Ecological Water Cleaning Systems

November 6, 2006

Ecological Water Cleaning Systems


Table of Contents
1.0 Regional Water Use
1.1 Water Problems
2.0 Region of Waterloo Water Use: Introduction
2.1 Effects of Municipal Water Discharge
2.2 Region of Waterloo: Conclusions
3.0 Alternatives: Towards Sustainability
3.1 Alternate Solutions
3.1.1 Greywater Systems
3.2 Vision of the Ideal: the Community Greywater Garden
3.3 Alternatives: Conclusions
4.0 Anticipated Side Effects
5.0 Conclusions
References

1.0 Regional Water Use

Water is pumped from 126 wells in the Waterloo Region, servicing 450, 467 people a daily average of 161 200m3 in 2005 (Region of Waterloo, 2006). The wastewater is pumped to 7 wastewater treatment plants which are operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) , providing a minimum of secondary treatment under Ministry of Environment (MOE) regulations (Region of Waterloo, 2006).

1.1 Water Problems

Groundwater Contamination:
Agriculture runoff, industry discharge, landfill seepage, and urban runoff all affect groundwater. Only a few aquifers have been studied, and usually only as result of posioning, such as a case of pesticide contamination in Elmira, Ontario, (Environment Canada, 2006a).

Groundwater Mining:
If groundwater is pumped at a rate faster than which the aquifer natural recharges itself then water levels will be reduced, leading to the possibility of depletion. Such a case is illustrated by the well W4 located on University of Waterloo main campus which is no longer in use (Nyp, 2000).

Industrial Discharge:
Exact data regarding quantities of chemicals discharged by industry is challenging to gather. In 2005, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) gave 300 tickets to the Industrial Waste Haulers sector, and 185 fines for further violations (Government of Ontario, 2006).

Municipal Discharge:
Municipalities supply both residential and industrial process with freshwater. It is first treated with a chlorinating process that is known to create trihlomethanes which are suspected carcinogens (Nyp, 2000). After use, the wastewater is treated with chlorine again before it is discharged (Region of Waterloo, 2003).

Pharmaceutical contamination:
A recent study of the Kitchener Waterloo area shows extensive existence of pharmaceutical mixtures (Lissemore et al., 2005). While comparatively little knowledge exists regarding quantity or effect this has, it is known that some of these chemicals have strong effect with little dosage, and that non-target effects occur. Estimates of contamination quantity are in the range of thousands of tones.


2.0 Waterloo Regional Water Use: Introduction

Water is a fundamental need of all life, and while it is reusable, it is not renewable. It is a global system and therefore complex. It is imbricated in everything, making it challenging to define system boundaries. Freshwater is but 3% of Earth’s supply. Our freshwater is increasingly polluted from multiple sources creating chemical combinations that are also increasingly complex.

In 1996 Canada used 64 421 million cubic meters (MCM); just less than 20 000 MCM was re-circulated, and 90% of it discharged post use (Environment Canada, 2006b). The average Canadian municipal breakdown was residential 52%, commercial 19%, industrial 16% and leakage13% (Environment Canada, 2006b). Each Canadian used an average of 335L a day in 1996 (Environment Canada, 2006b).

As an example of a municipal water system I will look at Galt, an area of the City of Cambridge, in the Region of Waterloo, in southern Ontario. It is a good example for its complexity, the systems nested within systems, for the dense population, and high pollution levels. The Integrated Urban Water Supply (IUS) includes Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge, Elmira and St. Jacob’s, draws from 126 wells an average of 171.5 million liters/day (MLD) (Region of Waterloo, 2006).

The groundwater is tested for more than 150 chemical contaminants and undergoes a chlorinating process (Nyp, 2000). Chlorine reacts with organic matter, creating trihlomethanes which are suspected carcinogens (Nyp, 2000). From the treatment plant, the water runs through an underground network of metal pipes serviced by the city.

Average daily water use for the IUS in 2005 was 161 200 MCM. Cambridge received a daily average of 51 331m3 from the IUS ( City of Cambridge, 2005). Most of the wastewater in Cambridge is processed in the Galt Waste Water Treatment Plant (GWWTP) which is operated by Ontario Clean Water Agency (OWCA) and monitored by the Ministry of Environment (MOE). The GWWTP treated a daily average flow of 30 301 m3/day in 2005 (Region of Waterloo, 2006a).

Conventional wastewater is treated in roughly a five stage process. First the waste is screened, then solids are allowed to settle out. The water carries on the third stage, called secondary treatment, which aerates and uses biological processes in mimicry of how water is cleaned in natural ecosystem. Solids are allowed to settle out again. The water is treated with chlorine before it is discharged, and the solids are let to compost before being either incinerated, put in landfill, or used as fertilizer.


