Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

Economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in

multi-storey buildings
E. Friedler*, M. Hadari
Division of Environmental, Water and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel
Tel. +972 (4) 829-2633; Fax: +972 (4) 822-8898; email: [email protected]

Received 22 March 2005; accepted 3 October 2005

Abstract
This paper analyses the economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in the urban sector. RBC- and MBR-based
systems were selected as model systems for the economic analysis. The analysis showed that the investment costs of
an RBC-based system consist of less than 0.5% of the price of a flat for buildings of more than 20 flats (five storeys).
At a water price of 1.16 US$/m3 and sewage charges of 0.3 US$/m3, the RBC-based system became economically
feasible when the building size reached seven storeys (28 flats). The on-site MBR-based system proved to be
economically unrealistic, becoming economically feasible only when the building size exceeded 40 storeys. Cluster
MBR-based systems, incorporating several buildings together, became feasible when the cluster size was four buildings
or more (each 10 storeys high). A subsidy of 0.7 US$/m3reused resulted in much smaller systems becoming economically
feasible: four-storey buildings (16 flats) for the RBC system and two buildings for the cluster MBR system. The on-site
MBR system (single building) remained unfeasible.

Keywords: Greywater reuse, Urban; Economic aspects; Decentralised reuse; On-site treatment; Cost benefit
analysis; MBR; RBC

1. Introduction
as water ample (Japan, Europe), suffer from water
Population growth coupled with ever-increas- scarcity. This necessitates the development of
ing urbanization, and in many cases a parallel rise additional resources, e.g., exploitation of more
in specific water demand, results in continuous distant (surface water) and deeper (groundwater)
growth of urban water demand in many regions sources, construction of new dams and long
around the world. Today many large urban areas, conveyance systems, and seawater desalination.
even in regions that were traditionally considered Utilising these new sources usually entails high
direct costs (construction, operation and main-
*Corresponding author. tenance), and is likely to result in high indirect

0011-9164/06/$ See front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2005.10.007
222 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

(external) costs (increasing negative environ- is realistic if the government would promote and
mental effects). Therefore, lowering the overall encourage such a practice. Indeed on-site grey-
urban water demand has recently become an water reuse has been investigated extensively in
important issue for water utilities and regulatory the last decade, especially in the EU, Japan, USA
bodies. This could be achieved by a combination and Australia. However, full-scale commercial
of different measures such as increasing the systems are not very common [6,812].
efficiency of water supply systems (lowering real Greywater, in contrast to common perception,
losses), installation of water-efficient appliances, may be quite polluted, and thus may pose health
raising public awareness to water saving, and re- risks and negative aesthetics (i.e., offensive odour
using water as a new alternative resource. and colour) and environmental effects [1,1316].
When considering urban water reuse, on-site As a result, highly efficient and reliable con-
greywater reuse has the potential to play a veyance, storage and treatment systems are
significant role. required. Various treatment systems are reported
Indoor domestic water demand (excluding in the literature varying in complexity and degree
garden irrigation and other external uses) in of treatment [12,13,1720]. Friedler [15] demon-
developed countries usually ranges between 100 strated that since domestic greywater production
and 180 L/d per capita or 3666 m3/y per capita is greater than its consumption (reuse for toilet
[16], comprising 3070% of the total urban flushing), it is possible and preferable to
water demand. Besides minor quantities, most reuse only light greywater (i.e., the less pol-
consumed water is transformed into wastewater, luted greywater streams originating from baths,
which can be classified into two major categories: showers and washbasins) and thus reduce treat-
C Greywater: originating from all household ment costs and possible adverse effects.
water-generating appliances except toilets, Most research to date has focused on the
comprising 6070% of the in-house water development and performance of different treat-
demand. ment and reuse units, whereas the economic as-
C Blackwater: originating from toilets, compris- pects of greywater reuse have been scantily
ing 3040% of the in-house water demand. addressed. The goal of this paper is to perform an
economic analysis of on-site greywater reuse
In urban areas the most feasible greywater systems, since unless proven to be economically
reuse option is for toilet flushing, which can feasible, greywater reuse practice will not become
reduce individual in-house net water demand by widespread. The analysis was performed on
4060 L/d per capita. If this practice becomes newly built houses where the greywater reuse
widespread, a reduction of up to 1025% in urban system was installed during construction of the
water demand can be achieved. For example, building (retrofit systems were not considered).
Friedler and Galil [7] showed that in 2023, with The paper focuses on multi-storey residential
a 30% penetration ratio (i.e., 30% of houses buildings, which are typical to densely populated
having greywater reuse units installed), greywater urban areas where the water saving potential is
reuse for toilet flushing in the domestic sector most significant on a regional/national scale.
could save about 50 MCM/y in Israel (projected
population 10106). This consists of about 5% of
2. Methods
the projected national urban water demand and
equals the capacity of a medium-size seawater 2.1. Basic considerations
desalination plant. The authors further demon- When performing an economic analysis of on-
strated that reaching 30% penetration in 20 years site greywater reuse, two distinct entities can be
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 223

