Grey-Water R e c l a m a t i o n f o r N o n - P o t a b l e Re-Use
S Surendran, MSc (Member) and A. 0 Wheatley, BSc, PhD (Member)*
Abstract
Direct water recycling has become an important part of
water conservation in the dry areas of the world and is
now being seriously considered for the UK. This paper
reviews current demands in large buildings and balances
these against non-potable re-use. Work is also described
on the development of a sustainable low running cost
treatment unit. Results are presented from a 75 Vday
prototype biological process operated with a synthetic
sewage, which achieved a near potable standard at a cost
of 25 p/m3. T h e design, performance and costings of a 40
'population equivalent' demonstration unit are also
given.
Key words: Grey-water treatment; package plant; water
reclamation; water-use patterns.
Introduction
In densely populated countries, water re-use in parallel
with urban development has been necessary for many
years. In the UK the common form of water recycling is
indirect re-use via the river system; for example, on
average, one-third of London's drinking water is
estimated to be recycled sewage effluent('). Epidemio-
logical surveys(2)and standard water-quality analysis have
been used to show that there are no significant adverse
effects(",.
Direct re-use for potable supply is also reported").
The costs of treatment are more expensive than the stan-
dard raw water but cheaper than other unconventional
resources and long-distance transportation.
In arid climates, direct re-use for non-potable uses
is routine. There are about 380 schemes in California(5),
and a state ordinance requires all large new buildings to
include dual plumbing@).A survey of 38 of these state-
funded schemes has been published, and acceptance of
recycled water was not as good as expectedc7).The major
problems were the costs of providing the dual pipework
and the extra treatment necessary for unrestricted non-
potable use; this made the costs of reclaimed water more
than the alternative potable supplies(').
The design of a district scheme for Sydney has also
been reported@)where tertiary-treated and disinfected
sewage effluent was recycled, via a separate distribution
system, to houses in a new development. T h e network
This paper was presented at a joint meeting of CIWEM's East Midlands and West
Midlands Branches, held in Nottingham on 5 February 1997
*Research Associate and Professor of Water Engineering, Department of Civil and
Building Engineering Loughborough University, UK
406
was installed during construction in colour-coded pipe-
work in common service trenches, and the reclaimed
water was connected to toilets and an external tap. The
price of the recycled water was subsidized and set at a
third of that of the standard potable supply. A financial
appraisal of the system indicated that it would have been
cheaper to re-use the reclaimed water as a raw-water
supplement for potable supplies if this had been
acceptable.
has reviewed work in Japan where there are
840 in-building recycling units, 42 local district systems
and 27 municipally based schemes, providing reclaimed
water. The district and municipal systems use conven-
tional sewage treatment with disinfection, while the
individual building units are based upon membrane or
biomembrane processes. Detailed information on a self-
funding project is reported(I0)for a district of Tokyo
which uses sand-filtered sewage effluent, disinfected
with hypochlorite; pay-back (including accumulated
deficit) was achieved in 12 years. T h e scheme originally
supplied 4000 m'/d and, based upon the success of the
project, is to be expanded to 8000 m"/d. Two financial
advantages for this p r o j e ~ t ( ~were
5 ~ ) that (a) the district
was densely populated and covered only 0.5 km2, and (b)
the water was only to be used for toilet flushing.
Reclaimed water-quality standards were therefore lower
than would be required for unrestricted non-potable uses
('Table 1).
In the UK, providing adequate water in all circum-
stances and in a sustainable manner is becoming a
problem: during most of 1996, reservoirs and ground-
water levels were much lower than normal. T h e 1995-96
OFWAT Annual Reportcll) noted that about 20.2 million
customers (39%) were affected by hosepipe bans, 8.2
million customers (16%) were at risk from drought
orders (requiring the use of street standpipes or rota-
cuts), and an additional 177 000 (0.8%) of properties in
England and Wales were affected by low-water pressure.
Recreational and irrigation activities were also severely
affected by restrictions in usage. In 1996-97, two regions
still had drought orders and 0.8 million customers were
affected by hosepipe b a d 2 ) .
Increasing water demand and changing climate are
the causes of water-supply problems. OFWAT(13,14) have
forecast that from 1995 to 2015 the domestic water
demand in England and Wales will increase from 8300 to
9300 Ml/d - equivalent to an increase from 163 to
184 I/head. d (0.3-1% annual increment). Herring-
ton(L5), using a climate change of +l.l"C over the period
1991 to 2021, predicted a 2.6% annual increase in
domestic consumption; mains-water use for irrigation
over the same period could increase by 3.6%. During
warm dry periods, 70% of water supply can be used for
irrigation(16).
0 J CIWEM,l998, 12, December
 Dynamic Process Modelling of Activated-Sludge Plants

