Environmental Engineering and Management Journal August 2014, Vol.13, No.

8, 1847-1859
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania

CONVENTIONAL vs. VACUUM SEWERAGE SYSTEM IN RURAL

AREAS - AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH

Iulia Carmen Ciobotici Terryn, Iuliana Lazar, Valentin Nedeff, Gabriel Lazar

Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau, Faculty of Engineering, Calea Marasesti, 157, Bacau 600115, Romania

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate new perspectives with respect to the greening of the wastewater collection, subsequently
assessing the value of the vacuum over the conventional wastewater collecting system in rural areas. The research was framed
from the perspective of policy makers to aid in making decisions about benefits on long term horizon in implementing eco-
innovative infrastructure technologies. The study postulates the hypothesis that the vacuum sewerage system is technologically,
environmentally, economically and socially more sustainable in comparison with the classical solutions for the wastewater
collection. Economics provides a powerful tool for helping solve environmental problems. A comparative analysis between two
variants of the same project considering vacuum and conventional sewerage technologies was performed, by using as input for
current research the Cost-Benefit Analysis. Tracing costs and benefits sheds new light on the innovative technologies for
wastewater collection. The analysis of the case study provides evidence to support the hypothesis that the vacuum technology can
succeed in overcoming the environmental crises by internalizing the externalities, having the capacity to improve environmental
factors, reduce energy and maintenance costs. Besides, this research shows the need to provide a framework for further analysis
that is essential for the promotion of eco-innovation and reflexive institutions.

Key words: cost-benefit analysis, eco-innovation, rural area, vacuum sewerage system, wastewater collection

Received: February, 2014; Revised final: August, 2014; Accepted: August, 2014

1. Introduction Collection and wastewater treatment have a

huge impact on the environment and economy,
In spite of the literature on eco-innovation and considering that each community needs access to
its economic analysis there are some unexplored basic utilities in sanitation sector. In this respect
areas such as wastewater collection and the increased attention has to be paid to the adoption of
environmental impact of eco-innovation (Abernathy eco-innovation for the reduction of the environmental
and Utterback 1978; Beise 2001; Beise and Rennings impact correlated with the reduction of the
2004; Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006; Duncan construction, functioning and maintenance costs.
1996; Frondel, Horbach, and Rennings 2007; There are three major challenges the local
Gouldson and Murphy 2000; Hegger et al. 2010; councils in rural areas are facing nowadays: obsolete
Horbach 2008; Horbach 2012; Huber 2008a, 2008b; or lack of sewerage systems, limited access to
Johnstone 2005). Eco-innovation brings about innovative technologies due to reduced transfer of
increased eco-efficiency and improved metabolic know-how and scarce financial resources for
consistency, in line with reducing energy demand, wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the investing
etc. (Huber 2008a), therefore internalizing authorities, instead of investing in eco-innovative
externalities. Some authors insist on the positive role technologies, are being forced to invest in less
played by costs reductions as a motivation of clean efficient and sustainable technologies, focusing on
technologies (Foxon and Pearson 2008).

Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: [email protected]

 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

short-term social benefits related to the number of the discharge of pollutants into the environment. In
connections. this regard, the main criterion of comparison is the
In the context of social and economic security of the system in what concerns the leakage
evolution of rural space correlated with infrastructure of wastewater into soil and groundwater. In this
development, an important place is represented by regard, the research seeks to highlight areas for
the preoccupation for the management of financial improving the comprehensiveness and adequacy of
funds. They must meet the requirements of satisfying assessing the externalities in the frame of CBAs of
the individual and collective needs, of public and infrastructure development projects.
private entities functioning in accordance with the The research postulates the hypothesis that on
economic and social objectives, consistent with the long term the vacuum sewerage system is
principles of sustainable development (Bulgariu et al. technologically, environmentally, economically and
2013). socially more sustainable and feasible in comparison
The relation between the environment and with the classical solutions for the wastewater
economic development has always been at odds, collection pumping stations with solids separation.
thus, the development of vacuum sewerage as an eco- The analysis focuses on a simulation of a particular
innovative system or wastewater pumping stations territorial context, the case of flat land rural area in
with solids separation is seen as a window of Romania. It is expected that the results of the study
opportunity for overcoming the environmental crisis. will provide the decision makers with
Even if the need and urgency of sewerage are recommendations in making decisions about benefits
recognized, adequate resources are not always on long term horizon in implementing eco-innovative
available to provide sewerage immediately in all infrastructure technologies in what concerns the
populated areas, therefore selecting the best option is economic viability and sustainability.
of paramount importance. Sewerage projects should
be prioritized by weighting costs and benefits for 2. Material and methods
each alternative (Rashid and Hayes 2011).
As environmental quality is acknowledged as 2.1. Methodology
a social need, in the process of decision making both
direct regulation instruments and market principles This section presents the analytical model of
are being used as a decision support tool in selecting data analysis and the arguments behind the
the best alternatives in wastewater planning. hypothesis that is tested in this work. Due to the
Economics provides a powerful tool for helping solve exploratory character of the study, a qualitative and
environmental problems. quantitative research was used. A desk study was
The European Union Water Framework conducted in order to make an inventory of the main
Directive (WFD) and Urban Waste Water Directive innovations in wastewater collection technologies.
(WWD) pay considerable attention to economic The cost-benefit analysis is a tool for
analysis to water planning. In this respect, WFD assessing the efficiency of alternative public choices
requires that cost-benefit analyses (CBA) are made within set budgetary limitations. The present study
with the aim of identifying cases in which the demonstrates how to tackle the decision making
adoption of measures to achieve a good ecological questions regarding the disposal of wastewater from
status for water bodies implies disproportionate costs an economic stand-point. It compares two different
(Molinos-Senate, Hernandez-Sancho, and Sala- wastewater collecting systems by computing in
Garrido 2010). Cost- benefit analysis has been used Microsoft Excel the costs and benefits applied to a
as an evaluation tool in private and public sectors specific case study in Romania. A financial cost-
projects (Rashid and Hayes 2011; Molinos-Senate, benefit analysis was carried out to analyze the effect
Hernandez-Sancho, and Sala-Garrido 2010; Pickin of implementing the vacuum sewerage system vs.
2008; Van der Bruggen et al. 2009; Godfrey, classical solution alternative with pumping stations
Labhasetwar, and Wate 2009; Papa, Casper, and with solid separation for wastewater collection. The
Moore 2013), whenever its application in sewerage question in place is whether it is financially and also
sector is limited. environmentally beneficial to construct a vacuum
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, a sewerage system in comparison with the classical
comparative financial cost-benefit analysis is solution.
carried out in order to quantify the range of costs and
benefits associated with investment in two variants of 2.1.1. Stages of CBA
modern wastewater collecting systems. The paper In any CBA, several stages must be
aims to obtain useful information of the financial conducted: defining the project, identifying impacts
feasibility of the construction, operation and which are economically relevant (estimating costs
maintenance of alternative wastewater collection and benefits), physically quantifying impacts,
systems. calculating a monetary valuation, discounting,
The main proxy for the two variants of weighting and sensitivity analysis (Hanley and
projects is the energy consumption. Secondly, a new Splash 2003).
method is developed to quantify environmental The economic evaluation compared the value
benefits, associated in economic terms with avoiding of all quantifiable benefits gained due to a specific

