Recharging Dams with Treated Wastewater - Report Example

Recharging dams with Treated Wastewater: A Critical Review Using HIA Process Introduction As described by most, Australia is considered one of the “driest inhabited continents in the world” (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 9). The industrial boom in these parts is also high, thus, creating a higher demand in water supply and recycle of wastewater; as presented, “water reuse is an important component in the long term sustainability of water resources” (National Research Flagships, n.d.). This implies that wastewater treatment is a more stable way of driving out the problem of reduced water supply. Consequently, the dams built in Australia may be sufficient in catering to the peoples’ water needs, however, the utility of treated wastewater in these catchments seems to be more feasible in meeting the rising demands for safe water, while at the same time, safeguard the general health of the public. Rationale for the Proposed Project. Adelaide is just one of the regions in Australia that is paying the high price of economic progress. As emphasized in a research, this city is generating its water supply from distant sources while its wastewater disposal is overly increasing in volume (Richard and Budgen 2008, 6). The situation experienced shows that a necessity for a sustainable water source is crucial. With the help of the proposal in recharging dams with treated wastewater, water supply can be replenished. Aside from this, the necessity of decreasing wastewater pollution also needs to be addressed. This project, then, hits two birds in one stone. It not only meets the increasing challenge of depleting water supply, the method of divesting the city from volumes of wastewater can also be settled lawfully. Description of the Project Process and Materials Utilized. Generally, wastewater is “discarded water ... from sanitary or foul sewage” (Aswthanarayana 2001, 159). With this, one needs to be reminded that this type of water source is already contaminated with several microorganisms and chemical substances. The probability of recycle can only increase by subjecting volumes of wastewater in several treatment stages. Numerous phases are employed for safer wastewater sources: “pre-treatment, mechanical or primary, biological or secondary, tertiary and quarternary” (Barcelo and Petrovic 2008, 3). Each treatment line is necessary for a potable water distribution in households (please see Figure 1, Appendix A). The pretreatment phase involves the removal of large particles through a programmed machine. This task is continued in the secondary phase, with its combination of physical and chemical procedure prior to the settling stage. The chamber in the machine gets rid of grounded organic and inorganic particles from the wastewater source. After this, the tertiary process ensures that left-over substances in the secondary phase is totally swept off, either by filtration or through a specific membrane barrier (Environmental Protection Authority 2005, 9). The final stage of the treatment is optional, depending on the eventual use of the treated wastewater--either for human ingestion or use in various agricultural activities. There is an extensive disinfection guideline involved, such as the application of chemical materials and ozonation (UV) processes (Barcelo and Petrovic 2008, 3). The organized system of activity necessitates a treatment plant near the dam site. Such accessibility ensures speedy recharging of treated wastewater in the dam--increasing water supply in a shorter notice. Application of HIA Process in the Project Proposal The project proposal is developed as a tribute to the growing demand for alternative water sources. Evidently, the project requires the application of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in calculating its capability in protecting the public health aspect. Pursuant with this, several principles seem to make up the fundamental structure, including “screening, scoping, monitoring and evaluation” (“Module 4: The Value of Integrating Health” n.d.). By incorporating these sets of factors in the discussion, much of the project proposal can be explained in terms of society’s health and well being. Screening. With the process of the proposal briefly summarized, there is a general consensus on the exercise of HIA-- it is deemed appropriate to extract facts behind the whole operation of the proposal. As the end-product, treated wastewater can generate doubts from both health critics and local citizens, since the origin of the water supply is questionable. Therefore, there is a need to review the recharged dam’s wastewater treatment process for possible technical loopholes--strict scientific failures can result in several public health hazards and possible degradation of the environment. Scoping. As the project proposal takes shape, several environmental concerns have also risen. The determination of the project’s scope is highly esteemed for it specifically pinpoints issues that need to be discussed in full scale (“Module 5: The HIA Process” n.d.). By this, every avenue of the project must be examined for possible nuances. Both external and internal dimensions of the project must be taken into account--the people involved, impact to communities, effects to consumers, and who will be responsible for negative outcomes. These are only a few of what must be assessed using the HIA process. The success of the assessment depends much on this part, as interventions are based on the specific outcomes obtained in this area of appraisal. The intention of the proposal is centered on alleviating inadequacies in water supply; however, it is also sensitive to environmental issues. For one, the origin of treated wastewater includes “helminths, protozoans, bacteria, and viruses” (Aswthanarayana 2001, 182). If given the opportunity for invasion, it can cause severe damage on the health of individuals--infectious conditions can occur. The risk can reach several groups of people, from direct contact with treated wastewater, or