Final Master Plan (FMP) - Volume 3 (Al Jouf) Appendices

Appendix C.10.6 – Wastewater

Treatment Strategy - Al Jouf Region

Volume 3: FMP for Al Jouf Region

This page is left intentionally blank.
Consultancy Services for the
Development of Integrated Water
& Wastewater Local Master Plan for
Northern Water Distribution Sector

Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al Jouf

Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy
Rev 02

Submitted to:
Ministry of Environment, Water & Agriculture (MEWA)

November 2023
This page is left intentionally blank.
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Master Plan for Northen Water Distribution Sector

Project No: SA062WTD

Document Title: Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al Jouf - Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment
Strategy
Document No.: Appendix C.10.6
Revision: 02
Date: November 2023
Client Name: Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA)
Acting Project Director: Martin Meadows
Author: Jatin Talwar, Karim Abdelwahab, Ajmal Khan
File Name: Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al Jouf_Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment
Strategy_Rev02

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

CH2M Saudi Limited

Office Building 18
The Business District
Airport Road
Riyadh 2748-13416
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
T +966 11 463 8720
F +966 11 463 8750
www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2018 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or
copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in
accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or
in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

Document History and Status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

00 November Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al Jatin Talwar Saurabh Misra Martin Meadows
2022 Jouf_Appendix C.10.6: Karim Abdelwahab
Wastewater Treatment
Rajkumar
Strategy
Kansagara

01 April 2023 Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al Jatin Talwar Saurabh Misra Martin Meadows
Jouf_Appendix C.10.6:
Wastewater Treatment Karim Abdelwahab
Strategy_Rev01
Ajmal Khan

02 November Final Master Plan (FMP) – Al

2023 Jouf_Appendix C.10.6:
Wastewater Treatment
Strategy_Rev02 Martin Meadows
Saurabh Misra
Jatin Talwar

Karim Abdelwahab

Ajmal Khan
This page is left intentionally blank.
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Contents
1. Sewage Treatment Strategy............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Master planning Methodology ................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Master Plan Objectives for the STPs...................................................................... 1-1
2. Strategy Development ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Data Reviewed and Previous Studies .................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Review of the Existing STPs In Northern Region.................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 List of Existing STPs in Northern Region ................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Performance of the Existing Main STPs in Al Jouf Region ......................... 2-4
2.2.3 Summary of Key Findings from the Existing STPs in Al Jouf Region .......... 2-5
2.3 Design Criteria for Future Sewage Treatment Plant ............................................... 2-6
2.3.1 Flow Projection for the Proposed STPs in Al Jouf Region .......................... 2-6
2.3.2 Design Influent Characteristics .................................................................. 2-6
2.3.3 Reuse of Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE) .................................................. 2-7
2.3.4 Biosolids Quality ..................................................................................... 2-11
3. Strategy Options Development ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 STP Technology Review........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Primary Treatment .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Secondary treatment ................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 Solids Stream Technologies ...................................................................... 3-3
3.1.4 Summary of Preferred Technologies ......................................................... 3-5
3.2 Technology Implementation Roadmap ................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Approach .................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.2 STP classification...................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 Next Step .................................................................................................. 3-9
4. Strategy Development for Al Jouf Region ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Sakaka STP .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Qurayyat STP........................................................................................................ 4-3
4.4 Tabarjal STP ......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.5 Other STPs ........................................................................................................... 4-5
5. Conclusion and Recommendation .................................................................................. 5-1

i
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Tables
Table 1-1. Master Plan Objectives for the STPs .............................................................................. 1-1
Table 2-1. Description of the Existing Main STPs for Northern Region ............................................ 2-3
Table 2-2. Treated Wastewater Discharge Limits Stipulated in GAMEP and MEWA Regulations ..... 2-4
Table 2-3. TSE Quality from the Existing Main STPs in Al Jouf Region ........................................... 2-4
Table 2-4. Current Influent Quality from the STPs in Northern Region ............................................. 2-5
Table 2-5. Key Findings of Performance of the Existing STPs in Al Jouf Region .............................. 2-5
Table 2-6. Future Wastewater Flow Projections for Al Jouf Region .................................................. 2-6
Table 2-7. Summary of Design Influent Concentrations for Northern Region WDS .......................... 2-7
Table 2-8. Water Quality Objectives Specified in GAMEP and MEWA ............................................. 2-7
Table 2-9. Recycled Water Quality Targets for Non- Drinking Water Reuse from Various International
Standards/Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
Table 2-10. Example Water Quality Specified for Various Users* .................................................. 2-11
Table 2-11. Advantages and Disadvantages of Biosolids Disposal Options ................................... 2-12
Table 2-12. Biosolids Quality for Land Application (US EPA) ......................................................... 2-13
Table 2-13. Biosolids Quality, RSB, 2018 (Microbiological Parameters)......................................... 2-14
Table 3-1. Comparisons of Common Types of Primary Treatment................................................... 3-1
Table 3-2. Primary Treatment MCA Assessment............................................................................. 3-2
Table 3-3. Alternative STP Technologies for Liquid Stream ............................................................. 3-2
Table 3-4. MCA Results for Secondary Treatment Processes ......................................................... 3-3
Table 3-5. Alternative STP Technologies for Solids Stream ............................................................. 3-4
Table 3-6. MCA Results for Biosolids .............................................................................................. 3-5
Table 3-7. Summary of Preferred Technology ................................................................................. 3-5
Table 3-8. Description of the Proposed Groups for the Proposed STPs........................................... 3-6
Table 4-1. Future Wastewater Flow Projections at Al Jouf Region ................................................... 4-1

ii
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Figures
Figure 2-1. Existing Main STPs In Northern Region Area ................................................................ 2-2
Figure 2-2. Concept of Direct Non-Drinking Reuse (note: RWTP = Recycled Water Treatment Plant
(RWTP) and WW= wastewater) ...................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-3. Concept of Indirect Drinking Reuse ............................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-4. Concept of Direct Drinking Reuse (DDR) ...................................................................... 2-9
Figure 3-1. Decision Making Tree for Grouping the STPs ................................................................ 3-6
Figure 3-2. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 1........................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-3. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 2........................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-4. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 3........................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-5. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6 ....................... 3-8
Figure 3-6. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 7 (Complete Package Plant) (Source:
Nikko Inc.) ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 4-1. Location of Key STPs in Al Jouf Region ........................................................................ 4-2
Figure 4-2. Proposed Strategy for Sakaka STP ............................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3. Proposed Strategy for Al Qurayyat STP ........................................................................ 4-4
Figure 4-4. Proposed Strategy for Tabarjal STP .............................................................................. 4-5

iii
This page is left intentionally blank.
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

1. Sewage Treatment Strategy

1.1 Background
Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA) provides wastewater treatment for Northern
Regions WDS. Strategic Initiative of the sewage treatment plant (STP) is to produce a good quality of
treated water suitable for reuse in this region. Jacobs has been engaged by MEWA to prepare a Local
Master Plan for Northern Region WDS including Northern Borders, Al Jouf, Hail and Al Qaseem for the
next 30 years (year 2050).

1.2 Master planning Methodology

To develop the appropriate strategy for the sewage treatment plants (STPs) in Northern Region, the
following methodology was applied:
• Identify key objectives;
• Understand the status of the current STPs in Northern Region;
• Review the Regional Legislation and Policies and determine the design criteria for the future STPs
(i.e., treated water quality and biosolids quality target, etc.);
• Define 2050 design flow rates and influent characteristics for the proposed STPs;
• Develop 2050 design requirements for sludge;
• Review current trends in sewage treatment technologies, identifying options that may be applicable
to the future STP;
• Conduct a multi-objective decision analysis (MCA), accounting for economic, technical, social and
environmental criteria, to identify preferred treatment technologies;
• Develop an implementation roadmap for the STPs in Northern Region.

1.3 Master Plan Objectives for the STPs

Table 1-1 presents the objectives for the master plan, applicable to all STPs in Northern Region.
Table 1-1. Master Plan Objectives for the STPs
Objective Description

Planning Level
Maximise opportunities for To be adaptable in a changing world by overcoming long term challenges and
integrated solutions collaborating with stakeholders.

Produce recycled water where

applicable
Account for population growth
Upgrade STPs to produce a treated water quality suitable for reuse.
To be able to provide a STP to cope with the population increases in its catchment.
A careful implementation plan is required to determine when the capacity of STPs is
expected to become exhausted.
Optimise the layout of the STP to minimise the footprint required for the STP upgrade.