1848
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

project variant with the costs of implementing the that are defined in economic terms as positive
same intervention. externalities. Externalities as a whole are made up of
2.1.1.1. Estimated costs and benefits positive and negative impacts derived from the
Data on costs and benefits came from primary project alternatives.
data collected from feasibility studies, from other For small scale projects, these positive
published studies, catalogues of products, statistics, externalities are not quantified according to the
and from expert opinion. The analysis considers Guide for cost-benefit analysis of investment projects
resources costs and benefits associated with two because they do not have a market value. In order to
project alternatives. The study makes the proviso capture the total economic value of environmental
that the analysis does not attempt to monetize all risks associated with each project variant, the
costs and benefits, focusing on the competitive monetary valuation of positive externalities is
advantages of both sewerage collecting technologies. important in order to justify the economic feasibility
All different economic, social and of the projects in wastewater collection.
environmental costs for the target group of the Environmental benefits result from avoiding
project were taken into account including local external environmental effects. They reflect the value
inhabitants, socio-economic activities, as well as of environmental damage avoided derived from
impact on employment, health, tourism, and wastewater collection. In this regard, it was
environment. The study reflects mainly on two considered the probability of sewer seepage
categories of costs. Information on the first category occurrence in both alternatives.
of costs that concerns the wastewater collection and In financial terms, it was assessed the value of
treatment is the most precise. Information on the the externalities generated by the wastewater seepage
second category regarding prevention and into the soil and groundwater as the aggregated
environmental management costs are more difficult amount of pollutant emission discharged into
to determine, because it can overlap with the first environment without treatment with a direct effect on
category. Estimated costs (financial outputs) include groundwater. The method proposed consists in
those of investment/capital costs (planning, quantifying the cost of the damage avoided as a result
supervision, hardware, machinery and equipment, of each project variant implementation. The
civil works), recurrent or operating costs (energy difference between the parameters of NTPA 002
consumption, materials, services, technical and (Romanian Government 2005b) (Normative
administrative personnel, maintenance costs). concerning the conditions for wastewater discharge
Benefits include financial benefits (financial into urban collecting systems or directly into waste
inflows) that comprise the taxes applied for water treatment plants) and NTPA 001 (Romanian
wastewater connection and revenue earned from Government 2005a) (Normative establishing the
sewer bill, quantifiable socio-economic benefits pollutants limits for urban and industrial waste water
associated with direct benefits of avoiding water- when discharged into natural receivers) and the
borne infections, benefits from collateral activities as probability of leakage occurrence was used in
new economic activities that will generate calculating the amount of each individual pollutant
employment, benefits from tourism development, discharged into the environment that makes the
benefits from the increased value of properties and difference between the two design variants of the
land etc. Regarding the benefits, the environmental sewerage system. Both regulations transpose the
ones are more difficult to quantify from a financial requirement of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC
point of view. All costs and benefits were evaluated (1991) concerning the urban waste water treatment.
by converting them into financial impacts.
Cost-benefit analysis starts from the premise 2.1.1.3. Time horizon and residual value
that a project is feasible only when the aggregated The time horizon for wastewater collection
benefits exceed all costs. Whenever, it is well known and treatment projects is of 30 years and represent
that wastewater collection and treatment it is a the maximum number of years for which forecasts
feasible process mainly from the point of view of are provided. The time horizon included the time for
positive environmental externalities as we deal with design, construction, start-up and operation of the
proving a public good. We pose that the most sewerage system and wastewater treatment plant. The
efficient wastewater collection process is the one that residual value of the investment is a liquidation value
minimizes input consumption (energy) and calculated by considering the residual market value
undesirable output generation (smell and pollution of fixed capital (assets and liabilities) at the end of
generation, leakage) while minimizing the operating considered time horizon. The residual value (set at
and maintenance costs. 39.58%) is expressed at constant prices and not
distorted, and it is allocated in the last year of the
2.1.1.2. Financial quantification of environmental time horizon of the investment project.
externalities
CBA has few recognized limitations as 2.1.1.4. Decision rule and discounting
concerns the valuation of environmental and social The international methodology of financial
issues. Wastewater collection and treatment has analysis of the project on a cash flow forecast basis
important environmental and public health benefits suggests conducting the financial analysis and the