Table 1
Greywater reuse costs and benefits of individual consumers and the general public

Benefits Costs

Individual consumer:
C Money saving C Network separation
Water bill Collection: grey, black
Sewage bill Supply: potable, treated greywater
C Greywater treatment system
Capital costs
Operation and maintenance costs
Monitoring costs
C Treated greywater conveyance
Energy
General public:
C Water resources
Development of new resources can be postponed
C Water abstraction
Less energy
C Water treatment
Less energy
Fewer chemicals
Existing plants: enlargement can be postponed
Future plants: smaller
C Water conveyance and distribution
Less energy
Existing systems: enlargement can be postponed
New systems: smaller
C Wastewater collection C Wastewater collection
Less energy (force mains) Lower flows, more blockages?
Existing systems: enlargement can be postponed
New systems: smaller
C Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) C Wastewater treatment plants
Lower pollutants loads (degradable pollutants) Higher pollutants concentration (less dilution)
Less energy?
Fewer chemicals
Existing WWTP: enlargement can be postponed?
New WWTP: smaller?

identified differing in their share of costs and The individual consumer who uses less fresh
benefits (Table 1): water (as greywater is reused for toilet flushing)
C Individual consumer defined as an indi- benefits from reduced water and sewage bills
vidual flat owner/tenant, a family living in a (sewage charges are usually proportional to water
flat, a group of occupants living in the same demand). On the other hand, the individual con-
multi-flat building, etc. sumer carries the financial burden of paying the
C The public in general defined here as any capital, operation and maintenance costs of the
of the following stakeholders: the general pub- treatment and reuse system. The public does not
lic, local authority, public water utility, private pay for the on-site greywater reuse systems, while
water company, central government, etc. it benefits from the reuse practice of individual
224 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

consumers: since individual consumers use less

water, the costs of water (abstraction, treatment,
conveyance and distribution) are bound to be
lower, and it is the general public who pays these
costs. The same is true for wastewater: lower dis-
charges mean less expenditure on sewage col-
lection and treatment. It should be noted that
reduced flows in sewers may result in a higher
frequency of clogging events in existing sewers.
However, this problem should not be substantial
since many (or even the majority of) existing
municipal sewer systems are maintained close to
or over their design capacity. Wastewater treat-
ment plants might have difficulties in dealing
with the higher concentrations of some pollutants
(the loads of biodegradable pollutants will
decrease while the loads of non-biodegradable
ones will not change).
The above investment model is one of many
possible models of cost-sharing between the indi-
vidual consumer and general public. This is the
most extreme cost-sharing model since the public
does not share any costs with the individual con-
Fig. 1. Schematic layout of greywater collection and
sumer while it does share most benefits (all but
distribution.
reduced water and sewerage bills). As such, it
forms a useful example for the purposes of this
study. components (Fig. 1): collection of raw greywater
The analysis performed addresses the direct from each flat, conveyance of treated greywater
costs and benefits to the individual consumer, to the storage tank (situated on the roof), and
while benefits (and costs) to the public in general distribution of treated greywater from the storage
are addressed indirectly through a subsidy policy tank to WC cisterns in each flat.
as explained later. Lateral pipes collect light greywater from its
The basic building-blocks of the analysis are sources (bath, shower and washbasin) to a central
typical multi-flat buildings. Data on these were vertical collector pipe. The extra costs associated
derived from ICBS reports [21] and from the with these laterals are low since most building
Ministry of Housing, which are: typical family standards require separate laterals for greywater
size, 3.4 persons; one family per flat; four flats and blackwater collection. Further, in most multi-
per floor; floor height, 3 m. storey residential buildings, bathrooms and WCs
are situated near the vertical shaft/s of the build-
2.2. Description of the on-site greywater treat- ing in order to reduce costs. In a typical non-
ment and reuse system components recycling building greywater and blackwater
collectors merge to one conduit in the vertical
2.2.1. Conveyance systems shaft. In a greywater reusing building, a sepa-
The conveyance system consists of three main rate pipe should be installed in the vertical shaft
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 225

