National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 3 Quantities Available for Beneficial Use and Potential Impacts on Water Demand
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

4

Quality of Graywater and Stormwater

Stormwater and graywater can contain a wide variety of contaminants, including inorganic (e.g., metals, nutrients, and salts) and organic (e.g., industrial chemicals, pesticides, household chemicals) chemicals and microorganisms. The most common applications of graywater and stormwater involve nonpotable uses, such as irrigation, washing, and toilet flushing, but these uses can be associated with human contact and inadvertent ingestion exposures. Groundwater recharge of stormwater can also impact potable uses, and environmental impacts on plants and soils in irrigated areas are also possible (Australian SCEW, 2009; NRMMC et al., 2009a). Therefore, when considering the potential applications of graywater and stormwater to conserve conventional water supplies, it is important to understand water qualities, how they vary under a range of conditions, implications on various beneficial uses, and strategies to reduce the concentrations of harmful contaminants by source control and treatment.

This chapter describes what is known about the quality of graywater and stormwater sources, and issues that water quality may present to certain end uses. Treatment options are available for uses that necessitate improved or more consistent water quality (see Chapter 6). This chapter also discusses source area controls to manage water quality. Chapter 5 presents the human health and environmental risks associated with graywater and stormwater uses, which then can inform decisions regarding additional treatment needed (see Chapter 6) and affect project costs (see Chapter 7).

GRAYWATER QUALITY

Graywater may contain elevated levels of chemicals and disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens), but the quality of graywater can vary greatly from location to location based on the contributing sources (e.g., laundry, showers, baths), the amounts and types of chemicals used or disposed there (e.g., detergents, bleach, solvents, cleansers, personal care products), and the health of the residents in the source area. At smaller scales (i.e., households), these factors can result in widely variable contaminant concentrations in graywater, although larger-scale projects (i.e., large multi-residential developments) would likely have more consistent water quality, because variations in contaminant loads are averaged over many more contributing households. Table 4-1 presents general ranges of common physical, chemical, and microbial water quality constituents for graywater, considering a range of possible sources. Graywater quality varies substantially, and the ranges of water quality measurements provided in Table 4-1 are intended to provide a general idea of concentrations of each constituent that can be expected in graywater. The data are from Eriksson et al. (2002), which is the most comprehensive summary of graywater quality, and other sources where the committee deemed the number of persons contributing to the system and number of samples collected appropriate. Table 4-1 also includes water quality data from kitchen sources, which show high levels of solids, organic matter, and indicator organisms, demonstrating why kitchen water sources are typically excluded from graywater collection systems.

Many different types of microorganisms capable of causing human illness may be present in human fecal material. Depending on the specific sources contributing to the graywater, these microorganisms may be present. For example, laundry wash and rinse water, as well as shower and bathtub water may contain fecal material and therefore create the potential for pathogenic (disease-causing) microorganisms to be present in graywater. These microorganisms can be generally grouped into the following types: viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and helminths. The most common health concern caused by waterborne pathogens associated with direct exposure to graywater is gastroenteritis, although many other illnesses, including hepatitis, encephalitis, and myocarditis, may result from exposure to enteric pathogens. Fecal indicator bacteria (such as total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria) are often used as surrogates for the presence of pathogenic microorganisms, and their concentrations are therefore often used to set treatment requirements for different end uses. However, the detection of indicator bacteria does not necessarily mean that pathogenic organisms are also

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

present. Because pathogens are only excreted by infected individuals (Ashbolt et al., 2001), the greater the number of people contributing to graywater, the greater the likelihood of the presence of a range of pathogens. However, even in waste streams to which a small number of people contribute, when an infected individual is excreting pathogens, the concentration can be very high because of the relative lack of dilution. Perhaps more importantly, the absence of indicator microorganisms does not necessarily mean an absence of pathogenic microorganisms, because many pathogens are more persistent than the indicator microorganisms. Microorganisms capable of causing skin infections, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, may also be present in graywater (Casanova et al., 2001). Table 4-2 summarizes reported concentrations of microbial indicators and pathogens in graywater.

The amount of organic matter is measured as total organic carbon (TOC), and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is a measure of its degradability. These parameters can indicate the risk of oxygen depletion due to microbial degradation of organic matter during transport and storage of graywater, potentially resulting in hypoxia and sulfide production. High levels of biodegradable organic matter in graywater limit the potential for graywater to be stored or used for toilet flushing or in ornamental fountains without treatment, because of the likelihood of microbial growth.

Other pollutants present in graywater include xenobiotic organic chemicals, consisting of personal care products and household chemicals, although only a limited number of studies have comprehensively investigated the occurrence of these chemicals in graywater sources (Donner et al., 2010; Eriksson et al., 2002). Although trace organic chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals, have been reported to occur in domestic raw wastewater at the household or neighborhood scale (Conn et al., 2010; Teerlink et al., 2012), the composition of graywater differs from wastewater sewage and usually exhibits lower concentrations of pharmaceutical residues and high-

TABLE 4-1 Chemical and Microbial Quality of Untreated Graywater from Individual and Combined Sources

Parameter Bathroom Laundry Kitchen Sink and Dishwasher Graywater Combined (excludes kitchen water)
Physical
Temperature (°C) 29 28-32 27-38
Turbidity 28-240 14-210 15-140
Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L 54-200 120-280 240-2,400
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/L 140-1,300 310-930
Electrical conductivity (µS/cm) 82-250 190-1,400
Chemical
pH 6.4 – 8.1 8.1-10 6.3-7.4 6.7-7.6
Alkalinity 24-67 83-200 20-340 150-200
BOD5 (mg/L) 26-300 48-380 1,000-1,500 125-250
COD (mg/L) 100-630 13-720 3.8-1,400 250-430
Total organic carbon (mg/L) 30-100 100-280 600-880
Sodium absorption ratio 2.3 - 6
Boron (mg/L) 0.1-1.6
Chloride (mg/L) 9.0-19 9.0-90 22-34
TN (mg/L) 5-17 6-21 0.3-74 0.6-5.2
TP (mg/L) 0.1-4 0.1->100 68-74
PO4 (mg/L) 0.94-49 4-170 13-32 4-35
NH4 (mg/L) <0.1-15 0.04-11 0.005-6 0.15-3.2
NO3 (mg/L) 0.28-6.3 0.4-2 0.3-5.8 0-4.9
Anionic surfactants (mg/L) 21 92 6
Microbial
Total coliform/100 mL 102.7-107.4 101.9-105.2 107-109 107.2-108.8
Pseudomonas aeruginosa/100 ml 1.99 x 104
E. coli/100 mL 101.6-103.4 101.5-103.9 105.4-109
Cryptosporidium spp. no detection no detection

NOTE: Graywater as defined in this report does not include kitchen water.