1849
 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

calculation of the investment returns using the total untreated directly into soil. The role of the local
cost of the investment. In order to evaluate the authorities is to provide the best alternative in what
financial attractiveness of a project alternative concerns the financial and environmental concerns
against the other, the Net Present Value (NPV) and on long term that is why a cost-benefit analysis helps
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) techniques were used. in the process of decision making. The topography of
Both techniques emphasize the importance of the the studied area is flat, allowing for the design of
concept of the time value of money. vacuum sewerage system, but also for the classical
The discount rate recommended by the solution for wastewater collection with pumping
European Union and applied within the two projects stations with solids separation.
is 5%, and it is used to discount the financial flows to The study includes the analysis of two
the present and calculate the NPV. It represents the alternative projects for the construction of a sewerage
rate at which future values are discounted to present, system for two small sized suburban, rural
and it is, in fact, the opportunity cost of the capital. In communities. The project includes in the first stage
order to calculate the NPV it was necessary to use a the development of a sewerage system for Siretu
discounted cash flow, including the annual inflows Village and a wastewater treatment plant placed in
and outflows over the 30 year time horizon, Rusi Ciutea village dimensioned for the entire
considered the time of investment. volume of wastewater for the two communities. The
The IRR describes by how much the cash meaning of the study is to offer a comparative
inflows exceed the cash outflows on an annualized analysis of two alternate wastewater collection
percentage basis, taking into account the timing of systems keeping the wastewater treatment plant as a
those cash flows (Parissis et al. 2011). The IRR of constant for the two alternatives. The objective of the
the investment is calculated considering the total paper is not to get into details concerning the
investment costs as an outflow, together with the wastewater treatment plant, even though the financial
operating costs and revenues as an inflow and costs were included for both variants, but to look at
measures then capacity of operating revenues to the competitive advantages of the two wastewater
sustain the investment costs. collecting systems.
Finally, we calculated the benefit-cost ratio,
an important indicator of the relative efficiency of a 3. Options analysis: Vacuum sewerage system vs.
project defined as total benefits divided by the total classical solution alternative with pumping
costs of the project. The time value of money it is stations with solid separation
incorporated, therefore, the present values of the
benefits and costs are incorporated. All calculations 3.1. Vacuum sewerage system scenario
were made on a yearly basis.
Vacuum sewage system is an eco-innovative
2.1.1.5. Sensitivity analysis solution for wastewater collection because it deals
The impact of the most significant parameters mainly with environmental and health protection,
was estimated. It allowed the determination of the reduced seepage and odors, economies in energy
critical parameters of the model. Such parameters consumption in the operational phase, therefore
are those whose variations, positive or negative, have internalizing the externalities (extra non- monetary
the greatest impact on the projects financial costs of pollution generation). The general conditions
performance. The analysis was carried out by varying conducting to the use of the vacuum system include
one element at a time and determining the effect of especially terrain conditions as unstable soil, flat
that change on IRR or NPV. We considered those terrain, rolling land with small elevations, high water
parameters (discount rate, investment value and table, sensitive eco-systems, and developed rural
electricity costs) for which an absolute variation of areas (Airvac Inc. 2013; Deutsches Institut fr
1% around the best estimate gives rise to a Normung (DIN) 1996; Roediger 2013).
corresponding variation of not more than 5% in the The system is based on the principle of using
NPV and 1% of RIR (i.e. elasticity is unity or the differential pressure in vacuum pipelines to
greater). collect the wastewater and transport it to a vacuum
station, then gradually to a centralized wastewater
2.2. Area of the study treatment plant (Airvac Inc. 2013; Deutsches Institut
fr Normung (DIN) 1996; Roediger 2013; Buchanan
The case study presented herein is that of a et al. 2010). Regarding the functioning principle, a
small community in Romania. The villages Siretu vacuum is generated at a single point in the sewerage
and Rusi Ciutea (Letea Veche commune, Bacau system, thus requiring only one point of energy
County, Romania) count together 1996 residents, consumption, simplifying power sourcing and
communities with no major economic activities. The reducing construction and ongoing operational costs.
population is connected to the water supply system The energy is used for the vacuum generators to
with an average of 3.4 inhabitants per family and evacuate the vacuum pumps and pipelines and for the
nowadays does not dispose of a sewage system and discharge pumps to discharge wastewater out of the
wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater being vacuum system in an existing sewage system or a
collected in septic tanks, privies or discharged wastewater treatment plant.

1850
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

In the construction phase, the vacuum collection chambers.

sewerage brings savings by avoiding deep and large For a better functioning of the vacuum station
excavations, a smaller diameter of the pipes, and for reducing air emissions from vacuum
elimination of pumping stations etc. A number of generators, a bio-filter was planned (2.5 square
minimum 200 connections or more is necessary. meters). The filter media absorb odors and volatile
Thus, the entire investment including the vacuum compounds from the airstream by oxidation to
station, connection chambers and monitoring system carbon, inorganic salts and water with the support of
justify the investment, and the investment costs are micro-organisms in the filter media. Bio-filter
recovered. It is reported that monthly power costs achieves a reduction of sulfuric acid of greater than
range from $1.66 to $3.34 per month per connection. 95%.
Larger stations typically have lower power
consumption per connection (Buchanan et al. 2010). 3.2. Conventional sewerage system with solid
The vacuum sewer system proved to be with 23.91% separation wastewater pumps scenario
cheaper than the gravity sewer system, from the
economical point of view while the pumping sewer Conventional gravity sewers convey sewage
system is only with 1.7% cheaper than the gravity through pipelines to the wastewater treatment plant
system (Panfil et al. 2013). with means of five pumping stations. The sewer lines
The solution proposed as a first alternative for are installed on a specific alignment, with interspaced
wastewater collection consists in dimensioning a manholes placed at set intervals, at pipe intersections
vacuum sewage system and of a wastewater and changes in pipeline direction. Construction of the
treatment plant to treat the wastewater from Rusi system on flat terrain requires deep excavations (1.2
Ciutea and Siretu villages. The vacuum sewerage to 5 m below ground level) and proper preparation
system is represented by the pressure sewers, and bedding materials are required in the pipeline
collecting chambers, vacuum station, bio-filter, trenches. Installation of pipe, manholes, pumping
gravitational sewer from the vacuum station to a stations, building connections, junction chambers or
pumping station, a pumping station that pumps the boxes and terminal cleanouts, requires large amounts
water into the wastewater treatment plant. of excavation.
Vacuum mains are slightly sloped towards the Due to efficiency reasons and environmental
vacuum station (min 0.2%), excepting the lifts in the aspects and in order to keep a balance between the
saw tooth profile that help in keeping the sewer lines two sewerage options, five pumping stations with
shallow. Diameters in vacuum sewers are in the solids separation were selected to transport the
range of DN 90 and DN 250 mm (inner diameter) as sewage by collecting pipes and send it further in a
can be seen in Table 1. HDPE pipes are applied in wastewater treatment station.
vacuum systems due to their low costs of installation The wastewater treatment plant keeps the
and flexibility. DIN EN 1091 requires a thickness of same characteristics as in the previous analysis. The
at least PN 10; within the project the chosen sewers are designed to be installed on the axis of the
thickness is PN16. Leakages do not appear in road due to configuration of the land and
vacuum systems due to an absolute tightness of impossibility to dig large trenches on the sides of the
installations. The pipes are aligned on both sides of road. According to the producers (KSB Group 2013),
the road, in comparison with the classical solution the solid separation wastewater pumping stations
when the sewers were planned to be aligned on the bring few benefits:
axis of the road. Advantages of the solution arise - energy saving due to pumps with narrow ball
from the fact that the road infrastructure is not passage, which produces better efficiency than with
damaged during the works, also for further conventional sewage pumping stations;
interventions for maintenance and repairing. - considerably less susceptible to plugging as the
The vacuum sewers are connected to a pumps do not come into contact with the solids in the
vacuum station equipped with hydraulic, electrical, wastewater;
ventilation and control unit installations. The vacuum - uninterrupted operation during maintenance or
station consists of three rotary vane vacuum pumps repair work due to the station's double-pump design
that generate vacuum in the sewer lines (3 x 5.5 kW), and individual shut-off of the solids separation
a collection tank made of steel dimensioned reservoirs;
according to the flow rate and vacuum suction - all parts are accessible from outside, so very
capacity to 10 cubic meters (4.17 l/sec), and two easy to maintain and hygienic;
sewage pumps that discharge sewage away from the - resistance to corrosion and long life due to
collection tanks to a gravitational sewer (2 x 11 kW). construction from PE-HD material.
The vacuum pumps maintain a negative This innovative technology separates the
pressure between -0.4 and -0.6 bar in the collection solids from sewage and guides it into separate solids
tank. When the tank pressure falls under a preset separation tanks. Only pre-purified sewage is able to
limit, the vacuum pumps start working to restore the continue through the pump into the large, combined
pressure. As such, vacuum pumps run only for 2-3 collection tank. The coarse solids are eliminated from
hours a day. A monitoring system was designed to the sewage, and in the next step the sewage is
indicate the status of the vacuum valves and transported by the dry sump pumps and pumped