2.1 Effects of Municipal Water Discharge
The following information is based on the Grand River Conservation Authority’s 2006 report, Water Quality in the Grand River: Summary of Current Conditions (2000-2004) And Long Term Trends ( Cooke, 2006).

Generally, nutrient levels in the Grand River are high, and metal levels are within the guidelines. Agricultural runoff and wastewater discharge are cited as the main contributors, and exacerbated by the underlying clay pan which contributes a high sediment load. The central portion of the river, around the confluence of the Conestoga and Speed Rivers, is the “most impaired”.

Wastewater plants, intense agriculture, and urban runoff are cited as the main contributors. Effects are seen in downstream eutrophication., Increasing concentrations of total ammonium, chloride, and phosphorus are being seen in Waterloo Region. Chlorides are particularly high in the lower Speed River, likely from road de-icing and water softening salts persisting through wastewater treatment. Spills from the wastewater treatment plant bypasses pose “significant threat” to the river of “acute and immediate impairment to water quality”. In 2004 there were over 70 spills in the Grand River, most of which were from wastewater treatment plants of secondary treated water.

Pesticides are not thoroughly tested for. Neither are pathogens or bacteria. No mention is made of testing for pharmaceuticals, petroleum, or other toxins.


The recent discovery of chromatography and spectroscopy technology has made possible testing for more complex chemicals, but the lack of economic resources limits the availability of equipment and staff to do such testing. As well, the knowledge regarding how chemicals exist in combination and in context is incomplete. Recent studies using this technology have shown that wastewater treatment plants “only partially eliminate[d]” antibiotics such as tetracyclines and sulfonamides and are considered “point sources for antibiotic contamination (Yang et al., 2004).

Global change is another vector of large impact upon the system. The continuing trends of urban development and population growth are increasing pressure upon already stressed groundwater supplies. High water use is contributing to lower water quality; this is a local and global trend. As well, increasing water sales to American markets are also placing pressure on many Canadian areas, such as nearby Guelph, which is considering building a freshwater pipeline to the stateside market.

2.2 Region of Waterloo: Conclusions

The Region of Waterloo operates a very large water supply and treatment system. This system is leading to groundwater contamination and depletion in the area. Concurrently, pollution and contamination levels are rising. A major limitation is our lack of capacity to test for many contaminants: the time, man-power, technology, and research have not been funded yet. Of our known pollution, it is wastewater treatment plants that pose the highest threat to the health of the Grand River.

3.0 Alternatives: Towards Sustainability

Clean water is necessary for life; not only is it a prerequisite for human life but planetary health depends on it. We are polluting water at a rate higher than natural planetary processes can purify it. As a result “nearly all surface water bodies within and near urban-industrial centers are now highly polluted” (Biswas, 2005). According to Biswas a water crisis might occur, but not for a lack of water, but because of failing water quality, and insufficient for water treatment technology. Large, high-tech, treatment plants have a high cost and large ecological footprint. They require a high energy input to construct and to maintain. Especially for developing nations, which is most of the global population, currently insufficient investment is available for the treatment facilities necessary to maintain a high quality water supply (Biswas, 2005).

While some argue that large, high-technology systems hold the most hope for the task of cleaning our ever-increasing load of polluted water, many will argue that biological systems are more affordable, and truly sustainable. The success of a wastewater treatment system is dependant on how well the system functions as a whole and within its environment. It must be suited to the bioregion and to the community.

A sustainable treatment process must be: a viable economic investment for a community in both the developed and developing worlds; of mutual benefit to the community and the ecosystem; provide habitat for biodiversity; and be designed for flexibility in its long term biological functioning.


3.1 Alternative Solutions
Alternative methods do exist. If, to begin with, human feces and urine (blackwater) and washing water (greywater) are allowed to remain separate, our task of maintaining a clean water supply and cleaning dirtied water is greatly eased. Feces and urine are both very high nitrogen sources, a requisite of all soil and plant processes. Composting human waste before returning it to the fields is an ancient practice, and currently being cautiously used in the Waterloo Region (Region of Waterloo, 2006b). Saying goodbye to the flush toilet has the dual effect of conserving water while greatly reducing the toxicity of the municipal water treatment load.

Many methods exist for the cleaning of water. The following is a list of techniques and the vector they are effective in. Often, these methods are used in combination with another.

Table 1. Techniques, method, and results for water cleaning strategies.
Adapted from Adin and Asanno, 1998, except for * taken from Bononomo et al, 1997.