Table 1. International water-quality criteria for toilet flushing

Faecal coliforms Total coliforms TSS DO % PH
(cfu/100 ml) (cfu/100 ml) (% saturation)

US EPA (9) 14 for any sample 6-9

0 for 90% sample
Florida (m) 25 for any sample 5
0 for 75% sample
Texas (m) 75 (m)
Germany (9) 100 (9) 500 (9) 30 80-1 20 6-9

Japan (m) 10 for any sample 10 6-9

S. Africa (9) 0 (9)
WHO lawn 200 (9)
irrigation 1000 (m)
EC bathing 100 (9) 500 (el 80-1 20 (9) 6-9
water 2000 (m) 10 000 (m)
UK (bathing water 100 (9) 500 (9) 80-120 (9) 6-9
criteria for WC 2000 (m) 10 000 (m)
flushing under
discussion)
UK (BSRIA) 14 for any sample
proposed (9) 0 for 90% sample

Note: g =Guideline
m =Mandatory

Water conservation and recycling is therefore a surveyed by (a) questionnaire, (b) interview, and (c)
timely area of research, and the reported work considers reviewing records of water usage. A more detailed study
the technical and economic feasibility of water recycling was carried out at Loughborough and water usage was
within large buildings to reduce the costs of pipe net- monitored in different types of building, i.e. teaching,
works. Only grey water (i.e. from washbasins, showers, administration and halls of residence. A diary survey was
baths and washing machines) was recycled to reduce the used to estimate toilet and washroom use. Additional
costs and extent of treatment. monitoring of hourly and daily water usage was carried
out by meters at two residential halls at Loughborough
(Fig. 1). These data were compared with unpublished
Grey-Water Volumes domestic information from the Anglian water survey of
domestic consumption (SODCON) in Table 3.
On average there are approximately equal volumes of Typical weekly, daily and hourly usage patterns were
grey water and lavatory flush water (70% of supply)(I4). analysed with standard statistics to estimate peaking
In designing the water-recycling system it was necessary factors and required storage volumes. T h e data confirm
to allow for the frequency of use, to size storage tanks. previous studies which have noted about equal needs of
Data were collected from four local universities (Table 2), potable and non-potable water(I8J9).O n average, about
three hotels, and a golf club(17).The four universities were 30% of potable water is used for lavatory flushing, 32%

Table2. Annual water use for toilet flushing,personal hygiene and possible rainwater harvesting in universities
University Total indoor usage WC & urinal Bath, shower and Storm roof water Estimated surplus
(D/Nature) (teach & admin. hand washing (teach & admin. storm and
blocks t R/Halls) (teach & admin. blocks + R/Halls) grey waters
blocks t R/Halls)
(m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3)

u1 218 116 84 153 [39%] 61 260 [28%] 50 340 27 448 (25%)

u2 39 425 18 665 [47%] 10 156 [26%] 48 001 39 391 (68%)
u3 20 903 1 1 267 [54%] 5 022 [24%] 25 330 19 085 (68%)
u4 227 952 98 476 [43%] 62 248 [27%] 63 642 27 41 3 (22%)

Note: D/Nature = Domestic in nature, i.e. water usage in the laboratories, for irrigation and swimming pools was not included
R/Hall = Includes both self-catering and full catering residential halls
[%I = Expressed as % of total indoor usage (domestic nature)
(Oh) = % of surplus stormwater = (proposed stormwater usagehotal storm roof water) x 100

0 J.CIWEM,l998, 12, December 407

M . Smith a n d J. Dudley on

Table 3. Water consumption (Yhead.d) from three households during 10 months monitoring