1851
 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

downward into the collection tank. We presume that 100% of households in the
On the way to the outgoing pipeline, the selected area will be connected to the sewerage until
sewage flows through the solids separation tank, the 20th year of the time horizon. Our assumption is
pressing the solids out. The pumps function with that the biggest connection rate will take place in the
higher efficiency since only purified sewage without first three years after the project implementation
coarse solids flows through the pumps, leading to (around 80%), then the connection rate will decrease
significant saving on energy and thus on operating gradually until the 20th year, when the potential
costs. Moreover, blockages are no longer a problem. development of new houses will end due to
One outline of the classical sewerage system construction land limitations. The investment cost for
investment with solid separation pumping stations is vacuum sewerage system is 1,392,259.13 euro, while
presented in Table 2. for the conventional system is 1,358,797.06 euro.
Costs and benefits are presented assuming that
4. Results and discussions all the investment interventions are implemented
within the first two years. The costs associated with
This section discusses the main findings and wastewater collection and treatment has been
implications obtained from the analysis with respect grouped in five groups: staff, energy for wastewater
to the selection of the best alternative in wastewater collection, and energy for wastewater treatment,
collection in terms of financial implications, costs for wastewater treatment (reagents, waste
environmental and social benefits. management etc.), administrative costs and
As the average water consumption in maintenance.
Romania in the rural areas is about 100 l per person Considering the two wastewater collection
per day, the total demand for domestic use for technologies, the energy consumption for both
selected case study is 451.24 cubic meters a day. The project variants represented a proxy for selecting the
volume of wastewater to be collected and treated has alternative with less energy consumption. The major
been estimated at 375.62 cubic meters on the basis of cost is the investment cost, whereas the most
average daily water consumption, taking into account important operating cost is energy cost for
the reduction of volume of water for farms (livestock wastewater treatment. Staff costs reflect wages,
consumption). The estimation of wastewater demand social security charges, taxes, etc. The staff costs
for new connections is based on data gained from were considered similar for the two projects, the
previous experience in the area based on the concept implementation of the projects employing a number
of the consumer willingness to pay. The maximum of two persons for the exploitation and maintenance
requirement for wastewater collection is taken into of the investment.
account for the investment.

Table 1. Outline of the vacuum sewerage system investment

Collecting Vacuum
L Pumping River
Sewers Chambers station + bio-
(m) stations (pcs.) crossing
(number) filter
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11,
1268
PN16, DN 90 x 8.2 mm -3 rotary vane
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11, vacuum
24
PN16, DN 110 x10 mm pumps (3 x
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11, 5.5 kW),
17
PN16, DN e 125 x 11.4 mm -a collection
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100,SDR11, 50 (PVC) tank made of
0
PN16, DN 140 x 12.7 mm steel (10 cubic
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11, meters-4.17
450
PN16, DN 160 x 14.6 mm l/sec),
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11, -2 sewage
50 pumps (2 x 11
PN16, DN 200 x 18.2 mm
Vacuum sewers HDPE, PE100, SDR11, kW)
400
PN16, DN 250 x 22.7 mm
Gravitational sewers HDPE, PE80,
Pipe bridge
SDR17.6, PN6, DN 125 x 7.1 mm (from 2450
over UHE
the vacuum station to pumping station)
1 pcs OL125mm
Gravitational sewers HDPE, PE80,
(133 x 5.0
SDR17.6, Pn6, DN 160 x 9.1 mm (from 1350
mm)
the pumping station to WWTP)
PVC, SN2, 200 x 3.9 mm (from
690
WWTP to emissary)
Connections to the connecting
300
chambers- PVC, SN2, 200 x 3.9 mm
Sewers 6.999 50 1 1

1852
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

Table 2. Outline of the classical sewerage system investment with solid separation pumping stations

L Collecting
Sewers
(m) Chambers
Pumping stations Manholes River crossing
Sewers PVC, SN4, DN 200 x 4.9 mm 120 5 pcs.
Sewers PVC, SN4, DN 250 x 6.2 mm 1540 1. Q=6 m3/h,
(including
Pressure pipe HDPE, PE80, SDR17,6, P = 2 kW.
1092 connection
PN6, DN 110 x 6.3 mm 2. Q=9 m3/h,
chamber, Pipe bridge
Pressure pipe HDPE, PE80, SDR17.6, P = 2 kW.
1967 PVC pipes,
3. Q=13 m3/h,
over UHE
PN6, DN 140 x 8.0 mm SN2, DN 200
48pcs.
OL125 mm
PVC, SN2, 200 x 3.9 mm (from 690 P = 2 kW.
x 3.9 mm and (133 x 5.0 mm)
WWTP to emissary) 4. Q =16 m3/h,
DN 400 x
Connections (including connection 300 P = 2 kW.
28.5 mm
chamber, PVC pipes, SN2, DN 200 x 5. Q = 23 m3/h,
3.9 mm and DN 400 x 28.5 mm P = 2 kW.
Sewers 5.709 200 5 48 1

Table 3. Costs for wastewater collection and treatment

Costs Vacuum system (euro/m3) Classical system (euro/m3)

Staff 0.044 0.044
Energy for wastewater collection 0.020 0.036
Energy for WWTP 0.146 0.146
Reagents for WWTP 0.023 0.023
Administrative costs and maintenance 0.004 0.005
Total 0.237 0.254