SOURCES: Birks and Hills (2007); Casanova et al. (2001); Christova-Boal et al. (1996); Donner et al. (2010); Eriksson et al. (2002); Gross et al. (2007); Mehlhart (2005); Nolde (1999); Ottoson and Stenstrom (2003); Rose et al. (1991); Sharvelle et al. (2013); Sheikh (2010); Weingaertner (2013).

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

er concentrations of personal care products and antimicrobial chemicals found in hand soap (Etchepare and van der Hoek, 2015; Table 4-3). These chemicals pose possible concerns for irrigation uses (see Chapter 5).

Major ions such as sodium, chloride, and boron can also adversely affect vegetation if present at elevated concentrations. Sodium has been reported to be elevated in soil irrigated with graywater compared to potable water sources (Negahban-Azar et al., 2012). Boron in graywater can be derived from some laundry detergents and cleaning agents.

Source Control of Graywater Quality

Some practices can minimize graywater quality issues. To reduce adverse effects on irrigated plants and soils, liquid rather than powdered detergents should be used to prevent high sodium loads, and boron-containing detergents and cleaning agents should be avoided. In addition, use of products containing antimicrobial compounds is not recommended when graywater is to be applied for irrigation. Materials containing large amounts of organic matter that would exert a high oxygen demand or interfere with the disinfection process and toxic ingredients (e.g., paints, solvents) should not be poured down the drain into a graywater collection system.

The potential presence of human pathogens is a concern for irrigation, as well as for toilet flushing (see Chapter 5). The risks associated with these pathogens can be reduced by implementing such measures as not washing feces-soiled clothing or diapers in laundry machines that drain to the graywater system or diverting laundry water that is used for this purpose to the sewer.

STORMWATER QUALITY

The quality of stormwater is highly variable over time and space. Stormwater can be derived from a wide variety of

TABLE 4-2 Pathogenic and Indicator Microorganisms in Untreated Graywater

Microorganism Range Reported Positive Samples (%) Mean Standard Deviation
Pathogens
E. coli O157:H7 (per L) ND 0
Salmonella (MPN/L) detected 13
Legionella pneumophila ND 0
Legionella non-pneumophila ND 0
Campylobacter (per L) ND 0
Giardia (cysts/L) 0.5-1.5 63
Cryptosporidium (oocysts/L) ND 0
Enterovirus (per 10 L) ND 0
Indicator organisms
Total coliforms/100 ml 2.2 x 107 9.0 x 107
E. coli/100 ml 3.9 x 105 2.4 x 106
Fecal enterococci/100 ml 2.5 x 103 4.8 x 103

NOTE: Eight pathogen samples were taken over 3 months from a graywater collection tank that received water from baths, showers, and sinks from 18 units of an apartment building that primarily housed married students.

SOURCE: Birks and Hills (2007).

TABLE 4-3 Maximum Concentrations of Trace Organic Chemicals Reported in European Graywater and Municipal Wastewater Effluents

Chemical Class Graywater (µg/L) WWTP Effluent (µg/L)
Salicylic acid Pharmaceutical 1.5 777
Caffeine Stimulant 0.5 43.5
Benzophenone Personal care product 4.9 0.23
Galaxolide Personal care product 19.1 2.77
Tonalide Personal care product 5.8 0.32
Triclosan Antimicrobial 35.7 6.88
4-Nonylphenol Surfactant 38 7.8
4-Octylphenol Surfactant 0.16 1.3
Bisphenol A Plasticizer 1.2 4.09
Diethyl phthalate Plasticizer 38 2.58

SOURCE: Etchepare and van der Hoek (2015).

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

source areas and land uses, ranging from rooftops and open spaces to industrial areas and high-traffic roadways. The concentrations of contaminants in stormwater will also vary depending on the building materials in the catchment area, the size of the drainage area, the intensity of the storm event, and environmental and seasonal factors. Small rain events (i.e., less than 0.5 inches [1.2 cm]) generally include most of precipitation events by number, but they produce a small percentage of annual runoff volumes. The largest rains (i.e., greater than 2 inches [5 cm]) also supply a relatively small percentage of total annual flows and pollutant discharges, although heavy rains can mobilize high concentrations of solids and sediment-associated pollutants. Most of the total annual stormwater flows and pollutant discharges (frequently more than 75 percent by mass) occur from intermediate rainfall events (i.e., 0.5 to 2 inches).

Compared to graywater, an even wider array of contaminants can be found in stormwater because of the diversity of source areas. Primary contaminants of concern for beneficial uses include metals, organic chemicals (including herbicides, industrial chemicals, and petroleum-derived chemicals), pathogens, salts, nutrients, and suspended solids. Table 4-4 provides an overall summary of these contaminants, measured at stormwater outfalls at the neighborhood or regional scale, during more than 9,400 storm events. These data reflect a variety of land uses, with about 46 percent from residential areas, 19 percent from commercial areas, 17 percent from industrial areas, 8 percent from major transportation areas, 6 percent from open space areas, and 2 percent from institutional areas. For comparison, these data are presented next to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water maximum contaminants levels and water reuse guidance for irrigation. Individual contaminant classes are discussed further in the sections that follow.