- -Using
- typical week I -
Using typical weekday

Mean % (Ave) Median ;td. dev Max. ;td. dew P/f

-
Stop tap (total) 212.3 100.0 182.4 124.5 326.6 145.2 1.1
Bath and shower 34.4 16.2 34.6 27.1 48.3 JAN-W04 27.6 1.I
Wash basin 25.5 12.0 20.5 17.1 41.7 OIN-W44 18.7 1.o
Washing machine 25.6 12.0 5.0 36.3 47.9 OCT-W41 38.7 29.7 1.2
Dish washer 6.8 3.2 1.6 9.0 12.1 NOV-W46 1.8 9.1 1.2
Kitchen sink 29.7 14.0 25.9 19.0 53.2 OCT-W41 21.4 1.2
wc 61.2 28.8 58.1 21.2 86.2 FEB-W08 24.3 1.1
Outside tap 29.2 13.7 1.o 77.3 136.2 JUL-W28 4.7 117.4 1.5
Personal washing 59.9 28.2 56.1 35.6 77.9 OIN-W44 56.1 37.0 63.4 1.1
+ laundry 85.7 40.3 15.5 56.6 125.5 NOV-W46 58.4 1.1

Ave. = average
Std. dev = standard deviation
P/week = peakweek
P/day = peakday
P/f = peak factor (maximumlmean)

for personal washing and 16% for
Additionally, during 1977-1985, Hall et d2") and
Herrington(I5)observed an increase in the amount of grey
water from increased showering and clothes washing;
these data are similar to other countries. A review of
German water consumption(24)found that, on average,
29% was used for lavatory flushing, 37% for personal
washing and 15% for laundering. US publications
indicate that 28% of water supplied was used for lavatory
flushing, 20Yo for personal washing and 10% for
l a ~ n d e r i n g ( ~ (Most
~ J ~ ) .of the information was concerned
with domestic households, whereas the research reported
here was for large institutional buildings.) Data have been
published for an office development which showed that
43% of the water supplied was used for WC flushing,
20% for urinal flushing, 27% for personal washing, 9%
for drinking and cooking, and 1% for cleaning(27).Infor-
mation published by the DoE(19)for offices and hotels
estimated that 35% of the water was used for WC flush-
ing, 15% for urinals, 26% for personal washing, 9% for
drinking and cooking, 8% for washing machines, 2% for
dish washing and 4% for external use. T h e data (Table 2)
confirm that water usage in universities is similar to
commercial buildings with about 63%0 of water used in
lavatories. T h e data show that washroom/bathroom grey
water therefore need to be combined with either storm
water or laundry wastewater to provide a balance and
contingency for lavatory flushing. Toilet use and grey-
water generation coincide (Fig. 2) at the halls of resi-
dence, except in the evenings when there is a grey-water
peak from showering and baths. Water consumption in
the university halls is also higher (about double the
national average). Water use is thought to be affected by
catering and possibly increased personal showering, and
this aspect is to be investigated in the next stage of the
research when water meters will be fitted to each
individual appliance.
Characteristics of Grey W a t e r
T h e characteristics of the grey water from the university
halls of residence were compared with those from
previous work on domestic households, and the results
were used to design the degree of treatment. There were
wide variations in the strength of the wastewater (Table
4) depending upon the amount of soap and detergent
used. Results show that the characteristics of grey water
were similar to settled domestic sewage, except for
ammonia and bacterial content. T h e grey water was

U
ri3
25
f
-0 )2 0
u
l
15
a
,m 10
.-
e5
u
z o
b

Fig. 1, Hourly usage patterns in University halls

408 0 J,CIWEM,1998, 12, December

 Dynamic Process Modelling of Activated-Sludge Plants

-e;
U
20.0
18.0
16.0
2 14.0
f
W
12.0
g 10.0
2 8.0
=
-z 6.0
4.0
5 2.0
0.0

1 o Total ---k--- W C -Personal wash I

Fig. 2. vpical water use in accommodation blocks (exclude catering and washing machine)

