in the outer fjord. However protests from the municipalities
around outer Oslo fjord led to that the sludge dumping ceased in 1974.
A general picture is that the waste water infrastructure investments were lagging
behind the development of the city. In particular after the 2nd World War Oslo grew
fast and priority was given to housing and other infrastructure. Treatment plants
became overloaded and not upgraded.
In spite of the large investments Oslo and its neighbors were exposed to increased
pollution of the fjord. Particularly the installation of WC’s had worsened the situation. The public baths at Filipstad and Pipervika then located in the harbor areas,
had to be closed down in the 1920-ties. Particularly from the 1930-ties during the
bathing season in the summer, public pressure to clean up the fjord mounted. The
summer 1932 can serve as an example: it was sunny and warm and conditions
for outdoor recreation and swimming were optimal. However, Oslo’s main papers
were full of complaints about the pollution; “the inner fjord looked and smelled
like a septic tank, full bodies wash with soap and scrub was necessary after
a bath”.
Fig. 4. Oslo’s first WWTP build in 1910 at Filipstad. “Riencsche separator disc.”
64
31. 8. 2015 20:12:36
www.lwwtp2015.org
Locally the pollution situation improved some places because of collective sewers, treatment plans and relocation of outlets. But the situation for recreational
activities in the summer season worsened. Eutrophication of the fjord increased,
algae blooms came more frequently resulting in oxygen depletion in the bottom
waters.
3.5. Disagreements on the way forward –
NIVA’s investigation and proposed solutions
develop NIVAs proposal and design the new infrastructure. And partly as temporary measures, simple chemical precipitation was introduced with relatively low
costs at the existing treatment plants (1971 – 1973).
Oslo and its neighbor municipalities Bærum and Asker decided to establish
a company VEAS (Vestfjorden Avløpsselskap) in 1976. Fig. 5 shows the implemented system.
Scientist at the Institute for Marin Biology at the University of Oslo started in the
1930–ties to look into the reasons for the excessive algae growth and anoxic
water in the bottom waters they had measured in the harbor area. Further investigations in the early 1950-ties showed that the oxygen content in the fjord was
very low: below 70 m in the Bunnefjorden no oxygen was dissolved in the water
and no life dependent on oxygen, including fish, existed. The scientists concluded
that the reason probably was the decay of algae caused by the nutrients from
the sewage not removed through primary or secondary treatment. The secondary
treatment might result in that the nutrients became even more available for algae
growth.
A long-lasting disagreement between scientists and Oslo Water Works emerged.
The dominating theory among sanitary engineers was that it was the organic
matter that was the real polluter. Advanced treatment plants internationally
focused on removal of organic matter through activated sludge and/or trickling
filter processes. The Oslo Water Works followed this path- the way forward was
biological treatment. When Bekkelaget WWTP started up in 1964, it had biological
treatment. These disagreements between Oslo Water Works and the scientist
continued during the 1950-ties along with increased public pressure to clean
up the fjord.
In 1960 the newly established Norwegian institute for Water Research – NIVA,
was asked by the city of Oslo to undertake an comprehensive investigation of the
Oslo fjord , The study, financed by Oslo and the 9 other municipalities around the
inner fjord, went on from 1962 till 1966 in close cooperation with the University
of Oslo.
It was concluded that the whole fjord; surface and bottom waters were strongly
influenced by sewage, industrial water and other polluted water. It was recommended that as a first step the municipalities around the inner fjord (not only
Oslo) should intensify the construction of collection sewers, build primary
treatment plants with submerged outlets in the fjord.
The investigations more general conclusion laid the ground for NIVAs recommendations on technical solutions presented in 1970. Many alternative locations
were considered and costs calculated. Now the removal of nutrients was a part
of the conclusion. Both phosphorous and nitrogen removal was important for
the reduction of the eutrophication. As nitrogen removal technology methods
not yet was considered operational in full scale, phosphorous removal was
recommended at all existing and new treatment plants. NIVA explicitly stated
that biological treatment alone would not help.
3.6. From science to policy – “The Grand Solution”
is implemented – nitrogen removal introduced
Now the road was paved for implementation. The city council approved the
principles behind NIVAs proposal and invited the other municipalities (Bærum,
Asker, Røyken, Oppegård, Ski and Ås). In 1971 the “Agency for Intermunicipal
Wastewater Cooperation” (Oslofjordkontoret) was set up with the task to further
Fig. 5. Sewage treatment plans and tunnel systems around the Oslo fjord.
The sewage tunnel system 40 km is the core in the system. Wastewater treated
at Festningen was collected in a tunnel system which led to Majorstua were it is
pumped 30 meter up to the tunnel from Fagerlia. The wastewater then gravitates
30 km to VEAS before being lifted up to the treatment plant. In 1982 VEAS opened
with chemical treatment (direct precipitation). In 1983 the old Festningen and
Skarpsno WWTP’s were closed down.
A milestone was passed with the opening of VEAS. But much work remained.
Wastewater had to be transported to the tunnel system and focus for some years
shifted from treatment to the transportation systems.
But with the North Sea Agreement in 1995 Norway committed itself to reduce
discharges of phosphorus and nitrogen by 50 %. This had direct implications for
the three large treatment plans for the Oslo fjord (VEAS, Bekkelaget and Nordre
Follo).Through 1991 discharge permits, both Bekkelaget and VEAS were obliged
to reduce remove nitrogen by 70 % by 1996.
The requirement for nitrogen removal was controversial from many viewpoints
but was welcomed by the scientists working with the Oslofjord. However, at
Bekkelaget there was not space enough for the nitrogen removal stage and after
a long and difficult process a completely new Bekkelaget WWTP in mountain
halls with nitrogen removal was opened in the year 2000. At VEAS nitrogen
removal was introduced in 1996.
Since the mid 1990-ties efforts has continued to improve the infrastructure.
Some important infrastructure milestones up till today should be mentioned:
65
31. 8. 2015 20:12:38
• As the capacity of Bekkelaget is exceeded, a major extension is ongoing and
is planned finished by 2020
low. It has been shown that bottom water in parts of the Bærum basin was anoxic
even before year 1800!
• A rainwater treatment plant at VEAS is in operation from 2008 reducing the
overflows at Lysaker by 85 %
5. The future – new threats and more measures
are necessary.
• In 2009 – 2010 large amounts of bottom sediments containing toxic environmental contaminants were removed from the inner harbor to a more still deep
waters further out in the fjord (Malmøykalven)
• A large collections and retention system for central parts in the older part
of Oslo with combined system call “Midgardsormen” was opened in 2014 to
improve the pollution in the inner harbor waters.
4. The fjord has responded to the measures – a clean fjord
has been achieved
Anthropogenic loads of P are estimated reduced from 700 tons/year in
1985 to currently ca. 50 tons/year and nitrogen correspondingly from 4500 to ca
2000 tons/yearly.
The fjord ecosystem has responded very positively to the measures implemented.
The fjord is much cleaner and bathing/swimming activities are back even in the
inner harbor areas. From a recreational viewpoint water transparency, esthetics
in the water an along the shorelines are in focus. The excessive algae growth
is considerable reduced, the water has become much clearer and the oxygen
situation is vastly improved. NIVA has since the 1970-ties closely monitored
oceanography, water chemistry and biology.
The public is to day of the opinion that the fjord is very clean. We like to say
we have won the 1st combat to clean up the Oslo fjord. However, there are new
threats, new demands and new regulations. New measures will have to be implemented. Oslo is the fastest growing capital in Europe and by 2030 sewage from
another 0,3 mill inhabitants will have to be treated. Bekkelaget and VEAS’s capacity is already exceeded, and both plants will be considerably extended before
