UK Rainwater Harvesting Literature Review - Bradford University

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University
2.0
Rainwater Harvesting Literature Review
2.1
Introduction
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) primarily consists of the collection, storage and subsequent use of captured rainwater as either the principal or as a supplementary source of water. Both potable and non-potable applications are possible (Fewkes, 2006). Examples exist of systems that provide water for domestic, commercial, institutional and industrial purposes as well as agriculture, livestock, groundwater recharge, flood control, process water and as an emergency supply for fire fighting (Gould & Nissen-Peterson,1999; Konig, 2001; Datar, 2006). The concept of RWH is both simple and ancient and systems can vary from small and basic, such as the attachment of a water butt to a rainwater downspout, to large and complex, such as those that collect water from many hectares and serve large numbers of people (Leggett et al, 2001a). Before the latter half of the twentieth century, RWH systems were used predominantly in areas lacking alternative forms of water supply, such as coral islands (Krishna, 1989) and remote, arid locations lacking suitable surface or groundwater resources (Perrens, 1975). The fundamental processes involved in rainwater harvesting are demonstrated in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1
Flowchart demonstrating fundamental rainwater harvesting processes
Rainfall event(s)
Production of runoff from catchment surface
Water storage in reservoir
Water use
Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com
All rainwater harvesting systems share a number of common components (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999): 1. A catchment surface from which runoff is collected, e.g. a roof surface. 2. A system for transporting water from the catchment surface to a storage reservoir. 3. A reservoir where water is stored until needed. 4. A device for extracting water from the reservoir.
Fewkes (2006) identifies the main uses for harvested rainwater as: 1. The main source of potable (drinking) water, 2. A supplementary source of potable water, or 3. A supplementary source of non-potable water, e.g. for WC flushing.
In developing countries the main use of harvested water is for potable supply whilst in developed countries examples of all three uses exist, with potable supplies being more common in rural locations and non-potable supplies in urban areas.
2.2
A brief history of rainwater harvesting
Gould & Nissen-Peterson (1999) provide a detailed history of rainwater harvesting systems. The authors state that, whilst the exact origin of RWH has not been determined, the oldest known examples date back several thousand years and are associated with the early civilisations of the Middle East and Asia. In India, evidence has been found of simple stone-rubble structures for impounding water that date back to the third millennium BC (Agarwal & Narain,
1997). In the Negev desert in Israel, runoff from hillsides has been collected and stored in cisterns to be used for agricultural and domestic purposes since before 2000 BC (Evenari, 1961). There is evidence in the Mediterranean region of a sophisticated rainwater collection and storage system at the Palace of Knossos which is believed to have been in use as early as 1700 BC (Hasse, 1989). In Sardinia, from the 6th century BC onwards, many settlements collected and used roof runoff as their main source of water (Crasta et al, 1982). Many Roman villas and cities are known to have used rainwater as the primary source of drinking water and for domestic purposes (Kovacs, 1979).
There is evidence of the past utilisation of harvested rainwater in many areas around the world, including North Africa (Shata, 1982), Turkey (Ozis, 1982; Hasse, 1989), east and southeast Asia (Prempridi & Chatuthasry, 1982), Japan, China (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999), the Indian sub-continent (Kolarkar et al, 1980; Ray, 1983; Pakianathan, 1989), Pakistan and much of the Islamic world (Pacey & Cullis, 1986), sub-Saharan Africa (Parker, 1973), Western Europe (La Hire, 1742; Hare, 1900; Doody, 1980; Leggett et al, 2001a), North and South America (McCallan, 1948; Bailey, 1959; Moysey & Mueller, 1962; Gordillo et al, 1982; Gnadlinger, 1995), Australia (Kenyon, 1929) and the South Pacific (Marjoram, 1987).
2.3
Rainwater harvesting in a modern context
During the twentieth century the use of rainwater harvesting techniques declined around the world, partly due to the provision of large, centralised water supply schemes such as dam building projects, groundwater development and
10
piped distribution systems. However, in the last few decades there has been an increasing interest in the use of harvested water (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999) with an estimated 100,000,000 people worldwide currently utilising a rainwater system of some description (Heggen, 2000).
2.3.1 Rainwater harvesting in the developed world In the developed world the use of RWH to supply potable water is mostly limited to rural locations, mainly because piping supplies from centralised water treatment facilities to areas with low population densities is often uneconomic. The development of appropriate groundwater resources can likewise be impractical for cost reasons (Fewkes, 2006). Perrens (1982) estimates that in Australia approximately one million people rely on rainwater as their primary source of supply. The total number of Australians in both rural and urban regions that rely on rainwater stored in tanks is believed to be about three million (ABS, 1994). In the USA it is thought that there are over 200,000 rainwater cisterns in existence that provide supplies to small communities and individual households (Lye, 1992). Harvesting rainwater for potable use also occurs in rural areas of Canada and Bermuda (Fewkes, 2006).
The use of RWH systems to supply non-potable water to buildings in urban areas has increased in popularity in the last 15-20 years (Fewkes, 2006). Examples of non-potable end uses include WC flushing (Fewkes, 1999a; Bray & Grant, 2002), urinal flushing (Cooper, 2001; Environment Agency, 2005a), laundry cleaning (washing machines) (Ratcliffe, 2002), hot water systems (Coombes et al, 2000c), garden/landscape irrigation (Weiner, 2003; Devi et al,
11
2005), car washing (Leggett et al, 2001b) and fire-fighting (Gould & NissenPeterson, 1999). Systems have been installed in a wide range of building types including domestic properties (Leggett et al, 2001b; Day, 2002; Coombes et al, 2003a), high rise buildings (Thomas, 1998; Lau et al, 2005), schools (Bray, 2003; Paul & Bray, 2004), offices (Brewer et al, 2001), sports stadiums (Gould, 1999a; Environment Agency, 2003a), garden centres (Stephenson, 2002), airports (Appan, 1993) and exhibition centres such as the Millennium Dome in London (Hills et al, 1999; Lodge, 2000; Smith et al, 2000; Hills et al, 2002) and the Eden Project in Cornwall (CIWEM, 2007).
The number of RWH systems installed varies from country to country. For instance, in Germany during the 1990s the market leader alone installed over 100,000 systems, providing a total storage volume in excess of 600,000m3 (Herman & Schimda, 1999). It has been estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 professionally designed systems are currently installed in Germany each year (Konig, 2001; Environment Agency, 2004) and the total number of built systems is believed to be approximately 600,000 (Leggett et al, 2001b). By comparison, France has few installed systems. Those that do exist are often simple, inefficient and used mainly for garden irrigation, with the domestic utilisation of rainwater for flushing toilets and washing machines being virtually non-existent. This low uptake is attributed primarily to the organisation of the French water supply system which is essentially a set of regional monopolies that have no incentive to introduce rainwater harvesting techniques since it would reduce their profits (Konig, 2001).
12
In urban locations, rainwater catchment surfaces tend to be restricted to roofs (Hassell, 2005; Fewkes, 2006) although runoff can also be collected from other impermeable areas such as pavements, roads and car parks. Runoff from these areas can be more polluted than that from roof surfaces and may require a higher degree of treatment to achieve an acceptable level of water quality (Leggett et al, 2001b; Martin, 2001). Water storage and distribution elements generally consist of standardised pre-manufactured components that can range from a simple water butt with a tap at the base to more complicated systems that can consist of underground storage tanks, filters, UV units, pumps and automated controls. Where the latter type of arrangement is concerned, the use of package (proprietary) systems dominates the UK market and it is possible to purchase a complete system from a single supplier. One supplier stated that the overwhelming majority of their domestic sales were of the proprietary type as were most of those for commercial, institutional and industrial applications, though bespoke systems could be designed if required (Nick Bentley of Envireau Ltd, personal communication, June 2005).
Konig (2001) states that in the past components such as tanks, pumps and filters were often supplied in kit form and had to be assembled on site, necessitating the use of skilled staff and leading to increases in both installation times and costs. Modern systems tend to be modularised and consist of standardised mass-produced components, usually of high quality. Components such as tanks, pumps and filters are delivered to site as complete units (no assembly required), are easier to install and commission than the older types of system and offer a greater degree of design flexibility. Some suppliers sell
13
storage tanks with integrated filters, pump and electronic controls in what is essentially a complete system that only requires connecting to the relevant onsite pipework and power points.
With regards to water storage, the most common approach is to use underground tanks (Hassell, 2005) although storage in other structures is also possible, e.g. in the gravel sub-base of permeable driveways and pavements (Pratt, 1995; Pratt, 1999; Leggett et al, 2001b) as well as above-ground tanks and ponds (Woods-Ballard et al, 2007).
2.3.2 Water use in domestic, commercial and institutional buildings The average per capita consumption for households (both metered and unmetered) in England and Wales is currently around 150 litres per person per day (Ofwat, 2006a). Figure 2.2 shows the water consumption share of different micro-components in a typical UK domestic household (POST, 2000). The diagram shows that not all of the water used in a household needs to be of potable quality, particularly water used for WC flushing (31%), washing machine (20%) and outside supply (4%). Potentially, about 55% of the potable mains water used within a typical UK household could be replaced with another source such as rainwater, provided that it was of a suitable quality for the intended uses.
14
Figure 2.2
Water consumption by micro-component for a typical UK household (Adapted from POST, 2000).
Water usage patterns are different in office buildings compared to domestic dwellings. WC and urinal flushing are often major consumers of water and can account for up to 63% of water use, as shown in figure 2.3. As with domestic properties, there is no specific need for this water to be potable and it could potentially be substituted with rainwater provided that an adequate quality at the point of use was achieved.
15
Figure 2.3
Average water use in office buildings Adapted from Leggett et al (2001a), p23.
2.3.3
Common drivers for RWH in the developed world
Most developed countries rely heavily on centralised water treatment and piped distribution systems in order to provide a safe and reliable supply to the public. Jeffrey & Gearey (2006) state that modern consumers have come to expect a right to clean water, with infrastructure developments focusing on meeting consumer demand with little restraint on quantity or quality. This has led to the development of water delivery systems that supply excess water at excess quality for the uses to which much of it is put, e.g. using potable water for toilet flushing and garden watering. Increases in demand are typically met by further resource development (Howarth, 2006). For instance by the construction of new reservoirs, enlargement of existing ones and/or the development of further groundwater resources (Lallana et al, 2001). However, in some countries this approach has begun to present a number of difficulties. For example, Germany relies to a large extent on groundwater for its public water supply which has led to over-extraction, lowering of the water table and adverse environmental
16
effects. Pollution of groundwater resources is also becoming a potential public health risk (Sayers, 1999). Hiessl et al (2001) questions whether the continued reliance on the centralised treatment and supply paradigm is the optimal choice given the substantial operating/maintenance costs involved and increasingly stringent environmental legislation.
The use of RWH systems in Germany has in recent years been promoted as part of the solution to addressing these problems, with many city councils providing incentives and subsidies to encourage their installation (Herrmann & Schmida, 1999). Konig (2001) documents the use of RWH in a wide variety of building types in Germany. Other potential benefits include the (so far theoretical) ability to offset the development of new water resources (Schilling & Mantoglou, 1999), reduce peak flow volumes and lower the risk of urban flooding from the predominantly combined sewer system (Vaes & Berlamont, 2001).
In Sweden, increasing urbanisation and the widespread use of large-scale centralised treatment has resulted in a supply system that is vulnerable to shortages and has also contributed to water quality deterioration. Research has indicated that demand management measures, including RWH for non-potable uses, could help to reduce the amount of water required from the public supply system for urban developments (Villarreal & Dixon, 2005).
In Australia there is a move towards Integrated Urban Watershed Management (Mitchell, 2004; Roon, 2006), also known as Water Sensitive Urban Design
17
(WSUD) (Argue et al, 2003). This approach involves considering the urban water cycle as an holistic whole rather than as distinct separate entities (i.e. stormwater, floodwater, wastewater and sources of potable water) with one of the goals being to harvest and reuse stormwater in order to augment the mains supply (Argue, 2001). Research has indicated that, as well as lowering reliance on mains water, RWH has the potential to reduce the volume of stormwater disposed of to the sewer system, reduce peak runoff rates (Coombes et al, 2001) and be economically viable at both the development and regional scales (Coombes et al, 2000a, b).
Buildings that contain a water meter and in which the owners/occupiers are charged for the water they use on a volumetric basis may be able to reduce their water bills through the installation of a RWH system (Shaffer et al, 2004). Whether or not this is a cost effective option depends on a number of factors, including the capital cost of the RWH system, operation/maintenance expenses, the volume of mains water that can be supplanted by harvested water and the assumed lifetime of the system (Leggett et al, 2001b).