stronger than expected but the analysis has since been residence data (Table 4) were similar to Rose(30)for the
corroborated by several other publications(22x28). families without children.
Butler(22),for example, noted BOD as high as 600 mg/l There are no specific regulations in the UK
from the first discharges from washing machines and concerning re-use, but a recent report on Water Regu-
250mg/l from showers and baths. Murrer and lations(") recommended against the international prac-
Baternancz8)obtained BOD values between 100 mg/l and tice of use-dependent quality criteria. Germany has
200 mg/l for shower and bath water (Table 4). adopted the EU bathing water standard for toilet flushing
Infection is reported as being the major risk from and the WHO has recommended a higher microbial
domestic sewage r e - ~ s e @ ~and
) , data on faecal coliforms standard for the unrestricted use of reclaimed water for
as indicator organisms are included in most research and irrigation (Table 1). For this research, the treatment was
regulations on water recycling. Rose et investigated designed to achieve at least EU bathing water and a near
the bacteriological quality of grey water from different potable standard; this would require complex treatment,
types of family. There were more faecal and total coli- but would minimize the risks from accidental contact
forms in the grey water from the families with younger with the smallest effective dose of disinfectant. High-
children, e.g. 3.2 x lo5 per 100 ml, compared with 1.0 x quality recycled water would also avoid odour, corrosion,
lo2 faecal coliforms in families without children. T h e scaling and re-growths without extensive chemical
DaDers bv Butler(2z)and Murrer and Batemadz*) are treatment.
1 1

unspecific about coliform counts, but the halls of

Table 4. Average pollutant concentration in grey water from a hall of residence

Grab sampling Composite sampling
~ ~ ~

Parameter Bathkhower Washbasin Washing Kitchen Personal Laundry t

machine sink washing dish washing

BOD (mg/l) 216 252 472 536 68 110

COD (mg/l) 424 433 725 936 - -
Amm. N (mg/l) 1.56 0.53 10.7 4.6 - -
Nitrate as N (mg/l) 0.9 0.34 1.6 0.45 - -
Phosphate as P (mgll) 1.63 45.5 101 15.6 - -
Total coliforms (cfu/100 ml) 6x1O6 5x1O4 7x1O5 - 4x106 5x1O6
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 ml) 600 32 728 - 266 462
Turbidity (NTU) 92 102 108 - 105 148
Inorganic carbon (mg/l) 26 20 25 - 20 20
Total organic carbon (in@) 104 40 110 - 47 84
Total solids (mg/l) 631 558 658 - 455 538
Suspended solids (mg/l) 76 40 68 - 71 90
Dissolved solids (mg/l) 559 520 590 - 388 449
Volatile solids (mg/l) 318 240 330 - 225 277
PH 7.6 8.1 8.1 - 7.9 7.8
Copper (mg/l) 111 - 322 50 - -
Lead (mg/I) 3 - 33 5 - -
Zinc (mg/l) 59 - 308 96 - -
Cadmium (mg/l) 0.54 - 0.63 0.52 - -

0 J.CIWEM,1998, 1 2 , December 409

M . Smith a n d J. Dudley on

GREY WATER IN

1
AiR

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of grey- water treatment plant

