Water Journal May 2015 by australianwater

PRINT POST APPROVED PP 100003880

Volume 42 No 3 MAY 2015

Journal of the Australian Water Association

Special Focus: The Many Facets of Asset Management PLUS: > Turning Distillery Waste into Energy & Reusable Water > A Statistical Approach to Stormwater Treatment > Effect of Elevated Temperature on Water Meter Accuracy > Benchmarking the Energy-Health Nexus for Efficient Recycling > Delivering WASH to Melanesia > Anaerobic Digestion at WTPs

RRP $18.95

Pollutant reduction rates

JellyFish® filter The JellyFish® filter is a tertiary stormwater treatment system featuring membrane filtration to provide exceptional pollutant removal at high treatment flow rates with minimal head loss and low maintenance costs. Call 1300 361 601 or visit humes.com.au for more information. © 2015 Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 87 099 732 297

Strength. Performance. Passion.

TSS

89%

65%

55%

61%

91%

Oil

62%

Contents regular features From the AWA President

A Perfect Storm Can Lead To A Perfect Opportunity Peter Moore

From the AWA Chief Executive

contents

Building Regional Support To Promote Our Water Expertise Jonathan McKeown

water journal ISSN 0310-0367

MANAGING EDITOR – Anne Lawton Tel: 02 9467 8434 Email: alawton@awa.asn.au TECHNICAL EDITOR – Chris Davis Email: cdavis@awa.asn.au

My Point of View

How Accounting Helps Water Awareness Roger Burritt & Katherine Christ

CrossCurrent

CREATIVE DIRECTOR – Mike Wallace Email: mwallace@awa.asn.au

Postcard

SALES & ADVERTISING QUERIES – Michael Seller Email: mseller@awa.asn.au

Industry News

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Jonathan McKeown EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Email: ea@awa.asn.au

Young Water Professionals

What’s In It For Me Vs What’s In It For Them Justin Simonis

AWA News

AWA International News

Water Business

New Products And Services

EDITORIAL BOARD Frank R Bishop (Chair); Dr Andrew Bath, Water Corporation; Michael Chapman, GHD; Dr Dharma Dharmabalan, TasWater; Wilf Finn, Norton Rose Fulbright; Robert Ford, Central Highlands Water (rtd); Ted Gardner (rtd); Antony Gibson, Orica Watercare; Dr David Halliwell, WaterRA; Sarah Herbert, Shelston IP; Dr Lionel Ho, AWQC, SA Water; Des Lord, National Water Commission; Dr Robbert van Oorschot, GHD; John Poon, CH2M Hill; David Power, BECA Consultants; Dr Ian Prosser, Bureau of Meteorology; Dr Ashok Sharma, CSIRO; Rodney Stewart, Griffith School of Engineering; Diane Wiesner, Jamadite Consulting. PUBLISH DATES Water Journal is published eight times per year: February, April, May, June, August, September, November and December. Please email journal@awa.asn.au for a copy of our 2015 Editorial Calendar. EDITORIAL SUBMISSIONS Acceptance of editorial submissions is at the discretion of the Editors and Editorial Board. • Technical Papers & Technical Features: Chris Davis, Technical Editor, email: cdavis@awa.asn.au AND journal@awa.asn.au

Join kayaking enthusiast Steve Posselt as he paddles up the Mississippi.

opinion

Asset Management Trends & Application

John Doran Looks At The Changing World Of The Asset Manager

feature articles

volume 42 no 3

Customer & Stakeholder Input Into Strategic Servicing

Delivering Value And Services To Meet Customer Expectations Bhakti Devi & Stuart Waters

Structural Failure Of Corroding Reservoir Infrastructure Two Case Studies Of Select Water Reservoirs Brad Dockrill, Warren Green & Brett Eliasson

Turning Distillery Waste Into Energy And Reusable Water

Converting By-Products Into Energy And Recoverable Clean Water Craig Menouhos & Ian Hart

Delivering Water And Sanitation To Melanesian Settlements

A Review Of WASH Services In Informal Settlements In Melanesia Alyse Schrecongost, Katherine Wong, Penny Dutton & Isabel Blackett 40

technical papers

cover In the current financial climate asset management is an issue that is becoming increasingly significant for many water utilities and companies.

• General Feature Articles, Industry News, Opinion Pieces & Media Releases: Anne Lawton, Managing Editor, email: journal@awa.asn.au General Feature Submission Guidelines General Features should be 1,500–2,000 words and accompanied by relevant graphics, tables and images. For more details please email: journal@awa.asn.au • Water Business & Product News: Kirsty Muir, Sales & Advertising Manager, email: KMuir@awa.asn.au

There’s No Containing Water Asset Valuation Methodologies Now Is The Time For Water Authorities To Evaluate Their Assets Anne Lockwood

Technical Paper Submission Guidelines Technical Papers should be 3,000–4,000 words long and accompanied by relevant graphics, tables and images. For more detailed submission guidelines please email: journal@awa.asn.au

ADVERTISING Advertisements are included as an information service to readers and are reviewed before publication to ensure relevance to the water sector and the objectives of AWA. PUBLISHER Australian Water Association (AWA) Publishing, Level 6, 655 Pacific Hwy, PO Box 222, St Leonards NSW 1590; Tel: +61 2 9436 0055 or 1300 361 426, Fax: +61 2 9436 0155, Email: journal@awa.asn.au, Web: www.awa.asn.au COPYRIGHT Water Journal is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any format without the written permission of AWA. Email: journal@awa.asn.au DISCLAIMER AWA assumes no responsibility for opinions or statements of fact expressed by contributors or advertisers. Mention of particular brands, products or processes does not constitute an endorsement.

MAY 2015 water

From the President

A PERFECT STORM CAN LEAD TO A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY Peter Moore – AWA President

In my first column as President of AWA I would like to take the opportunity to publicly thank our outgoing President Graham Dooley for the professionalism and guidance with which he has led the Board and the Association over the last two years. AWA must never underestimate the value it receives from people like Graham, who volunteer their considerable skills and time to assist in ensuring the Association prospers and continues to holds its value for members. Thank you Graham – and well done.

the completion of significant water infrastructure expansions across Australia, provides both a version of the perfect storm for the water industry and significant opportunity for AWA. A ‘perfect storm’ because there is a significantly reduced amount of money being spent on water infrastructure (and governments generally are less focused on water); a ‘perfect opportunity’ because this climate provides AWA with the chance to lift its performance and profile and position itself well for the future.