Nutrients and Organic Matter

When discharged into surface waters nutrients and organic matter can cause algal blooms and low oxygen conditions, thereby harming aquatic life. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to stormwater include atmospheric nitrogen deposition, fertilizer runoff, animal feces, and combined sewer overflows. In stormwater beneficial use scenarios, excess nutrients can foster algal growths in stormwater storage facilities or surface water features, such as ponds or fountains. Most storage tanks are designed to be opaque to restrict sun penetration and associated algal growths. Although nitrate poses human health concerns at high concentrations in drinking water, most stormwater concentrations are well below the 10 mg/L maximum contaminant level (see Table 4-4).

Excessive biodegradable organic matter can contribute to severe odor problems in storage systems and cause nuisances when the water is used, but organic matter in stormwater samples tends to be low. Less than 10 percent of samples in the National Stormwater Quality Database exceeded the recommended water reuse criteria for irrigation for BOD5, reflecting elevated levels of biodegradable organic matter.

Suspended Sediment

Suspended sediment (total suspended solids [TSS]) conveys particle-associated contaminants (e.g., phosphorus, metals, some organic contaminants and pathogens) (Characklis et al., 2005; Jartun et al., 2008; Murakami et al., 2005). In stormwater beneficial use scenarios, suspended solids can clog irrigation systems and can result in reduced water clarity, causing aesthetic concerns when the water is used in toilet flushing or ornamental water features. Greater than one-than half of the National Stormwater Quality Database observations exceed the recommended guidance for TSS, and the mean detected level is approximately 5 times greater than the recommended 30 mg/L level for irrigation use (Table 4-4).

Salt

Salts represent a concern for irrigation uses and groundwater infiltration. Plants have different salt tolerances, and high chloride concentrations can severely damage some plants. Excessive sodium concentrations (especially in relation to calcium and magnesium) can cause an elevated sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). High SARs dramatically inhibit water infiltration in soils when the sodium interacts with even small amounts of clay.

In northern areas, de-icing chemicals are major sources of salt to stormwater and could pose a risk to groundwater quality in stormwater infiltration projects. In a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) occurrence study of sodium and chloride in groundwater in 19 northern U.S. states, Mullaney et al. (2009) detected chloride contamination (above the EPA secondary criteria of 250 mg/L) in 1.7 percent of drinking water wells and exceedance of the sodium advisory level (20 mg/L) in nearly 47 percent of public-supply wells and 34 percent of domestic wells. Mullaney et al. (2009) determined that de-icing salts were the predominant source. Enhanced recharge of stormwater without attention to salt concentrations could exacerbate this problem.

Pathogens

Pathogenic microorganisms in stormwater are typically derived from animal wastes (e.g., Salmonella and Campylo-

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

TABLE 4-4 Stormwater Quality Data at Neighborhood/Regional Outfalls from the National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 4 (March 17, 2105 version)

Constituent EPA Drinking Water MCLa Irrigation Use Guidanceb All Locations Combined (9,052 total events)
Average of detected valuesc 5th percentile of all valuesc 50th percentile of all values (median)c 95th percentile of all valuesc # of observations % detected
pH 6.5 to 8.5c 6 to 9 7.3 6.1 7.3 8.6 3,179 100
Total dissolved solids (TDS) (mg/L) 500c 140 25 80 370 4,120 99
Chloride (mg/L) 250c 26 1 6.2 92 869 84
Total suspended solids (TSS) (mg/L) 30 140 7 63 510 7,637 99
Turbidity (NTU) 39 4 19 120 936 100
BOD5 (mg/L) 30 14 2 8.3 42 5,152 95
COD (mg/L) 79 6.3 51 240 5,214 96
TOC (mg/L) 16 3 8.6 52 678 100
Ammonia (mg/L as N) 0.77 <0.1 0.28 2.1 2,946 72
Nitrate (mg/L as N) 10 0.97 <0.1 0.58 2.7 1,028 92
Nitrite (mg/L as N) 1 0.17 <0.1 <0.1 0.38 714 64
Total phosphorus (mg/L as P) 0.4 0.05 0.24 1.1 7,943 97
Microorganisms
Fecal coliforms (MPN/100 mL) <200d 60,000 65 4,600 200,000 2,168 92e
Fecal streptococci (MPN/100 mL) 73,000 500 19,000 300,000 1,317 94e
Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL) 5.0% positive 260,000 300 24,000 1,600,000 282 77e
E. coli (MPN/100 mL) 5,900 23 1,200 28,000 139 98e
Metals
Arsenic, total (µg/L) 10 100 5.9 <5 1 8 2,367 34
Barium, total (µg/L) 2,000 55 2 21 110 582 66
Cadmium, total (µg/L) 5 10 3.5 <1 0.35 5 4,002 40
Chromium, total (µg/L) 100 100 12 0.5 4 25 2,266 57
Copper, total (µg/L) 1,300f 200 33 0.5 13 94 5,836 89
Iron, total (µg/L) 300c 5,000 2,700 17 470 6,500 608 86
Lead, total, since 1984 (µg/L) 15f 5,000 34 <5 8 100 4,960 74
Nickel, total (µg/L) 200 14 <5 4 30 2,090 51
Zinc, total (µg/L) 5,000c 2,000 200 5.9 91 560 6,563 96
Organic Contaminants
Oil and grease, total (mg/L) 21 0.2 3 37 2,256 68
Total petroleum hydrocarbons(mg/L) 3.9 0.3 1.8 9.6 295 65
2-Chloroethylvinlether (µg/L) 3.4 0.2 2.4 5 624 58
Dichlorobromoethane (µg/L) 0.85 <1 0.55 1.6 116 36
1,2-Dichloroethane (µg/L) 5 1.5 0.05 0.15 1.8 247 21
Methlenechloride (µg/L) 12 <1 <1 14 457 20

aEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water (see http://water.epa.gov/drink/standardsriskmanagement.cfm).

bEPA 2012 Water Reuse Guidelines (EPA, 2012a).

cIndicates secondary MCL.

dFecal coliform/100 mL (not MPN).

eMost bacteria values that are not quantified exceeded the upper limit of the analytical method (over-range).

fAction level.