Rainwater harvesting may also have a role to play in promoting sustainable urban water management. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which came into force in all member states in December 2000, calls for a range of measures to be taken in order to protect the aquatic environment (EC, 2000). The primary objectives of the WFD include a requirement to:
18
Prevent further deterioration, and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems, with regards to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands (Article 1(a)). Promote the sustainable use of water based on long-term protection of available water resources (Article 1(b)). Contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts (Chave, 2001).
The literature suggests that RWH is potentially able to contribute towards the achievement of each of these goals in a number of ways: by reducing reliance on centralised water treatment and distribution systems that appropriate water from the natural environment; lessening instances of urban flooding by reducing both the volumes of water disposed of to the sewer system and peak flow rates within sewers; by providing a water supply buffer in times of drought. Similarly, other EU Directives have objectives that RWH could help to meet. For example, the EU Habitats Directive (EC, 1994) requires that sites of European conservation interest achieve favourable conditions by 2010. To achieve these aims water abstractions in some areas may need to be reduced to a more sustainable level (Environment Agency, 2005b), leading to increased pressure on remaining supply sources. It is conceivable that the wider uptake of RWH and similar technologies could to some extent mitigate the effects of reducing permissible abstraction levels.
The rest of this review focuses on the types of rainwater harvesting systems used in urbanised areas of the developed world for non-potable applications. Systems suitable for use in domestic, commercial, institutional, public and
19
industrial buildings for applications such as WC and urinal flushing, washing machines and outdoor use (e.g. garden/landscape irrigation, vehicle washing) are discussed but not industry-specific applications such as process or cooling water. Particular attention is given to the use of proprietary (package or offthe-shelf) RWH systems within the UK as these currently dominate the market for urban installations in this country. The use of water butts is not considered as these have limited potential for curbing reliance on mains water, peak flow reduction or for reducing the volume of stormwater discharged to the sewer system (Woods-Ballard et al, 2007). Relevant UK legislation and regulations are discussed were appropriate. This information should not be assumed to apply outside of this country.
2.4
Types and configurations of RWH systems
Three basic types of system for supplying non-potable water to buildings for internal and external uses are identified by Leggett et al (2001b): directly pumped, indirectly pumped and gravity fed. A number of variations are given by Herrmann & Schmida (1999) and Konig (2001). External use only systems are also available and these are essentially direct systems that can only be used for outdoor purposes, such as garden watering and vehicle washing. In all cases, water is collected from a catchment surface and held in a sealed storage structure until needed. Once harvested water has been used, for example to flush the WC, it is considered to be in the same effluent category as potable water would be if used for the same purpose, e.g. harvested water used to flush a WC becomes foul (black) water, the same classification that applies to potable
20
water once it has been used to flush a WC. The resulting effluent is treated in the same manner regardless of the initial source.
2.4.1 Indirectly pumped systems Rainwater is initially held in a storage tank and then pumped to a header tank within the building, which is usually located within the roof void. Water is delivered to appliances via gravity and the header tank should be at least one metre above the supply points. If the storage tank runs dry, the header tank is supplied with top-up water from the mains. If the storage tank is full, any additional incoming water will exit via an overflow and will normally be disposed of either to a soakaway/infiltration device or sewer. See figure 2.4 for a schematic of an indirectly pumped RWH system.
The main advantages of indirectly pumped systems are that if the pump fails (e.g. due to mechanical/electrical failure or power loss) then water will still be supplied to the associated fixtures and fittings via the mains top-up function. Low cost pumps and simple controls are possible and systems tend to be energy efficient as the pump runs at full flow (Environment Agency, 2007).
The main disadvantages are that they tend to deliver water at low pressures. This can lead to slow filling of WC cisterns and the system may not provide enough pressure to work with some appliances. Some proprietary units solve the low pressure problem by using a hybrid system. Water for the WC is gravity fed from a header tank which also has mains top-up whilst water for the washing machine and garden is delivered via a pump at equivalent mains
21
pressure. The advantage with this arrangement is that in the event of a power failure it is still possible to flush the toilet. Indirect systems also require the use of a header tank (Environment Agency, 2007). These can add to the overall cost of a system (though not usually significantly) and there may not always be sufficient space in the roof void to site the tank (Hannah Reid of Stormsaver Ltd, personal communication, June 2007).
Figure 2.4
Schematic of an indirectly pumped RWH system Adapted from Leggett et al (2001b), p38.
Key
Usable water Discarded water
Rainfall Mains top-up
Collection guttering
Overflow
Header tank
Supply
Cross flow filter Manhole cover
External use
Storage tank Grey/black water to foul sewer system Pump
Overflow
Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer
22
2.4.2 Directly pumped systems In a directly pumped system (sometimes also referred to as a pressurised system) rainwater is initially held in a storage tank and then pumped directly to the point of use when required, e.g. to WC cisterns and washing machines. There is no header tank with a direct system and mains top-up occurs within the storage tank. Mains top-up does not completely fill the tank but maintains a minimum level that is able to meet short-term demand. If the storage tank is full, any additional incoming water will exit via an overflow and will normally be disposed of either to a soakaway/infiltration device or sewer. Figure 2.5 shows a schematic of a directly pumped RWH system.
The main advantages of directly pumped systems are that water is provided at mains pressure which is ideal for garden hoses and washing machines, and that they do not require a header tank (Environment Agency, 2007).
The
main
disadvantages
are
that
if
the
pump
fails
(e.g.
due
to
mechanical/electrical failure or power loss) then no water can be supplied. WCs would have to be flushed manually (e.g. using a bucket of water) and washing machines would not function. Mains top-up controls can also be more complicated than with indirect and gravity fed systems (Environment Agency, 2007).
23
Figure 2.5
Schematic of a directly pumped RWH system Adapted from Leggett et al (2001b), p38.
Rainfall
Key
Usable water Discarded water Collection guttering
Mains top-up Manhole cover
Cross flow filter
Storage tank Supply Pump
External use
Grey/black water to foul sewer system
Overflow
Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer
2.4.3 Gravity fed systems Gravity fed systems differ from the direct and indirect variants primarily in that the main storage tank is located within the roof void of the building. Rainwater is collected from the roof, filtered and then piped directly to the storage (header) tank. Water is delivered to appliances via gravity and the storage tank should be at least one metre above the supply points. Mains top-up water is supplied directly to the tank if it runs dry. If the tank is full, any additional incoming water will exit via an overflow and will normally be disposed of either to a soakaway/infiltration device or sewer.
24
The main advantages of gravity fed systems are that they do not require a pump or electrical supply as is the case with the direct and indirect versions (Fewkes, 2006). Also, since there is no pump, there is no risk of pumpassociated supply failure.
The main disadvantages are that the water pressure is likely to be less than that of the mains supply. This can result in poor performance of some appliances, e.g. slow filling of WC cisterns, and some appliances such as some modern washing machines may stop working altogether. In this case a pump may be required to boost the water pressure (Leggett et al, 2001b). There may also be issues with high structural loads, damage from leaking components and water quality issues due to fluctuating temperatures in the stored water (Fewkes, 2006). It also has to be possible to collect runoff from the roof, filter it and deliver it to the tank under the action of gravity. In this case the relative levels of the various components (roof, filter and tank) are critical and it may not be possible to find an arrangement that functions hydraulically (Fewkes, 1989).
See figure 2.6 for a schematic of a gravity fed RWH system.
25
Figure 2.6
Schematic of a gravity fed RWH system Adapted from Leggett et al (2001b), p39.
Rainfall
Key
Usable water Discarded water Collection guttering
Mains top-up
Cross flow filter Tank
Overflow
Supply
External use
Grey/black water to foul sewer system Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer
2.4.4 Selection of system type for domestic and commercial applications Direct systems are usually recommended for use in domestic properties since there is not always sufficient space in the buildings roof void for the header tank that indirect and gravity systems require. Also, direct systems have been found to be better at providing the required flow rate of water (Hannah Reid of Stormsaver Ltd, personal communication, June 2007). For commercial situations, indirect (header tank) systems are generally recommended. One of the primary reasons is that peak demands can be relatively high compared with domestic situations. Consequently, if a direct system was used then the pump may not be able to supply the required water at a sufficient rate, resulting in low
26
flow and low pressure at the points of use. The header tank also acts as a failsafe in the event of pump failure as water can still be supplied via gravity to the WCs and urinals. This enables the premises to remain open in the event of pump failure. Header tanks also ease demand on the pump, enabling units to be used that operate at lower flow rates. This increases pump reliability and life expectancy (Hannah Reid of Stormsaver Ltd, personal communication, June 2007).
2.5
Components of RWH systems
Proprietary systems can consist of a number of different components, some specific to the RWH aspects and some which are part of the building but are utilised as part of the rainwater system (auxiliary components). A list of typical RWH-specific components could include some or all of the following items: First-flush diverters. Filters. Storage device, e.g. tank. Overflow arrangement (including backflow prevention device). Pump and associated components. UV unit. Electronic controls/management systems. Header tank (for indirect and gravity fed systems). Mains top-up arrangement. Distribution pipework.
27
A list of auxiliary components could include some or all of the following items: Guttering and collection pipework. Catchment area, e.g. roof.
Figure 2.7 shows a range of common rainwater harvesting and auxiliary components and demonstrates how they can be integrated in order to create a complete system. The diagram shows an indirect system with a header tank but most of the components could equally apply to a direct system as well.
Figure 2.7
Schematic showing range of common RWH system components
Key
Usable water Discarded water
Catchment area
Mains top-up with type AA/AB air gap
Collection guttering First flush diverter
Overflow
Header tank
Soakaway/ infiltration device or sewer
Non-potable supply
Solenoid valve
Coarse filter
Electronic controls
Potable supply
UV unit Storage tank In-tank filter Pump In-line filter(s)
Water meter
Potable (mains) water supply Overflow Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer Backflow prevention device
28
2.5.1 First flush diverters During dry periods roofs become contaminated with a variety of pollutants such as atmospheric particulates, bird droppings, leaves and other debris (Cunliffe, 1998; Fewkes, 2006). When it rains, some of the contaminants are washed off the catchment surface and transported in the runoff flow. The rainfall intensity and number of dry days preceding a rainfall event significantly affects the quality of the runoff, with long dry periods resulting in higher pollutant loads for a given catchment (Gould & Nissen-Peterson,1999).
Research has shown that the initial first flush of runoff is more polluted than subsequent flows and that the concentration of contaminants associated with a given rainfall event tend to reduce exponentially with time. Therefore, diverting the initial portion of runoff generated by a storm away from the storage device will mean that the quality of water entering storage is improved and the need for subsequent treatment reduced or even eliminated altogether (Wu et al, 2003; Martinson & Thomas, 2005).
As a rule of thumb, for each millimetre of first flush collected the contaminate load will be about half the amount present in the previous millimetre (Martinson & Thomas, 2005). Figure 2.8 shows sketches of a range of commonly used first flush diverter types. All involve the diversion and temporary storage of the initial portion of runoff. The interceptor and splitter variants rely on filling a container with the first flush and slowly releasing it via a throttled outflow. The majority of subsequent runoff from the catchment surface bypasses the first flush container
29
and is routed into the tank. The pit variant works on a similar principle except that outflow from the first flush container is into the ground via infiltration.
Gould & Nissen-Peterson (1999) state that the use of first flush diverters tends to be limited and when they are used they often suffer from a lack of maintenance. As a result of this neglect many function incorrectly or have simply been disconnected by the building occupiers. Research conducted by Coombes (2002) implies that the use of first flush diverters is fairly common in Australia. However, Konig (2000) suggests that collecting the initial flush of water is unnecessary for non-potable applications. Herrmann & Schmida (1999) make no mention of diverters when discussing treatment processes for roof runoff intended for non-potable uses in Germany. Mustow et al (1997) state that the inclusion of such a device can increase the costs and complexity of a system without providing any significant benefit. Limited evidence was found for the use of first flush diverters in the UK and none of the proprietary system suppliers provide them as a standard part of their package systems.
30
Figure 2.8
Cross-sectional sketches of typical first flush diverters
Inflow
Outflow Container for holding first flush
Inflow
Buoyant sphere, creates watertight seal when container is full Container for holding first flush
Outflow
Throttled first flush outlet
Throttled first flush outlet
First flush interceptor