2020/2025. The extended Bekkelaget is under construction and decisions has
been made to enlarge VEAS
The demand from the public for a clean fjord is also increasing. The “Fjordbyen”
is almost finished with shoreline recreational areas and dwellings in the inner
harbor areas. New bathing facilities are recently opened in located where the
public baths were closed down in the 1920 – 1930-ties.
New regulations i.e. the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Nature
Biodiversity Law focus even more the water ecology. The goal according to the
WFD is to achieve good ecological status by 2021. Much focus is now on micro
pollutants mostly due to old bottom sediments. Measures to reduce micro pollutants in WWTPs, from urban runoff and bottom sediments are ongoing.
The ongoing climate changes already contribute to increased pollution loads to
the fjord. It is documented that both precipitation intensity and frequency in the
Oslo area are increasing resulting in increased erosion, more overflows etc.
Yes, we won the 1st round in the combat to clean the fjord, but new challenges
are mounting and we are now in the midst of the 2nd round. Measures are in
implementation, extensive planning and research activities are ongoing. There
are immense challenges for the wastewater sector to contribute to the further
development of Oslo as a smart, attractive and blue green city.
References
Johansen, Tor Arne, 2001. Under byens gater. Oslos vann- og avløpshistorie.
Berge, J.A. et. al. 2015. Overvåking av Indre Oslofjord 2014. NIVA 6833 – 2015.
Johansen, Ole Jakob, 1991. Oslofjordens redning. Det største vannmiljøprosjekt
i Norge. Oslo VAV.
Thaulow, H., Faafeng, B., 2014. Indre Oslofjord 2013 – status, trusler og tiltak NIVA
6593 – 2013.
Fig. 6. shows the development of transparency and the content of chlorophyll
a in the Vestfjorden.
Fig. 6. Transparency (left) and chlorophyll a (right) in the Vestfjorden. Average summer
values for periods 1973 – 2010.
Numerous other parameters also demonstrate the dramatic improvements
including the oxygen situation. However, the exchange of bottom water in the
Vestfjorden and Bunnefjorden are still very dependent on the weather conditions.
The natural conditions are such that the oxygen content in periods and areas are
66
31. 8. 2015 20:12:39
www.lwwtp2015.org
WWTP Wuppertal-Buchenhofen: Lessons Learned over 110 Years of Operation
and New Approaches for the Future
S. Eisert1, V. Erbe1
1 Wupperverband, Wuppertal, Germany
River basin management; nutrient removal; energy management;
Introduction
In earlier centuries the cool, clear and oxygen-rich water of the River Wupper
provided an ideal environment for many species of fish such as salmon and
brown trout. Water power drove mills and forges. On the meadows of the River
Wupper yarn bleachers kept their yarn moist with the soft river water.
Industrialisation continued with a growing number of dye works and other textile
mills as well as metalworking plants. In the 19th century, there was a dramatic
growth in industry and the population in the Wupper valley. Waste and untreated
sewage from factories and households were discharged into rivers. In effect,
the River Wupper became a sewer resulting in severe pollution and epidemics
during the 19th century. Wastewater and pollution control led to the era of building
sewers and wastewater treatment plants.
Since 1906 wastewater has been cleaned at the site of the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) Wuppertal-Buchenhofen which has been continuously renewed
over the last 110 years and became the largest sewage treatment plant of the
Wupperverband river association with a capacity of 600,000 population equivalents (Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2).
The construction of three sludge digesters between 1947 and 1957 had been
a further milestone with respect to sludge treatment starting the era of gas
production. In 1954, 3,066,788 m3 of digester gas was produced being the second
highest amount in Western Germany. About two thirds of the produced gas was
sold to motor vehicles by means of a methane gas station being located on the
WWTP’s site and one third had been used as energy delivery for the aeration
tanks (KIESS, 1961). Later on, gas machines (1966) followed by combined heat
and power (CHP) units (1994) had been implemented for the utilisation of
digester gas.
The construction of the sludge incineration plant between 1974 and 1976 marked
an important step concerning the disposal of sludge which had been deposited
on the plant’s site from the 1920s until 1976.
During the 1980s, sewage sludge treatment was on the focus and thus facilities
for sludge thickening had been constructed.
Historical development 1906 – 1990
Nearly the complete cycle of development of WWTP technology can be shown
within the plant’s history which started between 1904 and 1906 by the construction of two screens, one grit chamber and four sedimentation basins according to
the example of W.H. Lindley in Frankfurt.
The Wupperverband river association was established in 1930 to assume
responsibility for water management within the catchment area of the River
Wupper. The decision for further enlargement led to the construction of five
further sedimentation basins (1936-1939) and two digestion earth basins (1933).
After the end of the Second World War, the WWTP Wuppertal-Buchenhofen had
been gradually extended between the 1950s and 1970s towards a large WWTP
with biological treatment. A milestone of secondary wastewater treatment had
been the construction of the first three aeration tanks (V=22,500 m3) together
with one secondary clarifier (V=4,000 m3) between 1951 and 1953. It had been
the first example of implementing the high-rate activated sludge process in
Europe into practice with a decay rate ranging between 60 % and 72 % for the
BOD load (MÖHLE, 1955). Further enlargement of the biological treatment had
been carried out in the 1960s and 1970s resulting in a total volume of 49,000 m3
of aeration tanks and 54,000 m3 of secondary clarifiers (BRECHTEL, 1975).
Figure 1.1 Aerial view of WWTP in 1931.
67
31. 8. 2015 20:12:41
WWTP
Buchen
hofen
Declared value (2015)
German wastewater
Levy act
Allowed local
requirement
COD
N
P
COD
N
P
COD
N
P
75
13
1
50
13
1
33
9
0.45
Figure 1.2 Aerial view of WWTP in 2009.
Table 1 Discharge requirements referring to sampling at the WWTP
Wuppertal-Buchenhofen.
Advanced wastewater treatment and optimisation
measures 1990– 2015.
Due to the accomplished investment and optimisation measures it is possible
to fulfil the allowed local discharge requirements and even low declared values
(Table 1).
The last 25 years have been characterised by various optimisation measures
for enhanced nutrient removal (nitrogen, phosphor) and for energy efficiency by
involving constructional and process engineering as well as modern machine
technology.
Phosphorous removal
Advanced wastewater treatment was required due to the stipulated conditions
based on the “Lower Wupper” management plan in 1990 resulting in very low
legal effluent values for COD and P. Therefore, the flocculation filtration unit had
been constructed for improved phosphorous removal at the WWTP WuppertalBuchenhofen between 1993 and 1995 (ERBE, 2011). It consists of twenty-eight
chambers with a total filter surface area of 1,680 m2, flown through in downward
direction and provided with 1.4 m thick filter layers of hydro anthracite. The
filters have been designed for a flow rate of 3 m/s during dry weather flow and
of 12 m/s during combined wastewater inflow. Fe (III) salts being used as flocculants are added in order to trigger the removal process.
Nitrogen removal
To meet stricter legal discharge requirements as well as to provide more
reliable performance, the biological stage of the WWTP had been considerably
extended from 1997 until 2005 at ongoing operation. The main objective was
to remove nitrogen in larger amounts from the wastewater. In order to reduce
high investment costs, intensive trials and dynamic simulation accompanied
the planning phase of the extension project. Not only on-site measures were
taken into account, but also external conditions with respect to one particular
industrial influent making up 20 % of the total NH4 load to the WWTP WuppertalBuchenhofen. Wupperverband supported the implementation of pretreatment on
the influent’s production site resulting in the reduction of the NH4 load by about
40 %. The cost-effectiveness of separate treatment could be shown by reducing
the volume for anoxic tanks and thus investment costs.