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the greywater treatment systems: A, MBR-based system; B, RBC-based system.

in order to convey raw greywater to the basement 2.2.2. Treatment units

(or the entrance floor) where the treatment unit is Two treatment technologies were selected
situated. Treated greywater is then pumped to the to serve as models for the economic analysis
top of the building to the storage tank and con- (Fig. 2): a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system,
veyed from there gravitationally through a sepa- which represents the latest generation of compact
rate pipe in the vertical shaft to the WC cisterns intensive wastewater treatment technologies; and
in each flat. Any shortage of treated greywater in a rotating biological contactor (RBC) system,
the storage tank is topped up by fresh water which represents a well-proven, more extensive
through a one-way valve, and any excess is dis- technology, especially suitable for small plants.
charged through the blackwater collector of the The MBR unit consists of an equalisation basin
building. (regulates flows, quality and temperature of the
226 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

raw greywater), membrane bioreactor and a disin- C Storage tanks: Fewkes and Ferris [24] showed
fection unit (chlorination). The RBC unit consists that a 1 m3 storage tank should be sufficient to
of an equalisation basin, RBC, and a sedimen- regulate between raw greywater production
tation basin, followed by a disinfection unit and treated greywater consumption for toilet
(chlorine). In urban areas excess sludge, scum flushing for a large range of buildings sizes.
and sediments are discharged to the municipal Dixon et al. [4] demonstrated that as little as
sewer system. 0.150.2 m3 storage is sufficient. In the system
Nolde [22] states that after 10 years of experi- examined, two storage tanks of 1 m3 each
ence, RBC-based greywater reuse systems proved were selected, regardless of building size, one
to be very reliable and produced high-quality near the treatment unit for storing raw grey-
effluent. Nolde [22] adds that MBR-based sys- water and one on the rooftop for storing
tems are starting to make their way into the field treated greywater prior to its reuse (Fig. 1).
of on-site greywater treatment and reuse systems. C Chlorination unit: Information gathered from
Friedler et al. [17,23] also report that both RBC- distributors of chlorination equipment re-
based and MBR-based greywater treatment sys- vealed that for on-site greywater reuse, small
tems (pilot scale) were very reliable and con- chlorination units are suitable. The cost of
sistently produced effluent of excellent quality. these units is quite high, and does not vary
with capacity (Table 2). Disinfection by UV
2.3. Costs irradiation should be less expensive. However,
it does not allow for residual disinfectant and
2.3.1. Capital costs thus needs further investigation.
Capital costs of all system components were C Additional expenses: Ancillaries such as pipes,
received from leading manufacturers and distri- small devices, valves, fittings, etc. These are
butors (who requested anonymity). These in- needed mainly in the treatment unit and were
cluded the costs of the components plus instal- estimated at 15% of total cost.
lation. Where possible, regression analysis was
performed on data acquired from various sources 2.3.2. Operation and maintenance (O&M)
in order to derive a cost function to each com- costs
ponent (Table 2). For storage tanks, RBC, and O&M costs include costs of energy needed for
pumps, the best regression was obtained using a treatment and conveyance, cost of labour (main-
power equation (R2= 0.94, 0.978, not applicable, tenance personnel), cost of disinfectant (chlorine),
respectively), while for the MBR unit the best cost of preventative treatment of the MBR mem-
regression was obtained using a logarithmic branes, and costs of spare parts and repairs, with
equation (R2 = 0.868), suggesting higher sensi- the following details:
tivity of cost to size in the low-size range. The C Labour: Based on experience from small
following system components deserve further wastewater treatment facilities, 1 h per week
attention: maintenance is required, at a rate of 20 US$/h.
C Conveyance system: Based on the above dis- C Disinfectant: Liquid chlorine disinfectant will
cussion, it was estimated that additional 5 m be used (11%) at a price of 0.26 US$/L.
of pipes are needed inside each flat (collect, Friedler et al. [17,23] showed that the chlorine
distribute), and 9 m per floor (33 m: collect, demand of greywater effluent treated by either
convey to the rooftop storage, distribute to the RBC or MBR unit does not exceed 3 mg/L
floors). (satisfying 1 mg/L residual chloride after 1 h
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 227