NOTE: Most of these data were obtained from the municipal stormwater permit program (MS4), with additional data from the National Urban Runoff Program (EPA, 1983) and various research projects. Although the database contains sampling sites in all nine rain zones in the United States, most of the sampling data has been collected from the upper Midwest and Northeast, mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest areas. Because these data include multiple data sets, the concentrations reported may reflect different sampling points and times for different constituents. The median and percentile values are calculated considering both the detected values and nondetected or over-range values, with no data substitutions, while the average values are for only the detected values. See Maestre (2005) for detailed discussions of effects of the multiple data sets on the overall statistics. Highlighted values exceed either the drinking water MCL or the irrigation guidance values.

SOURCES: Maestre et al. (2015); National Stormwater Quality Database, version 4 (March 17, 2015, updates; see http://www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html).

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

bacter from birds), although leaking sewer systems or poorly functioning septic tanks can also introduce human waste into stormwater. As with graywater, given the number of possible organisms and the difficulty quantifying their occurrence, indicator bacteria (e.g., total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococcus, E. coli) are often monitored instead of pathogens. However, as discussed previously, indicator bacteria may be a poor analog for human pathogens, particularly if the organisms are not derived from wastewater, as is often the case for stormwater (Clary et al., 2014). Data presented in Table 4-4 illustrate that indicator bacteria were detected in high numbers from stormwater outfalls at the neighborhood scale or larger. Mean fecal coliform bacteria concentrations exceeded the guidance value for irrigation water by more than 300-fold, while the 95th percentile fecal coliform value exceeded this guidance value by 1,000-fold.

Limited data are available on the occurrence of actual human pathogens in stormwater (Bambic et al., 2011; Page and Levett, 2010; Page et al., 2013; Vanderzalm et al., 2014), and the data can be highly variable. In a review of the literature, O’Shea and Field (1992a) cited studies that reported that some of the disease-causing microorganisms isolated from urban stormwater and streams include enteroviruses (e.g., poliovirus, coxsackieviruses, and echovirus) and bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter, and Salmonella) (Olivieri et al., 1977; Pitt and McLean, 1986; Qureshi and Dutka, 1979). In three studies, some with limited sampling, Salmonella was the most commonly detected pathogenic bacterium in urban stormwater, with 3-80 percent positive detections reported, while the other bacterial pathogens were detected in less than 10 percent of the samples (Kinde et al., 1997; O’Shea and Field, 1992b; Schroeder et al., 2002). Two studies reported 0-10 percent of stormwater samples with detectable Cryptosporidium, while none had detectable concentrations of Giardia (Schroeder et al., 2002; Wohlsen et al., 2006). Page et al. (2013) reported protozoa detections in 50 percent of all stormwater samples for a catchment area in Australia. Bambic et al. (2011) reported that viruses are rarely detected in municipal stormwater. Adenovirus, rotavirus, enterovirus, human polyomavirus, and hepatitis A were monitored and detected in 0-5 percent of stormwater samples (Brownell et al., 2007; Grohmann et al., 1993; O’Shea and Field, 1992b; Rajal et al., 2007; Schroeder et al., 2002), although three studies reported positive adenovirus occurrences in 10-59 percent of municipal stormwater samples (CREST, 2009; Jiang et al., 2007; Page et al., 2013).

Ahmed and Toze (2015) reviewed the literature on the microbiological quality of roof runoff. Most of the studies focused on indicator organisms, and many of the results are reported as presence or absence of the organisms, rather than pathogen concentrations (Ahmed et al., 2014; NRMMC et al., 2009a). The most commonly tested bacterial pathogen appears to be Campylobacter; with reported occurrence ranging from 0 to 125 samples (Simmons et al., 2001) and 45 percent of 27 samples tested (Ahmed et al., 2008). Salmonella have also been detected, generally at lower frequencies than Campylobacter (Ahmed and Toze, 2015). Four of six samples tested for Shigella and Vibrio were positive in a study conducted by Uba and Aghogho (2000). Roof runoff has also been tested for the protozoan pathogens, Giardia and Cryptosporidium, with the highest frequency of detection being reported by Crabtree et al. (1996): 23 and 45 percent occurrence, respectively, in 45 samples. No reports of virus detection in roof-captured rainwater were found. The results of studies that reported concentrations are summarized in Table 4-5. Most of the pathogen studies used molecular methods to detect the microorganism, so it is not possible to directly infer health risk from the presence of the pathogens.

Many of the studies of the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in stormwater have focused on the same organisms. Because it is not possible to monitor water for the hundreds of potential pathogens that it may contain, researchers typically choose a few that they believe are representative of the other pathogens. There are different reasons for the choices of the different organisms. For example, enteroviruses are often chosen to represent enteric viruses, because the methodology for monitoring these viruses is standardized and well established. Rotaviruses may be chosen to represent a “worst-case” scenario for viruses, because they have an extremely low infectious dose (i.e., very few organisms are required to cause infection, so the presence of just a few rotaviruses may signify a potential public health risk). Cryptosporidium is often a target of interest because of the very large (and widely publicized) outbreaks of drinking-waterborne disease that it has caused in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Salmonella is often chosen because it is one of the most commonly detected bacteria in wastewater.

The limited data available exhibit wide ranges of occurrences and concentrations. This may be due to the size of the sample analyzed (e.g., only 5 or 10 percent of a sample may be analyzed because of methodological constraints), the temporal variability of infection in the population, and/ or limitations in analytical methods. Statistical comparisons and descriptive characteristics of these data would therefore require a much larger number of samples.

Metals

Metals in stormwater are most commonly detected when source areas include industrial storage areas, highways, streets, and parking areas. Additionally, roofing drain-

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

age systems, conveyance systems, and water storage tanks are often made of metallic materials or components, including aluminum, lead, zinc, and copper, which can affect water quality in stormwater capture systems (see Box 4-1).

Chronic aquatic life criteria have been established by the EPA to protect aquatic life in receiving waters. Copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc are a concern for projects with surface reservoirs or wetland features, because their mean concentrations exceed criteria for aquatic organisms (see Table 4-6; Davis et al., 2001). Some plants may be sensitive to some metals, but irrigation guidelines mostly focus on metal uptake in plants that may be consumed, such as in household gardens. Although most metal concentrations detected in stormwater are below published irrigation use guidelines, elevated levels of iron could also pose concerns for irrigation use (see Table 4-4).