After finishing the last constructional extension, biological treatment now comprises six lanes, operated in parallel, with a total aeration volume of 106,000 m³
of which 49,000 m3 are used for predenitrification. 26,900 m³ can be used variably
either for the nitrification or denitrification process. Secondary clarifiers comprise
a total volume of 63,000 m3.
In the follow-up to the final extension and the influent’s change, dynamic simulation models have been applied regularly in order to determine optimal set values
for the discharge values (HOBUS, 2007).
68
Minimum requirements
German wastewater
cleaning act
[mg/l]
In 2014, the 85th percentile of the influent load accounted for 51,758 kg/d COD,
4,969 kg/d N and 668 kg/d P. In the end, 85 % of the total nitrogen and 95 % of
phosphor are removed from the annual 50 million cubic metres of wastewater
from households, industry and commercial establishments (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Percentage removal of COD, P and N from 1990 until 2014 at WWTP
Energy management
Wastewater treatment is a quite energy-intensive process and thus also a cost
factor. To protect the environment and save costs, Wupperverband takes every
effort to save energy and to use the available renewable energy on its facilities.
WWTP Wuppertal-Buchenhofen requires about 13.5 million kWh energy per year
with a specific energy consumption of 35.9 kWh/PE/a. Here, the largest energy
consumption is caused by the ventilation of the aeration tanks. Currently, one
internal project deals with the optimisation of the secondary treatment by
changing and adapting the aeration system and the blower station (GENGNAGEL
et al., 2015).
Besides energy saving measures, the production of renewable energy plays
a fundamental role for the whole energy management of Wupperverband.
A hydroelectric power station has been in operation since 1966 and was undergone a general overhaul in 2012 to be technologically up-to-date resulting in
the generation of 2 million kWh of energy per year. The produced raw sludge is
digested in three digesters and the gained digester gas is used for combined heat
and power (CHP) units resulting in the generation of 8.5 million kWh of energy per
year. In addition, co-digestion of external substrates like fat or collected waste
food is applied in order to reduce the external power supply by an increased
production of digester gas. All in all, about 10.5 million kWh of clean energy is
produced every year making up 75 % of the self supply of energy at the WWTP
Wuppertal-Buchenhofen (Figure 3).
31. 8. 2015 20:12:42
www.lwwtp2015.org
Besides electrical energy, the utilisation of thermal energy by means of an existing heat supply system has been optimised within the framework of the INNERS
project (INNovative Energy Recovery Strategies in the urban water cycle) at the
WWTP (KOLISCH et al., 2014). After all, the consumption of fossil fuels for heating
buildings and workshops has been significantly reduced by 100 % for propane
gas and by 40 % for fuel oil in 2014.
Figure 3 Percentage of self-generated energy on total energy demand at WWTP
Figure 4 Assessment of the water quality of the River Wupper based on saprobic index.
Conclusion and Outlook
References
Dealing with the past
The heavily loaded sludge was deposited at the WWTP’s site until 1976 and is
nowadays still a problem to cope with. A risk analysis concerning the potential
of groundwater contamination has been carried out. Based on that, a concept for
remediation needs to be coordinated together with the local authority.
Dealing with the present
One of the biggest approaches are changes in the catchment area of the WWTP.
Previously wastewater was dominated by industrial wastewater but nowadays
this part is less important. Furthermore population is decreasing corresponding
to a general German trend. The goal to adapt the WWTP’s technology to these
changes is one of the biggest approaches in the WWTP’s history due to the fact
that the design capacity of 600,000 PE differs remarkably from the current serving size of about 400,000 PE based on the COD load.
Dealing with the future
Nowadays research projects (MIKROFlock, Filter AK+) are carried out in order to
examine whether the flocculation filtration units can be used in combination
with powdered activated carbon (PAC) and granular activated carbon (GAC)
for the removal of micropollutants. The process approach was implemented
and investigated on full scale at a filtration cell of the flocculation filtration
stage at WWTP Wuppertal-Buchenhofen between 2010 and 2012. The findings
have shown that the elimination of the tested micropollutants carbamazepine,
diclofenac, benzotriazol and metoprolol in the range of 75 % to 90 % is to a great
extent referable to the PAC-dosage. However it did not lead to a significant reduction with respect to less adsorbable substances like amidotriozic acid and EDTA
(BORNEMANN et al., 2013). Nevertheless, operational costs need to be considered
within a cost-effectiveness analysis in order to be able to operate the technology
on a large-scale basis.
River Wupper
The water quality of the River Wupper has improved significantly during the last
20 years (Figure 4). This achievement has been made possible by investing in
municipal wastewater treatment, in sewer networks as well as in pretreatment of
industrial wastewater. 32 fish species have been found so far and even salmon
requiring particularly very good water quality has been settled again in the River
Wupper and its tributary streams.
BORNEMANN, C., HACHENBERG, M., KOLISCH, G., OSTHOFF, T., TAUDIEN, Y. (2013):
MIKROFlock: PAC-dosage in final filtration units – one year of full-scale operational experience at the Buchenhofen WWTP. Poster, Micropol & Ecohazard 2013,
16 – 20 June, 2013, Zurich.
BRECHTEL, H. (1975): Der Ausbau des Klärwerks Buchenhofen.
Kommunalwirtschaft Heft 9/75.
ERBE, V. (2011): 20 years of operating flocculation filter units – on the way
from phosphorous to micropollutant removal. Proceedings 11th IWA Specialised
Conference on Design, Operation and Economics of Large Wastewater Treatment
Plants, 4 – 7 September, 2011, Vienna.
GENGNAGEL, D., GODART, B., EISERT, S., ERBE, V. (2015): Technological and
methodical optimisation of the secondary treatment of a large German WWTP
(600,000 PE). 12th IWA Specialised Conference on Design, Operation and
Economics of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants, 6 – 9 September, 2015, Prague
(submitted poster).
HOBUS, I., KOLISCH, G. (2007): Einsatz der dynamischen Simulation zur
Optimierung der Betriebsführung einer großen Kläranlage. Tagungsunterlagen
zur DWA und VDI/VDE-GMA Gemeinschaftstagung Mess- und Regelungstechnik in
abwassertechnischen Anlagen, Wuppertal, 20./21. November 2007.
KIESS, F. (1961): 10 Jahre Verwertung des Klärgases auf dem Klärwerk
Buchenhofen. Kommunalwirtschaft, Heft 2/61 (S).
KOLISCH, G., HOBUS, I., SALOMON, D. (2014): Implementation of a local heat grid at
Buchenhofen WWTP. 19th European Biosolids and Organic Resources Conferences
and Exhibition, 17th – 19th November, 2014, Manchester.
MÖHLE, H. (1955): Das hochbelastete Belebungsverfahren auf der Kläranlage
Wuppertal Buchenhofen. Das Gas- und Wasserfach, Heft 9/68 (S).
69
31. 8. 2015 20:12:45
History of Prague sewer system and wastewater treatment
Jiří Wanner1
1
Institute of Chemical Technology Prague, Department of Water Technology and Environmental Engineering, CZ-166 28, Technická 5, Prague 6
(E-mail : [email protected])
Abstract
Prague is a town with more than ten centuries of written history. However, the first written record mentioning the construction of a sewer comes from
1310. The sewer from 1310 was quite an exception for many following years when the town street served as open sewers. Certain improvement in the
sanitation of the town was connected with the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV who made of Prague his seat. After the Thirty-Years War the
importance of Prague decreased because the emperors from the Habsburg family moved the seat to Vienna. New development and thus also new attempts to solve the sanitation of Prague is connected with the end of Napoleonic Wars. The rapidly growing city needed soon an efficient and reliable
sewer system. After several failures in achieving this goal the City of Prague hired Sir William Heerlein Lindley, an English sanitary engineer based
in Frankfort am Main. Lindley designed and under his supervision built not only the sewers but also mechanical wastewater treatment plant, one
of the first on the European Continent. The Lindley’s plant was operated from 1906 to 1965 when it was replaced by current activated sludge plant.