Table 2
Capital costs of various components of the reuse system

Item Cost basis Units Cost function R2 Data sources

Pipes Length US$/m C=6@L [30]

Storage tanks Volume US$/m3 C = 144 @ V 0.484 0.940 2 leading
Israeli distributorsb
Pump Flow US$/(m3/d) C = 594 @ Q 0.0286 a 2 Israeli distributorsb
MBR Flow US$/(m3/d) C = 18,853 + 17,945 @ Ln (Q) 0.868 3 international
manufacturersb
RBC Flow US$/(m3/d) C = 3,590 @ Q 0.6776 0.978 Leading British
(incl. sed. basin) manufacturerb
Chlorination Unit US$/unit C = 1,670 a 2 Israeli distributorsb

a
Not enough data points.
b
Preferred not to reveal their identity.

contact time as required in various reuse greywater to the storage tank on the rooftop,
standards). Thus, the yearly cost of chlorine at a cost of 0.11 US$/kWh (Israel Electric
solution can be expressed as: Corporation).
1. Treatment: A leading MBR manufacturer
reported energy consumption of 11.5 kWh/
(1) m3treated greywater. A value of 0.50.75 kWh/
m3treated greywater (corresponds to 0.10.16 kWh/
m3 reactor) was calculated based on Davies et al.
[25], who analysed the energy consumption of
where Cchlorine solution is the annual cost of chlorine
much larger treatment units (650
solution [US$/y]; chlorine dose is 0.003 [kg/m3]
10,000 m3/d). For the MBR unit, a value of
(3 mg/L); Q is the greywater flow [m3/h]; X the
1.5 kWh/m3treated greywater was used for calcu-
fraction of chlorine in the chlorine solution
lating O&M costs.
[kgchlorine/kgsolution] (solution contains 11% chlor-
Based on data from a leading British manu-
ine, thus X = 0.11); is chlorine solution density
facturer, the following equation was derived
[kg/L] (approximately 1 kg/L), with the unit cost
for power consumption in the RBC (R2 =
0.26 US$/L.
0.991):
The right-hand side of Eq. (1) was obtained by
inserting the above values into the middle section
(2)
of the equation.
C Preventive maintenance of MBR membranes: where P is power consumption [W] and Q is
Membranes require periodical preventive the greywater discharge [m3/d].
treatment with chemicals, the costs of which 2. Conveyance: The pump that conveys
were assessed by a leading international treated greywater to the top of the building has
manufacturer at 0.020.03 [US$/(m3/y)]. The to overcome elevation difference and the head
higher value was taken for the analysis. loss is the pipes [Eq. (3)].
C Energy: Consumed for the operation of the
treatment units and for conveying treated (3)
228 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