Optimise land footprint Some STPs may not have sufficient available land for expansion if the same treatment
technology is used. Sophisticated technologies should be considered to minimise the
footprint.
Treatment Level

Provide cost effective, safe and Upgrade STPs cost effectively and reliably while meeting the treated wastewater target
reliable treatment limits set by MEWA.

Maximise opportunities for If applicable, include a technology to recover energy (methane) through anaerobic
resource recovery treatment technologies (i.e., anaerobic digestion).

Meet treated wastewater quality Ensure adaptability to meet tighter treated wastewater quality targets set by MEWA.
targets

1-1
This page is left intentionally blank.
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

2. Strategy Development
This section presents the sewage treatment plant (STP) design basis for the master plan.

2.1 Data Reviewed and Previous Studies

The process design basis is based on the following references:

• STP Asset Evaluation NR (excel file);
• Plant operating data including influent and effluent for the existing STPs in NR (excel file);
• Location of the existing STP (kmz file).
• Record of Conversations for Arar, Uwaikiliah, Turaif and Rafha Governorate
• Adequacy Assessment of Wastewater Treatment plant in the Kingdom (Arar STP)
• National Housing Company Document

2.2 Review of the Existing STPs In Northern Region

2.2.1 List of Existing STPs in Northern Region

Figure 2-1 presents the locations of the existing main STPs in Northern Region. Table 2-1 presents
the details about the existing main STPs in the Northern Region. There are 2 existing main STPs in Al
Jouf Region and 13 existing main STPs serving the entire Northern Region area. Most STPs are
currently using an extended aeration system for liquid stream except the STPs in Northern Border where
aerated lagoon systems have been used. Based on the information received so far, it appears that
there is no sludge treatment facility in Northern Region.

2-1
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Figure 2-1. Existing Main STPs In Northern Region Area

2-2
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 2-1. Description of the Existing Main STPs for Northern Region
Existing
Governorate Types of TSE
Region capacity Year Note
Markaz / City STP discharge
(m³/day)

Extended Sludge disposed at

Buraydah Discharge
Aeration Marma al-Hama'a Site
(Governorate 138,000 (source: 2012
located 6 km from
Center) MEWA)
plant site

The plant consists of

static thickener and
Extended sludge dewatering, no
Uneizah 50,000 Aeration Wadi 2015 sludge bed. The
sludge is being
disposed at Uneizah
Municipal Landfill
Al Qaseem
Extended The sludge is being
Al Rass 25,000 aeration Wadi 2011 disposed within STP
site.

The sludge is being

Extended
Al Muthneb 8,000 Wadi 2018 disposed within the
aeration
STP site.

The sludge is being

Extended
Al Bukairiyah 28,000 Wadi 2017 disposed within the
Aeration
STP site.

Phase 2 – The sludge is being

Extended Natural 2014 disposed within the
Hail 150,000 Hail STP site.
aeration Water Phase 3 –
Hail 2020

The sludge is being

Extended
Baqaa 6,300 (Wadi) 2015 disposed within the
Aeration
Baqaa STP site.

Conventional
activated The sludge is being
sludge disposed within the
Sakaka 24,000 system Desert 2003
Sakaka STP site
TSE storage drying bed.
Al Jouf
tank

The sludge being

Aerated
Al Qurayyat 12,000 Wadi 2003 disposal to nearby
Lagoon
offsite disposal site.

Sludge disposal near

Aerated Waad Al
Arar 12,000 2008 to wadi. Site located
lagoon shamal
13 km from Arar STP.
Sludge extracted
manually every 6
Aerated months by tanker and
Rafhaa 12,000 Wadi 2009
lagoon kept for drying then
Northern Border
transferred to an area
near the plant.
Sludge extracted from
belt press and
Extended Waad Al
Turaif 8,000 2016 transferred by tanker
aeration shamal
to a near area the
plant.

2-3
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

2.2.2 Performance of the Existing Main STPs in Al Jouf Region

Table 2-2 presents the treated sewage effluent (TSE) discharge limits specified by the General
Authority of Meteorology and Environmental Protection (GAMEP) and Ministry of Environment, Water
& Agriculture (MEWA).
Table 2-2. Treated Wastewater Discharge Limits Stipulated in GAMEP and MEWA Regulations
TSE Standard in
Direct discharge limits TSE Standard in KSA
Description Unit KSA (restricted3)
specified in GAMEP 1 (unrestricted) by MEWA2
MEWA

BOD5 mg/L 10 10 40

TSS mg/L 10 10 40

COD mg/L 50 n/a n/a

TKN mg/L 5 n/a n/a

NH3-N mg/L 0.5 5 5

TP mg/L 5 n/a n/a

PO4-P mg/L 1 n/a n/a

TN mg/L 15 n/a n/a

TDS mg/L n/a 2,500 2,000

Residual Cl2 mg/L 0.3 0.5 0.5

Total coliform
No./100mL No./L 1000/ na 2.2/ 1 1,000/ na
MPN /Nematodes

Note:
1. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia National Environmental Standard- Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges (General
Authority of Meteorology and Environmental Protection (GAMEP).
2. Unrestricted Irrigation: TSE standards in KSA by MEWA (Standard and Specifications for the types of water, MEWA, March
2021): When TSE is used as an Irrigation water source, if frequent human contacts are expected, unrestricted irrigation water
quality is required. With the exception of drinking and household use, the use of tertiary treated water is permitted after ensuring
that it is safe, free of contaminants, and conformity in accordance with the standards.
3. Restricted Irrigation: TSE standards in KSA by MEWA (Standard and Specifications for the types of water, MEWA, March
2021): When TSE is used as an Irrigation water source, if minimal human contacts are expected, restricted irrigation water quality
is required. It is also permitted to use the secondary treated water for restricted agricultural irrigation, industry, mining, construction
work, and other activities and works after ensuring its safety, free of contaminants, and its compatibility, according with the
standard.

Table 2-3 presents the key TSE quality (i.e., BOD, TSS and NH3-N) obtained from the existing main
STPs in Al Jouf Region. In terms of BOD and TSS concentrations, Al Qurayyat STP does not meet the
targets specified by GAMEP.
Table 2-3. TSE Quality from the Existing Main STPs in Al Jouf Region

Governorate Design Current TSE quality

Region Markaz / Capacity flow BOD TSS NH3-N Year Note
City (m³/day) (m³/day) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Based on Dec
Sakaka 24,000 37,720 7 4 0 2003 2020 to Jan
2021

The effluent
BOD and TSS
Al Jouf are exceeding
the effluent
Al Qurayyat 12,000 12,083 26.5 28 8 2003 targets.
Based on Dec
2020 to Jan
2021

2-4
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Sakaka STP designed for 24,000 m³/day is receiving 45% higher flows (i.e., 35,000 m³/day). The plant
is currently performing well.

Table 2-4 presents the current influent quality measured from the STPs in Northern Region. As shown
in Table 2-4 it appears that the influent characteristics vary between the regions. The influent
concentrations (i.e., BOD, TSS, NH3-N) in Al Qaseem are appeared to be much lower than those from
other regions (i.e., Hail, Al Jouf, and Northern Border). It is not clear why the influent concentrations are
much higher in Al Jouf and Northern Border. Further investigation should be conducted by MEWA to
define the influent characteristics in the regions.
Table 2-4. Current Influent Quality from the STPs in Northern Region
Influent Quality
Existing
Governorate
Region Markaz / City
capacity
BOD TSS NH3-N
Note
(m³/day)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Buraydah
(Governorate
Center) + 138,000 140 167 17.9 May 2020
Mulaida + Al
Basar

Al Qaseem Uneizah 50,000 165 115 30.5 October 2020

Al Rass 25,000 337 255 31 May 2020

Al Muthneb 8,000 154 106 33.9 October 2020

Al Bukairiyah 28,000 118 105 28.7 October 2020

Hail 150,000 174 180 20.6 December 2020

Hail
Baqaa 6,300 117 351 76.5 December 2020

Sakaka 24,000 239 264 46 -

Al Jouf
Al Qurayyat 12,000 462 192 29 -

Arar 12,000 270 294 49 May 2020

Northern Border Rafhaa 12,000 350 250 50 April 2020

Turaif 8,000 301 310 54 April 2020

2.2.3 Summary of Key Findings from the Existing STPs in Al Jouf Region

Table 2-5 lists the key findings of the existing STPs in Al Jouf Region based on the evaluation carried
out during Level of Service Report. (SA062WTD-P1-S5-GE-REP-0001).
Table 2-5. Key Findings of Performance of the Existing STPs in Al Jouf Region

SI. Key Findings

1 TSE produced from the most STPs are discharged to wadies or deserts. The TSE may infiltrate to the
groundwater which then can be used as a source of water for irrigation for farming or other uses. The quality of
TSE discharged to the environment should met the license requirement to avoid groundwater contamination.
Additional testing on the groundwater quality should be conducted to ensure that there is no groundwater
contamination due to the TSE infiltration.
According to MEWA, if the TSE is directly disposed to wadi or natural water body, the phosphate in the TSE
should be lower than 1mg/L. However, no STPs in the Al Jouf Region are testing phosphate in the TSE. It is
important for the STPs to test the phosphate and make sure it meets the TSE quality requirement if it is directly
discharge to wadies or natural water.
It should be noted that if the TSE is used as an irrigation water source, there is no need for phosphate to be
removed from the TSE.