Pilot-Plant Studies
.
TREATED WATER TO
STORAGE

T h e treated effluent was of near-potable standard

and easily met the EC bathing water standards (Table 1).
In the pilot unit (75 l/d capacity) (Fig. 3), the core Odours, which were generated by the treatment, were
process units were an aerated biofilter and a slow deep- regularly monitored by an odour panel. T h e feed to the
bed filter; these were selected by the requirement that system and the solids digestion stage (anaerobic at
almost potable water quality was required from a grey primary stage) were malodorous, whereas the aerobically
water similar to settled sewage, without the use of treated secondary and final effluent were not. The unit
chemicals or high pressure. Over the first year of experi- will need to be contained in a hermetically sealed box
ments this became a four/five-stage process to include with a vent stack.
balancing of periodic discharges, a screen to collect hair, T h e laboratory unit did not produce any surplus
and a solids digestion stage. The fifth-stage, i.e. activated sludge during the nine months of steady-state operation.
carbon, was shown to be optional if potable water quality This was surprising, but can be attributed to the autolysis
was required. of the biomass between loads and the excess aeration.
The treatment plant included two slow filters (duty Hair in the grey water was refractory and was held up by
and stand-by) - the standby unit operating when the duty the pretreatment roughing filters.
filter reached a critical headloss. A small bleed of treated Hydraulic flow patterns and residence time were
water then continued to flow through the choked filter, to assessed using lithium tracers, and head loss in the
provide cleaning by autolysis. The design also included
the filtration media as exchangeable cartridges; this was
anticipated as improving the ease of maintenance. The Table 5. Experimental synthetic grey water
pilot unit was operated using synthetic grey water, made
up from known quantities of soap, detergent, starch, Substance
yeast extract and cooking oil. Additions of settled sewage
were also made to provide appropriate bacterial counts
(Table 5). The influent flow was applied intermittently to Dextrin 85
simulate appliance discharge, but the average flow-rate Ammonium chloride 75
Yeast extract 70
was 75 l/d (two users). T h e average removal efficiency
Soluble starch 55
for the standard parameters over nine months of steady- Sodium carbonate 55
state operation is shown in Table 6. Washing powder (automatic non-enzyme) 30
The unit was shock loaded with three types of Sodium dihydrogen phosphate 11.5
cleaner, shower gel, laundry detergent and dishwasher Potassium sulphate 4.5
detergent, and the shocks were designed to increase the
COD concentration in the balancing tank by a factor of Substance (miil)
ten. As expected, the strongly biocidic dishwasher deter-
gent inhibited the biotreatment unit for several days; this Settled sewage
and the high temperature of the wastewater will prevent Shampoo
their re-use. The other detergents did not permanently
BOD (approx.) 200
influence performance.

410 @ J CIWEM,1998, 12, December

 Dynamic Process Modelling of Activated-Sludge Plants

Faecal coliform Turbidity

(cfu) (NTW

RE = 99.99% RE = 97.46% RE = 97% RE = 98.6% RE = 91.91%

IN FE IN FE IN FE IN FE IN FE

Mean 12038 2 72 1.5 196 5.1 215 2.8 11 1.7

Median 54000 2 70 1.4 170 4 185 2.4 9 0
Mode 20000 0 18 1 170 2 196 N/A 21 0
Stand-Dev 205 887 2.5 38 0.6 91 3.3 120 2.3 7 7.2
Minimum 2800 0 9 0.6 65 1 45 0.3 3 0
Maximum 1200000 10 155 3.1 439 13 551 8.7 34 39.5

Average removal efficiency (YO)

Total coliform 99.9 Volatile solids 96.6

Volatile suspended solids 96.6
Total solids 26.1 TOC 81.8
Dissolved solids 12.3 Inorganic carbon 22.9 Phosphate 4.5

Note:
RE = Removal efficiency
IN = Initial influent quality
FE = Final effluent quality

system was also monitored; some blockages, dead space
and short-circuiting within the pilot unit were identified
using these techniques. After about six months of con-
tinuous operation with a single slow filter, a head-loss had
built up and there was some bacterial and algal growth
within the filter. The filter was changed over to the
standby filter at about this point.
Scale-Up
A demonstration full-scale plant (Fig. 4) has now been
installed at one of the university halls of residence, and
includes some minor modifications to the laboratory-
scale plant design. For a 40 population (students) unit,
the capacity of the raw grey-water buffering tank was
1400 1. There are also two treated-water storage tanks, a
low-level tank (700 1) attached to the treatment plant and
a high-level tank (500 1) connected to the WCs. A timer
in the low-level tank initiates pumping, and surplus
treated water returns to the low-level tank via a return
pipe. The high-level tank also includes a stand-by mains’
supply with 150-mm air gap, as required by the water
bye-laws to prevent b a ~ k f l o w ( ~ ~ ) .
Each appliance in the hall has been fitted with a flow
meter, including a water meter to one WC, still connected

Fig, 4. Installation of demonstrationplant at Loughborough University

0 J,CIWEM,1998, 12, December 41 1

M . Smith and J. Dudley on

Mean Median Standard

deviation

Turbidity (NTU) 1.1 1 .o 0.5

BOD (mall) 8.5 4.2 13.4
F: coli(cfull00 ml) 4 3 4
T: coli(cfu/100 ml) 995 1020 111
TOC (mg/l) 9.8 7.9 6.7
SS (mg/l) 5.7 4.5 3.5

Table 8. Cost involved for recycling system in for& student halls

Calculated cost for Estimated cost in new
retro-fit system building
(f) (f)