(Adapted from Ntale, 2003)
First flush splitter

(Adapted from Che et al, 2003)
Reinforced concrete box
Inflow Debris screen
Outflow Concrete baffle
First flush passes through holes in base of box into infiltration chamber First flush infiltrates into ground
First flush pit

(Adapted from Coombes, 2002)
2.5.2 Filters It is recommended that rainwater be filtered before entry into the storage tank in order to remove debris such as leaves, grit, moss and soil. Leggett et al (2001b) identify a range of filter types and sub-types. Filters should be easy to clean (or self-cleansing) and should not block easily (Martinson & Thomas, 2003). With regards to contemporary systems, the use of crossflow filters is essentially ubiquitous and these are described in more detail below. Cartridge filters are
31
often employed in systems that have a UV unit. These are also discussed further.
Crossflow filters Crossflow filters contain a mesh screen which water flows across (hence the name) and that separates the flow into two fractions. The portion that passes through the mesh is cleaned of all debris larger than the mesh size (typically 0.2-1.0mm) and passes to the storage tank. The residual debris is washed from the mesh by the remaining fraction of water and diverted away from the tank, e.g. to the sewer system or an infiltration device. Crossflow filters are considered to be self-cleansing since debris is automatically washed from the mesh screen.
Figure 2.10 shows two types of commonly installed crossflow filter configurations. One is a downpipe filter in which the mesh sits adjacent to the pipe wall. Water running down a vertical pipe at atmospheric pressure mostly flows down the inside wall and downpipe filters take advantage of this phenomenon by intercepting the flow and filtering the majority of it. Vortex filters (which are usually located underground) use the momentum of the incoming flow to create a vortex effect, swirling the water around the inside of the filter casing which is lined with a fine mesh. Water is forced through the mesh, filtering out debris and sending the processed water to the storage tank. As with the downpipe version, the unfiltered water and associated debris are diverted away from the tank.
32
Figure 2.9
Cross-sectional sketches of typical crossflow filters