2 For the TSE quality suitable for irrigation, Nematodes counts should be less than 1 number/L. However, no
Nematodes values have been reported so far. It is suggested that the Nematodes testing be conducted to
determine whether the TSE quality is suitable for unrestricted and/or restricted irrigation.

3 Sakaka STP already exceeding the design capacity. Capacity upgrade for Sakaka STP is currently ongoing.

2-5
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

SI. Key Findings

4 No data is available for the sludge quality and quantity. Un-engineered landfilling is currently the common
practice for the disposal of the sludge produced by municipal STPs in Northern Region. The landfill is within the
plant vicinity where the sludge is disposed. This is not an official site provided by the ministry.

As the sludge can be transformed into a marketable product if treated properly, additional study should be
conducted to understand the benefit of sludge reuse in this region.

5 Al Qurrayat STP is currently using aerated lagoon systems to treat the wastewater. Although aerated lagoons
provide some benefits such as lower maintenance and lower energy cost, they require much larger space and
tend to produce poor effluent quality than a conventional activated sludge system.

2.3 Design Criteria for Future Sewage Treatment Plant

2.3.1 Flow Projection for the Proposed STPs in Al Jouf Region

Table 2-6 presents the estimated wastewater flow projection for the proposed main STPs in Al Jouf
Region.

The total 2050 projected wastewater flows include the generated flows from population in addition to
flows from private developments.
Table 2-6. Future Wastewater Flow Projections for Al Jouf Region
2050 projected
Total Served Existing Flow
Markaz / City/ Existing STP /
Governorate Population Capacity
Cluster (Including Private
2050 New STP
(m³/day) Developments)
(m³/day)

24,000 (Existing)+
Sakaka Sakaka 287,374 Existing+ UC 75,573
26,000(UC)

Sakaka Suwair 36,300 New - 8,004

Dawmat Al Dawmat Al
62,202 New (UC) 5,500 21,358
Jandal Jandal

New (Existing to be
decommissioned
Al Qurayyat Al Qurayyat 235,181 12,000 62,840
and a new STP to
be constructed)

Al Qurayyat Al Haditha 13,069 Existing + New 1,000 5,522

Monfiz Al
Al Qurayyat Haditha wa - Existing + New 1,300 1,802
Yachmal

Tabarjal Tabarjal 117,427 New - 25,893

Proposed
Al Jouf region clusters for - New 14 nos. of STPs 200 – 3,000
settlements

Al Jouf Region includes 21 STPs distributed across the region and serving the cities, markaz and
clusters of settlements with 7 STPs serving the main cities of the governorates as presented in above
table and 14 package STPs serving the other clusters.

2.3.2 Design Influent Characteristics

This section defines the design influent characteristics to be utilized as part of the Master Plan. The
design influent characteristics are developed by adopting historical wastewater characteristics
measured at Northern Region. As seen in Table 2-7, the influent concentrations for the STPs in Al Jouf
and Northern Borders are assumed to be higher than the STPs in Al Qaseem and Hail Regions based
on the actual influent concentration found in Table 2-4.

2-6
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 2-7. Summary of Design Influent Concentrations for Northern Region WDS
Northern Region
Typical Characteristics
Parameters
found in KSA Northern
Al Qaseem Hail Al Jouf
Borders

BOD5, mg/L 300~ 350 300 300 350 350

COD, mg/L 600 ~700 600 600 700 700

TSS, mg/L 300~350 300 300 350 350

TN, mg/L 55 45 45 55 55

NH3-N, mg/L 40 35 35 40 40

TP, mg/l 10 10 10 10 10

2.3.3 Reuse of Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE)

As mentioned previously, TSE from the most STPs are being disposed to nearby wadies without being
reused.

Table 2-8 provides a summary of the water quality targets based on Treated Wastewater and Reuse
Bylaw No. 42 (2000) and GAMEP (2001). As seen in Table 2-8, the TSE discharge limits for the
environmental discharge and irrigation discharge limits are presented.
Table 2-8. Water Quality Objectives Specified in GAMEP and MEWA
Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE) Standard in KSA (MEWA,
Direct discharge
March 2021)
Description limits specified in
GAMEP
Unrestricted Irrigation Restricted Irrigation

BOD5 (mg/L) 10 10 40

TSS (mg/L) 10 10 40

COD (mg/L) 50 n/a n/a

TKN (mg/L) 5 n/a n/a

NH3-N (mg/L) 0.5 5 5

TP (mg/L) 5 n/a n/a

Turbidity 5 5 n/a

TDS (mg/L) n/a 2,500 2,000

Residual chlorine 0.5 n/a n/a

Total coliform MPN 1,000 2.2 1,000

Nematodes (#/L) n/a 1 na

Recycled water is a sustainable and locally available water resource that diversifies MEWA’s water
portfolio, which is vulnerable to droughts during the dry season. Highly treated tertiary effluent from the
STP is a reliable and local and weather-independent source of water for Northern Region.

The TSE produced from the STP can be sold for use for non-potable purposes such as industrial
process, flushing of toilets through dual piping, horticulture and irrigation. Many countries are currently
using the TSE as non-potable reuse and/or indirect potable reuse.

Currently the TSE from the STPs is being discharged to nearby wadies or to deserts without being
directly used. Although the TSE may end up in the groundwater via infiltration, this may result in
contaminating groundwater due to high nutrients in the TSE.

There has been a push for reuse in more recent years, on both regional and local (building or
development level) scales, but none of the document outline specific requirements. The GAMEP and

2-7
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

MEWA regulations specify water quality standards for direct discharges including use of TSE for
irrigation (Table 2-8). Regulation on the use of TSE for other activities is absent from the document.

Typically, there are three potential modes of reuse for the TSE:
• Direct non-drinking reuse
• Indirect drinking reuse (IDR), and
• Direct drinking reuse (DDR)

2.3.3.1 Direct Non-Drinking Reuse

Direct non-drinking reuse entails production of fit-for-purpose recycled water from used water that
normally will be disposed of to a watercourse or waterbody. The fit-for-purpose recycled water is then
supplied to customers via either tanker, or a dedicated recycled water conveyance system (see Figure
2-2). Recycled water could be used for boiler feedwater, cooling tower make-up water, irrigation, toilet
flushing, and other non-drinking uses.

Figure 2-2. Concept of Direct Non-Drinking Reuse (note: RWTP = Recycled Water Treatment
Plant (RWTP) and WW= wastewater)

One important argument for direct non-drinking reuse is that it allows water from more traditional water
sources (that are preferred by the public) to be used as drinking water. Non-drinking uses can instead
be met by recycled water that is treated only to a quality suitable for its purposes, thus saving cost and
energy. Securing public and stakeholder acceptance of direct non-drinking reuse is also straightforward
to achieve, as compared to drinking water reuse.

2.3.3.2 Indirect Drinking Reuse

Indirect drinking reuse (IDR) involves temporarily storing highly TSE (recycled water) in a raw water
storage reservoir or groundwater aquifer for blending, before being abstracted and subjected to further
conventional drinking water treatment (see Figure 2-3).

Planned IDR is implemented in many countries (Singapore and the USA for example). Unplanned IDR
is also very widespread, occurring when one city extracts water for drinking downstream of another
city’s TSE discharge point.