Technique Method Results

Aerobic bioactivity metabolism by bacteria removal of organic matter
Oxidation pond: aeration and sunlight reduce solids, BOD, coliforms, bacterial,
and ammonia
activated carbon physical adsorbtion removals hydrophobic, and organic
compounds
lime treatment precipitate metals softens and disinfects
from solution using lime
reverse osmosis pressure membrane removes salts, and pathogens
UV radiation ultraviolet exposure disinfects, purifies
duckweed * removes organic cleans, denitrifies


3.1.1 Greywater Systems

Two trends in greywater systems currently prevail, roughly categorized as the constructed wetland and a Living Machine (patented). A constructed wetland is an outdoor system that uses soil, water, plants, and microorganisms to purify water mimicking the natural wetland system (Magmedov, 2003). A Living Machine is primarily an indoor system constructed of a series of tanks each containing a different mini-ecosystem which function together to clean water in up to four days (Wolovitz, 2000). Both systems cultivate water-cleaning microorganisms through accentuation of habitat.

A constructed wetland is based on the ecology of a natural wetland. They generally consist of multiple beds containing media, such as sand, soil and gravel, planted with aquatic plants, such as cattails, bulrushes, reeds, and sedges. Multiple mediums of varying diameters are critical for cultivating quantity and diversity of microorganisms, as is a diversity of plants. Plant roots provide habitat and the carbon necessary for microorganisms to denitrify water. Often systems will incorporate vertical and horizontal flows to increase aerobic activity.

The following list is a few of the many research projects containing elements that might successfully be integrated into a sustainable, community water treatment system:

- Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands (Kantawanichkul et al., 1999). Researchers in Thailand are using constructed tanks filled with gravel and planted with grasses or papyrus, and vertical flow to filter water from Chang Mai University; results show coliform removal was 99.9% and overall 90% removal efficiencies even when in high flow.

- Constructed Wetlands for Cold Climates (Smith et al., 2006). Researchers in Atlantic Canada have run dairy wastewater through a constructed wetland year-round to determine that, with continuous and steady hydrolic flows, and with mulch and snow for insulation, biological activity can remain high enough to remove 62%-99%.

-Duckweed Wastewater Treatment ponds (Bonomo et al, 1997): Italian researchers concluded that while cold winters limited this method, otherwise results proved high cleaning efficiency and high production of biomass and habitat.

Living Machines were created and patented by John and Nancy Todd of the Ocean Arks Institute. These systems involve a set of connected tanks containing complete aquatic ecosystems, providing habitat for a diversity of beneficial bacteria indoor environments to clean greywater. In these systems, the water is first collected and held in a closed anaerobic environment and treated to anaerobic decomposition for about three days; the water then is transferred to a closed aerobic tank, where it is aerated and allowed to off-gas. From there, the water is run through a series of tanks housing aquatic ecosystems of varying depths and species; these tanks are designed to maximize surface area to house high beneficial bacterial population.

The Living Machine at Findhorn, Scotland was designed in 1993 and serves approximately 300 people per day. It lives in a 10m x 30m greenhouse, and takes approximately 8 days to clean water (Findhorn, 2005). Living Machine systems are currently used in the Toronto Body Shop bottling plant, at Ben & Jerry’s headquarters, and a number of other high profile locations.


3.2 Vision of the Ideal: the Community Greywater Garden

Water, food production, humans, and human waste are a connected system. Currently this system is primarily fueled by petroleum at every stage, and heavily dependant on water subsidies. Regardless of the remaining quantity of available oil, the high environmental and economic costs will likely necessitate that we produce and maintain the majority of our basic resource in our own bioregions. History is revealing a lack of efficiency in centralized systems. Scientists, philosophers, activists, even theologians are calling for an urgent shift to bioregionalism (see Thomas Berry, Jane Jacobs, David Suzuki). If we look at the impressive new bodies of knowledge collected through systems theory, community development, and permaculture, then the idea of mimicking natural systems, using the pattern of systems nesting within systems, becomes imperative (see Fritof Capra, Donnella Meadows, David Holgrem).

Water and food are linked; everything needs water to grow, clean, to digest, and cook. Both plant growth and water cleansing occurs through bacterial action. Becoming more aware of these processes, so to create responsible, efficient and healthy food and water production is imperative. Linking these systems at a home, community, and watershed level is necessary. An entire social, system shift is necessary to accompany these structural changes to our living patterns.