indirectly, through consumers of agricultural products that had been subjected to wastewater irrigation. Either way, possible pathological implications can still render the citizens in Adelaide vulnerable to diseases condition--ranging from mild to worse cases. Monitoring. Due to the high stakes involved, health agencies combined their efforts to ensure that water consumption in any way is generally safe. In a relevant report, it specified the Department of Health as the major body that reviews the “health aspects of water recycling schemes ... (including) water quality requirements such as turbidity, chlorine residual and bacterial requirements” (Environmental Protection Authority 2005, 11). Due to the existence of rigidly set guidelines, the health risks of the project are also tempered with a number of benefits--with better industrial conditions. The supposed increased water source can enhance irrigation in agricultural crops, producing better harvest yields. There is also an ecological advantage in this proposal, with decreased pollutants in bodies of water and cutback of harmful nitrogen compound inland waters (Richard and Budgen 2008, 21). These are taken into account by health and ecological departments, thus, the idea of launching the recharge of treated wastewater in dams is not totally disregarded. The “monitoring” phase of the HIA process portrays an extremely important role. It places the value of the whole project in a new perspective. This time, the pressure is on the appraisers’ side, where they have to judiciously decide whether unlawful actions are committed in the process of treating wastewater. There is a check and balance between companies treating the wastewater and government agencies inspecting the soundness of the treatment. Hence, monitoring in an unbiased way is hemmed by intentions of doing what is best for the public that both these parties serve. Evaluation. As the last phase of the HIA process, it does not mean that with this accomplished, the HIA process has also ended. This is just the beginning of the circular process in the proposal. As the treatment of wastewater is duly approved by ecological bodies, the act of reviewing the whole process is prudent. Outcome parameters are examined in order to get actual results in specified periods of time. It is by this method that the creator of the project and other people involved cannot readily escape should untoward events occur due to the project. Hence, the process is circular in pattern--it goes on and on until such time that the project has proven itself worthy for public trust. Pros and Cons with HIA Process As the general name sake of HIA implies, it is mainly focused on health issues that might exist as results of project development. On the issue of recharging the dams in Adelaide with treated wastewater, its health implications are quite discernible. The treated medium itself, the wastewater, is already a complicating matter. As water is a necessity for individuals, this thereby makes wastewater treatment akin to being a need in communities as well. With this in mind, HIA process can be considered the best approach in breaking down the proposal into several segments. Moreover, the pattern of the principles hits the project on its vulnerable point, on health issues--giving the approach a more efficient characteristic. Hence, the use of HIA process seems a worthy decision. In spite of the advantages of the HIA process, amidst it is a single dent of negation. HIA process, as a standard review, restrains its perspective on the relationship of “health, society and the environment” (“Module 4: The Value of Integrating Health” n.d.). Such limitation can hamper the involvement of other dimensions of the project--such as economic and marketing impact of the project. Health impacts are not the only groundwork in wastewater management; hence, the overview of the entire project is somehow blinded by the zooming focus on health issues. This is where the assessment on the project proposal becomes feeble. Conclusion All in all, the application of HIA approach seems to bear a significant impact in critically examining the level of health connotation among the citizens in Adelaide. The demonstrative association of water and health in a person’s life makes the process unique. It is in this context that HIA becomes a relevant assessment. However, what may be its valuable trait may also be its downfall. At this point, structural review on the general framework of HIA may be necessary to make this type of approach more resilient in withstanding critics for future development. References Aswthanarayana, U. 2001. Water resources management and the environment. Netherland: A.A. Balkema Publishers. Barcelo, D. and M. Petrovic , eds. 2008. The Handbook of environmental chemistry: Emerging contaminants from industrial and municipal waste. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Commonwealth of Australia. 2001. Australia State of Environment 2001: Inland waters. Australia: Brown Prior Anderson. Environmental Protection Authority. 2005. “Strategic advice on managed aquifer recharge using treated wastewater on the Swan Coastal Plain.” http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/2125_B1199.pdf. Module 4: The value of integrating health into environmental impact assessment. n.d. Module 5: The HIA process: The preliminary stage. n.d. National Research Flagships. n.d. “Water reuse technologies: Research partnerships providing solutions and technologies for water reuse.” http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p3tn.pdf. Richard, Clark, and Richard Budgen. 2008. “Report on sustainable water options for Adelaide.” Sustainable Focus, September. http://www.sustainablefocus.com.au/downloads/SF_urban_water_report_final.pdf. The Scottish Government. 2010. “Part I: Code of practice on assessment and control of odour nuisance form waste water treatement works.” http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/04/2994932/49358. Appendix A Figure 1. Illustration on the Wastewater Treatment Process (The Scottish Government 2010) Read More