I would also like to introduce to you the Board who will continue the great work of our predecessors. Working with me (and complementing my water utility background) over the next two years are: Graham Dooley (utility, Water Utilities Aust Ltd), who remains on the Board as Immediate Past President for a further year, Mal Shepherd (contractor, John Holland), Carmel Krogh (utility, Shoalhaven Water), and Jodiann Dawe (research, SA Government) who are continuing as directors; and new directors Jeremy Lucas (utility, SA Water), Francois Gouws (utility, TRILITY), Michael Muntisov (consultant, GHD), Annette Davidson (consultant, Risk Edge Pty Ltd) and Garth Walter (resources, BHP Billiton). I am delighted to welcome these new directors to the Board, as their diverse skills and backgrounds will ensure the robust and varied input that will ensure AWA is well led into the future. I would also like to thank outgoing directors, Dr John Howard, John Graham and Helen Stratton, for their outstanding contributions over many years.

This will not be achieved without considerable effort. However, we are well placed with a terrific management team to drive the needed outcomes. The “Three Pillars” business direction of relevant information, professional development, and networking and collaboration was reconfirmed by the Strategic Advisory Council in March and will continue to be the direction AWA takes as we go forward. These pillars provide the focus to ensure we deliver more value to current members, as well as the incentive for others in the industry to see us as an organisation worthy of membership. At the same time, we are diversifying our income base to ensure AWA’s financial security for the future.

So what will the future bring us? I believe it will bring many opportunities and challenges. The general downturn in the economy, together with

water MAY 2015

As we move ahead we must focus on value for members, value for sponsors and value for the community. I am conscious of the time pressures on our members and their opportunities to volunteer time to the Association. Therefore we need to ensure that resources are used efficiently. We will be working to achieve greater coordination between our National and Branch activities to maximise our organisational efficiencies and the involvement of our members. I look forward to a busy and exciting Presidency!

SINTAKOTE

STEEL PIPELINE SYSTEMS AUSTRALIA’S PREMIER WATER PIPELINE SYSTEM QUEENSLAND Angelo Semit P +61 7 3712 3626 M +61 407 698 499 angelo.semit@steelmains.com

PGX.SMAW515

NEW SOUTH WALES–NORTHERN NORTHERN TERRITORY & EXPORT Colin Lewis P +61 7 3712 3625 M +61 408 741 459 colin.lewis@steelmains.com

VICTORIA, TASMANIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY & NEW SOUTH WALES–SOUTHERN Joe Elzein P +61 3 9217 3111 M +61 400 847 587 joe.elzein@steelmains.com

SOUTH AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA Denis Ericson P +61 8 9346 8555 M +61 408 926 626 denis.ericson@steelmains.com

From the CEO

BUILDING REGIONAL SUPPORT TO PROMOTE OUR WATER EXPERTISE Jonathan McKeown – AWA Chief Executive

AWA has been involved in promoting the Australian water sector’s capabilities internationally for more than 40 years – an important and ongoing task that benefits the whole water sector by profiling the expertise of our water practitioners. The experience and knowhow accumulated by AWA’s individual members across all aspects of the water cycle has never been so relevant to the needs of the developing nations across the Indo-Pacific region. Australia is seen as a regional leader in water resource management and the development of industries that are dependent on water. In particular, many aspects of the journey Australian State and Commonwealth Governments have taken to evolve a regulatory regime to govern water is now recognised as directly applicable to parts of Asia. Balancing the economic, social, and environmental demands for water is at the heart of this Australian expertise. The role of AWA is to facilitate introductions, activities and focused projects across the region that position the capabilities of our members, both individual and corporate. Where AWA offers some unique strengths is in marshalling our members’ private sector capabilities with the skills of our public sector members, including our utility and individual members with water policy expertise. With the support of Austrade’s Asian Business Engagement Plan AWA has developed a series of bilateral alliances with our counterpart peak national water bodies in several countries across Asia. Through these alliances AWA will provide members with access to many of the fastest-growing markets across the Indo-Pacific region. With the assistance of Austrade and the Department of Foreign Affairs AWA has taken delegations to key Asian events or facilitated our members into business and development opportunities in Singapore, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, and China. ANZ Sponsors AWA’s International Program ANZ has this month been appointed Principal Sponsor for AWA’s International Program. This is an important sponsorship that brings our members the assistance of ANZ’s many offices across Asia and their vast experience in maintaining business across the region.

WATER MAY 2015

No other Australian financial institution offers the same extensive footprint. ANZ has a significant portfolio of investments and clients that are directly involved in infrastructure, agribusiness, mining and manufacturing projects that are all dependent on water. AWA looks forward to developing this new alliance for the benefit of our members. AWA Vietnam Project AWA has been selected by DFAT to facilitate a project in Vietnam that will review Vietnam’s recent reforms to its regulatory framework for water and make recommendations to: support increased public private partnerships; strengthen the VWSA (our counterpart organisation) capacity to support the Vietnamese water sector and provide AWA members with relevant trade, investment, and policy information; and encourage more trade between the Vietnamese and Australian water sectors through participation at VietWater in November and increased Vietnamese participation at Ozwater’16. As we implement this project we will position expertise from our members, Specialist Networks and other stakeholders to maximise the profile of Australia’s water sector in Vietnam. Special Cooperation with the Bureau of Meteorology Over the past eight years, with Federal Government investment of over $400 million, the Bureau has developed a comprehensive range of water information products to assist the water industry make sound evidence-based decisions. AWA wants its members and industry to extract maximum benefit from these tools. Through this collaboration, AWA staff will work with the BoM to create greater industry awareness and uptake of these products and services, and help identify and share information about how they can be applied to a broader range of uses and industries. These alliances will provide AWA with additional means to support our members while profiling the capabilities of the whole water sector. All of these activities will help support the proposed DFAT initiative to establish an Australian Water Partnership in which AWA is looking forward to participating.

viadux.com.au

ADELAIDE BRISBANE

DARWIN GOLD COAST

MELBOURNE NEWCASTLE

PERTH SYDNEY

TOWNSVILLE

My Point of View

HOW ACCOUNTING HELPS WATER AWARENESS Roger Burritt & Katherine Christ – Macquarie University

Roger Burritt is Professor of Accounting and Sustainability, Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University. This article was co-written by Katherine Christ, Research Assistant, Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University. Water matters! In particular, water matters to businesses in water-sensitive industries whose processes, products and very existence rely on real and virtual water to survive. In agribusiness, which uses up to 70 per cent of global fresh water supplies, minerals and the manufacturing industries, there is considerable scope for gaining knowledge about, and improving, water management. There is often the perception that water is well managed when hard evidence indicates otherwise. Water management accountants can provide information to help businesses see if perceptions are correct and increase awareness of what actually works for them when water supply is insecure or uncertain.