Incoming water Downpipe Vortex action Filter casing Filter casing Filtered water to tank Filter mesh Incoming water
Filtered water to tank
Filter mesh
Debris and unfiltered water
Debris and unfiltered water
Downpipe crossflow filter

(Adapted from Leggett et al, 2001b)
Vortex crossflow filter

German best practice recommends the use of filters with porosities in the range of 0.2-1.0mm with no further filtration required for non-potable uses (Konig, 2001). Self-cleansing filters are preferred as they require less maintenance and reduce the cost of consumables (Leggett et al, 2001b).
33
Cartridge filters Cartridge filters are usually placed after the storage tank and require that water be passed through them under pressure. They are most often used in systems that require a high degree of water quality and low turbidity, such as those that include a UV unit or for potable applications. It is common practice to have several arranged in series with the unit that has the largest porosity first in line and subsequent units arranged according to diminishing pore size, e.g. 25m followed by 5m. Cartridge filters tend to have small porosities and so prefiltration is required, for example by the prior use of a screen or crossflow device. If this is not done then they will rapidly clog. They are not self-cleansing and so require replacement at regular intervals, typically every 3 months or thereabouts (Leggett et al, 2001b).
Other types of filter Leggett et al (2001b) also describe a number of other filter types including intank floating, screen, slow sand, rapid gravity, reed beds, membrane and activated carbon. Chemical disinfection is also mentioned as another option for improving water quality. Way & Thomas (2005) describe an experimental system in which a slow sand filter was integrated into the actual rainwater tank. However, with the exception of in-tank floating filters, none of these methods would appear to have achieved any significant degree of penetration in the UK market and none of the RWH system suppliers offered them as part of their regular package deals. Therefore they are not discussed further in this thesis.
34
2.5.3 Rainwater storage devices A storage device is required to collect and hold catchment runoff because rainfall events occur more erratically than system demand (Fewkes, 2006). Water storage capacity is required in order to balance out the difference between supply and demand (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999). In the developed world the most commonly used storage device is the underground tank (Hassell, 2005). Other types of reservoir structures exist, such as above ground tanks and ponds (Woods-Ballard et al, 2007), the gravel sub-base of permeable driveways and pavements (Pratt, 1995; Pratt, 1999; Leggett et al, 2001b), covered flat roofs (Mustow et al, 1997), the void space beneath garages (Courier, 2002; Jones, 2002), geo-cellular structures (Stephenson, 2002) and small local aquifers (Argue et al, 1998; Coombes et al, 2000c; Gardner et al, 2001). However, the use of storage devices other than underground tanks appears to be limited in the UK, particularly within the domestic market and so these alternative approaches are not considered further.
Installing tanks underground has a number of advantages: it helps to prevent algal growth by shielding the tank from daylight (Konig, 2001), protects the tank from extreme weather conditions at the surface such as freezing spells (Leggett et al, 2001b) and helps to regulate the water temperature in the tank, keeping it cool and limiting bacterial growth (Fewkes & Tarran, 1992).
Storage tanks come in a variety of shapes and sizes and can be constructed from a range of materials including concrete, ferrocement, bricks, steel and
35
plastics such as glass reinforced plastic (GRP) or high-density polyethylene (Leggett et al, 2001b; Fewkes, 2006). Some are relatively basic in design whilst others are essentially complete systems that incorporate the tank, filters, pump and mains top-up arrangement in a single integrated unit. Tanks for domestic systems generally have storage volumes in the 1-10m3 range. Tanks for commercial systems are available in a wider range of sizes and can be tens or hundreds of cubic metres in size. Vessels can also be linked together to provide additional volume meaning that there is no theoretical upper limit on the amount of storage space that can be provided, site constraints not withstanding. Figure 2.10 shows examples of the types of underground tanks that are available.
For a given tank the purchase and installation costs are related to the storage capacity (Fewkes, 1997) and so it is important to select a tank with an appropriate volume. There is a balance between cost and performance which has to be judged carefully. Determining the optimum tank volume is a key aspect of this thesis and is covered in more detail in chapters five, six and seven. Whichever tank is selected, current best practice recommends that it should be sized such that it overflows at least twice per year in order to facilitate the removal of any floating debris (Fewkes, 2006).
36
Figure 2.10 Examples of underground storage tanks

Lockable manhole cover Ground level Inflow Inflow Sealed joints to ensure tank integrity Sectional concrete rings Filtered flow Ground level Filter screen (basket) Lockable manhole cover
Overflow
Sectional concrete tank