Figure 2-3. Concept of Indirect Drinking Reuse

Compared to direct drinking reuse (DDR), indirect drinking reuse incurs more cost because the recycled
water is blended with other water sources and then re-treated before distribution in the drinking water
system. The steps of blending and treatment provide additional barriers of safety that reduce the risk of
a public health incident that may otherwise arise due to a lapse in performance of the RWTP. Critically,
the use of the environmental buffer typically significantly improves public acceptance of the scheme.

2-8
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

2.3.3.3 Direct Drinking Reuse

In a direct drinking reuse (DDR) scheme, recycled water is directly added to the water supply system
without temporary storage or further treatment (see Figure 2-4).

Figure 2-4. Concept of Direct Drinking Reuse (DDR)

There are currently only a few DDR schemes in the world, although the oldest, in Windhoek, Namibia,
has been operating since the 1960s. Other existing operational DDR plants include Big Spring in Texas,
USA, and Beaufort West, South Africa. Costs are also expected to be relatively lower than other reuse
forms because there is no need for repeat treatment (as in the case of IDR) or alternative distribution
infrastructure (as in the case of direct non-drinking reuse).

However, despite its compelling advantages, DDR is also the most controversial form of reuse. Public
health risks are high in the event of failure of the RWTP and WTP since, unlike IDR, there is no dilution
or additional natural attenuation in the natural system or storage.

Given MEWA’s current inexperience with advanced RWTPs and WTP and considering the limited public
education on reuse to date, it is unlikely that DDR is appropriate in the near term. Consequently, this
Master Plan will focus on Direct non-drinking reuse and IDR alternatives for the near term.

As mentioned previously, there is a regulation for the IDR alternative and for direct non-drinking reuse
only for irrigation water quality available in MEWA and GAMEP. There are no regulations for other
activities (e.g., industrial reuse) which are available.

Table 2-9 summarizes key water quality targets for various non- drinking water uses available from
other countries. Table 2-10 presents an example water quality target for industrial use like ready mix;
district cooling; ships and barges; hydrotesting projects; construction sites; chemicals and lubricants
companies; Car wash; Scaffolding companies; Cement factory; Block factories; Paper industry; textile;
asphalt plant. Further studies on the reuse and implementation plan for Northern Region should be
conducted near term.
Table 2-9. Recycled Water Quality Targets for Non- Drinking Water Reuse from Various
International Standards/Guidelines
Water Quality Unit of
Adopted Value Reason Reference
Parameter Measurement

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L LSI dependent Meet corrosion requirement 3

Biological Oxygen
Control biofilm growths & good
Demand (BOD5 at 20 mg/L <5 4, 5, 6
chlorination control
°C)

Recommended value to
Chemical Oxygen
mg/L <20 ensure non-refractory COD 4, 5, 6
Demand (COD)
absence

Hardness (Total) (as Aesthetics and control of scale

mg/L ≤150 4, 5, 6
CaCO3) formation

Langelier Saturation
- >0 to slightly positive (+0.2) Corrosion control 4, 5, 6
Index (LSI)

Corrosion control and chlorine 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

pH Units 6.5 to 8.5
disinfection 6

Control biofilm growths & good

Total Organic Carbon mg/L <3 4, 5, 6
chlorination control

2-9
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Water Quality Unit of

Adopted Value Reason Reference
Parameter Measurement

Total Suspended Solids

mg/L ≤1 Good chlorination control 4, 5, 6
(TSS)

<0.3 prior to disinfection

Turbidity NTU and <1 following post Good chlorination control 4, 5, 6
treatment

Sodium Adsorption
- <6 Irrigation 5
Ration (SAR)

Total Dissolved Solids Wide industry applications

mg/L <125 4, 5, 6
(TDS) reuse

Chemical

Aluminium mg/L <5 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Control copper alloy corrosion

Ammonia (as N) mg/L <2 4, 5, 6
& chlorine disinfection

Arsenic (as As) mg/L <0.2 Aesthetics & irrigation 4, 5, 6

Boron (as B) mg/L <2 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Cadmium (as Cd) mg/L ≤0.05 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Irrigation & headroom for post

Calcium mg/L 20 to 50 4, 5, 6
treatment

Chloride mg/L <200 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Chromium (as Cr) mg/L ≤1 Aesthetics & irrigation 4, 5, 6

Copper (as Cu) mg/L ≤0.5 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Cyanide (as CN) mg/L ≤0.1 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Fluoride (as F) mg/L <2 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Iron (Fe) mg/L <0.5 Aesthetics 4, 5, 6

Lead (as Pb) mg/L <0.1 Aesthetics and irrigation 4, 5, 6

Irrigation & headroom for post

Magnesium mg/L <100 4, 5, 6
treatment

Manganese mg/L <0.1 Aesthetics 4, 5, 6

Mercury (As Hg) mg/L <0.01 Aesthetics & irrigation 4, 5, 6

Nickel (as Ni) mg/L ≤0.5 Aesthetics 4, 5, 6

Nitrate (as N) mg/L <10 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Control biofilm growths & good

Nitrogen (Total) mg/L <5 4, 5, 6
chlorination control

Oil & grease mg/L Not visible

Phosphorus (as P) mg/L <1 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Potassium mg/L 0.5 to 15 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Selenium (as Se) mg/L <0.05 Aesthetics 4, 5, 6

Silica mg/L <30 Control scaling 4, 5, 6

Sodium mg/L <200 Irrigation 4, 5, 6

Notes:
1. US EPA National Drinking Water Standards 2012
2. WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 2011
3. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011

2-10
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

4. US EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse 2004

5. Australian Guidelines for Recycled Water 2006 (Phase 1)
6. PUB Singapore, NEWater Sampling and Monitoring Programme (SAMP)

Table 2-10. Example Water Quality Specified for Various Users*

Parameters Unit Values

TDS mg/L < 125 1

pH 7 to 8

TSS 2 mg/L LOD

Iron mg/L <0.1

Copper mg/L <0.1

Zinc mg/L <0.1

Lead mg/L <0.05

Appearance Clear Liquid

Odour Unobjectionable

Disinfection CFU/100ml < 1 Total Coliform

Note: * Ready mix; District cooling; Ships and barges; Hydrotesting projects; Construction sites; Chemicals and lubricants
companies; Car wash; Scaffolding companies; Cement factory; Block factories; Paper industry; Textile; Asphalt plant.

2.3.4 Biosolids Quality

According to the information collected, un-engineered landfilling is currently the common practice for
the disposal of the sludge produced by municipal STPs in Northern Region. The landfill is within the
plant vicinity where the sludge is disposed. This is not an official site provided by the ministry.

Biosolids are produced during the treatment of wastewater. They contain organic matter and plant
nutrients and hence provide a useful soil conditioner and medium grade fertilizer. However, untreated
biosolids may also contain pathogens (capable of causing disease in humans and animals),
microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, helminths (parasitic worm-like invertebrates), protozoa
(small single celled animals including amoebae, ciliates and flagellants) and fungi. These organisms
must either be destroyed by treatment or managed through controls on recycling. In addition, biosolids
may contain various levels of chemical contaminants including metals from domestic and industrial
sources. In recent years, new treatment methods and technologies have improved the quality of
generated biosolids. At the same time, there is growing awareness of the value of this product and
increasing demand for its use.

Since the biosolids quality will be dictated by the chosen disposal route, it is important to look at biosolids
disposal options could be adopted in Northern Region. The options available are:
• Landfill (business as usual)
• Land application, e.g., agriculture, forestry, horticulture
• Thermal oxidation with energy recovery (mono- or co-incineration)
• Combustion/ Co-processing (supplementary fuel/ raw material in industry)
• Alternatives assessment for biosolids disposal

The advantages and disadvantages of the most common biosolids disposal techniques are summarized
in Table 2-11.