THE Growing importance of water to business The significance of water to business is now beginning to eclipse the attention devoted to managing greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Water Report, published by the Carbon Disclosure Project in 2013, found that 70 per cent of respondents reported that water presents a source of substantial business risk, with economic implications of over US$1 billion for some companies.

water MAY 2015

In addition, two-thirds of the water risks identified were expected to impact on direct operations and/ or the organisation’s supply chain within the next five years, highlighting the urgent need for welladvised corporate level water management. There may be too little supply of water during periods of severe drought, such as occurred in the early 2000s in Australia. There may also be an over-supply when the weather brings floods that can devastate operations, such as in Queensland in 2010/11 and 2013. Both of these scenarios can be critical for business survival. Corporate water accounting provides a set of tools designed to help managers improve water management and address water risk in these times of increased uncertainty of supply and water quality caused by pollution.

Accounting – part of the water solution Firms of accountants have begun to address the water risks facing their clients. Reports from the big four accountancy firms, for example, Ernst and Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers (Ernst and Young, 2012), draw attention to the need to assess, manage and be accountable for physical, regulatory and reputational water risk. It can be argued that these professionals have an advantage, as Australia is acknowledged to be a world leader in general water accounting. Based on principles of financial reporting, the Water Accounting Standards Board established standards using the widely recognised notion that measuring activities and processes in quantitative

My Point of View Awareness and the integration challenge The Association of Certified Chartered Accountants reported last year that the case of water integration presents a number of challenges with which water management accountants can assist: • Accounting needs to lead transdisciplinary teams to predict rainfall, its capture, storage, distribution, waste, cost and impact on company value; • Accountants need to be trained in disclosures about perceived risks and opportunities and, led by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), produce water-related accounting information for management as well as external stakeholders; • Accountants need to understand water markets and water banking to assist companies with selling or transferring unused water rights or excess groundwater in the ‘bank’ or store; terms provides a means to help improve the management of organisations and improve societal outcomes. The voluntary standards are recognised and available for use by organisations across the globe. Water management accountants provide a foundation for improved management and the assurance that water risk is appropriately measured. They encourage development of credible information provided for decision-making and risk reduction.

Why accountants? Why should accountants be party to resolving water issues for business? 1.

They speak the language of business, rather than having a sole focus on, say, science or engineering information. By classifying and collecting relevant physical as well as monetary information about the water resource, and basing such collection on wellestablished accounting principles, they provide the foundation for better decision-making and management. These professional service providers do not work in silos. Accountants integrate their solutions in particular with the expertise of other professional groups such as engineers, lawyers, management experts and scientists involved in climatology, hydrology and meteorology. Based on pragmatic operational and investment options solutions to water problems, which go beyond any single discipline, are developed to anticipate water crises and reduce associated risks.

They have standard and flexible tools, such as six sigma, which reflect the risk that managers feel is acceptable when facing water risk.

Through ongoing membership of professional accountancy bodies they have a commitment to be ethical and consider environmental and social issues in their work.

Through the long history of the profession they have provided independent assurance of the credibility of information gathered and used by managers and others to compare alternatives. For example, accountants have become the ‘go to’ people for providing assurance on carbon-related matters and assuring the content of corporate sustainability reports.

Water management accountants are at ease with obtaining physical (e.g. volume and quality) and monetary information to help manage and solve, for example, critical water quality and supply chain issues affecting clients in whichever country they operate. The integration of such information types in effective and efficient decision settings helps towards sustainability and can ensure that water works in the best way.

• Water stewardship standards for companies and water footprints, while in an early stage of development, should be followed closely; • Professional associations provide the necessary self-regulation link between government and business interests through codes, voluntary agreements and certification schemes.

Is water management accounting of use to your business? If your business or sites are sensitive to water scarcity, then improved awareness through water management accounting provides the foundation for better management. Of critical concern is that local information is provided about the quality of water supplies, the cost of treating polluted water, the cost of alternative sources, such as desalination, and the potential benefits and costs of new water markets. Each company and site is in a different situation in relation to water and the need to be aware of risks to business survival. Evidence gathered indicates that water management accounting take-up and use in one Australian water-sensitive industry depends on a range of considerations, including the business’ source of water, the type of business, size, production processes, skills of employees and, above all, leadership from CFOs. Evidence confirms (Christ, 2014) that the benefit to be obtained from involvement with water management accounting depends on the setting in which a company operates. For some firms many millions of dollars can be saved through the information provided by environmental management information. For others, awareness of the issues associated with potential future water risk can provide a competitive advantage in this highly competitive global industry. If water becomes the new oil, with long-term tightening supply concerns and water markets leading to water value identification and water pricing, then there is a strong case for business to seek the benefits of improved strategic management. Simple but useful information is needed about vulnerability of the business to water deficits and surpluses. In this way, businesses can ensure they are well aware of, and advised about, water. Accountants are awareness experts for revealing and encouraging business performance, whether financial or environmental, or related to water. With the pressing need to be mindful about water resources, such information will help to institutionalise behaviours that ensure ‘water works’.

REFerENCES Ernst and Young (2012): Preparing for Water Scarcity: Raising Business Awareness on Water Issues, Ernst and Young Global Limited, London. Christ KL (2014): Water Management Accounting and the Wine Supply Chain: Empirical Evidence from Australia. British Accounting Review, 46, pp 379–396.

MAY 2015 water

CrossCurrent

National The latest Murray-Darling Basin Plan Annual Report shows that major milestones of the Plan have been met and good progress has been made on important components of water reform. Chief Executive, Rhondda Dickson, said the report highlights the achievements by governments, as well as the work on social, economic and environmental monitoring, over 2013–2014.

BoM has released another instalment of its annual National Water Account. The latest reports reveal: increased production of desalinated water in 2013–14 allowed Adelaide to reduce its dependence on other water sources; the Melbourne region conserved water in local storages in 2013–14 by sourcing more water from the Thomson Reservoir; runoff to Sydney’s water storages was 54% lower than in 2012–13, and overall storage volume decreased from 98% to 83% of capacity; and SouthEast Queensland water storages reduced to 89% of capacity after being nearly full in June 2013, due to lower rainfall during 2013–2014. Surface water and groundwater abstractions increased to compensate for below average rainfall and streamflows.