Complete concrete tank

(Adapted from Konig, 2001)
Moulded plastic tank

(Courtesy of Freewater UK)
Integrated tank system

(Courtesy of Rainharvesting Systems Ltd)
2.5.4 Storage device overflow arrangement Modern rainwater tanks have an overflow arrangement in order to prevent localised flooding if the capacity of the tank is exceeded, and also to help avoid stagnation of stored water and remove floating debris. The overflow can be connected to a soakaway/infiltration device, storm drain or combined sewer system but not a foul sewer (Leggett et al, 2001b). It must include an antibackflow device in order to prevent contaminated water entering the tank in the
37
event of downstream surcharging (DCLG, 2006a, part 1.70b). Overflows are predominantly unrestricted (no throttle) and water passes through them via gravity flow although pumped overflows are also available.
2.5.5 Pumps RWH systems require that stored rainwater be pumped either to the point of use (direct systems) or to a header tank located at least 1m above the point of use (indirect systems). In general, gravity fed systems do not require a pump since water is fed straight from the catchment surface to a high-level storage tank. However, they are sometimes used with gravity systems in order to increase the water pressure which may otherwise be too low to work with certain appliances, e.g. some modern washing machines.
Pumps have a finite lifespan and will require repair/replacement at some point, typically after 5-10 years of use. It is also recommended that they are checked at least once per year in order to ensure that they are functioning correctly (Leggett et al, 2001a).
2.5.6 UV units Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is effective at killing a wide range of waterborne bacteria and viruses. UV disinfection has a number of advantages: ease of use, requires no chemicals, short retention time, no effect on the chemical characteristics, taste or odour of the water, maintenance is not onerous, and there is no risk from excessive use as might be the case with chemical treatments (McGhee, 1991). UV disinfection of potable water supplies has been
38
shown to be sufficient for the inactivation of 99.9% of most microorganisms (Hall et al, 1997).
UV units can be fitted to RWH systems in order to safeguard water quality. However, in order for a UV unit to effectively kill microorganisms the water has to have a low turbidity, necessitating the use of fine filters (e.g. a 25m filter followed by a 5m filter, located in series before the UV unit). If this is not done, suspended solids in the water can effectively shield harmful pathogens from UV light and they may not be destroyed (Crittenden et al, 2005; Parsons & Jefferson, 2006). The use of a UV unit will add to the capital and running costs of a system. Extra filters are required and these need replacing every six months or so. The UV bulb consumes electricity and also has a finite lifespan, generally requiring replacement after about six months of use (Leggett et al, 2001b; Shaffer et al, 2004). UV units fitted to RWH systems tend to be passive, i.e. they do not control the rate of flow through them. Rather, the capacity of the pump should be matched to the treatment flow rate of the UV unit.
In the normal mode of operation, the UV unit is left permanently on as constantly switching it on and off as demand dictated would significantly shorten the life of the bulb. Power consumption for domestic units is typically in the 1555W range and lamps generally last for between 8,000-10,000 hours of continuous use (Crittenden et al, 2005), which equates to about twelve months. Prolonged use can reduce the UV output intensity and so it is recommended that lamps be replaced after a maximum of 10,000 hours even if they are still
39
functional (Krishna et al, 2005). Figure 2.11 shows a schematic of a typical UV disinfection unit.
Figure 2.11 Schematic of a UV disinfection unit Adapted from Leggett et al (2001b), p52.
Irradiated water out
UV lamp
Control panel
Water in
In the UK there is currently no legal requirement for a RWH system to incorporate a UV unit and the literature did not provide any definitive guidance on when and where one should be used. One supplier stated that UV disinfection is not necessary and was primarily introduced into the UK market in order to reduce the perceived risks associated with harvested water, thereby encouraging its use (Glyn Hyett of 3P Technik, personal communication, 22 nd April 2006). Another stated that they would only recommend UV treatment in special cases and that coarsely filtered rainwater was of sufficient quality for toilet flushing and irrigation purposes and did not normally require further treatment (Lutz Johnen of Aqua-Lity, personal communication, 24th April 2006).
40
2.5.7 Electronic control and management units Many contemporary RWH systems have the option of including an electronic control and management unit. This is not essential and some systems can be controlled using simple mechanical float valves and a low-level switch to trigger the pump. However, more sophisticated controls allow for the use of float switches, pressure sensors and electrically actuated valves which can result in better overall performance (Leggett et al, 2001b). Controls can also have visual readouts of systems status, such as the level of water in the tank, or report if there is a problem such as pump failure, disinfection failure or filter blockage (Konig, 2001). A significant fraction of the proprietary systems currently for sale in the UK come supplied with electronic controls as standard.
Electronic controls consume electricity and so will add to system running costs, although power consumption is generally low. They also have a finite lifespan and will likely need replacement after 15-20 years (Lutz Johnen of Aqua-Lity, personal communication, 24th April 2006)
2.5.8 Header tank Indirect systems require the use of a header tank. This is normally located in the roof void of the building and should be at least 1m above the point of supply. High and low level switches are used to signal the storage tank pump when to activate and when to disengage. If mains top-up occurs in the header tank then this is usually controlled by a low level switch in conjunction with a solenoid or float valve (Leggett et al, 2001b).
41
2.5.9 Mains top-up arrangement Given the intermittent nature of rainfall it is rare that a RWH system can be designed such that a constant supply of harvested water can be guaranteed. In times of shortfall it is advisable to have a top-up arrangement which can supply enough mains water to meet short-term demand. Top-up can be provided in a number of locations. In an indirect system it most commonly occurs in the header tank, although it can also be in the storage tank. Direct systems normally have mains top-up in the storage tank although a variation exists known as a centralised system in which the pump and mains top-up are integrated into a single unit located inside the building. If the main storage tank runs empty, mains water is fed into the suction pipe of the pump and from there water is transferred directly to the point of use (Woods-Ballard et al, 2007). Topup controls can consist of simple mechanical valves controlled by flotation devices or more complicated systems involving float activated switches coupled with solenoid valves.
2.5.10
Solenoid valves
Solenoid valves are typically used to start/stop the mains top-up function. A float activated switch, located either in the header tank (for indirect and gravity fed systems) or primary storage tank (for direct systems), triggers the valve if the water volume falls below a predetermined level. This activates the mains top-up function, ensuring that a minimum amount of water is available at all times. Once the minimum water level has been restored, the float activated switch closes the valve, shutting off the flow of mains top-up water.
42
Solenoid valves have a typical life expectancy of between 5 and 10 years (Leggett et al, 2001a). The power consumption of solenoid valves suitable for use in RWH systems is low, typically in the range of 2-5W and they only consume power when operating (Jerry Cook of Red Dragon Valves Ltd, personal communication, 25th May 2007) so running costs can be expected to be minimal.
2.5.11
Distribution pipework
A pipe distribution network is required to transport water from the storage tank to the point of use and a wide selection of pipes are available that are suitable for this task. Further information on appropriate pipe materials and installation protocols can be found in The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 (HMSO, 1999), WRAS (1999a) and Leggett et al (2001b). Plastic pipes are commonly used. These are durable and, if installed correctly, have a long service life although they will require replacement at some point, typically after about 20 years of use (Leggett et al, 2001a).
2.5.12
Guttering and collection pipework
Rainwater runoff from the catchment surface needs to be collected and diverted to the rainwater storage device. If the catchment surface is a roof then collection is generally via a system of gutters feeding into one or more downpipes and from there into the storage device. For further information refer to HMSO (1999, 2000a) and WRAS (1999a).
43
2.5.13
Catchment surface
In urban locations the most commonly utilised catchment areas are roofs (Hassell, 2005; Fewkes, 2006) although runoff can also be collected from other impermeable areas such as pavements, roads and car parks (Environment Agency, 1999a). Not all of the rain falling on a catchment area can be collected as some is lost from the system due to processes such as depression storage and evaporation (Wilson, 1990; Butler & Davies, 2004). Other factors that also influence the amount of lost water include the rainfall depth and intensity, antecedent conditions, the material the catchment is made from and the catchment slope (Li et al, 2004).
The effective runoff is the volume of rainwater falling on the catchment that can be collected and routed into the collection network of gutters and pipes. When estimating the effective runoff volume, a commonly used approach is to employ a dimensionless runoff coefficient that represents the observed losses from the catchment compared with an idealised catchment from which no losses occur (Fewkes, 2006). The effective runoff is calculated by multiplying the volume of rain falling on the roof by the coefficient. A coefficient value of 0 would mean that no runoff occurs whilst a value of 1 would mean that all the rain falling on the catchment is translated into effective runoff. Examples of runoff coefficients for a variety of different roof types are given in Leggett et al (2001b) and are reproduced below in table 2.1. This data is based on the long-term experience of German RWH system manufacturers
44
Table 2.1
Common roof runoff coefficients Adapted from Leggett et al (2001b), p42.
Surface Type Roof Pitched roof tiles Flat roof, smooth surface Flat roof with gravel layer or thin turf (<150mm)
Coefficient 0.75-0.90 0.50 0.40-0.50
2.6
Water quality
In the UK, for harvested water intended for potable uses the Private Water Supplies Regulations (1991) apply (Leggett et al, 2001a). By contrast, there are currently no legally binding quality criteria for water derived from reuse systems (rainwater and greywater) intended for non-potable uses (Roaf, 2006). Kim et al (2007) state that in order for water systems to become more sustainable the quality of the water supplied should correspond to the intended applications. This practice will help to identify alternative sources that can be utilised where demand is for non-potable water. The same principle has also been proposed by a number of other authors, e.g. Alegre et al (2004); Sakellari et al (2005). The information presented thus far in this chapter has demonstrated that rainwater can be used for a number of non-potable applications such as WC flushing, washing machines, garden irrigation and vehicle washing. None of these uses involve the (intentional) consumption of harvested water. It could therefore be argued that standards less stringent than those required for potable water would be acceptable for non-potable uses such as these.
In the UK a range of water quality guidelines and recommendations exist for rainwater harvesting systems. Some of these are derived from monitoring studies conducted on RWH systems, such as those monitored as part of the
45
Buildings That Save Water Project (Brewer et al, 2001). Others are based on existing standards such as the European Union (EU) Bathing Water Directive and World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations. Mustow et al (1997) recommend that quality guidelines should be application specific and propose different categories of use, each with different quality requirements depending on the likely degree of human exposure. Leggett et al (2001b) state that the greatest risk of microbiological contamination occurs when water is ingested or deliberately sprayed, creating an aerosol. Thus uses such as surface crop irrigation and vehicle washing would require a higher level of water quality than, for example, subsurface irrigation and toilet flushing. A sample of
recommendations found in the literature that relate to non-potable uses are summarised in table 2.2. Most of the information relates to microbiological quality since this is often considered to be the criteria of most concern when dealing with water reuse systems (WROCS, 2000).
46
Table 2.2
Summary of recommended microbiological water quality standards for non-potable applications