2-11
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 2-11. Advantages and Disadvantages of Biosolids Disposal Options

Disposal Options Advantages Disadvantages Technology

Little monitoring required Not environmentally sustainable

Landfill Simple solution Requires good physical quality Centrifuge dewatering
(Business as usual) Continuous outlet Requires landfill capacity Belt filter dewatering
Can generate energy from landfill gas Health and safety concerns

Logistically and administratively

Land application Considered best practice environmental complex
option Anaerobic digestion
• Agriculture Requires strict monitoring and
Low CAPEX and OPEX control Thermophilic digestion
• Forestry
Environmentally sustainable route Requires additional biosolids Aerobic digestion
• Horticulture treatment
Benefits both biosolids producer and Lime stabilization
• Land reclamation user Seasonal demand (storage Solar drying
implications)

High CAPEX and OPEX

Largest volume reduction Nutrients not recycled
Thermal oxidation with Destruction of pathogens, toxic organic Complicated process
energy recovery compounds
requires skilled operators Incineration
(mono- or co- Uses calorific value of biosolids
incineration) Residuals (air emissions and ash)
Continuous outlet (no seasonal/ require careful handling
weather impacts) Potential public aversion over
health concerns

Combustion/ Co- High CAPEX and OPEX

processing Complete destruction of biosolids
(supplementary fuel/ Uses calorific value of biosolids Requires the appropriate industry
raw material in to use the biosolids as a secondary
Continuous outlet fuel/ raw material.
industry)

In KSA, no guidelines currently exist for the management of biosolids. In most international countries,
the USA, UAE and Australia for example, the first step in biosolids management is the classification of
biosolids according to stabilization status (including pathogen reduction, vector attraction controls and
chemical contaminant levels) – this is further described in below. Typically, where a sludge or biosolids
product does not meet a reuse classification and is to be disposed by landfill.

2.3.4.1 International Guidelines on Biosolids Land Application

International guidelines on biosolids management require a level of biosolids treatment to reduce the
concentrations of pathogens and contaminants depending on the proposed use of the resource:
a) USA

Most of the standards that regulate sludge land application without restrictions set a maximum value for
helminth ova content together with faecal coliform, salmonella and virus (sometimes) values. These
standards are inspired by USEPA part 503 (US-EPA, 1992) which defines treated solids as Class A
biosolids when they have 1,000 MPN/g TS of fecal coliforms, 3 MPN/4 g TS of Salmonella, 1 FPU/4 g
TS of viruses and 1 helminth egg/4 g TS, and as Class B biosolids when they have < 2x106/g TS MPN
fecal coliforms (no limits set for other organisms) (Table 2-12).
• Class A Biosolids: The implicit goal of the Class A requirements is to reduce the pathogens in
sewage sludge (including enteric viruses, pathogenic bacteria, and viable helminth ova) to below
detectable levels, as defined in the 1992 regulation. Class A biosolids are treated to the point at
which pathogens are no longer detectable. Class A Biosolids are for unrestricted use of biosolids
such as in lawn and home gardens etc. where public access is there.
• Class B Biosolids: The implicit goal of the Class B requirements is to reduce pathogens in sewage
sludge to levels that are unlikely to pose a threat to public health and the environment under the
specific use conditions. For Class B biosolids, a combination of treatment and site restrictions are
designed to protect public health and the environment. Class B Biosolids are for restricted use of

2-12
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

biosolids such as in agricultural land etc., where public access is not there or with site restrictions.
For Class B biosolids that are applied to land, site use restrictions are imposed to minimize the
potential for human or animal exposure to Class B biosolids for a period following land application
and until environmental factors (e.g., sunlight, desiccation) have further reduced pathogens. The
goal of site restrictions is to limit site activities such as harvesting and grazing until pathogens have
been reduced by environmental conditions such as heat, sunlight, desiccation, and competition
from other microorganisms.
Table 2-12. Biosolids Quality for Land Application (US EPA)
Class A Class B
Standard
(Unrestricted Reuse) (Restricted Reuse)

Parameter Unit Prescribed Concentration Prescribed Concentration

fecal coliforms MPN/g TS 1000 < 2x106 fecal coliforms

Salmonella MPN/4 g TS 3 no limits

viruses FPU/4 g TS 1 no limits

helminth egg 1 /4 g TS 1 no limits

b) UK and European Union (EU)

Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) facilitated discussions between various
stakeholders to agree the Safe Sludge Matrix including British Retail Consortium, Country Land and
Business Association, Environment Agency, National Farmers’ Union, Department of Environment
Transport and Regions, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Water UK. The Safe Sludge Matrix
includes three different sludges: untreated sludges, conventionally treated sludge, and enhanced
treated sludges:
• Untreated sludges: cannot be used on agricultural land.
• Conventionally treated sludge: It can be applied to the surface of grassland or for forage crops such
as maize, which will subsequently be harvested, but there can be no grazing of that land within the
season of application (i.e., it is not permissible to graze any grass regrowth or aftermath in the
season that the sludge was applied). It can be also applied to agricultural land, which is used to
grow vegetables in the rotation, provided that at least 12 months has elapsed between application
and harvest of certain vegetable crops. Conventionally treated sludge has been subjected to
defined treatment processes and standards that ensure at least 99% of pathogens have been
destroyed.
• Enhanced treated sludge: it can be applied to any agricultural land without any restrictions.
Enhanced treatment, originally referred to as “Advanced Treatment”, is a term used to describe
treatment processes which are capable of virtually eliminating any pathogens which may be present
in the original sludge. Enhanced treated sludge will be free from Salmonella and will have been
treated so as to ensure that 99.9999% pathogens have been destroyed (a 6-log reduction). It
employs Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles to demonstrate 6 log
reductions.

Codes of Good Practice (2018) for the use of biosolids in Agriculture (Guidelines for Farmers) required
the following microbial standards:
• Fecal coliform < 1000 MPN / g dry solids;
• Salmonella sp. < 3 MPN / 4g dry solids;
• Helminth ova: no limits are imposed.

c.) Abu Dhabi, UAE

Recycled Water and Biosolids Regulations 2018 issued by Regulation and Supervision Bureau (RSB)
provide the minimum quality requirements for recycled water and biosolids.

The reuse of Biosolids falls under two categories:

2-13
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

• Unrestricted Reuse which involves frequent and uncontrolled exposure of the general public to
Biosolids; i.e., public access is not restricted (referred to as B1 in Table 2-13); and
• Restricted Reuse which involves infrequent and controlled exposure of the general public to
Biosolids; i.e., public access is restricted (referred to as B2 in Table 2-13).

Limits of microbiological parameters in Biosolids by RSB regulation are presented in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13. Biosolids Quality, RSB, 2018 (Microbiological Parameters)
Standard B1 B2

Unrestricted Reuse Restricted Reuse

Parameter Unit Prescribed Concentration Prescribed Concentration

E. Coli CFU/g dm <1,000 <100,000

Salmonella CFU/2g dm <1 Not applicable

Helminth Ova Number/50g dm <1 <10

2.3.4.2 Adopted Biosolids Targets and Final Disposal Option

The current landfill and open sludge (biosolids) drying practices are clearly not a sustainable approach
for growing Northern Region. As population and biosolids generation continues to grow in the future,
MEWA needs a long-term solution for biosolids management. For the master plan, land application
which meets class A or unrestricted reuse quality will be considered in the master plan. The different
technologies for producing the biosolids quality for land application are also shown in Table 2-11.
Further discussion of the different technologies and selection of the preferred technology will be
presented in Section 3.

2-14
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

3. Strategy Options Development

3.1 STP Technology Review
A sewage treatment process typically consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary
treatment, biosolids management, odor control treatment, and tertiary treatment (recycled water). This
section presents various technology for the primary, secondary, biosolids and tertiary treatment. The
preliminary treatment and the odor control systems are excluded as they are well established and does
not require a large amount of the space compared with the other processes.

3.1.1 Primary Treatment

Typically, primary treatment is required to reduce the organic load entering the secondary treatment
plant by diverting this load to an anaerobic digestion process to generate biogas. Significant progress
has been made in the efficiency of primary treatment, resulting in a higher degree of suspended solids
and BOD removal, and in some cases, significantly smaller footprints. Common types of primary
treatment and their applicability are described in the following subsections.
Table 3-1. Comparisons of Common Types of Primary Treatment
Type Description

Conventional primary clarifiers are used in the vast majority of large STPs around the world to
reduce organic loading to the secondary treatment process. Conventional primary clarifiers provide
Conventional primary
sufficient time for readily settleable solids to separate from the liquid fraction of the influent used
treatment (CPT)
water. The removal of these solids decreases the solids and organic loads on the downstream
secondary treatment process by approximately 50 % and 30 %, respectively.

Lamella plate settlers (LPSs), also known as inclined plate settlers, contain a series of parallel plates
or tubes inclined from the horizontal between 45° and 75°. These surfaces provide an extended
Lamella plate settlers settling surface in a compact design. LPSs are used to decrease the footprint required to facilitate
(LPS) settling and solids removal compared to primary clarifiers. Typical TSS removal efficiencies in LPSs
are around 80% and can be as high as 85%. BOD5 removal efficiencies can range from 50 to 60 %.
LPS are a proven and robust high-rate clarification process.