Keywords: sanitation; sanitary engineering; sedimentation; underground wastewater treatment plant; wastewater treatment; William Heerlein Lindley;
Figure 1. Prague in the first half of the 16th century (Vedutte of Prague by Mathias Gerundius from 1536; reproduced from Šedo (2004)).
Introduction
Like every town, Prague produces a considerable amount of sewage and industrial wastewaters. Their mixture with water from atmospheric precipitation is
called municipal wastewater. Regular and reliable draining of a town’s area and
efficient purification of collected wastewaters are fundamental preconditions for
safe and healthy life both in the town and in the downstream receiving waters.
Towns and cities without proper wastewater treatment represent one of the most
serious sources of environment pollution.
Prague as a capital of Premyslid principality (later kingdom) was founded in the
9th century. The first settlement was established in the area of today´s Prague
Castle, which was very soon followed by the settlement of Lesser Town and Old
Town. The Old Town of Prague was established as a fortified market place which
flourished rapidly thank to its convenient location at the crossing of merchant
routes in the heart of Europe. In his letter the Hispano-Jewish merchant and
70
traveller Ibrahim ibn Ya´qub wrote in year 965 that “Praga” is a town with houses
made of stone and lime and described the town as an important seat for trading
where merchants from all of Europe settled.
During the rule of Premyslid princes and kings Prague grew quickly in important
medieval town. Since 973 Prague became a seat of Czech bishop. Since the middle
of 13th century the Czech kings belonged to the so-called electors (Kurfürsten)
and Prague became one of the most important towns in the Holly Roman Empire.
At that time the town of Prague consisted of the Prague Castle, the Lesser Town
(both on the left bank of the Vltava river) and the Old Town. Since 1170 both banks
of the river were connected by stone bridge. Further development occurred in the
14th century when Prague became a seat of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV of
the Luxembourg dynasty. Charles IV founded the New Town of Prague. During his
reign Prague was elevated to an archbishopric in 1344 and in 1347 he founded
Charles University, the oldest university in Central Europe.
31. 8. 2015 20:12:46
www.lwwtp2015.org
The development of Prague significantly slowed down after the Thirty Years’ War
when the ruling Habsburgs moved the seat from Prague to Vienna and Prague
changed to a quiet provincial town. A new and rapid development of the town
started after the Napoleonic wars thank to the national revival and thanks rapid
industrial development in the Czech part of the Austrian monarchy. During the
19th century Prague became a centre culture, education, industry and finances
of newly renascent Czech nation. It was just natural that after the collapse of
Austrian – Hungarian monarchy Prague became a capital city of newly formed
Czechoslovakia.
Sanitation in Medieval Prague
In comparison with ancient towns, the European towns in the Middle Ages were
dirty with little concern paid to public hygiene. The situation in most medieval
towns in Europe can be illustrated by the report of Johann von Neumarkt, chancellor of the Holly Roman Emperor Charles IV, to the emperor before the meeting
of the Empire Council in the City of Nürnberg:
“Because of frequent rains, the streets of the city of Nürnberg are full of garbage
and other wastes flushed by the rain water, so that the rider has always to worry
that the horse will fall in a deep layer of the dirt and will look and smell like
a dirty swine or that his clothes will be stained by the mud splashed by other
horsemen.” (quoted freely from M. Strell: Die Abwasserfrage. Verlag F. Leineweber,
Leipzig 1913).
Prague was not an exception. The first sewer was built in 1310 to drain the house
of the provost in what is today Nerudova street. In 1340 the city commissioned
Jindrich Nithard to clean the streets and open drains in Prague before church
holidays. The care of public hygiene improved under the reign of the emperor
Charles IV who was educated in France. In the New Town of Prague, that he ordered to build, some sanitary principles were employed which Charles IV may
have learnt during his stay at the court of Philip VI in Paris.
The houses built in the New Town of Prague were equipped with lavatories (priveta in Latin) and all the wastes from the house (including animal wastes from
stables, etc.) were collected in special pits (foena) dug in a corner of the house
courtyard (curia) opposite to the house drinking water well. The rainwater was
drained from the courtyards by open channels (canalia cannae) to the streets.
At the beginning of the 15th century the Municipality of Old Town of Prague approved a new guild of craftsmen named “reges cloacarum” whose duty was to
keep the open drains clean and to empty regularly the waste pits and cesspools
in individual houses. In 1407 the Municipality banned the old habit of throwing
the content of chamber pots from windows to the streets. According to the book
by M. Strell (Die Abwasserfrage. Verlag F. Leineweber, Leipzig 1913), the level of
sanitation in Prague at that time was comparable to the most important towns
of Europe in Middle Ages.
It is interesting to note that the content of cesspools was often used by medieval
artillery as “an explosive” in bombshells. For example in 1422, during the war
between the protestant people army (Hussites) and the catholic king Sigmund
the Luxembourg, the Hussite army emptied all cesspools in Prague during the
blockade of royal castle Karlstein nearby Prague. Unfortunately, the garrison of
the castle resisted successfully the attack by this unusual ammunition.
In 1585 the city of Prague experienced one of the most terrible strokes of plague
in its history. Consequently, under the reign of Emperor Rudolph II, who tried to
convert Prague in European cultural capital, many new sanitation regulations
were issued. However, the “sewer system” was still based on open channels. Still
in the 17th century the water ditches, surrounding the city walls, were used as
open sewers. Only few towns in Europe had the sewers resembling the cloacae
of ancient Rome.
The first scouring sewer system in Prague was built around 1660 to drain the
college of Klementinum. Water from a fountain scoured the wastes from toilets,
baths, kitchen and even from a fish container. The wastes from the stone sewer,
finished in 1677, were discharged into the nearby Vltava river. The sewer from
Klementinum was destroyed during the navigation of the Vltava river and with
constructing new sewers in the 19th century. However, the archeological excavations done in the 1960s uncovered some residuals of the sewer and of the
sanitation system of the college of Klementinum (Urbánková, 1969).
Construction of Prague Sewerage System
in the 19th Century
In year 1784 the independent parts of Prague (Lesser Town, Old Town, and New
Town) formally unified and formed Municipality of Prague. This gave the chance
for modernization of the town which was slowly waking up from almost two
hundred years of stagnation. However, the end of 18th century was affected by the
Great French Revolution and following wars when the economy of the Austrian
monarchy did not enable large construction projects. Therefore, a systematic
approach to the construction of sewer network in Prague is connected with the
end of Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the 19th century. From 1818 to 1828,
the first 44 kilometers of sewers were built allowing the discharge of collected
wastewater into the Vltava river but without any treatment. However, the limited
extent of the drained area as well as the direct discharge of wastewater into the
river soon became a limiting factor in the development of Prague from a small
provincial town into a modern industrial capital. Also the operation of the first
sewerage system was not reliable because of the use of improper materials
(e.g., ordinary bricks), bad shapes of sewers (with flat bottom) and small slopes.
During the floods, which were quite common at that time, the sewers brought the
river water in the town.
In the first half of the 19th century Prague was surrounded by two large industrial
suburbs Smichov and Karlin and the town obtained new quarters like Josefov,
Vyšehrad and Holešovice. Around 1850 the population of Prague exceeded
150 000 and soon, in 1867 reached a quarter of a million. The lack of centralized
sewerage system proved to be a strong obstruction in future development of the