Key indicators Faecal coliform per 100ml Faecal coliform per 100ml
Reference WHO (1989)
Leggett et al (2001b)
Uses Irrigation of crops likely to be eaten uncooked, sports fields, public parks Irrigation of public lawns with which the public may come into contact, e.g. hotel lawns Washing machines
Threshold values 1000
200
Total coliforms per 100ml
0, or counts less than 10/100ml acceptable providing not in consecutive samples 0
WRAS (1999a)
Toilet flushing
E.coli per 100ml Faecal coliform per 100ml Faecal enterocci per 100ml Total coliforms per 100ml Faecal coliform per 100ml
<10,000
<100
EC Bathing Water Quality Directive (76/160/EEC)
Toilet flushing
<10,000
<2,000
Most non-potable use guidelines are less strict than those applicable to potable water supplies and allow for the presence of some bacteriological organisms. WRAS (1999a) make the point that most people are exposed to literally millions of faecal organisms whilst performing everyday activities and that for harvested water to add to the burden of exposure the faecal coliform content would need to be in excess of 10,000 per 100ml. Leggett et al (2001b) state that where
47
rainwater from a catchment with low contamination is used for WC flushing, washing machines and irrigation, and the system is well designed and operated, then disinfection is not necessary and should not be applied. For single-user installations (which includes domestic systems serving only one property) that are intended for WC flushing, irrigation and other non-potable uses Shaffer et al (2004) consider that coarse filtration and settlement provide satisfactory treatment. For multi-user installations (commercial and domestic systems serving several properties) the same criteria are recommended with the addition that disinfection to achieve a total coliform count <1,000 colony forming units (cfu) per 100ml should be applied if thought to be necessary. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992) and WHO (1989) guidelines also allow for some degree of microbiological contamination as does the EU Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC). Konig (2001) states that in well designed and operated systems only coarse filtration prior to entry into the storage tank is required and that the risk to human health from non-potable applications is minimal.
In light of the above information it was decided that water quality would not be explicitly considered in the thesis. It was assumed that adequate quality can be maintained for non-potable uses providing that, in line with the previous recommendations, rainwater undergoes coarse filtration prior to entry into the storage tank. The use of UV sterilisation may be considered in some instances but for domestic situations it was assumed that the use of UV is not necessary.
48
2.7
Contemporary rainwater harvesting in the UK
Compared to countries such as Germany the UK lags behind in the application of RWH technology and it has been estimated that by the turn of the millennium only between 1,000 and 2,000 systems had been commissioned (Hassell, 2001; Leggett et al, 2001b). However, the market is growing and at the time of writing it is reported that approximately 400 systems per year are being installed (UKRHA, 2007). The majority of system sales in the UK currently originate from member companies of the UK Rainwater Harvesting Association (UKRHA). This organisation is a focus group established in 2004 in order to help coordinate the activities of the private sector, disseminate information about and promote RWH, liaise with the Government and also contribute towards the research and development of RWH technology. They currently have 14 full members and it is believed that these represent about 75% of the UK market, which at the end of 2006 was estimated to be worth over three million pounds (Terry Nash of Freerain, personal communication, February 12th 2007).
2.7.1 Barriers to the uptake of RWH systems Roaf (2006) discusses the barriers for water conservation and reuse in the UK from the perspective of a range of stakeholders and actors, including central government & regulators, local authorities, water companies, private
consultants, architects, developers & planners, manufacturers, and customers & consumers. The key points raised that are of relevance to rainwater harvesting systems have been summarised in table 2.3. A more detailed discussion can be found in Roaf (2006), pages 221-233.
49
Table 2.3
Summary of key barriers to the uptake of RWH systems in UK Adapted from Roaf (2006), pp221-233.
Stakeholder(s) Central Government and regulators Local authorities
Water companies
Private consultants
Architects, developers and planners
Manufacturers
Customers and consumers
Key barriers Lack of water quality standards; lack of empirical data on which to base quantitative risk models; unwillingness of any Government or regulatory body to take responsibility for setting and monitoring standards Lack of knowledge by managers, council members, planners, building control officers and environmental health officers; poor communication between departments, lack of information regarding RWH system costs, maintenance requirements and water quality standards Profit motive for investing in water efficiency measures is low; industry focus is on reducing consumer costs not on creation of a sustainable water supply system; water sector in general lacks imagination, prefers single product mindset (mains supply) rather than multi-product mindset of which RWH could be a part Water efficiency currently seen as a poor relation to energy efficiency in terms of earning potential; lack of good quality information on the economics of water conservation and reuse; lack of clear standards; lack of a developed market for associated products General lack of knowledge and awareness; additional costs of construction and maintenance associated with water conservation and reuse systems; lack of current water quality standards; lack of a common technical language with which engineers, planners and architects can discuss water related systems Difficulty in achieving and maintaining reliable level of water quality; no established water quality standards; lack of an established market for water related products; uncertainty surrounding expected service life of systems; pioneering status of much of the technology; lack of good quality research with which to inform technology development UK does not have an established culture of water conservation; consumers tend to be reactive in their habits; low availability of good quality information; current low value of mains water; aversion to what may be seen as experimental technology; water quality issues
A number of other researchers have investigated or considered barriers to uptake. These are summarised in table 2.4.
50
Table 2.4
Further barriers to the uptake of RWH systems in UK

Identified barriers Unproven cost benefit, difficulties in operation and maintenance, lack of water quality standards and associated public health concerns, unproven technology and lack of guidance Cost effectiveness of systems, particularly domestic, is questionable Potential risk to public health, possible expense and complexity of installation, above ground tanks can be unsightly Cost of water rarely a driver for the end-user but cost of installing a RWH system may be seen as significant
Reference Brewer et al (2001); Leggett et al (2001a,b) Grant (2006) Woods-Ballard et al (2007) Brown et al (2005)
2.7.2 Public perception and acceptability One of the key factors in the success or otherwise of any water reuse scheme is the perception of the users and the acceptability to them of the existing or proposed technology. It is important that the social and cultural aspects of water use are considered when planning and designing such systems (Jeffrey & Gearey, 2006). Past failure to adequately take into account and address public concerns has led to the cancellation of a number of potentially beneficial reuse schemes (DeSena, 1999).
A review of the relevant literature was undertaken and the main results are summarised in table 2.5. The information presented in this table shows that there is little public opposition against, and some considerable support for, the use of harvested water for non-potable applications such as toilet flushing, laundry washing and garden irrigation. Generally speaking, the less personal or intimate the use, the higher the level of acceptability. The assumption is therefore that the use of RWH systems for non-potable applications, such as those considered in this thesis, would not be hampered in any significant way by opposition from the general public.
51
Table 2.5
Summary of key findings relating to the public perception and acceptability of non-potable RWH systems
Reference(s) WPCF, 1989; WROCS, 2000; Hills et al, 2003; Lazarova, 2003 Bruvold, 1985 Brewer et al, 2001 McDaniels et al, 2000 Jeffrey, 2002; Jeffrey & Gearey, 2006 Leggett et al, 2001b
Key findings Toilet flushing generally most readily accepted use for recycled water. Acceptability found to decline as use becomes more personal, i.e. as direct human contact becomes more likely Uses such as WC flushing are preferred to more intimate uses such as food preparation and cooking Little concern reported over use of harvested water for WC flushing Aesthetics (e.g. colour, odour and turbidity) impact upon the willingness to use recycled water, although these indicators may not necessarily be a reliable guide to actual water quality People are generally more accepting of the use of recycled water in their own homes than they are in public or institutional buildings If RWH systems are to become successful in the domestic market then their reliability will need to be comparable to that of other domestic systems such as hot water appliances Investigation into performance and public perception of a combined greywater, rainwater and groundwater system at the UK Millennium Dome. Out of >1,000 users interviewed, 95% agreed that such systems were appropriate for use in public areas Telephone survey in which 473 UK homeowners were asked various questions regarding their water use habits and opinion of RWH systems. 92% agreed that RWH was a good idea and 30% stated that they would be more likely to buy a house if it had a RWH system already installed. 63% stated that they would be most likely to install a system for financial reasons (e.g. reduced water bills)
Hills et al, 1999, 2002
BMRB, 2006
2.7.3 Drivers and potential benefits of RWH systems In the UK as elsewhere there is an emerging consensus that the traditional centralised and disparate approach to the urban water cycle is neither optimal nor sustainable (Argue, 2001; Hiessl et al, 2001; Maheepala et al, 2003, 2004; Anderson, 2005; Sakellari et al, 2005; Stacey, 2005; Roon, 2006). Historically, the primary aim has been the promotion of economic growth and the urban water cycle has essentially been compartmentalised with water supply, storm
52
drainage and wastewater treated as separate entities. This approach has led to the overexploitation of water resources and environmental damage (Geiger, 1995). Pratt (1995) identifies a range of problems currently facing the UK water sector: 1. In some parts of the country water demand is exceeding the available supply. 2. Resources that are available are not always located in areas of demand. This can result in the distribution of water over large distances (Fewkes, 2006). 3. Low flows in rivers due to over-abstraction. 4. Increased capital investment in water reclamation works has not always led to a corresponding improvement in receiving water quality. 5. The expansion of urban areas has resulted in increased runoff volumes and peak flow rates, negatively impacting river geomorphology, aquatic habitats and water quality. 6. Traditional approaches to flood alleviation can themselves create further problems elsewhere.
Shaffer et al (2004) list a number of drivers for sustainable water management: climate change, demographic changes, potential reduction of surface runoff and urban pollution, potential to save costs and planning requirements such as the need to comply with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk (DCLG, 2006a) and the Building Regulations Part H: Drainage and Waste Disposal (DCLG, 2006b). Roaf (2006) also provides a similar list of drivers: climate change, demographics, increasing rates of per capita
53
consumption, increasing rates of groundwater extraction, freshwater reserve depletion, increasing concentrations of chemical and organic pollutants in rivers and lakes, and increasing public opposition as well as practical barriers to major new dam projects.
The search for alternatives to the traditional solutions to urban water management are by no means limited to rainwater harvesting systems. There is on-going paradigm shift occurring in the UK towards the application of more sustainable and holistic approaches. Some of these measures include, but are not limited to: The use of SUDS for urban drainage (Martin, 2001; Wilson et al, 2004; Woods-Ballard et al, 2007). Demand management measures (Butler & Memon, 2006). Increased metering of domestic properties (Roaf, 2006). Voluntary codes of practice for improved water efficiency in new homes (e.g. DCLG, 2006c) and other buildings (e.g. BREEAM, 2007). Proposed changes to the regulatory framework and Building Regulations (House of Lords Select Committee, 2006). Improved leakage management strategies (Trow & Farley, 2006). Financial incentives such as the Enhanced Capital Allowance (ECA) scheme for water efficient technologies (HM Revenue & Customs, 2007a) Research projects (e.g. Balmforth, 2005).
54
Existing legislation that places water companies under a Duty to promote water conservation to customers, such as the Environment Act 1995 (Roaf, 2006). New legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000; Sakellari et al, 2005).
Rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses in urban areas primarily resides in the demand management category as the primary objective is to reduce the volume of mains water used. If RWH systems can reduce reliance on the public water supply then arguably there is good reason to believe that they can contribute towards the new sustainable urban water management paradigm. There are also a range of other potential benefits such as reducing the risk of urban flooding, financial savings and helping to offset the need to develop further resources (Leggett et al, 2001a). In some locations the provision of RWH systems may be a condition for planning agreements (Elliott et al, 2005). One RWH system supplier stated that about 15% of their domestic sales were influenced by planning requirements and that this figure would grow substantially in the future once the Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG, 2006c) was transposed into the Building Regulations (Terry Nash of Freerain, personal communication, 23rd April 2007). Leggett et al (2001a) provide a comprehensive summary of the potential benefits of rainwater harvesting and this is reproduced in table 2.6.
55
Table 2.6
Potential benefits of RWH Adapted from Leggett et al (2001a), pp28-29.