where Hp is the head to be supplied by the 1.04 and 1.45 US$/(m3/month) for the first 8 m3/
pump [m]; Z the elevation difference [m] and month, the next 7 m3/month, and excess amounts
Hf is the head loss in the conveyance pipe of water consumed, respectively. Sewerage is
[m]. charged in accordance with potable water
Each storey was considered to be 3 m high. consumption at a constant rate of 0.3 US$/
Since the treatment units will be situated (m3potable water consumed/month).
either in the basement of the building or on Considering a typical flat of 3.4 occupants
the entrance floor where usually there are no (see basic considerations section, above) and
residential flats, an extra 3 m were added to all average domestic water demand of 161 L/d per
elevation calculations, e.g., for a four-storey person, of which 55 L/d is used for toilet flushing
building, the pump should overcome an eleva- [26], a typical flat consumes 16.7 m3/month (with
tion difference of 15 m (43 m + 3 m) and not a total cost of 16.5 US$/month, ~200 US$/y), of
12 m. Head losses in the pipes were calculated which 5.7 m3/month is for toilet flushing. Thus,
by the HazenWilliams equation: when greywater is reused for toilet flushing, the
first 1.7 m3/month of saved water is worth
1.45 US$/m3, and the remaining 4 m3/month is
(4) worth 1.04 US$/m3, with a weighted average cost
of 1.16 US$/(m3/month). Adding sewage charges
results in a total savings of 1.46 US$ for each m3/
where Q is the flow [m3/h], cH!W is the month of reused greywater. The annual benefit
smoothness coefficient (assumed 130); D the per flat stands at US $100, of which, US $79.5 is
diameter [mm] (assumed 1", 25.4 mm); and L in water bills and US $20.5 in sewage bills.
is the length [m]. An additional 15% was
added to the calculated values to account for
local head losses. 2.5. Method of calculation
Power required by the pump was calculated
by: The net annual costs saving due to greywater
reuse is the sole means of paying back the capital
investment. Eq. (6) describes the net annual
(5) saving:

where P is the power required for pumping (6)

[W]; = !g [kg/(m2s2)] ; Q is the flow
[m3/s] and is the pump overall efficiency where R is the net annual saving [US$/y], RWS the
(pump and engine together, assumed 75%). annual savings on water and sewage bills [US$/y]
C Spare parts and repairs: These were estimated and CO&M are the annual O&M costs [US$/y].
at 2% of total investment costs per year. Eq. (7) serves as the basis for calculating the
investment return period:

2.4. Benefits
(7)
Benefits to individual consumers stem from
reduced water and sewage bills. Potable water is
charged in Israel on a per flat basis, at a stepwise where R is the annual payment [US$/y], i the
differential price of (updated January 2005): 0.74, annual interest rate (currently 5.5%/y in Israel); n
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 229

is the investment return period and C are the total system (cost of the system as a proportion of the
investment costs [US$]. cost of a flat), may be more important than its
Representing the investment return period in nominal costs. In order to assess the relative
Eq. (7) as a function of capital costs, annual cost investment costs, three prices of residential flats
savings (R) and interest rate yield: were selected: US $100,000, US $150,000 and
US $200,000 (based on the typical price range in
Israel [21]). The analysis shows that the propor-
tional investment costs of the RBC-based system
(8) are quite marginal, while the proportional costs of
the MBR-based system are somewhat higher
(Fig. 3C and D). For example, considering
US $150,000 flats (average price in Israel), the
Only when R > C@i is the expression inside the proportional cost of an RBC-based system is less
logarithm in the numerator positive, and the equa- than 1% and 0.5% for a building of more than
tion has a solution. This is logical since only four and 20 flats (one and five storeys) respect-
when the net annual saving is greater than the ively, while the MBR-based system proportional
annual interest paid on the capital costs is it pos- cost becomes lower than 1% and 0.5% only when
sible to return the investment costs (this is the the building consists of more than 40 and 120
physically possible solution). However, in order flats, respectively (10 and 30 storeys).
to be economically feasible, the return period (n) The specific (cost per flat) O&M costs (con-
has to be shorter than the serviceable life of the veyance, treatment and distribution) of the RBC-
system. Since electro-mechanical equipment based system is reduced with increasing number
comprises a major part of the total capital costs, of flats, while the specific income does not
the serviceable life of the whole system was set at change with size, as it stems from reduced water
15 years. demand of each flat, leading to reduced water and
Based on the above data, assumptions and sewage bills (Fig. 4). It can be seen that, under
considerations, an economic analysis for each the current water and sewage prices in Israel
system was performed, the results of which are (1.16 + 0.3 US$/m3), when the number of flats
presented in the following section. exceeds 1012 (a three-storey building), the
specific income becomes positive, and the system
enters the region of a physically possible solution.
For the MBR-based system (results not shown),
3. Results and discussion
the specific income becomes positive only when
The investment costs of the RBC- and MBR- the number of flats exceeds 2428 (a 67 storey
based systems are very sensitive to the size of the building).
system, especially in the low-size range (Fig. 3A Under the current Israeli water prices, the
and B). The specific investment costs (costs per RBC-based reuse system becomes economically
flat) of the RBC-based system become lower than feasible (return period <15 years) when the num-
1,000 US$/flat when the number of flats exceeds ber of flats exceeds 2628 (7-storey building,
10, while for the MBR system about 80 flats are Fig. 5A). The figure further shows that for the
needed in order to reach the same specific cost. water price in the US (0.51 US$/m3 [27,28])
This indicates that the MBR-based system is about half the Israeli price the system becomes
much more expensive than the RBC-based one. feasible only when the building is 19 storeys high
The proportional investment costs of the reuse (>76 flats), a size which is currently not very
230 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