city as a center of modern industrial society. Like in Vienna, the demolition of city
walls initiated new wave of city construction and development. The demolition
started after 1866, when Austria lost the war with Prussia and when it was clear
that the role of city walls in modern wars is negligible.
In 1876 the town authorities set up the Committee on the Questions of Sewerage.
The activities of the Committee and of the Association of Czech Architects and
Engineers resulted in an open tender for a project to create a Prague sewer
system (1884). The tender was not successful as no single project from five bids
was suitable for practical realization.
In 1888 the City Council established the so-called Office of Sewerage which
operated, with the exception of several short breaks, up to the middle of
20th century. In 1889 the City Council ordered the elaboration of the so-called
Masterplan of Prague Sewerage from Dr. Hobrecht from Berlin and Mr. Kaftan
from Prague. However, Mr. Ryvola and Mr. Vaclavek, sanitary engineers of the
Office of Sewerage, did not recommend the acceptation of the Masterplan by the
City and submitted their own masterplan. In 1890 the city therefore received two
competitive projects and ordered their evaluation by an Englishman, Sir William
H. Lindley. Lindley did not approve either of the projects and in 1993 submitted its
own design of sewerage system for Prague. The design combined the progressive
71
31. 8. 2015 20:12:47
Figure 2. Sir William Heerlein Lindley (1853 – 1917) and Prague sewers from his time (portrait of Sir Lindley from the archive of prof. Madera, photos of sewers by author).
features of those two previous masterplans with Lindley’s expertize. At that time
Lindley was a city civil engineer in Frankfort am Main with a lot of practical
experience of sewer systems built by him or his father in Hamburg, Frankfort,
Warsaw, Belgrade, Petersburg, etc. (Jásek, 2006).
Lindley did not recommend either of the projects. On the contrary, in 1893 Lindley
submitted his own project for a Prague sewer system and wastewater treatment
which was approved by the city in 1895. The project partially employed progressive features of previous projects prepared by Czech engineers. The project was
approved by the City Council in 1894 and in 1986 Lindley became the head of the
Office of Sewerage and all design and later construction works were performed
under his supervision. The construction of sewers in Prague streets began in
1898.
The winning project by Lindley exhibited several advantages:
• the sewer system drained not only the historical parts of the city but also its
suburbs which were integrated later to the city
• the capacity of sewerage system was designed for 1.3 million inhabitants
although the city population was only 0.5 million at the turn of century
• the sewer system was protected from periodical overloading by storm waters
• the sewers were connected to a wastewater treatment plant, which prevented
the discharge of untreated wastewaters into the Vltava river
• the treatment plant was located in an area with future upgrading potential
• all wastewater treatment operations were hidden in underground, which made
the treatment plant almost invisible and reduced other negative impacts of
the plant on its neighbourhood
of sedimentation could have been enhanced by chemical precipitation but the
addition of chemicals was never applied because of the agriculture use of the
sewage sludge. The Prague wastewater treatment plant supplied the farmers
in the catchment area of the Vltava and Elbe rivers with high quality organic
fertilizer. The sludge without any thickening was at the beginning dried at sludge
fields located on the Císařský island, when the production of sludge increased
in the 20th century, the liquid sludge was transported by river tankers to storage
tanks along the Vltava and Elbe rivers. The farmers applied the liquid sludge from
the storage tanks directly to land (Wanner, 1996; Wanner, 2000; The History of the
Prague Sewage System, 2004).
Figure 3. The view of Lindley’s plant.
Lindley directed all main trunk sewers to the place where the Vltava river is
today leaving the town, on the bank of navigation channel. The channel and
the main stream of the Vltava river create in this location an island, which is
named “Cisařský” because it used to be a private property of Emperor Rudolf II
(1552 – 1612). At the beginning of the 20th century the island was in Prague
suburbs. Nevertheless, Lindley foresaw the future growth of the city and thus
he installed all wastewater processing technology in the underground of the
building. The building built in the style of industrial secession (Art Nouveau) was
used only for the administration of the plant, laboratories, storage of chemicals,
boiler room and engine room. The steam engines were used for pumps which
pumped the effluent to the river during high water conditions.
The wastewater treatment plant was formally commissioned in 1906 and the
whole construction of the Prague sewerage and wastewater treatment system
was completed in 1907. The treatment process was based on screening, grit
removal and sedimentation in a battery of underground decanters. The efficiency
72
Figure 4. The street view of Lindley’s plant from the Císařský island today.
(Figure 3 from the archive of prof. Madera; Figure 4 by the author).
31. 8. 2015 20:12:52
www.lwwtp2015.org
Figure 5. The underground grit chamber.
Figure 7. Sludge river tanker of the Prague wastewater treatment plant (1930s).
Figure 6. One of the battery of 10 underground decanters.
Figure 8. Prof. Ing. Dr. Vladimír Maděra, DrSc. (1905-1997).
(Figure 6 from the archive of prof. Madera; Figure 5 by the author).
(Figures 7 and 8 from the archive of prof. Madera).
The Lindley’s wastewater treatment plant operated up to the mid-sixties of the
20th Century. This fact helped to preserve to a great extent this jewel of industrial
architecture and sanitary technology to our times. The civil engineering works in
the underground part of the plant as well as the magnificent steam engines from
1903, which are still in working condition, attracted more and more attention from
wastewater treatment specialists and technical public. In the 1990s this historical building was converted into Ecotechnical Museum which shows the development of sanitary engineering in all its aspects. The Association of Wastewater
Treatment Experts of the Czech Republic has taken the patronage over the
professional quality of this museum. The history of Lindley’s plant is also associated with the name of Prof. Vladimír Maděra, the founder of the Czechoslovak
school of biological wastewater treatment and one of the founding fathers of the
International Association on Water Quality IAWQ (today IWA – International Water
Association). In 1929 Maděra established, in the building of the wastewater treatment plant, the first laboratory of chemistry and microbiology of wastewaters in
central Europe, one of the first on the Continent.
Figure 9. Steam boilers and steam engines (1903) (the photos by author).
73
31. 8. 2015 20:12:56
Wastewater Treatment in the 20th Century
As Prague’s population and industry grew, the capacity of Lindley’s plant was
exceeded. In spite of several small upgradings it became evident, even in the
1930s, that Prague needed a new wastewater treatment plant. There were several projects, some of them with similar features to contemporary mechanicalbiological wastewater treatment plants. However, World War II ended all activities
in this field. What is not a generally known fact is that Karl Imhoff, the German
most famous specialist in wastewater treatment, who retired from his leading
positions in Ruhrverband before the war because of disagreement with the Nazi
rule in Germany, visited Prague during the war and in discussions with Maděra
suggested the Císařský island as the place for a future wastewater treatment
plant.
This idea came into life in 1965 when a completely new wastewater treatment
plant located on the Císařský island was commissioned. This plant designed
under the technical supervision of Prof. Maděra was the biggest activated sludge
plant in central Europe at that time. The capacity of the Central Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been enlarged in several steps since 1965 up to 8.7 m3/s of
mechanical stage and 4.6 m3/s of biological stage at the beginning of the 1990s.
It was clear from these figures that the bottleneck of the island plant was in the
capacity of the biological stage, especially in the capacity of final clarifiers. The