Because of frequent exceedances of the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) (Table 4-4), lead, iron, and cadmium pose human health concerns if stormwater is consumed in large quantities (Sabin et al., 2005). Median concentrations exceeded the recommended drinking water standards for iron. Since the removal of lead from gasoline, about 35 percent of recent lead observations exceeded the drinking water MCL (National Stormwater Quality Database, version 4). The 95th percentile values in stormwater outfalls are close to the drinking water standards for arsenic and cadmium.

Organic Chemicals

A wide array of organic contaminants can also be detected in stormwater, including pesticides, industrial chemicals and solvents, and petroleum-derived chemicals. Compared to total suspended solids, nutrients, and metals, however, relatively little information is available on concentrations of organic chemicals in urban stormwater (Grebel et al., 2013). Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are frequently detected because of releases from automobile exhaust and paving materials (see also Table 4-7). A number of chemicals used in industrial manufacturing and consumer products have been detected in stormwater, such as tire additive chemicals (e.g., benzotriazoles), plastic additives (e.g., bisphenol A, phtalates), and flame-retardants (i.e., perfluorochemicals and organophosphates) (Stachel et al., 2010). A recent study in Arizona focusing on perfluorinated chemicals concluded that secondary wastewater effluents and stormwater runoff from downtown areas exhibited similar perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) concentrations ranging from 10 to 1,000 ng/L (Quanrud et al., 2010).

Also present in stormwater are herbicides (e.g., diuron, glyphosphate, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D]) and pesticides (e.g., pyrethroids, fipronil) used in residential and commercial properties and along transportation corridors (Blanchoud et al., 2004; Gan et al., 2012; Gilliom et al., 2007; Weston et al., 2009). A recent study of stormwater herbicides and insecticides conducted by the Montana Department of Agriculture reported 29 different pesticides in stormwater samples (Table 4-8). The most common groups of pesticides detected were the phenoxy herbicides (e.g., 2,4-D, 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid [MCPA], and methylchlorophenoxypropionic acid [MCPP]) and herbicides used as soil sterilants (e.g., diuron, glyphosate, prometon, tebuthiuron, and triclopyr). Only two pesticides (i.e., 2,4-D and malathion) were detected at levels that exceeded aquatic life benchmarks, and none exceeded drinking water standards.

TABLE 4-5 Reported Numbers of Indicator and Pathogenic Microorganisms in Rooftop Runoff

Microorganism Rooftop Runoff Storage Tank Rooftop Runoff Toilet Bowla
E. coli (cfu/100 ml) ND-990 ND-54,000
Enterococci (cfu/100 ml) ND-110 ND-110
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (cfu/100 ml) <1-20 <1-870
Aeromonas sp. (cfu/ml) <10-30 <10-4,400
Legionella pneumophila ND ND
Legionella non-pneumophila ND-detected ND-detected
Campylobacter ND-detected ND-detected
Campylobacter (by qPCR; cells/L) ND-110 ND-110
Mycobacterium avium ND-detected ND
Salmonella (by qPCR; cells/L) ND-7,300 ND
Giardia (cysts/L) ND ND
Giardia lamblia (by qPCR; cells/L) ND-580 ND-40
Cryptosporidium (oocysts/L) ND-50 ND-10

aSamples were also taken from a toilet for which untreated roof-runoff was used for toilet flushing. No pathogens were detected in toilet bowls containing domestic tap water.

SOURCES: Ahmed et al. (2012); Albrechtsen (2002); Despins et al. (2009).

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

TABLE 4-6 Stormwater Quality Data at Neighborhood/Regional Outfalls Compared to Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria

Constituent EPA Chronic/Aquatic Life Criteriaa Medianb 5th percentileb 95th percentileb Approximate Percentage Exceeding EPA Chronic Aquatic Live Criteria
Chloride (mg/L) 230 6.2 1.0 92 1
Arsenic, dissolved (µg/L) 150 0.62 <5 2.7 0
Cadmium, dissolved (µg/L) 0.25 <1 <1 1.0 35
Copper, dissolved (µg/L) BLMc 7 0.8 40 n/a
Iron, dissolved (µg/L) 1,000 60 <100 930 4
Lead, dissolved (µg/L) 2.5 1.0 <5 15 20
Mercury, dissolved (µg/L) 0.77 <1 <1 0.06 <1
Nickel, dissolved (µg/L) 52 2.0 <5 11 <5
Zinc, dissolved (µg/L) 120 55 6 450 30

aSee http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/index.cfm.

bThe median and percentile values are calculated using detected and nondetected values with no substitutions for nondetected or over-range values.

cChronic aquatic life criteria for copper are calculated using the biotic ligand model (BLM), which considers water quality parameters, including hardness, that affect copper bioavailability. See http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/copper.

SOURCE: National Stormwater Quality Database, version 4, updated March 17, 2015 (http://www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html).

Comprehensive data on organic contaminants in stormwater have been collected by the state of Washington (see Table 4-7). No information relating to land uses or other site features are available, although it is expected that much of these data are associated with mixed land use areas. In many cases, the organic contaminants reported in these stormwater samples (including many organochlorine pesticides, PAHs, and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) exceeded the state’s proposed human health water quality criteria (set according to drinking water uses). In some cases, even median and minimum reported concentrations exceeded the proposed water quality criteria. At these concentrations, organic chemicals can pose hazards to aquatic life if stormwater is stored in surface reservoirs or wetlands. Additionally, toxic organic chemicals can cause cancer risks at significant exposures, particularly when drinking water supplies are augmented with stormwater through groundwater recharge (see Chapter 5). Some persistent organic chemicals, such as PFOS, do not have a strong sorption potential (Higgins and Luthy, 2006) and may percolate through soil with concentrations essentially unchanged (Quanrud et al., 2010). Very similar results were reported in an occurrence study of organic chemicals in stormwater across different stormwater catchment sites in Australia (Vanderzalm et al., 2014). Among the chemicals targeted, herbicides and notably simazine were the most detected organic chemicals, but at no site did the 95th percentile of herbicide analytes exceed the Australian drinking water guideline.