In the case study, the energy costs for the end of the time horizon.
classical solution exceed with 0.016 euro/m3 the Assigning a value in willingness to pay is one
vacuum sewage solution; also the administrative and potential approach to value the benefits derived from
maintenance costs are higher for the classical the implementation of the project. Whenever, no
wastewater system (Table 3). The reason is the high matter what technology is implemented, it was
efficiency of the vacuum station and the reduced considered that each variant has the same value
hours of functioning (2.5 hours/day). Our point is concerning the willingness to pay for the sewerage
that efficient technologies are less intensive in energy infrastructure to avoid waterborne diseases,
and environmental pollution. Energy saving and supplementary costs for emptying the septic tanks,
significant carbon reduction are achieved within the etc. The project generates its own revenues from the
vacuum sewerage solution. As the same model of tariffs of the wastewater collection and treatment,
wastewater treatment plant was considered, the determined by the forecasts of the number of
energy consumption for the wastewater treatment connections to the wastewater network and relative
plant (WWTP) for both alternatives is constant. tariffs. The revenues generated by both alternatives
Based on the energy cost saving alone, the are equal, namely 11.28 for a connection permit
payback time for vacuum sewerage is smaller than and 0.29 for the collection and treatment of 1 m3 of
payback time for classical sewerage project. The wastewater.
reagents include chemicals utilized for the Non-quantifiable socio-economic benefits
wastewater and sludge treatment. The cost of imply avoiding evacuating wastewater on the soil
reagents was considered 0.023 euro/m3 wastewater, with effects on the soil quality and agriculture use,
based on similar projects. improved recreational opportunities, etc. The benefits
The maintenance costs include costs that incur primarily include mitigation of the environmental
for the maintenance and replacement of sewerage pollution by reduction of raw wastewater discharge
system and components of wastewater treatment and seepage, improved health conditions due to
plant. The average operating costs were considered pollution abatement and other tangible and intangible
as representing 2 % from energy and staff costs, benefits that will be presented below. Moreover,
showing a smaller cost for the vacuum alternative. water-borne and water-washed diseases are
Quantification of benefits, in monetary terms, poses responsible for the greatest proportion of the direct-
certain difficulties as time as benefits split in three effect water and sanitation-related disease burden.
categories: financial, social and environmental Costs savings in health care are associated mainly
benefits. The last two categories are non-market with a reduced number of treatments for diarrheal
benefits. In both cases, according to the number of cases (Hutton and Haller 2004).
connections and therefore, the willingness to pay, the The benefits of environmental improvement
financial or market benefits include the total income from pollution reduction contribute to environmental
from the tariffs for wastewater collection and quality, public health quality and affects society
treatment and vary from 21,921 /year after the welfare of the local communities (Rashid and Hayes
implementation of the project to 40,233 /year at the 2011).

1853
 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

According to the Guide for Cost-Benefit small companies with four employees each of them,
Analysis of Investment Projects of the European will start a business until the last year of the time
Commission (2008), these types of socio-economic horizon. The minimum gross basic salary guaranteed
benefits are defined as externalities incurring any to be paid was set at 190 per month. The income
cost or benefit that spills over from the project tax payable by the employee (47.72 /person/month)
towards other parties without monetary generated by the increased economic activity will
compensation. Even though a second step of the bring contribution to the budget of the local council,
cost-benefit analysis is the economic cost-benefit therefore, more resources for further development of
analysis, for projects whose investment value is infrastructure. The additional income to the state
under 50,000,000 only financial cost-benefit budget from the income tax is set at 19.80
analysis is required, which measures only the direct /person/month and minimum profit was
financial implications of the intervention. approximated according to previous projects in the
Even not a component of financial cost- rural areas at 352.27 /month per each new company
benefit analysis, the evaluation of the socio-economic and the corporate tax (84.57 /person/month).
benefits was financially quantified in order to Maximum socio-economic benefits derived from the
emphasize important economic benefits on further economic development as a result of
estimating the health effects associated with wastewater infrastructure project implementation is
groundwater quality improvement, budget revenues estimated in monetary terms at 148,738 /year at the
due to income tax, corporate tax generated by the end of the projection period and represents the sum
increased economic activity and tourism of net salary, net profit, the income tax payable by
development, and value generated by the land and the employee and corporation tax, according to the
property markets. The appraisal of the impacts maximum number of settled companies.
mentioned above is relevant for society, but for The benefits generated by new sewerage
which a market value is not available. These effects infrastructure, have the potential to contribute to the
have been identified, quantified and given a realistic tourism development, increased tourism
monetary value based on average current prices. The infrastructure and number of tourists staying
method of appraisal is either the number of infectious overnight (varying from 3-12 days). It is also
diseases avoided or costs generated by forecasted that the amount spent by tourist would
hospitalization, either the number of new companies increase. A minimum number of 40 tourists/year
in the area of project and income generated, and were considered with a minimum cost for B&B of 34
willingness to pay approach which allows for the /day. The estimation of maximum benefits from
estimation of a money value through user revealed tourism development in monetary terms counts
preferences in similar cases. 16,253 /year. On the other hand, the value generated
In the cost-benefit analysis, benefits were by the land and property markets would increase. A
converted into monetary amounts using assumptions price of 10.9 /square meter was considered,
about the value of identified benefits such as number according to the average price of land in the region.
of cases avoided. The value of financial costs gained Thus, an increase with 20% of the value of land
is due to less diarrhea or Hepatitis A illness, using the determines a supplementary income of 2.16 /square
minimum treatment costs as the measure of value. meter. According to the estimations, within a year the
Given the number of inhabitants and similar projects, transactions will consist in 12 acres of land, resulting
a number of two cases of Hepatitis A avoided were in a supplementary income of 26,004 /year. Land
considered, with a total number of hospitalization of use is in terms of arable land, permanent cropland
30 days and 34.76 /day, according to the average and construction land, and it plays an important role
tariffs at national level charged by hospitals within in the progress of economic development from an
the Infectious Diseases Division. These prices agricultural economy to an industrialized economy.
include the price of medication and hospitalization. Environmental benefits from a wastewater
The estimated cost for a diarrheal case in Romania, project when compare the two types of wastewater
considering the cost of medication and the cost of collecting technologies include mainly the reduction
lost work productivity due to live of absence is 67.43 of raw sewage discharges because of seepage risks in
/2 days, with a maximum occurrence probability of the wastewater network, the pollutants damaging the
7 cases a year in the case study considering the target environment, quality of drinking water in private
group and similar projects. wells and public health. These benefits represent, in
Due to the huge marginal health impact of fact, the avoided monetary losses expected to accrue
collecting wastewater at the point of use, the annual as a result of the implementation of one project, or
global value of costs avoided is 2,557.76 , another. Moreover, the reduction in the energy
representing the number of cases avoided of Hepatitis consumption of the sewerage system can be seen as
A and diarrheal illness multiplied with the number of an environmental benefit as time as production of
cases and cost of medication and hospitalization as energy contributes to the climate change. However,
specified previously. in order to avoid double counting the energy is
Any variant of the project implementation will considered an operating cost.
have a significant social and economic impact on the The environmental benefits, expressed in
local community. The assumption was that ten new monetary terms, have been calculated. They reflect