other drawback of the plant was in the capacity of aeration basins which were
designed in the early 1960s for BOD removal only.
CONCLUSIONS
Prague as the capital of the Czech Republic has been developing for more than
ten centuries. There are no written records about the sanitation of the town
from early centuries of its existence. In the Middle Ages, like in most European
towns of that time, the streets served as open sewers. Wastes, including the
content of chamber pots, were simply thrown from windows to the street. This
practice was banned in Prague in the year 1407. The level of sanitation in Prague
improved under the reign of Charles IV, the Holy Roman Emperor, who introduced
some basic sanitation principles in the construction of the New Town of Prague
he founded. At the beginning of the 17th century the ruling Habsburg family
moved its seat from Prague to Vienna and the further development of the town
stagnated for almost two centuries. A rapid growth of the city started after the
74
Napoleonic wars when Prague became a capital of newly renascent Czech nation
and its culture, science and economy. After several attempts to build its own
sewerage system, the City of Prague hired a famous civil engineer, Sir William
Heerlein Lindley from Frankfort/Main. Lindley prepared his own masterplan of
Prague sewerage and after its acceptation by the city, he also supervised the
whole construction of sewers and wastewater treatment plant in the period of
1894 – 1907. The Lindley’s plant was in operation till 1965 when it was replaced
by activated sludge plant (Wanner et al., 2009).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author used in this article several photographs coming from the archive
of the late Professor Madera. The author would like also acknowledge the fact
that he learnt about many interesting points from history of sanitation in Prague
during long discussions with Professor Madera.
REFERENCES
Jásek, J. 2006. William Heerlein Lindley a Pražská kanalizace. Archiv hlavního
městs Prahy. Documenta Pragensia Monographia, Prague. ISBN 80-86197-65-4.
(In Czech).
Strell, M. 1913. Die Abwasserfrage. Verlag F. Leineweber, Leipzig 1913 (In German).
Šedo, I. (2004) Cesta středem Evropy: unikátní veduty k vidění v Západočeském
muzeu. IKAROS, 8, (6), ISSN 1212-5075. Available at www.ikaros.cz/node/1717.
(In Czech).
Urbánková, E. O. 1969.O hygieně v Klementinu koncem 17. století. Ročenka Státní
knihovny ČSSR v Praze 1967., pp. 168 – 175. (In Czech).
The History of the Prague Sewage System. 2004. Publication of the Ecotechnical
Museum Praha, Group of Authors, edited by Jan Palas.
Wanner, J. 1996. Vývoj stokování a čistírenských technologií. SOVAK, 5(7 – 8),
8 – 10. (In Czech).
Wanner, J. 2000. Historie stokování a čištění odpandích vod v Praze. ENERGIE, 4,
64 – 66. (In Czech).
Wanner, J., Kos, M., Novák, L. (2009) Intensification of Prague Central WWTP – Ten
years of Practical Experiences with the in-situ bioaugmentation nitrification
method. Water Practice and Technology, 4(1), doi: 10.2166/WPT.2009.016.
31. 8. 2015 20:12:57
www.lwwtp2015.org
Floorplan
N
FLOORPLAN
Level
Level 11 –- Conference
on erence floor
oor
5
1
4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
3
Registration
ain lecture room Prague
Historical or sho Vienna 1 2
Posters Prague A B
Exhibition
taircase to Level - Hotel Rece tion
Exhibition
FLOORPLAN
Level
1 – Exhibition
Level 1 - Exhibition
6
7
5
4
3
2
1
1
Registration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IWA Publishing
PillAerator
Kemira
Hach
Binder
Veolia
Karsai Pésc
75
31. 8. 2015 20:12:59
A major
step forward
Secure the sustainable sanitation of Prague
Municipality wastewater, in compliance with European
2014 objectives on water quality in sensitive areas
• Phase 1: extend the Central Wastewater Treatment plant capacity to 354 240 m3/d
Water quality:
BOD5
Suspended solids
Total phosphorous
Total nitrogen
15 mg/l
20 mg/l
0.8 mg/l
10 mg/l
}
Compliance with
European Directives
Maximize environmental benefits of the project
• Provide continuous service during construction works
• Fully integrate the plant in the City
• Create a new recreative area on CÍSAŘSKÝ ostrov
Bubenec Ecotechnical Museum,
a National historic landmark
Tennis Club
New recreative area
on CÍSAŘSKÝ ostrov
Prague zoo,
a world attraction
Troja Castle
The new CWWTP:
an opportunity to strengthen Praha’s overall
natural and cultural attractiveness
lwwtp2015-final-programme-a4-r28.indd
76
adv01.indd 1
31. 8. 2015 20:12:59
15:36:54
adv01.in
:36:54
for Prague’
Agenda 21
Integrate the new 354 240 m3/d wastewater treatment plant
into CÍSAŘSKÝ ostrov natural lanscape
• Green design
• Odour and noise treatment
• Landscaping compliant
with supra-regional bio-corridor
Implement robust
and cost effective equipment
and technologies for wastewater
treatment
Social
Bearable
Equitable
Sustainable
Environment
Economic
Viable
• Local manufacturing of major equipment
(piping, mechanical equipment…)
• Optimization of energy consumptions
Deliver the works on time
Minimize Construction environmental impacts
• Excavated soil evacuation by boat
• Concrete supply not exceeding 20 km
Build a compact, flood resistant plant
• Construction of retaining wall surrounding the plant
• Permanent dewatering and drainage system
H&S management plant adapted to plant configuration
The Quercus robur oak located on the close vicinity of the site is an emblem of the Municipality’s
commitment to biodiversity and environment preservation. The Consortium commits to address
this concern by setting up all protection measures around Quercus robur during the construction.
77
adv01.indd 2
31. 8. 2015 20:12:59
15:36:54
Deliver quality
A process supported by robust and efficient equipment
Treatment of sludge centrate from existing plant
Odour removal
Degritting
Degritting
Primary
Primary
settling
settling
®
DENSADEG
DENSADEG
4D 4D
7,1 m 3 /s
Odour removal
®
Secondary
Secondary
settling
settling
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
clarifiers
clarifiers
Biological
Biological
treatment
treatment
N/DN
N/DN
Step feed
Step
feed
4,1 m 3/s
Tertiary
Tertiary
treatment
treatment
DENSADEG
2D 2D®
DENSADEG
Nitrogen
abatment
3 m 3 /s
®
Discharge
to river
Phosphorous
abatment
Discharge
to ritver
Sludge thickening
(centrifugation)
Sludge
static
thickening
To existing plant
To existing plant
Biological treatment designed for being able to receive 6 m /s during one hour
→ capacity to deliver water quality on total plant flowrate during reconstruction of existing CWWTP
3
• TERTIARY TREATMENT:
• PRIMARY TREATMENT:
DENSADEG 4D®
• 10 times less footprint than conventional pretreatment
• high cost-effectiveness on chemical dosing
DENSADEG 2D®
for phosphorous abatment
in tertiary treatment
4 processes in one system:
• Degritting
• Grease removal
• Primary settling
• Thickening
Cost-effective operation
Optimization of energy consumption
2 processes:
• Settling
• Sludge densification
No nuisance
Efficient Odour treatment
→ Biological treatment: High efficiency air blowers
• energy savings
• regulation system
• low maintenance costs
• reduced CO 2 emissions
→ Pretreatment and sludge thickening:
• slate air conveyed to Physico-chemical
treatment
• all tanks containing sludge and raw water
in closed rooms
→ Extensive use of regulation
and automation systems
→ Biological treatment on biological tanks.
Dedicated air treatment for each
of the 4 biological cells
Detailed HVAC studies handled at design phase
78
adv01.indd 3
→ Covering of odour generationg equipment
31. 8. 2015 20:12:59
15:36:54
adv01.in
:36:54
on time
Experts resources and methods for construction
Construction methodology
• Strong mobilization of resources:
• Tower cranes on site
• Up to 1000 m3 of concrete produced daily
• Dedicated approach to construction management of compact site on island
• Excavations conveyed out of site by boat
• Simultaneous works areas
• Quality Management
• Safety Management
• Environmental Management
Time and cost control
An optimized planning, designed to secure construction milestones:
• Site organized in zones, allowing simultaneous works areas
• Detailed study of works phasing and coordination
(civil works / erection / commissioning) and construction readiness
Construction phasing
Coordination
A proposed Project management organisation fully oriented towards Consortium Efficiency and Project issues:
• Interface with Customer
• Complete collaboration between Consortium partners
• Dedicated management for H&S, Planning, Quality, Construction, Project control
79
adv01.indd 4
31. 8. 2015 20:12:59
15:36:55
Consortium
CWWTP
Degrémont S.A.
Extensive experience in large wastewater
treatment plant design, construction, operation