The MDBA has given its online river data a major facelift. A dedicated site now provides easier access to current and historic river data using an interactive map showing information from more than 60 places on the River Murray system. MDBA river operations spokesman, Joseph Davis, said river data has always been the most popular feature on the MDBA website, receiving more than 100,000 visitors last year.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released its issues paper seeking submissions on possible amendments to the Commonwealth water charge rules, which regulate the charges imposed on water market participants in the Murray-Darling Basin. "The importance of rural water markets cannot be underestimated in the context of the Australian economy," ACCC Commissioner Cristina Cifuentes said. "Water markets in turn rely on efficient and transparent charges for water infrastructure access and use."

The Government has received the Competition Policy Review final report, the first comprehensive assessment of Australia's competition policies, laws and institutions in more than 20 years. The independent review was undertaken by a panel led by Professor Ian Harper. To see the full review go to: competitionpolicyreview.gov.au.

New South Wales NSW Health has granted approval for recycled water to be used to water fruit and vegetable plants in Sydney Water's Rouse Hill Water Recycling Scheme. The scheme, which began in 2001, supplies recycled water to over 80,000 people. By using recycled water, local residents and businesses in the Rouse Hill area save about two billion litres of valuable drinking water each year. Customers in the local area who are connected to the Rouse Hill Water Recycling Scheme use 40% less drinking water than other customers in greater Sydney.

water MAY 2015

The Australian Government’s support of the Trangie Nevertire Irrigation Scheme has led to a more efficient irrigation network, improved water delivery infrastructure and over 270km of stock and water supply pipelines. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment Bob Baldwin said the scheme will provide longterm water efficiency and crop productivity gains for local irrigators, with the benefits to flow through to the wider community.

Wyong Shire Council is investing $9 million on wastewater upgrades at Toowoon Bay, Blue Bay, Tacoma, Wyong and Norah Head. Council’s Director Infrastructure and Operations, Mr Greg McDonald, said the upgrades to the sewage pumping states are part of Council’s long-term wastewater pumping station improvement program.

Australian Capital Territory The water quality of Lake Burley Griffin could soon improve, thanks to a new project that recycles and cleans stormwater for keeping public spaces green. The Inner North Reticulation Network collects stormwater, cleans it and stores it, allowing it to be used for the irrigation of green spaces. The system is the first of its kind in Canberra and comes at a cost of $11 million.

ACTEW Water, Canberra’s water and sewerage utility, is now trading formally as Icon Water. David Hohnke, Manager of Communications at Icon Water, said the community will now start to see the new brand phase-in, which will take a few months to be fully completed.

South Australia The State Liberals have reiterated calls for the need to establish a Commission of Inquiry into Water Pricing in South Australia. This follows former ESCOSA Commissioner Professor Richard Blandy’s statements to a parliamentary committee that South Australians were paying too much for water. Professor Blandy told State Parliament’s Budget and Finance Committee that the Weatherill Labor Government had "basically tied ESCOSA’s hands" on water prices and was imposing a hidden tax on South Australians through water prices to the tune of $275 million per year.

A Sydney-based sustainable infrastructure company has developed a new solar array technology that is being used to power a wastewater treatment plant in Adelaide’s mid-north. Infratech Industries launched the new system at the Northern Areas Council Waste Water Treatment Plant in Jamestown. SA Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Ian Hunter, said the company has specialised in developing a solar system that can operate on water.

SA Minister for Water and the River Murray, Ian Hunter, has opened two infrastructure projects aimed at restoring the river and its wetlands to health. The projects aim to improve the longterm ecological health of the river environment between the South Australian border and Wellington, and are part of the Commonwealth and State Governments’ $98.9 million Riverine Recovery Project.

FRANKLIN MOVING WATER IS OUR BUSINESS

Commercial.

Golf courses.

Industrial.

VR vertical multistage pump with DrivE-Tech VFD

Now more than ever above or below ground, you can find Franklin products in places you never thought to look. Our centrifugal, VR â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Series stainless steel pumps with DrivE-Tech provide reliable, long-term operation that perform over a wide variety of applications for water system pumping, processing, building services and pressure boosting applications.

www.franklinwater.com/au 1300 FRANKLIN (372 655)

FE1151 5/15

CrossCurrent SA Water’s two new portable drinking water fountains, Quench Benches, were on offer for participants and spectators at the recent Bay to City event in Adelaide. Water and the River Murray Minister, Ian Hunter, said the mobile trailer connects to a mains water supply and provides drinking water to people at large community events.

Tasmania Dairy farmers in Tasmania’s Tamar estuary and Esk rivers catchment areas are set to benefit from grants of up to $5,000 to support their efforts to help clean up the region’s waterways. The funding is part of the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme to implement the Tamar River Recovery Plan and will help farmers improve their farming practices to keep run-off out of the waterways.

Victoria A recent review of the Victorian water pricing approach presents a significant opportunity to improve the way water prices are determined since the establishment of the ESC's water pricing function in 2004. This consultative review process will allow extensive participation by customers and water businesses, and draw on the expertise of world-leading experts and their experience of international regulatory frameworks.

Queensland Work is set to start on an $800,000 project to process more biosolids from the Aubinville plant in Maryborough, ready for use as an agricultural soil conditioner. Wide Bay Water Corporation executive manager operations Denis Heron said there was a lot of work being undertaken around the world to reuse biosolids in agriculture rather than dumping them in landfill. Treated effluent from the Aubinville Waste Water Treatment Plant is already being used to irrigate crops.

Western Australia Irrigated agriculture on the Mowanjum Pastoral Station in the West Kimberley is moving closer to reality with extensive work being done as part of the State Government's Royalties for Regions $40 million Water for Food program. The $4.9 million Mowanjum irrigation trial is a partnership between the State Government and Mowanjum Aboriginal Corporation that will access underutilised groundwater sources to provide intensive grazing for beef cattle, allowing for year-round supply of stock for the domestic and export market.

The State Government has named Port Coogee by Australand as the 13th Waterwise Development in Western Australia. Water Minister, Mia Davies, recognised the development for using bestpractice water-sensitive urban design in its commitment to save water in the drying climate. “Residents of Port Coogee are using significantly less water than the average household in Perth through waterwise design, water-efficient appliances and alternative water sources,” Ms Davies said.

water MAY 2015

Matching available and new water sources to agriculture, mining and industry needs in the mid-west will provide the water security required for the region's continued growth and prosperity, Water Minister, Mia Davies, has said. Launching the State Government's Mid-West Regional Water Supply Strategy in Moora, Ms Davies said identifying water availability and demand was a fundamental step in preparing the region for investment.