The performance of primary clarifiers can be improved by adding flocculating chemicals upstream
of the clarifiers to enhance solids removal. This arrangement is normally referred to as chemically
Chemically enhanced enhanced primary treatment (CEPT). The implementation of CEPT increases the TSS removal
primary treatment efficiency to between 75 and 85 %, and the BOD 5 removal efficiency to between 50 and 60 %.
(CEPT) Major disadvantages of CEPT include the high chemical dosages required to improve the solids
removal efficiency, and the additional sludge handling requirements to deal with the increased mass
of primary sludge generated.

High TSS and BOD removal efficiencies can be achieved in primary clarifiers employing ballasted
flocculation. This process creates conditions where very dense flocs are formed that have very high
settling velocities, which allows them to be effectively removed at very high surface overflow rates.
Two proprietary processes using ballasted flocculation are Actiflo™ and DensaDeg™. Actiflo™
Ballasted flocculation uses microsand as a ballasting agent, while the DensaDeg™ process uses chemical sludge
(BF) produced within the system (which is recirculated within the clarifier) as the ballasting agent. These
two systems are able to achieve highly efficient TSS removals at very high surface overflow rates
due the formation of very dense flocs. As with CEPT, the disadvantages of ballasted flocculation
are the ongoing costs associated with the high chemical dosages required, and the increased mass
of primary sludge generated.

Table 3-2 presents the results of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) assessment. Conventional primary
clarifiers are recommended for their relative lower costs in reducing solids and organic loads to the
secondary treatment process and lower energy consumption. They achieve 50% and 30% removal of
solids and organic loads respectively, providing good treatment performance and reliability. They are
also relatively more easily constructed, operated and maintained. In addition, biogas generated can be
used for energy and there is minimal additional chemical waste generated. Nevertheless, chemically
enhanced primary treatment is an alternative to further reduce the plant footprint shall land area be
limited.

3-1
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 3-2. Primary Treatment MCA Assessment

%
Criteria CPT LPS CETP BF
Weights

FINANCIAL 50.0% 38.0 38.0 25.0 13.0

Relative Cost

TECHNICAL 20% 13.2 10.8 10.4 7.3

Construction challenges

Treatment process performance

Treatment reliability

System resilience

Flexibility / scalability of system

Ability to operate & maintain

Level of automation

SOCIAL 15% 8.3 10.3 9.3 9.3

Impact on health and safety of staff and public

Land uptake for infrastructure / waste disposal

ENVIRONMENTAL 15% 14.6 14.6 9.3 9.3

Impact on noise, odour and public spaces during construction and operation

Amount of waste generated and reused

Energy footprint

TOTAL SCORE 100% 74 73 54 39

3.1.2 Secondary treatment

As described in previous section, reflecting the adopted TSE quality targets and flow increase, upgrades
of existing STPs are inevitable. Table 3-3 provides a list of technologies that could be used to meet
these targets.
Table 3-3. Alternative STP Technologies for Liquid Stream
Type Description

A conventional activated sludge plant (CASP) uses a biological process that involves the use of
microorganisms to convert the organic matter and other constituents (i.e., nitrogen) contained in the
Conventional
wastewater to final gaseous products (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) as well as biological cell material
Activated Sludge
(i.e., sludge). The biological sludge is maintained in suspension by mixing and aeration (oxygen for
Process (CASP)
growth). The microorganisms form flocculent particles that are separated from the effluent in the
secondary clarifier and are subsequently returned to the process or wasted.

IFAS is a hybrid of two traditional technologies: the conventional activated sludge and the submerged
attached growth biofilm processes. In the IFAS process, free-floating, neutrally buoyant submerged
Intergraded fixed- plastic media provide a large protected surface area for bacterial growth, especially the slower growing
film activated nitrifying bacteria. This medium allows for an increase in the aeration basin sludge mass, thereby
sludge (IFAS) increasing the solids retention time. As the additional sludge mass is mostly attached to the plastic
medium, there is only a small increase in the mixed liquor suspended solids concentration that results
from sloughed biomass.

An MBR is a suspended growth process, in which the separation of liquid and solids takes place by
Membrane filtering mixed liquor through submerged membranes rather than by gravity settling in a secondary
bioreactor (MBR) clarifier. MBRs produce a high-quality treated wastewater that is normally suitable for a wide variety of
reuse schemes.

SBRs process is a batch process with the following treatment steps carried out in sequence: filling
(anoxic), reacting (anoxic/aerobic cycles), settling, decanting and idle mode. Biomass is wasted either
Sequencing Batch
at the end of the reaction periods or prior to the decant phase. A unique feature of the SBR system is
Reactors (SBR)
that there is no need for a return activated sludge (RAS) stream, because both aeration and settling
occur in the same tank.

3-2
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 3-4 presents the results of MCA assessment for established secondary treatment technologies.
CASP is the recommended secondary treatment for its relative lower capital and operating costs,
treatment efficiency and reliability. However, due to the larger footprint requirement for CASP, IFAS will
also be considered where space is limiting.

Additional investigation should be conducted to find out the most suitable technology for each STP,
once all necessary information is ready for the design of the actual STP.
Table 3-4. MCA Results for Secondary Treatment Processes
%
Criteria CASP IFAS MBR SBR
Weights

FINANCIAL 50% 25 22 15 26

Relative Cost

TECHNICAL 20% 16 14 13 12

Construction challenges

Treatment process performance

Treatment reliability

System resilience

Flexibility / scalability of system

Ability to operate and maintain

Level of automation

SOCIAL 15% 8 9 13 8

Impact on health and safety of staff and public

Land uptake for infrastructure / waste disposal

ENVIRONMENTAL 15% 10 12 13 10

Impact on noise, odour and public spaces during construction and operation

Amount of waste generated, and waste reused

Energy footprint

TOTAL SCORE 100% 59 57 54 56

3.1.3 Solids Stream Technologies

This section identifies the technologies available for biosolids treatment with a view to appropriate
process selection for MEWA. The treatment technologies have been evaluated from the point of view
of performance (solids destruction achieved, energy consumed or generated, and product quality and
impacts on dewatering or dryness), as well as operability and risk.

3-3
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 3-5. Alternative STP Technologies for Solids Stream

Type Description

Mesophilic anaerobic digestion is one of the most widely proven processes for the stabilisation of solids
from municipal used water treatment. Conventional mesophilic digesters are typically operated at
solids retention times of 10 to 20 days and at temperatures ranging from 33°C to 37°C. Feed solids
concentrations are typically in the range of 3% to 6%. Volatile solids reduction (VSR) varies between
40% and 55%.
The advantages of anaerobic digestion process are presented as follows:
Anaerobic
Digestion (AD) • It produces renewable energy i.e., methane gas
• It minimizes final biosolids volume
The disadvantages of anaerobic digestion are presented as follows:
• High level of investment
• If run inefficiently AD can cause an odour nuisance

A thermal hydrolysis process (THP) is typically applied prior to mesophilic digestion to achieve higher
volatile solids reduction and higher biosolids volume reduction. Basically, THP adds steam to sludge to
raise the temperature to about 160°C and the pressure to about 6 bar for 20 to 30 minutes. When the
sludge is subjected to these conditions, the cell walls of bacteria and the structure of other complex
organics are disrupted, and the material becomes easier to anaerobically metabolize in conventional
digesters. The sludge is generally dewatered to between 15 and 20 percent total solids prior to this
process to minimize steam consumption. Dewatering to this concentration has the ancillary benefit of
Advanced reducing the volume of sludge to be handled in the following anaerobic digesters, so tankage
anaerobic requirements are substantially reduced. Further, due to the biochemical changes that occur through
digestion THP, volatile solids reduction (VSR) improves from its typical 40 to 55 percent by 5 to 15 percent and
biogas production increases by as much as 30 percent.
Advantages of THP pre-treatment include reduction in required digester volume and capital costs,
reduction in foaming issues, more advantageous energy balance, higher pathogen destruction, and
possibly, if all of the sludge was subjected to THP, the production of Class A biosolids. Disadvantages
include the need for pre-dewatering and additional steam heating, both of which incur costs. Also, the
process is relatively complex.