Fig. 3. Investment costs of the greywater treatment and reuse system. A, RBC specific costs; B, MBR specific costs;
C, RBC proportional cost; D, MBR proportional cost.

common. Nevertheless, when the water price rises based systems are not feasible on an on-site scale
to 1.9 US$/m3 (Germany [27,28]), the system be- (single building), but rather on a cluster scale
comes feasible when the number of flats exceeds (incorporating several buildings together). Even
15 (~four storeys). This great variation demon- at the German water price, the system is hardly
strates the high sensitivity of the economically realistic, becoming feasible only when the build-
feasible solution to water prices in the small-size ing is over 20 storeys high.
systems range. In order to investigate the economic feasibility
The MBR-based system becomes economic- of cluster MBR-based greywater reuse systems,
ally feasible (at Israeli water prices) only when an imaginary cluster of buildings was considered,
the building is 38 storeys high (152 flats; the basic unit of which was a 10-storey-high
Fig. 5B). This is, of course, currently quite an building (40 flats). The difference between a
extraordinary height for residential buildings. stand-alone building and a building in a cluster
Thus, at the current Israeli water price, MBR- lies in the need to convey raw greywater to the
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 231

Fig. 4. Annual specific O&M costs and saving of the

RBC system.

central treatment system and to distribute treated

greywater to each building. It was assumed that
each building needs an extra two 50-m-long pipes
at a cost of 6 US$/m. The outcome of this analy-
sis shows that a cluster of four buildings becomes
economically feasible (Israeli current water price;
Fig. 6), with a return period of 13.5 years. The
return period decreases sharply to 4.9 years for a
cluster of 10 buildings. The explanation of this
phenomenon is that the specific investment costs
of the treatment units decrease exponentially with
cluster size, while the specific conveyance costs Fig. 5. Greywater reuse system return period under dif-
(investment and energy) remain almost constant ferent water prices. A, RBC system; B, MBR system.
with cluster size.

greywater reuse systems in order to enhance this

3.1. Subsidies and incentives
practice. This can be done by various measures
As discussed above (basic considerations such as subsidies per m3 of greywater reused,
section), it appears that the financial benefits that establishing a fund from which individuals can
on-site greywater reuse offers on a regional/ borrow money needed for the investment costs at
national scale may be much more significant than interest rates lower than the market ones, reduced
the benefit to the individual consumer. This is property taxes for greywater reusing buildings,
especially true in regions suffering from water etc.
scarcity. Thus, local and or national authorities To demonstrate the effects of such measures,
may want to encourage individuals to install Israel was selected as a case study country. In
232 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

tem remained unrealistic in most circumstances,

becoming feasible for a 20-storey-high building
(return period 14.3 years).