Northern Territory The Territory Government has announced the appointment of Alan Tregilgas as the new chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board. Treasurer David Tollner said Mr Tregilgas had more than three decades of experience as a financial consultant, treasury official and economics adviser, and was the ideal candidate to steer the future of the Northern Territory's power and water services.

Member News AWA has released a Discussion Paper prepared by Minter Ellsion on promoting investment in the water sector. The Paper can be downloaded from awa.asn.au/discussion_papers.

AWA and law firm Norton Rose Fulbright are working together to develop a discussion paper on the regulations to do with CSG and water in NSW and Queensland. The paper will include a summary of NSW and Queensland regulatory regimes; highlight the key differences in regulation of and approach to CSG for water-related activities between the two states; and provide recommendations to harmonise the legislation to achieve best practice in both states and opportunities. For more information contact National Manager – Communications and Policy, Amanda White: awhite@awa.asn.au.

Degrémont, Process Group, SITA Australia, and 40 other water and waste companies across the globe have united under a single brand to become SUEZ environnement. In Australia, SUEZ environnement has more than 2,600 employees in the water, waste and oil and gas sectors, and supplies seven million people with drinking water.

The 2030 Water Resources Group (WRG) was formed by leading corporates including Nestlé, Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, IFC and the World Economic Forum. It works to address water scarcity problems in different parts of the world. Arup is looking to identify 40 case studies of best practice examples of water saving solutions from the agricultural and industrial sectors for an update to the WRG Water Use in Scarce Environments catalogue. Contact daniel.lambert@arup.com

Rob Bates has joined Evoqua Water Technologies as Manager – Order Execution Projects and Service. Rob comes to Evoqua from 10 years at MWH where he performed a number of key roles, including Technical Manager on the Priority Sewerage Program Alliance for Sydney Water and Engineering Manager on the SewerFix Alliance for Sydney Water. Most recently Rob was the NSW Water Group Manager for MWH. He is located at the Macquarie Park office in Sydney.

IF YOU CAN’T

MEASURE IT, YOU CAN’T CONTROL IT

WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

CERLIC SLUDGE BLANKET PROFILE SENSORS

SEE THEM IN ACTION!

Control Components

Postcard

POSTCARD FROM THE MISSISSIPPI From Steve Posselt, Kayak4earth Steve Posselt is paddling to Paris. Kayak enthusiast Steve’s passion is water – but he believes the earth as a whole is more important and the Paris Climate Summit in November is critical to what sort of world our grandchildren will inherit. ‘Connecting Climate Chaos’ is an account of his journey in his trusty wheeled kayak, highlighting extreme weather events: a Canberra fire storm, Sydney fires, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, UK floods and French drought. The US leg is up the Mississippi and across to New York, over to the UK, the English Channel and up the Seine to Paris. After completing the Australian leg in January my journey up the Mississippi so far has been up the river from New Orleans to Vicksburg, home of the US Army Corps of Engineers who control the river. And control it they do. The sheer magnitude of the levee system and river structures is mind-boggling. That said, the engineers are under no illusions about the limit of their control. Even with the mighty resources of the US, Mother Nature can still have her way. The first 280km was bad enough, with strong currents and very busy traffic, including huge sets of barges and ocean-going ships. All the time the river was rising steadily, fed mainly by the Ohio flooding – but at one point things turned infinitely worse. Thirty per cent of the river is diverted down the Atchafalaya River, which, as I passed through it was about 500GL/d. The flow against me then went to 1,500GL/d, which in anyone’s terms is a lot of water. The river is unlike anything we have in Australia. It is contained within levees, but there are large wilderness areas within those levees. The Corps of Engineers have to keep the river functional for the huge volume of traffic, and they now need to provide sediment to the delta area below New Orleans to stop it disappearing below the water.

STEPPING BACK IN TIME All Australian Water Engineers know and respect the Corps of Engineers, but it was interesting to actually visit their water engineering headquarters and get a first-hand impression of the organisation after paddling there. Unlike Australian organisations, they seem to think that people qualified in the field are best to run the operation, so you will find an engineer, a hydrologist or someone used to doing calculations on the river in the top job. You will also find decisions being made by engineers. The engineering headquarters (although not the research arm) is like stepping back in time to an era before the nonsense started about engineers not being managers. Books and maps abound. Technical discussions with managers are easy. There is lots of space, large desks, organised clutter, and hallways, offices. At present a huge hydrological study is underway to determine whether their parameters are still valid and what the effects of climate change might be. My belief is that engineering has reached a zenith. Massive structures, massive control, engineering might, have all been well and good and have allowed the river to do what was wanted – but the approach seems to be softening. Environmental concerns are being addressed with care. The US, just like Australia, is turning into a drain, with everything speeding up. Farmers are even tiling parts of their fields to get rid of water more quickly. The river, therefore, has a lot more water flowing down it during floods than it had 200 years ago. In Australia, we saw in Toowoomba and Grantham in 2011 what drastically reduced times of concentration can do in an abnormal event. Interestingly, 2011 also was the biggest flood they have had on the Mississippi. Interestingly, with the river contained within levees, the term “flood” is not used until levels are extreme. At time of writing, the river in Vicksburg is up about 13m – and that is just at the start of flood level. Society has learned to live with river levels moving up and down more than 10m. Fishermen can be seen prowling the treetops in their tinnies on the weekends. Low, medium and high water levels are talked about, with the river being vastly different at all stages.