1854
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

the value of environmental damage avoided derived entire volume of collected wastewater, it is evident
from wastewater collection or an environmental that the level of penalties for classical system is 17
benefit. In this regard, we considered the probability times higher in what concerns the BOD5 and 14 times
of sewer seepage occurrence in both alternatives. for SS. Based on the damage costs the vacuum sewer
According to the expert opinion, in the classical system is more efficient when analyze only two
wastewater system the sewer leakage can reach 5% quality parameters of wastewater.
or more of the total volume of raw wastewater, with The water and wastewater projects represent
difficulties in decelerating the sewer line break, the case of natural monopoly and that is why market
manholes or pumping stations which allows prices suffer considerable distortions focusing on the
wastewater seepage. In the vacuum system, this principle of total costs recovery, including financial
probability is much reduced due to negative pressure costs for providing wastewater services, operating
in the system and possibility of detecting the leakage and maintenance costs, environmental costs related to
because of monitoring system, reaching 1% of the damage to environment.
total wastewater running into the system with rapid Due to its character of public good, the
intervention on the specific sector with sewer line consumers cannot renounce in consuming water
break. (Budds and McGranahan 2003) or produce
The occurrence of a sewer leakage event was wastewater. This is one reason of the financial
quantified at 3 times a year counting a volume of intervention of the European Union. In this regard,
180.76 m3 a year for the classical system and 11.25 water supply and sanitation represent natural
m3 for the vacuum system in relation with the entire monopolies, case in which the costs of infrastructure
volume of wastewater and security of the system. are so high that they are not profitable for a private
The quantity of biologic oxygen consumption company to provide them. In order to evaluate the
(BOD5) and total suspended solids (SS) were financial attractiveness of a project against the other,
calculated and multiplied with the financial value of the Net Present Value and Internet Rate of Return
the penalties for exceeding the maximum allowed techniques were used. The most important indicators
concentration according to NTPA, when considered for the two sewerage systems are presented in Tables
the entire volume of wastewater had to be treated. 5 and 6. In the absence of funding constraints, the
The total volume of sewer leakage can be easily best value for money projects is that with the highest
calculated by making the difference between the NPV (vacuum system). For infrastructure projects,
volumes of wastewater calculated as a result of financial rates of return are usually negative because
metered water consumption and metered wastewater of the tariff structure and public good character, non-
entering the wastewater treatment plant. exclusive and non-rivalry, where the main aim is to
In financial terms, we value the externalities satisfy social and environmental requirements.
generated by the wastewater seepage into the soil and Negative IRR is accepted for social projects due to
groundwater as the aggregated amount of pollutant the fact that this kind of investments represents a
emission discharged into the environment without priority, without having the capacity to generate
treatment with a direct effect on groundwater. The revenues.
cost of the damage avoided as a result of two projects The negative values of NPV within the two
variant implementation was taken as a proxy. alternatives of sanitation projects draws on the
Water quality is measured mainly in terms of necessity the project is co-financed. The IRR is
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). Having a low smaller than 5% (the recommended discount rate).
level of BOD5 in wastewater is essential to avoiding The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is higher than 1,
penalties and producing high-quality effluent. If the meaning both projects are viable. For each Euro
amount of pollutants leaving a wastewater collecting invested in the vacuum sewerage project, 1.36 is
system is too high, or the discharge endangers public saved (BCR = 1.36). Whenever, for each Euro
health or the environment, the facility may violate its invested in the classical sewerage project, 1.28 is
permit and can be fined or required to upgrade. Due saved (BCR = 1.28). On the other hand, as was
to relatively reduced volume of wastewater to be discussed before, when looking at externalities, the
collected and the low financial value of penalties, the vacuum sewerage system brings more savings due to
level of penalties is reduced both for classical and the reduction of raw sewage discharges because of
vacuum system. spillage in the wastewater network. These benefits
According to the Government Decision no. represent, in fact, the avoided monetary losses
328 (Romanian Government 2010), the level of expected to accrue as a result of the implementation
penalty for exceeding the BOD5 is 46.165 /tons and of one project, or another. Having estimated the
5.77 /tons for SS. summary measures, we then studied the impact of
The damage costs are based on the willingness different input variables on the results of our analyses
to pay for environmental quality, smaller in our case by conducting a sensitivity analysis.
on the vacuum sewerage alternative. The financial Sensitivity analysis takes into account the
value of avoiding further pollution is emphasized in uncertainty associated with the assumptions and
Table 4. In conditions in which the level of penalties parameters of CBA by studying how changes in
would increase and the leakage at the classical variable values impact the results. We take the
system would keep a minimum level of 5% of the uncertainty into account by conducting a sensitivity

1855
 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

analysis (SA) and examining how "sensitive" the under the limit of 1% indicated by the European
analysis results are to a change in base-case Union.
parameters (discount rate, increasing investment For a variation with 5% of the investment
value and energy price). costs, the vacuum sewerage alternative is exposed to
The results are presented in Tables 7 and 8. risks resulting in a variation with 5.36% of NPV.
The sensitivity analysis for the vacuum sewerage The sensitivity analysis for the classical
project exposed to the risk factors shows that the sewerage project shows that the variation of selected
variation with 1% of the discount rate, cost of risk factors with 1% generates a variation of NPV
investment or energy price generates a modification smaller than 5% while the reduction of IRR is under
of NPV smaller than 5%, and the reduction of IRR is the limit of 1% indicated by the European Union.