4. Conclusions
This paper analysed the economic feasibility
of on-site greywater reuse systems in new build-
ings in the urban sector, since a prerequisite for
this practice to become widespread is its eco-
nomic feasibility to the individual consumer.
Two distinct entities in the urban sector were
defined: the individual consumer/s, and the public
Fig. 6. Return period of a cluster MBR-based greywater
in general. The most extreme cost-sharing model
reuse system.
is when the individual consumer exclusively pays
for the system (and benefits from reduced water
order to alleviate its chronic water shortage, sea- and sewage bills), while the public does not share
water desalination plants are being constructed, any of the costs. At the same time, the public
with a total projected capacity of over 300 does share most benefits resulting from the reuse
106 m3/y. Greywater reuse will actually decrease practice of individuals (positive consequences of
the amount of water to be desalinated, thus the overall reduction of water consumption and
cost saving to the public equals the cost of desali- sewage flows).
nated water, which is estimated at 0.7 US$/m3 Under this extreme model (not sharing any
(75% production and 25% conveyance [29]). costs), the investment costs of an RBC-based
Thus, in order to reduce the total expenditure on system consist less than 0.5% of flat price
water, the Israeli government can subsidise (US $150,000 in Israel) for building of more than
individual greywater reuse schemes by up to 20 flats (five storeys). Such marginal extra costs
0.7 US$/m3. This is a conservative value as the (much less than other components of the build-
actual savings will probably be higher since ing), emphasise the attraction of the system to
factors such as costs of sewage collection and entrepreneurs: For a minor cost increase (most of
treatment (see Table 1) and external costs of sea- which will be passed over to the buyer), they get
water desalination (air and marine pollution, land an environmentally friendly image, enabling
cost) were not considered. them to sell green flats that sell better and for
Adding a 0.7 US$/m3 subsidy to the economic more, especially to the middle and upper-middle
analysis showed that the RBC-based system classes. The investment costs of the MBR-based
became economically feasible when the number systems were found to be about three times
of flats was equal to 16 (four-storey building, higher (1.7% of flat price for the same building
return period of 12.8 years), while the return size).
period for a seven-storey building shortened from Considering a water price of 1.16 US$/m3 and
15 to 6.4 years. The cluster MBR-based system sewage charges of 0.3 US$/m3, the RBC-based
became economically feasible when two build- reuse system became economically feasible when
ings were serviced together (return period the building size reached seven storeys (28 flats),
14.3 years). The single building MBR-based sys- while the on-site MBR-based system was proven
 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234 233

to be economically unrealistic, becoming feasible technology dominated by few manufacturers and

only when the building size exceeded 37 storeys. not widespread (particularly in the small size
Nevertheless, cluster MBR-based systems, incor- range).
porating several buildings together, was found to The analysis demonstrated that on-site grey-
become feasible when the cluster size was four water reuse is a feasible solution for decreasing
buildings (each 10 storeys high). overall urban water demand, not only from an
The return period was found to be very sen- environmental standpoint, but also from econo-
sitive to building size and to the price of water, mic profitability under typical conditions.
especially in the small size range. This is due to
the fact that the specific cost of the treatment
system (which is very sensitive to size) comprised Acknowledgments
a major part of the total investment costs, while Financial support from the Grand Water
the specific cost of the conveyance system (which Research Institute, the Technion, and the Israeli
does not vary much with size) comprised only a Water Commission is greatly appreciated. The
minor part of the total investment costs. authors further wish to thank the manufacturers
As mentioned, considering this extreme model and distributors (local and international) who
the public benefits from the reduced overall water courteously supplied us information on the capital
consumption and from reduced sewage flows, but and O&M costs of various units.
does not carry any financial burden. Since these
benefits could be substantial on a regional/
national level, authorities may want to encourage References
individuals to install on-site greywater reuse
systems. [1] M.C. Almeida, D. Butler and E. Friedler, Urban
Water, 1 (1999) 4955.
To demonstrate this, a conservative subsidy of
[2] R. Birks, S. Hills, C. Diaper and P. Jeffrey, Assess-
0.7 US$/m3reused (cost of production and conve-
ment of water savings from single house domestic
yance of desalinated seawater) was added to the greywater recycling systems. Efficient 2003, 2nd Int.
economic analysis. Adding this subsidy resulted Conf. on Efficient Use and Management of Urban
in much smaller systems becoming economically Water Supply, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, IWA,
feasible. The RBC-based system became eco- AWWA and AEAS, 2003.
nomically feasible when the building size was [3] D. Butler, E. Friedler and K. Gatt, Water Sci.
four storeys high (16 flats). A cluster of two Technol., 31(7) (1995) 1324.
buildings served by the MBR system became [4] A. Dixon, D. Butler and A. Fewkes, Water Sci.
feasible with a return period of 14.3 years, while Technol., 39(5) (1999) 2532.
a cluster of 10 buildings has a return period of [5] E. Friedler and N.I. Galil, On-site greywater reuse in
less than 3 years. This example clearly shows that multi-storey buildings: Sustainable solution for water
greywater reuse in the urban sector becomes more saving. Efficient 2003, 2nd Int. Conf. on Efficient
Use and Management of Urban Water Supply,
attractive when a consensus on appropriate distri-
Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. IWA, AWWA and
bution of costs and benefits, risks and respon-
AEAS, 2003.
sibilities is reached. [6] A.D. Wheatley and S. Surendran, in C. Maksimo-
If on-site greywater reuse practice becomes vich, D. Butler and F.A. Memon, eds., Advances in
widespread, the costs of the systems will obvi- Water Supply Management, Balkema, The Nether-
ously decrease, making them more appealing to lands, 2003, pp. 545550.
individual consumers. This is especially true for [7] E. Friedler and N.I. Galil, in C. Maksimovich, D.
the MBR-based systems which are an emerging Butler and F.A. Memon, eds., Advances in Water
234 E. Friedler, M. Hadari / Desalination 190 (2006) 221234