WATER MAY 2015

Postcard

NEGOTIATING THE ‘BIG MOMMA’ There are many groins on the banks that direct flow into the centre of the river to keep it scouring. The effect of these at high flows can be quite alarming to a kayaker trying to battle up river, even though they are submerged under many metres of water. Here is an excerpt from my blog. I found out later that I was right over a “big momma” of a groin: The mouths of the Mississippi were smaller here, just licking their foaming lips, but they were there alright and not in a friendly way. A big log jam jutted out into the river. White water rushed past. Not wanting to think about it I paddled hard towards the edge of the log. Crashing into the white water I was thrust 30m into the river in a second. Two seconds it was 50m as the rudder responded. Paddling desperately I held my ground but only just. I crept back towards the log jam just holding my ground. About 3m out there was a standing wave. That gave me enough to inch forwards. Go, go, go. With every ounce of strength I had, the kayak inched forward. The top of a small tree was 30m ahead and just inside the line of logs. Got to make that. Got to make that. Got to make that. It echoed around my head. The carbon wing blade flexed in the water as I thrust like a man possessed. Past the point of no return I was above the log jam. A broken blade, even maybe a missed stroke and that could be my last. The river was rough, it was ugly and I was bouncing like a cork. This was committed. No way back. The tree under the water started to break the flow, I was winning. Thirty seconds later it was all over, I was through. Tricky was not the word I would have used. It was a bastard! Never, ever again do I want to flex a carbon fibre wing paddle. It is interesting to combine academic skills with real life observations. For my money the river is getting straighter. At these high levels I see the inside of bends collapsing a lot more than the outside. This seems to be in line with Corps of Engineers goals because they do not want the river wandering, forming what we know as billabongs. It is a commercial river of great economic significance and must fulfill that task. For kayakers wanting to go upstream the river is very difficult. Where there is land it is usually OK, with eddies and friction from the bank assisting. Most of the time though, the land is a long way back through the trees, with water streaming at you. Thirteen metres at Vicksburg is as high as this little black duck can cope with. He has no more strength to give. Steve Posselt is a long-time water engineer, turned adventurer. Each of his many journeys since 2007 has been more hair-raising than the one before. You can follow his journey on www.kayak4earth.com or www.facebook.com/kayak4earth

MAY 2015 WATER

Industry News

MARKET-BASED APPROACHES TO SECURING REGIONAL AUSTRALIA’S URBAN WATER SUPPLY Aither’s recent work with regional water providers in New South Wales demonstrates the opportunity to cost-effectively deliver water security outcomes by taking a more strategic approach to water entitlement management. Following is a thought piece by Aither Director Chris Olszak and Aither Consultant Louise Barth, who presented on the topic at Ozwater’15 in Adelaide earlier this month. A secure and affordable water supply is a critical objective for all urban water utilities. Securing adequate water supply supports economic growth and social wellbeing. However, at the same time, urban water utilities need to ensure the affordability of their water services. Meeting these objectives is increasingly challenging in regional Australia. Greater climatic variability and changing patterns of demand make balancing these objectives particularly complex in regional areas. Large investments in new regional water supply infrastructure have been announced in response to these challenges, such as the $1 billion set aside in the New South Wales Government’s Rebuilding NSW Plan. Water markets provide significant opportunities to secure water supply. Most regional water providers have existing portfolios of water entitlements and many have access to active trading markets, particularly those connected to major rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. While regional water providers will only ever be relatively small market players, the volume of water allocations traded in the southern Murray-Darling Basin in 2013–14 equated to more than double the annual water usage of Melbourne or Sydney. Strategic allocation trading can accrue substantial benefits in the short term. Allocation markets allow regional water providers to meet seasonal water demands in a cost-effective manner. In years of high demand, regional water providers can purchase additional allocations. And in years of low demand, regional water providers can sell surplus allocations to secure a financial return. Engaging in water entitlement markets can deliver benefits in the longer-term. Water entitlements allow water providers to meet longerterm shifts in water demand. Strategic management of water entitlement portfolios can also deliver significant financial returns – enabling the purchase of more secure water or investment in other areas. Active management of water entitlement portfolios will increase the efficiency of infrastructure investments. Considering regional water infrastructure in combination with improved entitlement management and water trading can save money by reducing or deferring the scale of infrastructure required, changing the optimal mix and timing of investments, and essentially making better use of existing sources. Regional water providers are already pursuing such approaches. Aither has recently worked with a number of regional water providers in New South Wales to develop a strategic approach to entitlement portfolio management to ensure that value is realised from these assets. Water trading by regional water providers should deliver win-win outcomes. Engagement in water markets can deliver more secure water for suppliers, but also gives customers more affordable accessto water in the longer-term. Governments and the broader community also benefit by deferring the need for major investments in water supply infrastructure.

water MAY 2015

TRILITY–PENTAIR AGREEMENT FORMALISED Australian private water utility TRILITY is pleased to announce it has achieved completion on purchase of the bulk of the business being acquired from Water Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Pentair plc. One further contract is presently being finalised to complete the whole of the previously envisaged deal. With this partial completion, TRILITY welcomes the Water Infrastructure Group Operations to its portfolio and looks forward to providing continued excellent services to its new clients and the communities they serve. TRILITY Managing Director, Francois Gouws, said that TRILITY was delighted at being able to actually commence the management of these operations, thereby further strengthening its national footprint. He added that TRILITY continues to seek suitable growth opportunities in the sector, both within Australia and also in the wider water market.

DEEP EMISSIONS CUTS NEEDED TO STEM CLIMATE CHANGE The Australian Academy of Science has recommended that Australia should aim to reduce its carbon emissions significantly over the next 15 years as part of a global effort to prevent the worst effects of global warming. In response to the Government’s consultation on Australia’s post-2020 carbon emissions target, the Academy has advised that based on the best available evidence, Australia should commit to a target of 30–40 per cent below 2000 levels. This would be consistent with the longer-term goal of approaching zero carbon emissions by 2050. President of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor Andrew Holmes, said Australia needs to aim for this level of emissions reduction to match global targets and avoid the more serious impacts of human-induced climate change. “Australia is at great risk from the worst impacts of climate change, including costs to the economy, the health and wellbeing of Australians, and extreme weather events,” Professor Holmes said. “At the climate talks in Paris this year, we have a real opportunity to demonstrate a long-term commitment to global action.” Professor Matthew England, Academy Fellow and climate expert, said the evidence on climate change was clear. “We have a choice ahead of us: we can act on the evidence or we can ignore the facts and face massive costs from climate change down the track. To stabilise the climate, we need to transition toward a decarbonised economy by mid-century. It’s in our national interest to do this – even though we only contribute 1% of global emissions, we are vulnerable to 100% of the impacts of climate change.” The Academy’s submission is available at: www.science.org.au

Industry News

AUSTRALIA NEEDS TO FOCUS ON WATER REFORM

INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR SYDNEY PARK

Australia’s water reform campaign has ground to a halt and now needs to be regenerated to optimise the nation’s true liquid asset, according to comments in the April issue (189) of Focus, a bi-monthly magazine published by the Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering (ATSE). As the millennium drought has faded from the headlines, key institutions driving water reform have been abolished or had their budgets cut, the publication continues.