Table 4. Quantification of the wastewater seepage from the wastewater network

Quantity (tone/year) x value of penalty (/tons)

Parameter
Vacuum system Classical system
BOD5 0.003 x 46.165 = 0.138 0.050 x 46.165= 2.308
SS 0.004 x 5.77= 0.024 0.060 x 5.77 =0.346

Table 5. Key performance indicators for the vacuum sewerage alternative

Key performance indicators Value Permissible value

Investment costs 1,392,259.13
NPV -1,134,321.32 0
IRR -6.90 % 5%
Cost-benefit ratio 0.73 <1
Cumulative cash flow Positive every year Positive every year

Table 6. Key performance indicators for the classical sewerage alternative

Key performance indicators Value Permissible value

Investment costs 1,358,797.06
NPV -1,114,957.86 0
IRR -7.07 % 5%
Cost-benefit ratio 0.78 <1
Cumulative cash flow Positive every year Positive every year

Table 7. Sensitivity analysis for vacuum sewerage project

Increase with 1% of the discount rate Increase with 5% of the discount rate
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,134, 321.43 -1,134,592.32 0.02 -1,135,369.31 -0.09
RIR -6.90% -6.95% 0.05 -7.13% -0.23
Increase with 1% of the investment costs Increase with 5% of the investment cost
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,134,321.32 -1,146,471.30 1.07 -1,195,070.78 -5,36
RIR -6.90% -6.91% -0.01 -6.95% -0.05
Increase with 1% of the energy cost Increase with 5% of the energy cost
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,134,321.32 -1,135,710.92 0.12 -1,141,269.60 -0.61
RIR -6.90% -6.92% -0.02 -7,01% -0.11

Table 8. Sensitivity analysis for classical sewerage system

Increase with 1% of the discount rate Increase with 5% of the discount rate
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,114,957.86 -1,115,089.31 0.01 -1,115,334,56 0.03
RIR -7.07% -7.12% -0.05 -7.30% -0.23
Increase with 1% of the investment costs Increase with 5% of the investment cost
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,114,957.86 -1,126,796.14 1.06 -1,174,149.23 5.31
RIR -7.07% -7.08% -0.01 -7.11% -0.04
Increase with 1% of the energy cost Increase with 5% of the energy cost
Initial Adjusted Variation (%) Adjusted Variation (%)
NPV -1,114,957.86 -1,116,231.70 0.11 -1,122,252.83 0. 65
RIR -7.07% -7.09% -0.02 -7.19% -0.12

1856
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

For a variation with 5% of the investment (Ferrn-Vlchez, de la Torre-Ruiz, and de Mandojana

costs the classical variant of the projects is sensitive, 2013). It may also be worthwhile to take the societal
resulting in a variation with 5.31% of the NPV. perspective, which would include benefits to tax
Moreover, the classical sewerage system is more payers for wastewater collection and improved
exposed to the risks in what concerns the variation in quality of life. Unfortunately, the problem of tariff
the price of electricity that has the greatest chance to setting for sanitation deviates from the optimum
increase. economic, that is why the opportunity costs of the
The research shows the difference between service are not visible, being very small in relation
vacuum sewerage technology and conventional with the financial costs (Rogers, de Silva, and Bhatia
technology, in terms of costs, environmental and 2002). Due to the public good character of sanitation
social benefits. Even though there is a shortage of this aspect creates inefficiencies in providing the
published articles on the wastewater collection sanitation services.
technologies and their environmental impact, the A possible way of reaching the sustainable
analysis of the case study provides evidence to development of wastewater collection is by using
support the hypothesis that the vacuum technology shadow networks to inspire innovation, encourage
can succeed in overcoming the environmental crises institutional learning, and improve governance rules.
by internalizing the externalities, having the capacity This creates a new social reality that is more future-
to improve environmental factors, reduce energy and responsive to problems and more hospitable to new
maintenance costs. ways of thinking about water management (Medema
On the one hand, the results showed in this et al., 2013).
paper are based upon a technical analysis of energy
consumption. Despite the higher overall energy 5. Conclusions
efficiency of both wastewater collection solutions,
the vacuum technology brings more energy savings The approach described herein provides a
(see Table 3) and consequently reduced greenhouse framework for deciding if the supplementary
emissions. On the other hand, the environmental investment costs for vacuum technology is
externalities were estimated, and wastewater leakage commensurate with the potential benefits. While the
occurrence was used in calculating the amount of analysis is based on a simple methodology for cost-
main individual pollutants discharged into the benefit analysis, and somewhat uncertain data
environment that makes the difference between the concerning the willingness to pay, it is clear that
two design variants of the sewerage system, showing some more benefits accrue when look from an
greater benefits in implementing the vacuum environmental perspective.
technology. Besides analyzing the current and Research shows that the increase of the
potential developments and creating knowledge additional benefits accruing from additional
about the environmental costs and benefits of a provisions in the design and operation of
sewage system construction and operation, this infrastructure is directly proportional with the
research shows the need to provide a framework for technological improvements being brought to the
further analysis to quantify the level of greenhouse system.
gases released as a result of functioning of alternative
wastewater collecting system, that together with the References
quantification of wastewater seepage into the soil and
groundwater, is essential for the promotion of eco- Abernathy W.J., Utterback J.M., (1978), Patterns of
innovation and reflexive institutions. industrial innovation, Technology Review, 80, 41-47.
In order to overcome some recognized CBA Airvac Inc., (2013), Airvac Presentation, On line at:
http://www.airvac.com/.
limitations, a method to quantify the environmental Beise M., (2001), Lead Markets: Country-Specific Success
impacts was developed. In our specific case, despite Factors of the Global Diffusion of Innovations, Vol.
commonly relied upon metrics to communicate 14, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg.
benefits to decision making, the CBA was used to Beise M., Rennings K., (2004), Lead markets and
formulate economic arguments for investing in risk regulation: a framework for analyzing the international
reduction, rather than responding to the future diffusion of environmental innovations, Ecological
impacts. The positive externalities associated with Economics, 52, 5-17.
avoiding the discharge of pollution into the Buchanan J.R., Deal N.E., Lindbo D.L., Hanson A.H.,
environment made the subject of the study. Gustafson D.G., Miles R.J., (2010), Vacuum sewer
systems, On line at:
Moreover, life cycle assessment would help together www.werf.org/c/DecentralizedCost/C4_Vacuum_Sew
with cost-benefit analysis in delimitating the best ers.aspx.
solution of investment. Budds J., McGranahan G., (2003), Are debates on water
By adopting more stringent and innovation privatization missing the points? Experiences from
oriented regulations, environmentally proactive Africa, Asia and Latin America, Environment and
bodies will be more capable of facing the challenge Urbanization, 15, 87-113.
of an accurate internalization of environmental Bulgariu L., Lupea M., Bulgariu D., Rusu C., Macoveanu
effects and reduce negative environmental impacts M., (2013), Equilibrium study of Pb(II) and Cd(II)