Total capital cost 3345 1720

Total cost for treatment plant 905
Plant, media and ground-level storage tanks 630
Pumps and compressor 275
Capital cost for plumbing and installation 815
Material - pipes and fittings; 645
-shed to house plant and overhead tanks 385
Labour and excavator hiring charge 1410

0 & M cosvannum 128 128

Electricity CosWannum 43
Labour and materials/annum 85
~

Water savinglannum 516 516

-
Water savings 0 & M = 516 - 128/annum 388 388

Simple payback capital/(water saving - 0 & M) I 8-9 years I 4-5 years

Payback period (adjusted for 1% annual water bill 10-1 1 years 5 years
increment [OFWA7r33)], 3% inflation and 8% interest)

to mains’ supply to act as a control. Two other flow meters
measure total grey-water flows and any surplus grey
waters still discharged to sewer.
l’he treatment unit comprises four adjacent remov-
able tubes (0.45 m dia.) on a 1 m x 2 m pallet, and the
pumps and aerators are mounted on the same platform.
The first six months operating data are given in Table 7.
This prototype research unit also includes on-line
monitoring of influent and effluent, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, p H and turbidity, for research purposes.
The cost of the unit (including instrumentation, instal-
lation costs and power consumption) are shown in Table
8 and the pay-back on water charges (excluding instru-
mentation) will be 8-9 years.
Conclusions
1. A case can be made for non-potable water recycle
systems to give some insurance against disruptions to
mains’ supplies. This incentive will become greater
with climate change and the increasing costs of
traditional water resources.
2. A small biotreatment unit has been shown to reliably
generate a near-potable water standard without disin-
fectant or frequent maintenance. Disinfection will be
necessary to meet the zero-coliform recycled water
standard suggested for the UK.
3. Comparisons with competitive chemical and physical
units will be necessary as soon as more data become
available. Stormwater or washing-machine grey water
will be necessary to provide sufficient recycled water.
4. The cost-benefit analysis has shown an 8-9 year pay-
back against mains water; the major cost of instal-
lation are the changes to the plumbing in an existing
building.
5. Little is yet known about the annual maintenance
costs at full scale, and these will be investigated
during the next stage of the work.
6. T h e customer acceptability of the recycled water, and
of the aerosols generated, will be monitored during
the demonstration-scale tests.