Supply Management, Balkema, The Netherlands, [21] Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS), 54th sta-
2003, pp. 535544. tistical abstract of Israel, 2003. Data from web site:
[8] UK Environment Agency, A study of domestic www.cbs.gov.il.
greywater recycling, 2000. [22] E. Nolde, Water Sci. Technol., 51(10) (2005) 203
[9] E.A. Gardner. Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supp., 210.
3(4) (2003) 2131. [23] E. Friedler, N.I. Galil, R. Kovalio and Y. Levinsky,
[10] V. Lazarova, S. Hills and R. Birks, Water Sci. Greywater recycling for toilet flushing in multi-
Technol.: Water Supp., 3(4) (2003) 6977. storey buildings. Final report to the Grand Water
[11] E. Nolde, Urban Water, 1 (1999) 275284. Research Institute, Technion, Haifa, Israel, 2004.
[12] M. Ogoshi, Y. Suzuki and T. Asano, Water Sci. [24] A. Fewkes and S.A. Ferris, Build. Env., 17(3) (1982)
Technol., 43(10) (2001) 1723. 209216.
[13] C. Diaper, A. Dixon, D. Butler, A. Fewkes, S.A. [25] W.J. Davies, M.S. Le and C.R. Heath, Water Sci.
Parsons, T. Stephenson, M. Strathern and J. Strutt, Technol., 38(45) (1998) 421428.
Water Sci. Technol., 43(10) (2001) 8390. [26] Water Conservation Division, Israel Water Commis-
[14] A. Dixon, D. Butler and A. Fewkes, J. IWEM, 13 sion (IWC), Water saving in the domestic sector,
(1999) 322326. 2002.
[15] E. Friedler, Environ. Technol., 25(9) (2004) 997 [27] D. Okun, Water, Fluids Irrig. Eng., 1 (1999) 512 [in
1008. Hebrew].
[16] J.B. Rose, G.S. Sun, C.P. Gerba and N.A. Sinclair, [28] NUS Consulting. Wasserpreise, Internationaler
Water Res., 25 (1991) 3742. Wasser-Preisvergleich 20012002. http://www.
[17] E. Friedler, N.I. Galil and R. Kovalio, Water Sci. aquamedia.at/downloads/download_1005.pdf, 2003
Technol., 51(10) (2005) 187194. [in German].
[18] S. Hills, A. Smith, P. Hardy and R. Birks, Water Sci. [29] H. Bilik, Israel Municipal Water Works Adminis-
Technol., 43(10) (2001) 287294. tration, 2004, pers. comm.
[19] B. Jefferson, A.L. Laine, T. Stephenson and S.J. [30] Dekel, Computer Services for Engineering, Database
Judd, Water Sci. Technol., 43(10) (2001) 211218. of prices for the construction industry, 2004, pp. 41
[20] H.S. Shin, S.M. Lee, I.S. Seo, G.O. Kim, K.H. Lim 43 [in Hebrew].
and J.S. Song, Water Sci. Technol., 38(6) (1998)
7988.