For the city of Cambridge, Galt in particular, I imagine three or four large, community managed, water treatment centers. Consisting of multiple constructed wetland systems, multiple Living Machine systems, compost areas, and systems for specific contaminations, a variety of local bacteria, fungi, ecosystems, and knowledge can be cultivated there. These centers can process any water that has no other system, process heavily contaminated waters, and supply biological and intellectual resources. These local water treatment centers have the dual function of water treatment and nursery centers, supplying appropriate and adapted varietals of the micro and macro organisms necessary to create home greywater systems. The community level systems could create a level of knowledge sharing within the watershed, and cross-watersheds.

As water becomes a more lucrative resource, more households and communities will want to, and need to, reuse water. Clean water is preferable. In some cases, households will want to have a garden, thereby having the knowledge, energy, feasibility and desire to maintain a greywater system. They might have their own system of rainwater collection, water storage, water cleaning, and food creation. In other cases, groups of dwellings will chose to share the chores of garden and water system. Ideally, the community would care for both indoor and outdoor systems; especially in a climate with a more severe winter, a greenhouse with a LM would cleans water much quicker, contribute to winter food production, and could provide a great community space for the winter months. Good design, with close attention to the particular ecology, community, and local needs, will be specific to the site and context.

3.4 Alternatives: Conclusions
Globally, we are polluting our water at a rate faster than natural process can clean it. Conventional wastewater treatments plants are expensive, have a large ecological footprint, and, as revealed by studies of the Grand River, they create the most known pollution. Current research stresses the need for more efficient water treatment, and attention to water quality. Knowing that investment for new, expensive WWTPs is not always available, sustainability must be defined as economically viable for both developed and developing communities, consisting of a small ecological footprint, of mutual benefit to the community and local ecosystems, fostering biodiversity, and designed for flexibility in its long term functioning.

By keeping separate our greywater from blackwater, we greatly increase our capacity to efficiently clean water. Greywater systems have been created on a many scales, both indoor and outdoor, in warm and cold climates. Constructed wetlands are usually for outdoor application and can be designed for varying scale and climate. Living Machines are a patented design from Ocean Arks Institute have been functioning successfully in a number of indoor locations for over ten years.

Ideally, while still subsidized by inexpensive energy sources, we begin to shift WWTPs to using biological systems. WWTPs can cultivate locally adapted and effective species for greywater treatment, functioning as both treatment plant and nursery. The community can then support the building of more indoor and outdoor greywater systems of varying scales, for households and communities, facilitating greater water re-use with less embodied energy.

4.0 Side Effects
The effects of the implementation of an integrated system of bioregional food production and biological water treatment both creates and necessitates a complete social, cultural, and ontological shift. This shift is being widely called for throughout the peace movement ( see Thomas Berry, David Suzuki, Derrick Jensen). If one looks only at the economic vector, such a shift is inconceivable and unprofitable. However, if one looks at the effects of such an integrated system on local biodiversity, global and community health – physically, socially, and spiritually-, as well as food and water quality, a positive relationship of mutual enhancement is found.

Some possible side effects might include an increase in biodiversity as habitat is created, increasing air quality, an increase in groundwater quality and recharge, deepening sense of community pride, deeper understanding of biological process, an increase of knowledge regarding biological process capable of decomposing the residues of chemical era, etc. Side effects would likely also include an increase in local food productions, which would affect the local economy and employment. The effects of such a systems on the planet, humans and non-humans would be overwhelmingly positive if one deems biodiversity and life as positive.

The greatest challenge to this proposition is creating a social movement towards saying goodbye to the flush toilet. This idea is incomprehensible to most. From this perspective the greatest resistance would be met. The implications of such a move would be mass water conservation as well as much less water contamination. It is possible, indeed likely, that tertiary industries would be created to process and recycle the composting of human waste.
As stated, looking through the economic vector such a system is not plausible; indeed, it is problematic. Such self-sufficient, ecological models of local production do not fit profitably in current economic frameworks.

From a short-term perspective, it is possible that the transition of WWTPs from conventional to ecological models could provide job opportunities in research, and community education. Community design processes could greatly help ameliorate the shifting economic patterns. It is in the transition from our current economic system to an ecological system that possible negative side effects lie, as it is uncertain that the transition will occur without crises. Indeed, if we can shift to a network of resilient, locally adapted, flexible systems with built-in redundancy, while subsidized by petroleum energy, maintaining our water quality would be more likely, and fostering of sustainable community development could be supported.

5.0 Conclusions

The Region of Waterloo supplies water to nearly half a million people from 126 wells, and treats the wastewater in seven main WWTPs. This is resulting in the depletion and contamination of groundwater. As well, the watershed is becoming increasingly polluted from urban and agricultural runoff, as well as from pharmaceuticals in municipal discharge. The greatest known damage is occurring from spills from the municipal WWTPs. The current organization responsible for testing the Grand River’s water quality is not equipped with the necessary equipment to test for presence of quantity of many known contaminants.