Sydney Park has been recognised with a prestigious Green Flag award, an international accolade that acknowledges great parks for their value to the community. Lord Mayor Clover Moore said the award was the City’s third Green Flag, with Redfern Park and Hyde Park winning the prize over the past two years.

“Australian governments need to work together to rebuild national collaborative processes, institutions and incentives to restore momentum to water reform,” writes Ken Matthews, chair of ATSE’s Water Forum and a former chair of the National Water Commission (NWC). “Changes to government policies, programs and legislation are central to the necessary changes to water management in Australia. Our national water research effort is fragmented, nonstrategic and lacks leadership. Budgets and resources are allocated without clear logic and process. Water regulation is also ripe for further reform. Water managers need to deal with economic regulators, health regulators and environmental regulators...” NWC Chair Karlene Maywald poses the question: “Who’s holding the baby?” in relation to water in regional Australia and notes that communities are suffering from ’reform fatigue’ with a consequent waning in their willingness to commit to new reform. “It is possible that with investment in environmental works and measures, better river management and removal of constraints, that the same environmental outcomes can be achieved with less water,” she writes. “For communities to have any confidence in this process, governments must not bow to pressure from interest groups. A robust and transparent process must be used to establish the bona fides of any proposal that results in a reduction to the amount of water to be returned to the environment. This will be a real test of leadership and it will be imperative that all interest groups maintain pressure on governments not to backslide from the hard won gains so far. We are all collectively responsible for holding the baby.” Professor Craig Simmons FTSE, one of Australia’s foremost groundwater authorities, says we must continue national water reform recognising the huge number of social, environmental and economic challenges and opportunities in which groundwater plays a critical role. “We must create an enduring, assertive, proactive, non-partisan approach to water reform and reject water reform that waxes and wanes as droughts come and go and political parties change.” Professor Tony Wong, Chief Executive of the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, says existing water services and planning processes are not only poorly equipped to support projected population growth but slow to respond to economic or climatic uncertainty. He says cities and towns have more than enough water, but having a diversity of water sources is the insurance needed for water supply security.

“Sydney Park is very popular with the local community and visitors to the inner west, and is looking terrific after undergoing a major facelift,” the Lord Mayor said. “This is our City’s largest park and we’ve been working to improve recreation and relaxation areas as well as revitalising the park’s entire wetland system. “Beautifully designed parks and open green space are vital for inner city living where many people do not have a backyard of their own. Our parks and spaces provide opportunities for people to exercise, relax and enjoy outdoor activities. “This award is a credit to the City’s hardworking staff involved in the planning, design and maintenance of the park. These are the people behind-the-scenes who work hard to ensure we all have beautiful, open, green spaces to enjoy in the heart of our city.” Sydney Park features a first-grade sports oval, public grandstand, play areas for kids, including all-abilities equipment, public art, barbecue and picnic areas and a café. A network of urban forest provides vital habitat for wildlife and residents to enjoy. The area was used to manufacture bricks for a century as a result of the rich clay beds that lay underground the site. Kilns were built in 1893, baking bricks for hundreds of Sydney homes and businesses. These brick kilns are now heritage-listed. From 1948 to 1976, the massive clay pits that had been excavated were used for the disposal of municipal waste. After the closure of the tip, the area was reclaimed by placing layers of soil and building rubble over the refuse dump to create the present parkland profile. The park has now undergone a major transformation since the closure of the tip. A $10.5 million upgrade in the park includes a new stormwater and harvesting re-use facility to provide a sustainable water supply for the park’s future needs and improve wetland rehabilitation. Sydney Park will be home to the City of Sydney’s first City Farm. The proposed design includes areas for crops, a fruit-filled orchard, bush tucker plants, native bees and herbs, and a farmers market with local produce. For more information, visit www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au

“Water planning and emerging technologies for fit-for-purpose water production, resource recovery (water, energy and nutrients) from our sewerage system and multi-functional hybrid centralised and decentralised water infrastructure must blend with urban planning. In essence, a whole-of-government approach will be necessary to harness the full potential of urban water in this endeavour.” The full issue of ATSE Focus can be viewed on the ATSE website.

MAY 2015 water

Industry News

ORICA SUPPORTS GREAT BARRIER REEF RESEARCH Orica employees will help undertake ‘citizen-science’ research projects on the iconic Great Barrier Reef under a new a three-year partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF). “The agreement significantly enhances our support for the Foundation, which funds vital research to protect and preserve this wonder of the natural world,” said Orica’s Executive Global Head Projects and Technology Ron Douglas. “We have been involved with the Foundation since 2012, but through Orica’s Community Partnerships Program we are now able to commit to a longer and more comprehensive agreement. “It’s a win-win for Orica and the Foundation,” said Mr Douglas. “This partnership makes a lot of sense for Orica. We are a global company headquartered in Australia and the reef is one of Australia’s global icons. Orica’s commitment to science, research and development is critical to our future success, so working with a well-respected research organisation like the Great Barrier Reef Foundation clearly aligns with Orica’s values.” GBRF Director of Operations, Theresa Fyffe said: “The Foundation is the only independent, not-for-profit organisation in Australia dedicated solely to raising funds for scientific research to foster a resilient Reef. We partner with a range of research organisations, governments and corporate partners and are delighted that Orica has made the commitment to invest in the Reef for the next three years.” Orica will also support this year’s ReefBlitz event, through sponsorship and employee participation. “ReefBlitz is an important program that the Foundation launched last year, which allows the whole community to get involved in citizen science and get hands-on collecting data and discovering plants and animals living in and around the Great Barrier Reef,” Ms Fyffe said. Orica has more than 700 employees in Queensland supporting customers in the Bowen Basin and beyond, including an office in Townville, the location of this year’s ReefBlitz event.

PHILMAC MAKES FRENCH CONNECTION Specialist pipe fittings and valves manufacturer Philmac has made a potentially lucrative French connection. The South Australianbased exporter has been awarded a major contract through Philmac’s French trading partner with global water, waste and energy company, Veolia, to supply pipe fittings for water infrastructure in Paris and beyond. The three-year agreement is the biggest single contract in France for Philmac and follows successful trials of its products for the French municipal market.

water MAY 2015

“For our South Australian operations to be awarded this global supply contract is testament to the expertise and capabilities of our people,” Philmac Managing Director Mark Nykiel said. “It’s a great win for Philmac and shows that investment in innovation within manufacturing pays dividends. There is a healthy global appetite for Australian ingenuity. “We have been supplying France since 2001, but this contract is a real step change for what we see as an important growth market for Philmac. We spent considerable time in the R&D phase to come up with a product designed specifically for the unique requirements of water infrastructure in France.” Innovation and a targeted export development drive is part of Philmac’s sustainable growth strategy. The company recently boosted its Adelaide-based Research and Development team to build on its product innovation program.