The occurrence of pollutants in stormwater can change over time based on changes in the use of certain chemicals and materials in the drainage area. This is especially true for anthropogenic compounds such as pesticides. Figure 4-1 illustrates the decreasing concentrations of Diazinon in stormwater in Fresno, California, following a ban on the pesticide (NRC, 2009a).

Source Area and Land Use Effects on Stormwater Quality and Source Control

Source areas, such as roofs, parking lots, streets, and landscaped areas, have a significant effect on stormwater quality, but there are limited data describing the quality of stormwater originating from specific source areas. There can also be large variations in contaminant concentrations within a source area type associated with building or construction materials and the activities conducted at a particular site. Most of the data on the impacts of specific source areas on stormwater quality has been collected for studies on the effects of roofing materials on runoff quality (see Box 4-1). However, stormwater runoff samples compiled from research sites in Wisconsin and Michigan showed significant differences in TSS, phosphorus, copper, and zinc by source area type (Figure 4-2) (J. Horwatich, USGS, personal communication, 2015). These data included residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses. Figure 4-2a shows significantly lower levels of TSS and phosphorus in roof runoff compared to lawns, undeveloped areas, and paved surfaces such as parking lots, driveways, and streets. In contrast, lawns show the lowest levels of zinc (Figure 4-2d). Zinc concentrations in roof runoff ranged widely because galvanized metals are common materials in roof flashings. Roofs and lawns show the lowest average concentrations of

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

TABLE 4-7 Observed Stormwater Contaminants in the State of Washington

Pollutant # of Observations % Detected Reported Results (µg/L) Proposed State Drinking Water Limits (µg/L)
Minimum Median Maximum
Metals
Antimony 50 32 0.52 1 50 14
Arsenic 275 83 0.17 1 30 10
Copper 1,495 92 0.001 6.4 12,300 1,300
Nickel 141 71 0.24 2.2 30 156
Selenium 74 15 0.5 0.70 120 141
Zinc 1,653 98 0.017 49 21,000 2,347
Organochlorine Pesticides
4,4’-DDD 38 39 0.000064 0.0025 0.88 0.00036
4,4’-DDE 47 57 0.00012 0.013 0.88 0.00025
4,4’-DDT 46 57 0.00049 0.0096 1.8 0.00025
alpha-HCH 38 32 0.000093 0.0025 0.5 0.0039
beta-BHC 38 16 0.00012 0.0025 0.44 0.014
Dieldrin 38 42 0.000064 0.0038 0.88 0.000061
Endosulfan sulfate 48 58 0.0003 0.012 6.07 0.93
Endrin 38 13 0.00011 0.0025 0.88 0.034
gamma-HCH (Lindane) 48 25 0.00049 0.0025 0.44 0.019
Heptachlor epoxide 38 47 0.00012 0.0025 0.44 0.000045
Isophorone 31 13 0.03 0.06 10 8.4
PAHs
Benzo(a)Anthracene 658 24 0.002 0.08 11 0.0028
Benzo(a)Pyrene 862 22 0.004 0.1 15 0.0028
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 503 27 0.0052 0.1 13 0.0028
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 499 22 0.0075 0.1 13 0.0028
Chrysene 786 38 0.003 0.1 16 0.0028
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 786 10 0.003 0.1 10 0.0028
Fluoranthene 781 50 0.005 0.1 33 16
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 786 22 0.003 0.1 10 0.0028
Pyrene 781 55 0.0054 0.1 26 331
Volatile Organic Compounds—BTEX
Benzene 209 10 0.13 1 190 1.2
Ethylbenzene 209 11 0.1 1 65 934
Toluene 210 15 0 1 460 4,132
Trichloroethylene 87 11 0.02 0.17 2 2.7
Other Organics
PCBs 15,277 28 0.000002 0.00004 0.28 0.00017
Pentachlorophenol 769 23 0.02 0.5 60 0.28
2,4-Dimethylphenol 31 10 0.06 1 10 87
Phenol 83 14 0.01 0.1 10 10,690
Phthalates
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 669 51 0.024 1.2 41 1.8
Butylbenzyl phthalate 623 14 0.018 0.59 10 215
Diethyl phthalate 619 23 0.024 0.67 10 4,332
Dimethyl phthalate 623 11 0.021 0.5 13 96,386
Di-n-Butyl phthalate 623 15 0.023 0.5 10 455

NOTE: Only compounds having greater than 10 percent detection frequencies of concentrations within the reporting range limits are shown. The proposed drinking water limits shown are the state’s human health water quality criteria as contained in the proposed amendments to the Water Quality Standards for Toxicants as published in September 2014.

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

TABLE 4-8 Herbicides and Insecticides Observed in Helena and Billings, Montana, Stormwater

Total # of Samples % Detected Median (µg/L) Max. (µg/L) Human Health Drinking Water Standard (µg/L) Lowest Aquatic Life Benchmarksa (µg/L)
Herbicides
2,4-D 23 100 1.23 27 70 13.1
Bromacil 23 35 0.02 0.26 90 6.8
Chlorsulfuron 23 30 0.007 0.036 1,750 0.055
Chlopyralid 23 22 0.029 0.8 3,500 56,500
Dichloprop 23 39 0.0029 0.099 n/a n/a
Diuron 23 91 0.042 0.92 10 2.4
Glyphosate 19 58 0.0029 0.01 700 1,800
Imazapic 23 57 0.0015 0.0081 4,000 n/a
Imazapyr 23 96 0.021 0.53 21,000 24
MCPA 23 100 0.093 2.2 4 20
MCPP 23 100 0.14 4.6 7 14
Picloram 23 22 0.13 0.39 500 550
Prometon 23 100 0.025 0.61 100 98
Simazine 23 22 0.003 0.023 4 36
Sulfomuterun 23 17 0.056 0.2 2,000 0.48
Tebuthiuron 23 78 0.0015 0.0024 500 50
Triclopyr 23 96 0.014 3 350 100
Insecticides
Imidacloprid 23 30 0.015 0.05 400 1.05
Malathion 23 17 0.036 1.1 100 0.035

aAquatic life benchmarks listed here reflect the lowest benchmark values considering acute and chronic effects on fish, acute and chronic effects on invertebrates, acute effects on nonvascular plants, and acute effects on vascular plants.