and maintenance in the Region
Physical-chemical or biological treatment, aerobic or anaerobic, suspended
or attached growths, ozonisation, membrane bioreactors, etc. Many processes
that Degrémont implements to ensure its customers the excellent sanitary
quality of the treated water and offer them the opportunity to reuse effluents
with a view to conservation of natural resources.
With more than 10,000 water treatment planst built worldwide, DEGRÉMONT
has the expertise needed to offer treatment processes appropriate to the
final usage of the effluents, to the changes in environmental and health
legislation, along withseasonal, meteorological and demographic variations.
Nice WWTP, France 220,000 m3/d.
Csepel WWTP (Budapest, Hungary) –
350,000 m3/d.
Paris Seine Centre, France
2,8 to 12 m3/s.
Paris La Morée WWTP, France
52,300 m3/d.
Wassertechnik GmbH
WTE develops plant conceptions that take into consideration crucial criteria
like environmental compatibility and sustainability with respect to longlasting
operations. The company builds and operates both compact municipal or local
industrial plants, as well as projects for European metropolises and their
large industry, applying latest technology and generating specific optimised
solutions with respect to energy consumption, utilisation of resources and
investment costs.
WWTP Zagreb, Croatia, 1.2 m PE.
WWTP Warsaw, Poland, 2.1 m PE.
WWTP Ataköy, Turkey, 2.0 m PE.
80
adv01.indd 5
DWP Moscow, Russia, 1 m consumers.
31. 8. 2015 20:13:00
15:36:56
adv01.in
:36:56
Extensive
experience
SMP CZ a. s.
SMP CZ a.s. is a multi-field, long-tradition
construction company focusing on construction
of bridges and other structures, with a modern
service segmentation and a key position in the construction market.
SMP CZ a.s. ensures the management and construction of complex transport-, water treatment- and industrial
structures. Vision is transformed into reality by top-standard methods resulting from the company‘s strict
technical-, technological and cultural norms as well as its long-term financial stability. The company‘s most
complex projects are carried out within the VINCI group.
Thanks to its long tradition and modern service segmentation, SMP CZ, a. s. participates regularly in the
construction of diverse industrial structures – the complex renovation of the Tušimice II power plant, Elimination
of ecological contamination – Hazardous waste disposal site in Pozďátky or the Flooding of the residual pit of the
Medard-Libík coal mine – but also in more complex projects, e.g. reconstruction of the Charles Bridge in Prague
or the construction of the City Ring – the Blanka tunnel complex. A significant part of SMP CZ, a. s. is the Water
Management Division, which participates for example in the reconstruction of Sludge Management of the
CWWTP Prague or of drinking water treatment plants (e.g. The Souš drinking water treatment plant).
SMP a. s. has been in the Czech market since 1953 and currently ranks among the leading construction
companies in the Czech Republic. Full satisfaction of its clients and environment-friendly implementation of its
projects are the company’s priority.
CWWTP Prague.
Charles bridge.
KO E Tusimice.
HOCHTIEF CZ a. s.
The construction company HOCHTIEF belongs to leaders in its field, implementing constructions in the construction market segments in the whole Czech Republic.
These are residential, public and office-, industrial, environmental and water management constructions, including projects of transport and linear infrastructure.
HOCHTIEF CZ draws on the 50-year tradition of HOCHTIEF VSB and continues the top tradition of the Czech construction business, developping it towards a modern
conception of the common living space. For as much as twelve years already, HOCHTIEF CZ has been part of the major international company HOCHTIEF AG, cooperating with its subsidiaries both in Europe and overseas. HOCHTIEF CZ offers its customers a wide range of top-quality services based on the company‘s experience
and knowledge of the market and an open and responsible attitude. Its financial stability and the most up-to-date technologies make HOCHTIEF CZ a reliable and
trustworthy trademark and an ideal partner for cooperation.
ÚČOV Klatovy.
81
adv01.indd 6
Pražský okruh (514) – tunel.
Pražský okruh (514) – most.
31. 8. 2015 20:13:00
15:36:56
VINCI Construction, the leading building and civil engineering
company, makes available to local authorities and public operators
comprehensive expertise covering design, financing, execution and
maintenance of construction and development projects.
HOCHTIEF AG – The construction company established in 1875 with
headquarters in Essen ranks among the leading construction groups
worldwide (7th biggest construction company in the world and the
largest in Germany).
Its business consists of three complementary components:
• a network of local subsidiaries, in France, in the United Kingdom,
in Benelux, in Germany, in Central Europe, in Africa, as well as 30 local
branches in Overseas France;
• specialized, highly technical business lines including specialized
civil engineering technologies (structures, soil foundations and technologies, nuclear engineering), and oil and gas infrastructure;
• management of complex projects with VINCI Construction Grands
Projets, operating worldwide on major civil engineering and building
structures.
VINCI Construction exemplifies the Group’s entrepreneurial spirit and
management approach, combining a decentralized structure, networked
collaborative work, empowerment of local managers, development
of employees and a responsive organization.
This model has contributed to the introduction of new standards of performance in building and public works.
The company employs over 164,000 people and is the largest construction
company in the world by revenue.
With over 70 000 employees and a turnover of 20.16 bln EUR in 2010, the
company is established in all dominant markets worldwide (92 % of all its
performance outside Germany). Thanks to its subsidiaries Turner and Flatiron,
HOCHTIEF AG is the leading company in the USA construction market and the
largest transport infrastructure provider in the USA respectively. Its majority
participation in the Leighton company helped the HOCHTIEF group to conquer
the Australian market as well.
As the world water treatment specialist in the water branch of Suez
Environment, Degrémont is a key player in sustainable development.
WTE Group is a leading European private service provider in the
fields of water, technology and energy. The Group provides design,
construction and operation of engineering plants for water supply,
waste water disposal, thermal waste utilisation and the generation
of heat and energy.
From engineering through to commissioning, 4500 staff work with local
authorities to design and build facilities for drinking water production,
desalination, wastewater treatment and sludge processing.
Degrémont has every water treatment technology at its fingertips and can
offer customers turnkey solutions tailored to their needs. It also provides a full
range of services from ad hoc technical assistance to multi-year operation
of complete facilities.
With more than 60 years of experience, Degrémont has built over
10 000 plants in more than 70 countries and equipped over 65 capital cities.
With innovative and imaginative teams, the R&D Department has been
developing technologies that serve today more than a billion people.
82
adv01.indd 7
Operating on an international basis, we lead numerous subsidiaries and
project-offices in 14 European countries. Over 15 million citizens will soon
be supplied with our fresh water or will have their waste water treated in our
plants. Moreover, we take responsibility for the technical and commercial
operation of water-technological plants serving more than 3.5 million people.
We develop plant conceptions that take into consideration crucial criteria like
environmental compatibility and sustainability. Applying latest technology and
creative services we generate project specific optimised solutions with respect
to energy consumption, utilisation of resources and investment costs.
WTE Group is an affiliate enterprise to EVN AG, a leading international listed
energy and environmental services provider from Austria, dealing in the
supply of electricity, gas, heat, water, thermal waste utilisation and associated
services.
31. 8. 2015 20:13:01
15:36:56
:36:56
www.lwwtp2015.org
Notes
83
31. 8. 2015 20:13:02
Notes
84
31. 8. 2015 20:13:03
COMBIMASS® and VACOMASS®
Two strong names for WWTP´s - Made in Germany
COMBIMASS® Thermal gas flow meter for digester gas