41 2 0 J.CIWEM,1998, 12, December

 Dynamic Process Modelling of Activated-Sludge Plants

Acknowledgements (16) ENVIRDNMENTAL

PROTECTIONAGENCY.Guidelines for Water Reuse
Technology Manual. Report EPN625/RR-92004.Washi ngton, USA,
The financial support of Entec Pollution Control is 1992.
gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank (17) SURENORAN, S. AND WHEATLEY, A. D. A sustainable solution for water and
the Estate Departments of Loughborough, Nottingham, wastewater problems. In Proc. of Reservoir Management and Supply:
Cranfield and Middlesex Universities. Anglian Water An Integratedsystem. IAWQ IWSA Conference, Prague, 1997,2,281.
supplied the SODCON data and Yorkshire Water (18) KIYA,F. AND AYA,H. Trends and problems of wastewater reuse systems
supplied the instrumentation for the demonstration unit. in buildings. Waf. Sci. Techno/.,1991,23,(4),2189.
(19) DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Using Water Wise/y Consultation
paper, HMSO, London, 1992.
References (20) HALL,M. J., HOOPER, 6. D. AND POSTLE, S. M. Domestic per capita water
consumption in South West England. J. lnstn. Waf,& Envil: Mangt,,
(1) YOUNG,D. 0. Reuse of water via rivers for water supply and reuse of 1988,2,(6), 626.
sewage effluent. In Proc. oflnf. Symp. on Water Recycling. Institution (21) BUTLER,D. A small-scale study of wastewater discharges from
of Civil Engineers, London, 1984. domestic appliances. J. lnstn. Wat. & Envil: Mangt,, 1991,5,(2),178.
(2) BERESFORD, s.A. A,, CARPENTER, L. M. AND POWELL, 0.Epidemiological (22) BUTLER,D. How much water do we use? in Proc. of Conf on Water
Studies of Water Reuse and Type of Water Supply. WRc Technical Recycling - Technical and Social Implications. The Institution of
Report TR216, Medmenham, 1984. Chemical Engineers, London, 1996.
(3) DRINKINGWATERINSPECTORATE. Drinking Water 1995. A report of the (23) EDWARDS, K. AND MARTIN,L. A methodology for surveying domestic
Chief Drinking Water Inspector, HMSO, London, 1996. water consumption. J. Ch. Instn. Waf. & €nviK Mangt, 1995, 9, (5),
(4) HAARHDFF, J. AND VANDER MERWE,6. Twenty-five years of wastewater 477.
reclamation in Windhoek Namibia. Waf. Sci. Technol., 1996, 33, (24) KRESIG,0 . Grey water recycling: treatment techniques and cost savings.
(lO/ll),25. World Water and Environment Engineering, 1991,19,(2), 17.
(5) OKUN, 0. A. C. Reuse of sewage. In Proc. of lnf. Symp. on Water (25) KONEN,T. P. Water demand research: Plumbing fixture requirementsfor
Recycling. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1984. buildings. J. ofAm. SOC.ofPlumbingfngrs., 1989,4, (2). 23.
(6) YOUNG,R. E. AND HOLIMAN,T. R. Reclaimed water in high rise office (26) SANDERS,W. AND THUROW,N. D. Water Conservation in Residential
buildings. In Roc. of Conservation of Wafer 90, Phoenix, USA, 1990. Development: Land-Use Techniques. American Planning Advisory
(7) Mitts, R. A. AND ASANO,T. A retrospective assessment of water Services Request 373, USA, 1983.
reclamation projects. Waf. Sci. Technol.,1996,33, (lO/ll),59. (27) MA”, H. T. Septic Tank and Small Sewage Treatment Plants. Water
(8) LAW,I. 6. Rouse Hill -Australia’s first full-scale domestic non-potable Research Centre, Technical Report TR707,1979.
reuse application. Waf. Sci. Technol., 1996,33,(lO/ll), 71. (28) MURRER, J. AND BATEMEN,G. Grey-water Treatment and Re-use. In: Proc.
(9) AYA,H. Modular membranes for self-contained re-use systems. Wat. of Conf. on Water Recycling Technical and Social Implications. The
Qua/. International, IAWQ, London 1994, (4),21. Institution of Chemical Engineers, London, 1996.
(10) MAEDA,M., NAKADA, K., KAWAMOTO, K. AND IKEDA,M. Area wide use Of (29) CHANG,A. C., PAGE,A. L., ASANO,T. AND HESPANHOL, I. Developing
reclaimed water in Tokyo Japan. Wat. Sci. Technol., 1996,33,(10/11), human health-related chemical guidelines for reclaimed wastewater
51. irrigation. Waf. Sci. Technol.,1996,33,(lO/ll),463.
(11) OFWAT.Report on Levels of Service for the Water Industry in England (30) ROSE,J. B., GWO-SHING, S., CHARLES,P AND NORWAL, A. S. Microbial
and Wales. Office of Water Services, Birmingham, 1996. quality and persistence of enteric pathogens in grey water from various
(12) WATERSERVICES ASSOCIATION. Water Bulletin. WSA, London, 9 February house sources. Wat. Res., 1991,25, (l),37.
1997, p 738. (31) MUSTOW.S. AND GREY, R. Grey Water and Rainwater Systems:
(13) OFWATFuture Levels of Demand and Supply for Water. Occasional Recommended UK Requirements. Final Report 130/39/2. Report
Paper 1. Office of Water Services, Birmingham, 1994. prepared for BSRINDWI, 1997.
(14) OFWAT.Report on Recent Patterns of Demand for Water in England and (32) WHITE, S. F. AND MAYS,G. D. (Eds.) Water Supp/y Byelaws Guide.
Wales. Office of Water Services, Birmingham, 1996. WRc/Ellis Horwood, Chichester 1989.
(15) HERRINGTON, P. Climate ChangeandDemandfof Watel: HMSO, London (33) OFWAT.Report on tariff structure and charges 1996/97. Ofice of Water
1996. Services, Birmingham, 1996.

0 J.CIWEM,1998, 1 2 , December 41 3