NOTE: Sixteen samples were collected from four locations during four storms in Helena, and seven samples were collected from four locations during two storms in Billings. These samples were collected from streams and storm drains that received stormwater and represent mixed land use areas. The samples were analyzed for 148 pesticides.

SOURCE: Montana Department of Agriculture (2011).

copper, although some high concentrations were observed in roof runoff (Figure 4-2c). Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) condensers are commonly constructed of copper and as such can be a source of copper in runoff when located on rooftop areas.

Bacteria levels in source areas vary widely (see Clary et al., 2014; Pitt et al., 2005a,b,c) but are notably increased by the presence of animals (see Figure 4-3). As an example, E. coli and enterococci levels in roof runoff vary dramatically depending on the extent of squirrel and bird activity in trees above the roofs and possibly the season. If roofs are not shaded by trees (which provide habitat for squirrels and birds), then bacteria levels are much lower (Shergill and Pitt, 2004). The presence of contaminated materials or inappropriate connections with sewage can also increase bacteria concentrations in stormwater. Overall, roof runoff is generally the preferred source area for beneficial stormwater uses based on water quality, but treatment, especially for bacteria, may be necessary to meet beneficial use guidelines, and roofing materials should be considered (see Box 4-1).

Land uses (e.g., residential, industrial, institutional) may contain multiple source area types (e.g., roofs, paved surfaces, landscaped areas), and although water quality is widely variable within a given land use, some general water quality trends can be observed among various land use types. National Stormwater Quality Database outfall data (see Table 4-4) were analyzed to identify statistically significant groupings of the data by land use categories (Pitt and Maestre, 2014). An example is shown in Figure 4-4 for copper, which showed significantly elevated concentrations in runoff from freeways and industrial land uses, compared to residential, institutional, commercial, and open land uses, although copper concentrations are extremely variable in all three land use groupings. In an analysis of Wisconsin stormwater quality by source area, only a few samples had copper concentrations in excess of the 200 µg/L irrigation guidance, and these were associated with runoff from streets and highways (Figure 4-2). If specific contaminants pose a risk for the desired beneficial use of stormwater, then land use effects on those contaminants should be understood and less-impacted areas can be selected to reduce the contaminant load at the source and reduce the level of treatment required.

For neighborhood- and regional-scale beneficial use projects in existing developed areas, source control strate-

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

image

FIGURE 4-1 Trend of the organophosphate pesticide Diazinon in stormwater discharges in Fresno County, California, following its nonagricultural ban starting in 2002. SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Brosseau (2007). Copyright 2006 by Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.

gies can be used to focus stormwater collection on the least contaminated source areas and land uses, considering exposed materials and on-site activities. Industrial or freeway land uses should probably be avoided, unless extensive water quality treatment is incorporated. Areas mostly comprised of residential, open space, and institutional areas are generally most suitable, although areas with low animal activity would be preferred for beneficial uses when bacteria are a concern. Even in areas having the best quality stormwater, there are still constituents that may cause concern with some beneficial uses requiring treatment before use. Chapter 5 discusses methods to evaluate exposures and risk to guide treatment design.

Materials Management for Source Control

Where stormwater is captured for subsequent beneficial use, an important element of source control is the management of roofing, drainage, and tank materials, particularly in new construction. There is an increasing trend in the use of metal roofs (mainly galvanized) in residential areas for increased service life, aesthetics, and fire protection. However, metal roofs can release significant amounts of zinc, copper, and lead over both short and long time frames and under a wide range of pH and salinity conditions (see Box 4-1). There may also be use of copper flashing and gutters in high-end residential and commercial areas, which is not advised because of the associated copper releases to stormwater, particularly in coastal areas. Factory-applied coatings on the galvanized metals result in greatly reduced metal releases, while homeowner applied coatings (and painting) are not as durable and these surfaces have large metal releases within a few years of application (Clark et al., 2008a). The use of lead flashing even occurs in new construction in some areas 1and would be a significant source of lead in roof runoff for those buildings.

Galvanized materials are also not advised for roof runoff capture and storage because of the substantial zinc releases. Storage tanks and other components made from concrete, high-density polyethylene, and vinyl materials can instead be used in stormwater capture systems without elevated metal releases (Ogburn, 2013).

__________________

1 See http://marsmetal.com/sheet-lead/roofing-and-flashing for example.

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

image

FIGURE 4-2 Box and whisker plots of: (a) total suspended solids (TSS), (b) total phosphorus, (c) total copper, and (d) total zinc, by source area type. The boxes designate the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, while the end of the whiskers indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The dots are observations that are less than and greater than the 5th and 95th percentile values. NOTES: The stormwater data collected by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the USGS between 1991 and 1997 for multiple research studies were compiled and analyzed as a single data set. The data include sampling locations at roofs, streets, driveways, parking lots, lawns, and undeveloped areas in residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses (Bannerman et al., 1983; Corsi et al., 1999; Holmstrom et al., 1995, 1996; Roa-Espinosa and Bannerman, 1995; Steuer et al., 1997; Waschbusch et al., 1998). The data include the following numbers of event samples: 158 from roofs, 141 from parking lots, 70 from driveways, 41 from lawns, 418 from streets and highways, and 12 from undeveloped areas (J. Horwatich, USGS, personal communication, 2015).

image

FIGURE 4-3 Comparisons of E. coli by source area type affected or unaffected by domestic pets and urban wildlife. The presence of these animals were observed as dogs being “walked” by owners in park areas, and trees having large squirrel and bird populations over roofs or in parking areas and streets. Parallel samples were obtained during the same rains for comparison from multiple locations. SOURCE: Sumandeep and Pitt (2004).
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

image

FIGURE 4-4 Significant differences among land use types for copper in stormwater. Data are from the National Stormwater Quality Database (version 4) with significant land use groupings determined by non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on rank tests along with multiple pairwise comparisons with Dunn’s Method. SOURCE: Pitt and Maestre (2014).