Aerobic digestion is a proven technology for stabilising Surplus Activated Sludge (SAS). Aerobic
digestion involves digestion in completely mixed tanks under aerobic conditions for periods of up to 25
days. It yields good volatile solids destruction and is capable of producing Grade P3 biosolids.
Aerobic
digestion The process is usually run at ambient temperature and the process is much less complex than
anaerobic digestion and is easier to manage. It is generally accepted that the capital costs of aerobic
digestion are lower than the anaerobic digestion due to simpler operation.
The operating costs are typically much greater for aerobic digestion than for anaerobic digestion
because of energy used by the blowers, pumps and motors needed to add oxygen to the process.

Lime addition can be used to reduce the odour of biosolids products, especially when combined with
pasteurisation. Lime addition gives higher solids content, improves handling characteristics, increases
Lime
product stability, and improves product value. There are, however, operational difficulties with storing
Stabilization
and mixing of lime products. The addition of lime also increases the volume of biosolids that needs to
be transported for reuse.

Solar drying is a drying technique used internationally to decrease the water content of sludge.
Evaporation is facilitated through the use of a greenhouse-like structure to capture solar radiation and
increase the ambient air temperature over the biosolids. Operation in winter is poorer than in summer
Solar Drying due to decreased solar radiation intensity and shorter period of solar radiation. Even so, solar drying
offers process simplicity and low energy inputs.
However, as this is a natural process, the land area required to achieve the desired solids content is
significant. This technique is usually only beneficial for small to medium size applications and where
land is abundantly available.

The evaluation criteria of the alternative biosolids management technologies are presented in Table
3-6. The scores of each technology are also presented in Table 3-1 Anaerobic digestion is the
recommended sludge stabilization process. However, the plant capacity is less than 50 MLD and
sufficient space is available, it is proposed to use solar drying.

3-4
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Table 3-6. MCA Results for Biosolids

Advanced
Evaluation Anaerobic Lime Aerobic
% Weight anaerobic Solar drying
Criteria digestion stabilization digestion
digestion

Cost 50% 25 18 35 30 35

Relative Cost

Operating Cost

Technical 25% 20 23 16 18 18

Volume reduction

Land
Requirement

Energy
Production

Operability &
Risks

Environmental 25% 20 20 5 15 7.5

Impact on noise,
odor and public
spaces

Total Score 100% 65 61 56 63 60

3.1.4 Summary of Preferred Technologies

Based on the MCA analysis, the preferred technologies were selected for the STPs, and these are
presented in Table 3-7. These selected technologies will be used to develop strategy options for the
STPs.
Table 3-7. Summary of Preferred Technology
Process Selected Technology Alternative Technology

Primary Treatment Primary clarification Chemically enhanced primary treatment – to be

considered where space is constrained.

Secondary Treatment Conventional Activated Sludge IFAS – to be considered where space is

(CASP) constrained.

Biosolids Treatment Anaerobic Digestion and sludge Solar Drying to be considered if the capacity of the
drying plant is less than 50 MLD.

3.2 Technology Implementation Roadmap

The following sections describe how the selected technologies are used to develop a prioritized
roadmap of the proposed STPs in Northern Region.

3.2.1 Approach

Northern Region includes multiple STPs distributed across the 4 regions of the sector requiring proper
planning for future growth.

The following assumptions were considered when developing the technology roadmap for the proposed
STPs in Northern Region:
• Although anaerobic digestion process was selected as biosolids treatment, this process can be very
expensive. For the Master Plan, it has been assumed that if the flow rate is greater than 50 MLD,
sludge stabilization process such as mesophilic anaerobic digestion will be included to produce
higher sludge quality and to recover energy from the biogas produced from the process. If the

3-5
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

design flow is less than 50 MLD, it was assumed that a solar drying will be used to produce a good
quality biosolids which is suitable for land application.
• It is assumed that there will be one STP in one governorate which will be dedicated to treat the raw
sludge produced from other cities instead of each STP having its own biosolids treatment plant.
• The STP upgrades should maximize the use of the existing site. If enough space is available, the
existing treatment technology will be maintained. If insufficient space is available, IFAS will be
used.
• If the raw wastewater flow is less than 2 MLD, a complete package treatment plant will be used.
This package treatment plant will be capable of producing a water quality suitable for unrestricted
irrigation as well.

3.2.2 STP classification

Based on the assumptions listed above, 7 groups were identified (Figure 3-1). The detailed descriptions
of each group are presented in Table 3-8. Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-5 present the process block diagram
of 7 groups.

Figure 3-1. Decision Making Tree for Grouping the STPs

Table 3-8. Description of the Proposed Groups for the Proposed STPs
Groups Process Technology Objectives Achieved

Primary clarification
Primary (Note: the primary treatment may not be required if solar • Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted TSE
dryer is used as a sludge stabilization) water quality or other industrial use) and
IDR
Secondary Conventional activated sludge process
1 • Energy production from anaerobic
Biosolids Sludge stabilization (e.g., anaerobic digestion or solar digestion
Treatment drying) • Biosolids volume reduction

Biosolids • Biosolids beneficial reuse

Land application (e.g., fertilizer)
Disposal

Primary clarification • Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted TSE

2 Primary (Note: the primary treatment may not be required if solar water quality or other industrial use) and
dryer is used as a sludge stabilization) IDR

3-6
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Groups Process Technology Objectives Achieved

Process intensified process (e.g., integrated fixed film • Energy production from anaerobic
Secondary digestion
activated sludge process, IFAS)
• Biosolids volume reduction
Biosolids
Treatment
Sludge stabilization (e.g., anaerobic digestion) • Biosolids beneficial reuse
• Reduced land requirement
Biosolids
Land application (i.e., fertilizer)
Disposal

Primary NA
• Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted TSE
Secondary Conventional activated sludge process
3 water quality or other industrial use) and
Biosolids Sludge will be dewatered and transferred to nearby STP IDR
Treatment where sludge stabilization processes are included.

Primary NA
• Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted TSE
Process intensified process (e.g., integrated fixed film water quality or other industrial use) and
Secondary
4 activated sludge process, IFAS) IDR
Biosolids Sludge will be dewatered and transferred to nearby STP
Treatment where sludge stabilization processes are included.

Primary NA
• Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted
Process intensified process (e.g., integrated fixed film TSE water quality or other industrial use)
Secondary
5 activated sludge process, IFAS) or IDR
Biosolids Sludge will be dewatered and transferred to nearby STP • Reduced land requirement
Treatment where sludge stabilization processes are included.

Primary NA
• Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted
Process intensified process (e.g., integrated fixed film TSE water quality or other industrial use)
Secondary
6 activated sludge process, IFAS) or IDR
Biosolids Sludge will be dewatered and transferred to nearby STP • Reduced land requirement
Treatment where sludge stabilization processes are included.

Primary • Non-Drinking water use (Unrestricted

A complete package plant utilizing a process intensified
process (e.g., IFAS). Sludge will be dewatered and
7 Secondary
transferred to nearby STP where sludge stabilization
processes are included where possible.
Biosolids
Treatment
TSE water quality or other industrial use)
and IDR
• This group belongs to the small STP
groups which are less than 2.0 MLD and
located in non-city areas in Al Jouf and
Northern Borders.

Figure 3-2. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 1

3-7
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Figure 3-3. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 2

Figure 3-4. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 3

Figure 3-5. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6

3-8
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Figure 3-6. An Example Process Block Diagram for Group 7 (Complete Package Plant) (Source:
Nikko Inc.)

3.2.3 Next Step

The following sections will present the road map for proposed STPs based on the grouping of the STPs
identified above.