Stakeholder(s) who benefit Customer in reduced mains water charges Water Supply Undertaker in reduced need for capital investment in water supply infrastructure Society benefits in an improved natural environment
Benefit Reduction in the use of mains water (and potential financial savings)*
Applicability and sensitivity
Will only have an effect with widespread uptake
Reduced impact on water resources (and potential to offset need to develop further resources)* Reduction in mains supply peak demand Reduction in local flooding risk Reduction in stormwater overflow
Will only have an effect with widespread uptake
Customer mains supply more assured Society and building owners Society benefits in an improved natural environment Sewerage undertakers in reducing Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) operation Suppliers and manufacturers UK economy
Will only have an effect with widespread uptake Will only have an effect in a local catchment. This could be significant for new developments Will only have an effect with widespread uptake
Development of a new market both in the UK and overseas
Contribution to sustainability
Society, environment, economy
Green public relations
Individual organisations, building owners or occupiers
The UK market is likely to develop slowly over the next 10 years (from 2001) but there are clear opportunities in overseas markets such as Germany, South Africa and Australia Needs to be reviewed on an individual basis to ensure local sustainability. Sustainability of water resources in the UK will not be affected unless there is widespread uptake Benefits are being realised even from small projects. This can support corporate or organisational ideals and be used to demonstrate what is possible
Continued on next page
56
Table 2.6 continued Criteria for development permission Developers Local Environment Building purchasers Consumer Rainwater on individual development scale enabling development to proceed Requires space and money to meet water needs. Likely to be applied in only a few cases
Independence from mains water supply
*Text in italics added by the author
There is a degree of supporting evidence originating from a number of other countries for some of these benefits, e.g. Schilling & Mantoglou (1999); Coombes et al (2000a, 2001); Vaes & Berlamont (2001); Coombes & Kuczera (2003a); Villarreal & Dixon (2005); MJA (2007). However, there are limited corresponding studies specific to the UK. Some research does exist, such as that produced by CIRIA and a handful of case studies from the Environment Agency Water Efficiency Awards, and various university researchers have published peer-reviewed work. However, there are many claims for the supposed benefits of RWH that appear to have little substantive evidence to support them.
For example, Woods-Ballard et al (2007) state that rainwater harvesting has the advantage of reducing both peak flow rates and discharge volumes, ranking the performance of both of these indicators as high but no evidence or references are provided with which to corroborate these claims. Similarly, Hassell (2005) states that once a rainwater harvesting system is installed, rainwater from the site is diverted before it adds to the load on the stormwater drainage. But how much water can be expected to be retained, and under what circumstances?
57
Again there is no evidence or references provided with which to check this claim. Some suppliers state that a domestic system can save a typical household up to 50% of its water needs. However, claims such as these often appear to be based on an implicit assumption that a system is capable of meeting all non-potable requirements rather than any empirical analysis which would indicate that this is achievable in all but a small number of cases, e.g. Day (2002).
The following sub-sections examine the recognised potential benefits of RWH systems that are relevant to this thesis. That is, the potential reduction in mains water use by substituting it for harvested water in non-potable applications. Key evidence from the literature which is relevant to the UK is highlighted in order to determine the legitimacy of the claimed benefits that RWH can bring. Preference was given to studies that included an empirical element rather than purely theoretical/academic research since the goal was to ascertain actual measured, not speculative, benefits. Work that merely alluded to potential benefits and did not provide any supporting evidence or reasoned thinking was not included.
2.7.4 Reduction in mains water use (and potential financial savings) A reduction in mains water use is frequently cited in the literature as one of the primary benefits of installing a RWH system, e.g. see Gould & Nissen-Peterson (1999); Konig (2001); Leggett et al (2001a,b); Fewkes (2006). For buildings that contain a water meter, and are therefore charged for mains supply on a volumetric use basis, there is also the possibility of financial savings since some
58
amount of mains water can be replaced by harvested rainwater, resulting in a reduction in the users water bills. Harvested water should not be considered a free resource however as any RWH system has its own associated costs which have to be balanced against any reduction in mains supply charges. Whether or not a RWH system can result in an overall financial saving depends upon a number of site-specific factors, such as RWH system capital, operation and maintenance costs, local climatic conditions, catchment type and area, water demand, mains water and sewerage charges and so forth. The economics of RWH are an important part of this thesis and are covered in more detail in later chapters. This section in only concerned with reporting the general results of work done by others in order to assess in broad terms the likely levels of reduction in mains water use, and whether or not financial savings are possible.
A small number of UK studies exist in which the amount of mains water substituted by harvested rainwater was monitored in-situ, with some level of volumetric water savings observed in each case. The financial benefits were generally less clear cut, with claims that some systems provided an overall (often small) financial saving whilst others resulted in an overall financial loss. For the sake of brevity only the key findings from a selection of cases are presented here, in tables 2.7-2.9.
59
Table 2.7
Key RWH water saving and financial results for the Buildings That Save Water project (Brewer et al, 2001)
Key water saving and financial results Annual water usage for WCs and urinals was 376m3/yr, of which 150m3 (40%) was supplied by the RWH system. Reduction in annual water bill estimated as 241/yr. RWH system capital costs were 7,250 (purchase and installation). Yearly operating and maintenance costs were 214/yr, yielding a net saving of 27/yr. Payback period estimated as 267 years Office building/ecological builders merchant Annual water usage for WCs and sinks located in a newly refurbished 3-storey was 53m3/yr, of which 34m3 (64%) was 2 warehouse with 275m roof area. Occupancy supplied by the RWH system. was 10 staff, plus visitors. Direct RWH Reduction in annual water bill estimated system used to supply 6 WCs, 4 urinals and as 40/yr. RWH system capital costs 4 utility sinks used for cleaning purposes were 3,200 (purchase and installation). Yearly operating and maintenance costs were 27/yr, yielding a net saving of 13/yr. Payback period estimated as 240 years Ecological housing development consisting Annual non-potable consumption was of 5 sustainable terraced houses. All 377m3/yr, all of which was supplied by houses self-sufficient in water, no connection the RWH system. Total reduction in to mains supply. Rainwater for non-potable annual water bills for all 5 houses uses collected from roads, an earth banking estimated as 512/yr (compared to behind the houses and surrounding equivalent mains supply). RWH system grassland was filtered and used to supply capital costs were 11,854 (purchase water to 5 baths, 10 toilets and 10 taps and installation). Yearly operating costs were 110/yr, yielding a net saving of 402/yr. Payback period estimated as 30 years Notes: financial calculations were basic and did not include the use of a discount rate or irregular maintenance fees such as pump repair/replacement. Inclusion of these factors would have made the systems even less financially efficient. For primary reference, see Brewer et al (2001). See also: Leggett et al (2001a,b). RWH system description Office building with 50 occupants and 1,500m2 roof area. Indirect RWH system used to supply water to 12 WCs and 4 urinals. System included coarse filtration followed by a string filter and a UV unit. Building also incorporated low flush toilets and urinal controls
60
Table 2.8
Key RWH water saving and financial results for the Environment Agency water efficiency awards
Reference Environment Agency, 2001b
RWH system description Humberstone golf course: existing underground storage chamber adapted for use as part of RWH system for irrigation
Environment Agency, 2003a
Alfred McAlpine sports stadium: water collected from north stand, sports/office complex and selected hard surfaces. Water filtered, UV treated and used for pitch irrigation Great Oak domestic dwelling: 4bed house with indirect domestic RWH system used to supply WC, basement tap and 2 outside taps Christchurch junior school: indirect system collecting water from 1,100m2 roof used to supply 27 WCs, 4 urinals and 2 external taps
Key results Annual water use for irrigation was 4,700m3/yr, of which 1,400m3 (30%) was supplied by the RWH system. Few financial details available, payback estimated at approximately 5 years Annual water savings of 3,119m3/yr reported. No financial details available
Annual water savings of 100m3/yr reported. No financial details available
Water usage estimated as 876 litres/pupil/yr compared to 3,790 litres/pupil/yr for a similar building, indicating a 77% reduction in water usage. No financial details available Capital costs were 4,000. During first year of operation, system displaced 6,700m3 of mains water, saving over 4,000 During first year of operation, 170m3 of water was used for aforementioned purposes, of which 63m3 (37%) was supplied from the RWH system. No financial details were available RWH system estimated to have provided 25% of total water use within the building. No financial details available
Environment Agency, 2005a
Denys E Head Ltd: system using a surface pond for storage used to provide irrigation water to garden centre plant nursery. Beaumont primary school: rainwater collected from roof and used for WC and urinal flushing as well as garden irrigation
Belvedere House: flagship head office of engineering consultancy FaberMaunsell fitted with various water saving devices including a RWH system
Sutton Courtenay Environmental Monitoring showed that RWH Education centre: RWH system system was able to supply 49% of for supplying water to low-flush the centres water needs. No WCs to visitors centre with over financial details were available 5,000 visitors per year Note: no discount rate used in any of the above cases
61
Table 2.9
Key water saving and financial results from a number of domestic RWH system case studies
Key water saving and financial results Water usage for WC flushing estimated at 165 litres/day of which (on average) the RWH system was able to supply 110 litres/day (22% of total household demand). System capital costs were 2,500. No further financial details were available Results for house on plot 7: total water demand over the monitoring period of 248 days was 75.7m3, of which 35.6m3 (47%) was supplied by harvested rainwater. No financial details were available No figures available but between 2002-2004 mains water only required for relatively brief period after prolonged period of dry weather. Would indicate significant water savings. No financial data available Over 12 month monitoring period 63.8m3 was used to flush WCs of which 36.4m3 (57%) was harvested rainwater. No financial details were given in this particular paper
Reference Ratcliffe, 2002
RWH system description 3-bed household in Telford with RWH system supplying water for WC flushing
Day, 2002
RWH system installed at the Millennium Green development, Newark. 24 new homes were fitted with RWH systems for WC flushing, washing machines and outside taps Harvesting/irrigation system installed at a garden centre, Gonerby Moor. Runoff collected from 3,000m2 roof area and used to irrigate 15,000m2 plant display area RWH system installed in 2-bed single storey domestic property in Nottingham. Harvested water used to flush two 9-litre WCs
Stephenson, 2002
Fewkes, 1999a
2.7.5 Reduction in mains water use: discussion The evidence presented above illustrates that RWH systems are able to reduce reliance on the public water supply by substituting mains water with harvested rainwater for various non-potable end uses, with WC flushing been the most common. The case studies reviewed indicated that up to 50% of non-potable domestic demand can be met with harvested water but that in practice a wide range of system performances can be expected. Little data was available with
62
regards to the financial performance and in some cases no financial assessment was made at all.
Systems installed in commercial and institutional buildings were most commonly used for WC and urinal flushing. Water saving efficiency varied significantly between examples and it seems unlikely that generalisations can be made regarding the performance of such systems. Financially, commercial and institutional installations would appear to be more viable than the domestic versions, principally because the former generally have larger roof/catchment areas and so it is possible to capture a greater volume of water. Also, for a given commercial/institutional building the level of demand will probably exceed that found in domestic dwellings, meaning that the potential savings are likely to be higher for the former building type. However, as with the domestic examples, limited empirical data was available with which to corroborate these statements.
The application of discounting techniques (in order to take into account the opportunity cost of capital) was not apparent in any instance, a major limitation in the those examples that did attempt some form of financial assessment.
2.8
Policy, regulation and guidance
There is currently no formal UK Government policy on the operation of rainwater systems either in the home or within a commercial/industrial setting. However, numerous regulations affect system installation as well as use and some, such as the Health and Safety at Work Act, are relevant even when installation occurs in a private house. Shaffer et al (2004, pp27-35) provide a
63
summary of a range of policy, regulation and guidance documents that may apply to the installation and operation of RWH systems. The Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) gives advice on the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 in WRAS (1999a,b). Best practice guidance documents are available from CIRIA as a result of the Buildings That Save Water project (Brewer et al, 2001; Leggett et al, 2001a,b). Guidance on the operation and maintenance of RWH systems as well as example maintenance agreement documents are provided in Shaffer et al (2004).
2.9
RWH literature review: summary and scope for further work
This literature review has demonstrated that rainwater harvesting is an ancient technology that has been used around the world for millennia and continues to be widely used to this day. In developed countries potable RWH systems tend to be restricted to rural areas. Urban installations are mainly used for nonpotable applications such as WC and urinal flushing, laundry cleaning (washing machines) and for outdoor uses such as garden irrigation and vehicle washing. RWH systems have been installed in a wide variety of property types including domestic, commercial, institutional, public and industrial buildings. The use of standardised pre-manufactured modular systems is now common practice. These offer several advantages such as a high degree of design flexibility, ease of installation, high levels of reliability and a supply of water at a quality consistently good enough for most non-potable applications.
Regarding water quality, it was noted that many rural communities around the world rely on harvested rainwater to supply most, if not all, of their domestic
64
water needs including drinking supplies. There have been very few reports of adverse health effects from drinking rainwater in rural areas. In industrial and urban areas harvested rainwater often fails to meet drinking quality guidelines, particularly with respect to microbial standards. However, monitoring studies have shown that, providing systems are designed and operated correctly, harvested rainwater usually meets with guidelines applicable to non-potable uses such as the EU Bathing Water Directive and guidance provided by WHO and WRAS. The conclusion of researchers in the field has generally been that rainwater collected from building roofs that has undergone basic treatment processes (primarily coarse filtration) poses little risk to public health if used for purposes such as toilet flushing, laundry washing and garden irrigation.
Numerous barriers to the uptake of RWH systems exist. These chiefly relate to the absence of legally binding water quality standards, lack of high quality research, current low cost of mains water, water utilities focus on profit generation and macro scale solutions, unproven benefits, low consumer awareness, apathy and/or reluctance to conserve water and risk aversion to new technology. However, despite these obstacles the increasing pressure on existing water resources, coupled with the apparent unsustainability of the more traditional supply-side solutions, means that demand management options such as RWH are likely to play an increasing important role in supplying the UKs future water needs. Currently the UK market for RWH systems is small compared to some other developed countries but appears to have significant potential for growth.
65
The potential benefits of RWH systems were identified. These included reductions in metered mains water use and associated financial savings, as well as reduced pressure on water resources and reductions in peak demand, local flood risk and stormwater overflows. However, it needs to be recognised that many of these benefits remain unproven within a UK context, with only a reduction in mains water use having any reasonable volume of supporting empirical evidence. Further work needs to be done in order to determine the magnitude of the other possible advantages, if indeed they exist at all.
The remainder of this thesis focuses on the potential water saving and financial benefits of RWH systems for new-build developments, particularly with regards to the financial performance and viability of domestic installations. The scope of the investigations was set at the single building scale as this can be considered to be the basic unit for RWH system operation. Results generated at this level could also be used in future studies concerning RWH system implementation at the development and regional scales, which currently also lack good quality UKspecific data.
Before any detailed research could be conducted it was first necessary to determine the state of the art with regards to the design and financial assessment of contemporary RWH systems. These aspects are examined in the following two chapters.
66