A well-known example of materials management for source control is limiting copper in brake pads. In urban watersheds, up to one-half of the copper originates from brake pads.2 California and Washington recently passed legislation limiting the amounts of copper and other heavy metals in brake pads (Ch. 173-901 WAC; California Health and Safety Code sections 25250.50–25250.65). That legislation inspired similar bills in other states, effectively setting a national standard (Motavalli, 2012).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of graywater and stormwater determines their potential uses without treatment, but many additional applications are possible with treatment. Chapter 5 discusses a risk assessment approach to determine the appropriate levels of treatment, but this approach requires a clear understanding of source water quality.

Pathogens and organic matter in graywater impact opportunities for beneficial uses without treatment. Considering the source water, human pathogens are likely to occur in graywater, although the specific types and concentrations vary substantially. The occurrence and environmental fate of pathogens in graywater are not yet well understood. Organic matter is present in high enough concentration in graywater to enhance microbial growth, thus limiting the potential uses of graywater without disinfection. Graywater also contains a wide array of personal care products. Sodium, chloride, boron, and other chemicals can impact the quality of graywater for irrigation uses. Best management practices exist for source control of microbial and chemical constituents, and such practices can be implemented at the household scale to reduce concentrations of these constituents in graywater.

Stormwater quality is highly variable over space and time and might contain elevated levels of microorganisms, metals, organic chemicals, and sediments, potentially necessitating treatment to facilitate various beneficial uses. Stormwater quality is a direct function of land use, source area, catchment size, and climatic and seasonal factors. Existing data suggest that most stormwater contains elevated levels of organic matter, suspended sediment, and indicator bacteria. Metals are also commonly found in urban stormwater runoff and may pose concerns for some beneficial uses, including irrigation and surface reservoirs or wetland features. Nutrients may also impact the function of some stormwater applications, such as ornamental water features, without treatment. Despite the enormous spatial and temporal variability of stormwater quality, the data show that there are a number of water quality parameters with at

__________________

2 See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/betterbrakes.html.

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×

least 5 percent of samples consistently above the guideline values for irrigation, drinking, or protection of aquatic life. This suggests that in spite of aggregated data showing high variability, the treatment systems required for achieving end uses may be relatively consistent over a wide variety of catchments.

Little is known regarding the occurrence of human pathogens and organic chemicals in stormwater, and additional research is needed to characterize their occurrence and fate. Studies of the presence of microorganisms in stormwater have consistently reported high concentrations of fecal indicator microorganisms across different source areas. In the few studies that analyzed for pathogenic microorganisms in stormwater, they were generally detected, at least in some samples. However, more work is needed to characterize their occurrence and fate, particularly for roof runoff systems where the beneficial use of untreated stormwater is common and raises concerns for uses with the potential for human exposure. More research is also needed to characterize the occurrence of organic chemicals in stormwater and their fate during various uses.

Land uses, contributing areas, and collection materials can be selected that minimize contaminants of concern to optimize stormwater quality and minimize treatment requirements for the designated beneficial use. Even though all land uses have the potential for problematic water quality conditions in runoff, residential areas generally have lower concentrations of these contaminants than do commercial and industrial areas. Local data should be used to help select the best source area. On average, residential roofs have the highest quality runoff of the various source areas, but there are many exceptions. Copper and galvanized metals in roofing, piping, and stormwater capture tanks can create hazardous levels of lead, zinc, and copper in roof runoff. The presence of pets and urban wildlife can cause high levels of indicator bacteria, which may indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms. Regional stormwater capture and recharge systems drain large source areas and many land uses, and opportunities for catchment area separation may be limited. With increasing catchment area, stormwater quality will be more difficult to manage and treatment may be required prior to beneficial use. However, targeted source control of contaminants through materials management may be possible at larger scales. For example, stormwater containing high concentrations of road salt should be diverted from stormwater capture and infiltration systems. Limiting copper and other heavy metals in brake pads is another example.

Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Quality of Graywater and Stormwater." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21866.
×
Page 76
Next: 5 Characterizing and Mitigating Human Health and Environmental Risks »
Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $64.00 Buy Ebook | $49.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Chronic and episodic water shortages are becoming common in many regions of the United States, and population growth in water-scarce regions further compounds the challenges. Increasingly, alternative water sources such as graywater-untreated wastewater that does not include water from the toilet but generally includes water from bathroom sinks, showers, bathtubs, clothes washers, and laundry sinks- and stormwater-water from rainfall or snow that can be measured downstream in a pipe, culvert, or stream shortly after the precipitation event-are being viewed as resources to supplement scarce water supplies rather than as waste to be discharged as rapidly as possible. Graywater and stormwater can serve a range of non-potable uses, including irrigation, toilet flushing, washing, and cooling, although treatment may be needed. Stormwater may also be used to recharge groundwater, which may ultimately be tapped for potable use. In addition to providing additional sources of local water supply, harvesting stormwater has many potential benefits, including energy savings, pollution prevention, and reducing the impacts of urban development on urban streams. Similarly, the reuse of graywater can enhance water supply reliability and extend the capacity of existing wastewater systems in growing cities.

Despite the benefits of using local alternative water sources to address water demands, many questions remain that have limited the broader application of graywater and stormwater capture and use. In particular, limited information is available on the costs, benefits, and risks of these projects, and beyond the simplest applications many state and local public health agencies have not developed regulatory frameworks for full use of these local water resources.

To address these issues, Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies analyzes the risks, costs, and benefits on various uses of graywater and stormwater. This report examines technical, economic, regulatory, and social issues associated with graywater and stormwater capture for a range of uses, including non-potable urban uses, irrigation, and groundwater recharge. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies considers the quality and suitability of water for reuse, treatment and storage technologies, and human health and environmental risks of water reuse. The findings and recommendations of this report will be valuable for water managers, citizens of states under a current drought, and local and state health and environmental agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!