3-9
This page is left intentionally blank.
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

4. Strategy Development for Al Jouf Region

4.1 Introduction
Table 4-1 presents the design wastewater flow rates for the proposed STPs in Al Jouf and the grouping
of the proposed STPs based on the decision-making tree shown in Figure 3-1. As seen in the table,
there are three STPs which have design flow rates greater than 25 MLD based on the 2050 design
horizon. It is suggested to add two centralized sludge stabilization processes in Sakaka STP and Al
Qurayyat STP. The sludge from other STPs will be transferred to either Sakaka STP or Al Qurayyat
STP for further treatment. Figure 4-1 presents the location of these STPs in Al Jouf Region. It is also
found that Al Jouf Cement Factory which is located on the east of the Al Qurayyat STP. The biosolids
from Al Qurayyat STP could be dried to above 85% dry solids (DS) which may be used as a low-grade
fuel for Al Jouf Cement Factory. Further investigation should be conducted to explore different end
users for the treated biosolids. Similar to other STPs, the biosolids can also be turned into a marketable
product such as fertilizer.
Table 4-1. Future Wastewater Flow Projections at Al Jouf Region
Governorate Markaz / City Existing STP / Existing capacity (m³/day) 2050 projected flow STP
(m³/day) Group
New STP

Sakaka Sakaka Yes 50,000 (Existing +UC) 75,573 Group 1

Sakaka Suwair New - 8,004 Group 5

Dawmat Al Dawmat Al Yes (Not 5,500 (UC) 21,358 Group 5

Jandal Jandal Operational)

Al Qurayyat Al Qurayyat Yes 12,000 (Proposed to be 62,840 Group 1

decommissioned)

Al Qurayyat Al Haditha Yes 1,000 5,522 Group 5

Tabarjal Tabarjal New - 25,893 Group 1

4-1
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Figure 4-1. Location of Key STPs in Al Jouf Region

4-2
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

4.2 Sakaka STP

Figure 4-2 presents the proposed strategy for Sakaka STP. The capacity of the existing Sakaka STP
is 50,000 m³/day which is less than the projected design flow of 75,573 m³/day based on 2050 design
horizon. Therefore, there is a need to upgrade the current STP to meet future demand. Moreover,
additional sludge stabilization process (i.e., anaerobic digestion process) will be constructed to ensure
the biosolids quality meets land application. This centralized sludge handling facility will treat the sludge
from the other STPs. Sludge receiving stations will be also constructed.
Key Process Units
• Primary treatment
• Conventional ASP
• Filtration & Disinfection
• Anaerobic digestion & dewatering
• Sludge receiving station
• Sludge solar drying
• TSE storage & transfer
• TSE filling station
Land Requirement
• 25 ha existing STP
• Approximately 30 ha is required
Scheme
• Direct non-potable water reuse and
unrestricted irrigation reuse
• Land application for biosolids
Other
• Centralized sludge handling facilities
to manage the sludge
• Produce energy from biogas
• Utilization of resource (i.e., water,
Phasing 2020 2025 2040 2050 energy and biosolids)
Incoming WW to STP (m³/d) 34,720 52,460 65,285 75,573
Proposed Capacity (m³/d) 24,000 76,000 76,000 76,000
Proposed Expansions (m³/d) - 26,000 - -

Figure 4-2. Proposed Strategy for Sakaka STP

4.3 Qurayyat STP

Figure 4-3 presents the proposed strategy for Qurayyat STP. The capacity of the existing Qurayyat
STP is 12,000 m³day and the primary and secondary treatment units. Based on the asset report, the
condition of the existing STP in in poor condition and due to environmental impacts existing STP is
planned to be decommissioned and previously planned expansion of STP is to be cancelled. A new
STP is proposed further north of the city. Proposed capacity of the STP will be 63,000 m³/day, which is
proposed in following phases.

Phase 1 – 50 MLD

Phase 2 – 13 MLD after 2035

This new plant will also treat the sludge from other STPs using a solar dryer. It is proposed that the TSE
will be used as unrestricted irrigation, but the TSE may be further treated to meet the water quality
required for various industries. Further investigation should be conducted to identify the potential users
and the water quality requirement. The biosolids will be suitable as a fertilizer for land application.
Further studies should be conducted the viability of the strategic plans for the TSE and biosolids.

4-3
 Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

Key Process Units

• Primary treatment
• Conventional ASP
• RWP (Filtration+ Disinfection)
• Centralized sludge handling
facility
(Anaerobic digestion+ Sludge
dewatering + Sludge solar
drying)
• TSE storage
• TSE transfer pumping station
Land Requirement
• Approximately additional 20 ha
is required
Scheme
• Direct non-potable water reuse
and unrestricted irrigation reuse
• Land application or industrial
reuse

Other
• Centralized sludge handling
facilities to manage the sludge
Utilization of resource (i.e.,
water and biosolids)

Phasing 2020 2025 2040 2050

Incoming WW to STP (m³/d) 12,083 43,838 53,151 62,840
Proposed Capacity (m³/d) - 50,000 63,000 63,000
Proposed Expansions (m³/d) - 53,000 13,000 -

Figure 4-3. Proposed Strategy for Al Qurayyat STP

4.4 Tabarjal STP

Figure 4-4 presents the proposed strategy for Tabarjal STP. The proposed design capacity of the new
Tabarjal is 22,000 m³/day in 2025 and will require to be expanded to 26,000 m³/day in 2036 to meet the
projected wastewater flows up to 2050. It is proposed that the TSE will be used as unrestricted irrigation,
but the TSE may be further treated to meet the water quality required for various industries. Further
studies should be conducted the viability of the strategic plan for the TSE. The sludge from the Tabarjal
STP will be dewatered and transferred to the Qurayyat STP for further treatment.

4-4
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

• Key Process Units

• Primary treatment
• Conventional ASP
• RWP (Filtration+ Disinfection)
• Sludge will be transferred to
other locations
• TSE storage
• TSE transfer pumping station

Phasing 2020 2025 2030 2050 Scheme

Incoming WW to STP (m³/d) - 19,776 21,103 25,893 • Direct non-potable water reuse
Proposed Capacity (m³/d) - 22,000 - 26,000 and unrestricted irrigation reuse
Proposed Expansions (m³/d) - 22,000 - 4,000 • Sludge will be transferred to
other locations

Figure 4-4. Proposed Strategy for Tabarjal STP

4.5 Other STPs

The predicted design flow rates of the new STPs in Al Jouf Region varies from package STPs (< 2MLD)
to 25 MLD. It is recommended that the liquid streams will be treated in the decentralized STPs, but the
sludge streams will be transferred to the centralized sludge facility in either Sakaka STP or Al Qurayyat
STP for further treatment. Each STP will have a TSE storage tank and TSE transfer system to deliver
to the end user. These STPs will also be equipped with a TSE tanker filling station for farmers and
other industry customers.

4-5
This page is left intentionally blank.
Appendix C.10.6: Wastewater Treatment Strategy

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

The summary and recommendations for Al Jouf Region are presented below:
• TSE produced from the most STPs are discharged to wadies or deserts without being reused and
ends up in the groundwater. Zero discharge and TSE reuse should be considered to help to protect
groundwater quality and maximise the benefit of reusing resources (i.e., water and biosolids).
Further studies by MEWA are required on a holistic approach of regulating local reuse as part of a
larger set of demand management measures to save water in Al Jouf Region.
• Water audit will be a critical pre-requisite activity to determine reuse requirements. Water audit will
help to inform the magnitude and nature of non-drinking demand associated with different types of
industries, properties and development, thus helping MEWA and other concerned stakeholders to
make appropriate decisions on the most effective TSE reuse approach for each land use type.
• According to GAMEP and MEWA regulations, if the TSE is directly disposed to wadi or natural
water body, the phosphate in the TSE should be lower than 1mg/L. However, no STPs in the
Northern Region are testing phosphate in the TSE. It is important for the STPs to test the phosphate
and make sure it meets the TSE quality requirement if it is directly discharge to wadies or natural
water to avoid groundwater contamination. MEWA could consider additional testing on the
groundwater quality to ensure that there is no groundwater contamination due to the TSE infiltration.
• There are no microbial testing results from the STPs. Additional testing should be conducted to
comply with the regulation.
• There will be several new small STPs in Al Jouf Region for cluster settlements. Enforcement,
monitoring, and capacity building efforts are required to ensure that the treated wastewater
produced by the multiple small STPs (that may be operated by inexperienced or untrained
personnel) is fit for purpose not only for environmental protection, but also public health protection.
A proper planning should be done for these smaller STPs.
• For the STPs that require expansion, it is not clear whether sufficient space available for future
expansion. The recommendations in this report have been provided based on the aerial view of the
plant plot area and the surroundings. Further study should be conducted to determine if
MEWA/NWC needs to acquire additional space.
• Sludge from most STPs is being discharged to an empty area next to the STPs. It is not clear how
the sludge is being further treated at these locations. Additional investigation should be conducted
as to how the sludge are treated after being transferred.
• It is our understanding that sludge will no longer be discharged to landfills or to an empty area
without treatment. In the master plan, it is proposed that the sludge from the STPs be properly
treated and reused as land application or other purposes. Additional study should be conducted to
understand the benefit of sludge reuse in the region. It is also recommended that MEWA conducts
additional market research to determine potential reuse for biosolids.
• In the master plan, instead of having an individual sludge handling facility, one or two centralized
sludge handling facilities are proposed in each region. Further investigation should be conducted
whether this centralized sludge handling facility is in line with the MEWA’s future sludge
management strategy.

5-1