ideal for direct installation after the digester, for flare gas and in
front of the CHP
very precise even at low gas flow and pressure
measures directly the volumetric flow at standard conditions
according to DIN1343
COMBIMASS® Analysis of digester gas (CH4, CO2, O2, H2S)


portable or stationary as a „2-in-1“-solution
control of gas quality for the CHP as well as H2S-filter control
VACOMASS® Air distribution and control for aeration tanks





is a modular system, consisting mainly of a square diaphragm
control valve or the new VACOMASS® jet control valve, a precise air
flow meter and control electronics developed especially for the
sewage treatment plants
keeps the O2-concentration constant at required level
increases process stability for nitrification/ denitrification
reduces the energy consumption by preventing of over-aeration
stops carry-over of oxygen into the denitrification area
We can improve the efficiency of your plant!
Web: www.bindergroup.info
Mail: [email protected]
Tel.: +49 731 18998 39
Ansprechpartner: Manuela Charatjan
31. 8. 2015 20:13:05
C-IN
Prague Congress Centre
5. kvetna 65, 140 21 Prague 4, Czech Republic
Tel.: +420 261 174 301
Fax: +420 261 174 307
Website: www.lwwtp2015.org
E-mail: [email protected]
31. 8. 2015 20:13:06

Final programme brochure - 12th IWA Specialised Conference

Transcription

Similar documents

Read more About SARA

certification and financing proposal

we make water clean - Roebic Technology Inc.

Florida Water Wastewater Report Vol 5 Issue 1

Stockholm Royal Seaport

istanbul water expo an istanbul ter expo aw anbul ter expo

Why The Septic Guys?

Nitto Group Company

Towards a more sustainable wastewater handling in the