The first step in improving water quality is keeping solid waste separate from wastewater. Greywater can be treated much more safely and easily than blackwater. Methods alternative to convention are being explored in both the scientific and sustainability communities. Constructed wetland systems are receiving much scientific attention currently, and have shown the most positive results in warm, though strategies are being studied for cool climates. Living Machines are a patented design from Ocean Arks Institute; they are for indoor or greenhouse application and have been successfully installed in a number of high-use, high-visibility commercial locations. Both systems rely on biological processes to cleanse water of toxins and impurities.

Natural systems have the capacity for self-organization, self-repair, self-reproduction, and a great ability to adapt thereby fitting our definition of sustainable. By first creating a nursery and research site in our municipal WWTPs and using a community design process, we can create a network of systems that function in to create food and community while cleaning our water for reuse.


References

Akhand, N.A., Lapen, D.R., Topp, E., Edwards, M.J., Sabourin, L., Ball Coelho, B.R., Duenk,
P.W., Payne, M. 2006. Prediction of liquid municipal biosolid and precipitation induced
tile flow in a Southern Ontario agricultural field using MACRO. Agricultural Water Management 83: 37 – 50.

Adin, A., Asanno, T., 1998. The Role of Physical-Chemical Treatment in
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol 37, No 10: 78-90.

Biswas, A.K., 2005. An Assessment of Future Global Water Issues. Water Resources
Development, Vol. 21, No. 2: 229-237.

Bonomo, L., Pastorelli, G., Zambon, N., 1997. Advantages and Limitations of Duck-Weed Based Wastewater Treatment Systems. Wat. Sci Tech. Vol. 35, No. 5: 239-246.

Capra, F. 1996. The Web of Life:A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York:
Anchor Books, p 37.

City of Cambridge, 2005. Water Summary Report: 6.

Cooke, S., 2006. Water Quality in the Grand River: A Summary of Current Conditions (2000-
2004) and Long Term Trends. Grand River Conservation Authority: vii-ix.

Environment Canada, 2006. Toxic chemicals: the legacy of a chemical society. Retrieved
October 16, 2006, at http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/poll/e_legacy.htm: para 1.

Environment Canada, 2006a. How we contaminate groundwater. Retrieved Ocober 16, 2006 at http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/poll/e_howgrd.htm: para 7

Environment Canada, 2006b. http://www.ece.gc.ca/water,

Findhorn Foundation, 2005. The Living Machine. Retrieved from
http://www.findhorn.org/ecovillage/livingmach2_new.php. Paragraph 4-12.

Government of Ontario, 2006. Sector Compliance Branch: Our Work: Inspection Results.
Retrieved from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/scb/work/table1.htm#industrial,
para 13.

Katawanichkul, S., Pilalila, S., Tanapiyawanich, W., Tikampornittay, W., Kamrua, S., 1999.
Wastewater Treatment By Tropical Plants in Vertically Constructed Wetlands. Wat.Sci.Tech, Vol 40 #30: 173-178.

Lissemore, L., Hao, C., Yang, P., Sibley, P.K., Mabury, S., Solomon, K.R., 2005. An exposure
assessment for selected pharmaceuticals within a watershed in Southern Ontario.
Chemosphere 64: 717-729.

Magmedov, V. 2003. Constructed Wetlands for Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment and Nature
Conservation. Online retrieval, www.constructedwetlands.org: para 1.

Ministry of Environment, Procedure F-1. Determination of Treatment Requirements for
Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters.

Nyp, G., 2000. Half a million gallons a day. University of Waterloo Daily Bulletin, online
edition; retrieved from http://www.bulletin.waterloo.ca/2000/aug/02we.html para 8.

Region of Waterloo, 2003. Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report. p 9.

Region of Waterloo, 2006a. Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report. p 50.

Region of Waterloo, 2006b. Wastewater in Waterloo Region. Regional Website:
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/: para 4.

Sasek, V., Cajthaml, T. Bhatt, M. 2003, Use of Fungal Technology in Soil Remediation: A Case
Study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 3: 5–14.

Smith, E., Gordon, R., Madani, A., Stratton, G., 2006. Year-Round Treatment of Dairy
Wastewater by Constructed Wetlands in Atlantic Canada. Wetlands, Vol 26, No. 3: 349-
357.

Wolovits, J., 2000. The Living Machine. PennState Online Reseach,
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0009/machine.html: para 4.

Yang, S., Jongmum, W., Carlson, K., 2004. Simultaneous extraction and analysis of 11
tetracycline and sulfonamide antibiotics in influent and effluent domestic wastewater by
solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1097: 40-53.