UK Rainwater Harvesting Literature Review - Bradford University

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UK Rainwater Harvesting Literature Review - Bradford University

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University

Rainwater Harvesting Literature Review

Flowchart demonstrating fundamental rainwater harvesting processes

Production of runoff from catchment surface

Water storage in reservoir

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

A brief history of rainwater harvesting

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting in a modern context

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Common drivers for RWH in the developed world

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Types and configurations of RWH systems

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainfall Mains top-up

Cross flow filter Manhole cover

Storage tank Grey/black water to foul sewer system Pump

Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Mains top-up Manhole cover

Cross flow filter

Storage tank Supply Pump

Grey/black water to foul sewer system

Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

See figure 2.6 for a schematic of a gravity fed RWH system.

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Cross flow filter Tank

Grey/black water to foul sewer system Soakaway/infiltration device or sewer

Components of RWH systems

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Schematic showing range of common RWH system components

Mains top-up with type AA/AB air gap

Collection guttering First flush diverter

Soakaway/ infiltration device or sewer

UV unit Storage tank In-tank filter Pump In-line filter(s)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Cross-sectional sketches of typical first flush diverters

Outflow Container for holding first flush

Throttled first flush outlet

Throttled first flush outlet

First flush interceptor

First flush splitter

Reinforced concrete box

Inflow Debris screen

Outflow Concrete baffle

First flush pit

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Cross-sectional sketches of typical crossflow filters

Filtered water to tank

Debris and unfiltered water