1857
 Terryn et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13 (2014), 8, 1847-1859

biosorption from aqueous solution on marine green Huber J., (2008b), Technological environmental
algae biomass, Environmental Engineering and innovations (TEIs) in a chain-analytical and life-cycle-
Management Journal, 12, 183-190. analytical perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Damanpour F., Wischnevsky J.D., (2006), Research on 16, 1980-1986.
innovation in organizations: Distinguishing Hutton G., Haller L., (2004), Evaluation of costs and
innovation-generating from innovation-adopting benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the
organizations, Journal of Engineering and Technology global level, Water sanitation and health protection of
Management, 23, 269-291. the Human Environment. Geneva: World Health
DIN, (1996), DIN EN 1091 - 1996: Vacuum Sewerage Organisation, On line at:
outside buildings, Deutsches Institut fr Normung, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wsh0404.
Berlin, Germany. pdf.
Duncan R.B., (1996), The Ambidextrous Organization: Johnstone N., (2005), The Innovation Effects of
Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, In: The Environmental Policy Instruments, In: Indicator
Management of Organization Design: Strategies and Systems for Sustainable Innovation, Horbach J. (Ed.),
Implementation, Kilmann R.H., Pondy L.R., Slevin Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 21-41.
D.P. (Eds.), North-Holland, New York, 167-188. KSB Group, (2013), On line at: http://www.ksb.com/ksb-
EEC, (1991), Directive 91/271/EEC of the European en/Products_and_Services/buildingservices/drainage/
Economic Comunity of 21 May 1991, concerning AmaDS/418680/AmaDS-art.html.
urban waste-water treatment, Official Journal of the Medema W., Light S., Adamowski J., (2013), Integrating
European Communities, L135, 30.5.1991, 4052. adaptive learning into adaptive water resources
European Commission, (2008), Guide to cost benefit management, Environmental Engineering and
analysis of investment projects, Structural Funds, Management Journal (in press, accepted for
Cohesion Funds and Instruments for pre-accesion, On publication), On line at:
line at: http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/pdfs/accepted/260_9
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/g 0_Light_12.pdf.
uides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf. Molinos-Senate M., Hernandez-Sancho F., Sala-Garrido
Ferrn-Vlchez V., de la Torre-Ruiz J.M., de Mandojana R., (2010), Economic feasibility study for wastewater
N.O., (2013), How much would environmental issues treatment: A cost- benefit analysis, Science of the
cost? The internalisation of environmental costs in the Total Environment, 408, 4396-4402.
european transport industry, Environmental Panfil C., Mirel I., Szigyarto I., Isacu M., (2013),
Engineering and Management Journal (in press, Technical, economical, social and ecological
accepted for publication), On line at: characteristics of vacuum sewage system,
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/pdfs/accepted/126_7 Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
1_Vilchez_11.pdf. 12, 1017-1022.
Foxon T., Pearson P., (2008), Overcoming barriers to Papa S., Casper W., Moore T., (2013), Securing
innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some wastewater facilities from accidental and intentional
features of a sustainable innovation policy regime, harm: A cost benefit analysis, International Journal of
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 148-161. Critical Infrastructure Protection, 6, 96106.
Frondel M., Horbach J., Rennings K., (2007), What Parissis O.-S., Zoulias E., Stamatakis E., Sioulas K., Alves
triggers environmental management and innovation? L., Martins R., Tsikalakis A., Hatziargyriou N.,
Empirical evidence for Germany, Ecological Caralis G., Zervos A., (2011), Integration of wind and
Economics, 66, 153-160. hydrogen technologies in the power system of Corvo
Godfrey S., Labhasetwar P., Wate S., (2009), Greywater island, Azores: A cost-benefit analysis, International
reuse in residential schools in Madhya Pradesh, India- Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36, 8143-8151.
A case study of cost-benefit analysis, Resources, Pickin J., (2008), Representations of environmental
Conservation and Recycling, 53, 287-293. concerns in cost-benefit analyses of solid waste
Gouldson A., Murphy J., (2000), Environmental policy and recycling, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53,
industrial innovation: integrating environment and 79-85.
economy through ecological modernisation, Rashid M.M., Hayes D.F., (2011), Needs- based sewerage
Geoforum, 31, 31-34. prioritization: Alternative conventional cost benefit
Hanley N., Splash C.L., (2003), Cost Benefit Analysis and analysis, Journal of Environmental Management, 92,
the Environment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 2427-2440.
Hegger D.L.T., Spaargaren G., van Vliet B.J.M., Frinjs J., Roediger, (2013), Roediger Vacuum GmbH, On line at:
(2010), Consumer-inclusive innovation strategies for http://www.roevac.com/page/en/page_ID/42?PHPSES
the Dutch water supply sector: Opportunities for more SID=bc787a142fc280fd831fb0263db6c084.
sustainable products and services, NJAS- Wageningen Rogers P., de Silva R., Bhatia R., (2002), Water is an
Journal of Life Sciences, 58, 49-56. economic good: How to use prices to promote equity,
Horbach J., (2008), Determinants of environmental efficiency, and sustainability, Water Policy, 4, 1-17.
innovationNew evidence from German panel data Romanian Government, (2005a), Decision no. 352 of 21
sources, Research Policy, 37, 163-173. April 2005 amending and supplementing Government
Horbach J., Rammer C, Rennings K, (2012), Determinants Decision no. 188/2002 approving the rules on the
of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact conditions for discharge of wastewater into the aquatic
The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and environment. NTPA Standard 001-2005 establishing
market pull, Ecological Economics, 78, 112-122. limits of pollutants in industrial and urban wastewater
Huber J., (2008a), Pioneer countries and the global discharged into the natural receptors, published in
diffusion of environmental innovations: Theses from Romanian Official Monitor, No. 398/11.05.2005.
the viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory, Romanian Government, (2005b), Decision No. 352 of 21
Global Environmental Change, 18, 360-367. April 2005 amending and supplementing Government
Decision no. 188/2002 approving the rules on the

1858
 Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural areas - an economic and environmental approach

conditions for discharge of wastewater into the aquatic resources, tariffs and penalties with inflation index,
environment. NTPA Standard 002-2005 on published in Romanian Official Monitor, Part I, No.
wastewater discharge conditions in the local sewerage 279 of 29/04/2010.
networks and directly in treatment plants, published in Van der Bruggen B., Goosens H., Everald P.A., Stemgee
Romanian Official Monitor, No. 398/11.05.2005. K., Rogge W., (2009), Cost-benefit analysis of central
Romanian Government, (2010), Government Decision No. softening for production of drinking water, Journal of
328 of 31 March 2010 updating the specific Environmental Management, 91, 542-549.
contribution amount for management of water

1859