MURALS BRING VIBRANCY TO WATER CORPORATION WALLS Three renowned artists have painted murals on the walls of the John Tonkin Water Centre in Leederville as part of the Water Corporation’s participation in PUBLIC 2015, a project driven by cultural organisation FORM. Water Corporation General Manager Customer and Community, Karen Willis, said the murals were part of a Perth-wide project converting walls and public spaces into vibrant urban art. “The three artists were asked by Water Corporation to use water as an inspiration for their murals and we are really thrilled with the final result,” Mrs Willis said. “Water Corporation is pleased to be part of an event that engages artists to interact with the community and contribute to the vibrancy and liveability of our city.” The artists commissioned to transform three external walls at Water Corporation were Andrew Hem (Cambodia), DA Least (China) and Perth local James Giddy. PUBLIC 2015 has brought together more than 50 artists to transform over 42 walls throughout Victoria Park, Fremantle, Claremont, Northbridge, Perth CBD as well as the John Tonkin Centre in Leederville. “I encourage people to come and take a look at these huge murals at the Water Corporation headquarters, along with the other exciting projects around Perth,” Mrs Willis said. FORM is an independent not-for-profit arts and culture organisation that receives triennial funding from the State Government. Details of the artists and location maps of all the murals around Perth are available at www.form.net.au.

Industry News

HISTORIC NSW COLLEGE EMBRACES WATER AND ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY An Australian college has committed itself to a program of water and energy conservation designed to deliver strong sustainability benefits. The historic 118-year-old Avondale College of Higher Education – renowned for its teaching, theology and nursing tertiary education, as well as business, science and arts studies – has employed CST Energy and Water utility monitoring systems to help reduce costs and achieve greater sustainability across its approximately 325-hectare (800-acre) campus in Cooranbong near Lake Macquarie, New South Wales. The water and energy monitoring and reporting systems it is establishing – and the culture of individual responsibility for sustainability that flows from that –will provide a model that could be adopted across a range of Australian educational, community and business enterprises, says Andrew Boughton, General Manager of CST Wastewater Solutions’ Energy Division. “Avondale is quietly and modestly undertaking, on its own behalf, a sustainability program that would do credit to some of the top Australian businesses with which we work,” he said. CST Wastewater Solutions has delivered green energy and wastewater solutions to some of Australia’s leading companies for more than 25 years. The technologies it distributes have won local and global awards, including recently the IChemE global green energy award for the RAPTOR™ system from wastewater treatment, and green energy authority Global Water Engineering (GWE) for technology that replaces fossil fuels. The conservation measures being deployed at Avondale are of a similarly high national and international standard and benefit, says Mr Boughton. Utilities monitoring systems at Avondale cover two main areas: sub-monitoring of electricity using CT (Current Transducer) devices connected to data-loggers provides accurate data on all electricity usage; while water meters log every litre of water at 30-second intervals, providing highly precise readings. The initial benefit of this information is that costs can be allocated per building and per department, which makes each one responsible for the management of their own utilities, ultimately encouraging responsible usage.

“We need baseline data to efficiently control our water and energy costs,” says Mr Paul Hattingh, Vice President of Finance Infrastructure and Risk at Avondale. “Monitoring is the first step in helping departments to take responsibility for their financial and environmental sustainability, whereas, with pooled costs, no-one can be individually accountable.” Another cost-saving measure achieved through monitoring is assisting users to determine when peak energy usage is occurring and finding ways to reduce or reallocate this. The longer-term goal is to implement behavioural change, including practical measures such as turning off lights and airconditioning when buildings are not in use and putting timers on electronic devices so that they automatically turn off if no-one has used them for a certain period of time. “We have a long-term vision of greater sustainability,” says Mr Hattingh. “In the future, we hope to be running courses on sustainability and even allowing a student group to recommend and manage behavioural change, based on the utilities monitoring data we have introduced.”

GRETNA DRINKING WATER UPGRADE ANNOUNCED TasWater has announced that Gretna’s drinking water system will be upgraded by late 2016, removing the need for residents to boil their water. TasWater CEO Michael Brewster confirmed at a community meeting in the town, which is located in the Central Highlands of Tasmania, that a new pipeline will connect Gretna to a major nearby water pipeline and a new filtration system will provide water that will meet Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The project will cost more than $3 million dollars and the Central Highlands Council will contribute $500,000 to the project. A pipeline of approximately eight kilometres will link the town to TasWater’s main feeder line from Lake Fenton, which provides drinking water to Hobart. The water will be stored locally in a new reservoir as well as making use of the existing water storage in Gretna. The water will go through a filtration process before being delivered to homes via the existing reticulation network. “Not only will the new system give Gretna residents water they can drink from their tap, but pressure will also improve,” Mr Brewster said. “The Gretna upgrade is part of TasWater’s commitment to improving infrastructure across Tasmania and is part of a plan to spend more than $300 million on water and sewerage upgrades over the next three years. “TasWater plans to cut the number of towns subject to Boil Water Alerts and Do Not Consume notices from 27 to eight over the next 18 months.” The Gretna project is still in the planning stages and the community will be kept up to date with developments as they proceed. Work is expected to start early next year, with clean drinking water flowing by the end of 2016. As a result of the Gretna upgrade proceeding, TasWater will assess if there is enough support in the neighbouring towns of Bushy Park and Glenora to introduce a TasWater service in those towns. A community meeting will be held in Glenora in May 2015.

water MAY 2015

Your digital journal is now available!

NOW YOU CAN READ WATER JOURNAL BEFORE ITâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S EVEN PRINTED... AND ACCESS BACK ISSUES AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON! www.awa.asn.au/Journal

Young Water Professionals

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME vs. WHAT’S IN IT FOR THEM Justin Simonis – AWA YWP National Committee President

I frequently hear from YWPs frustrated that they have not been approved to attend a training course or industry event. To the YWP him- or herself, the benefit seemed logical and promised to generate more value than the cost. So where did it fall over? It’s generally not that the approver doesn’t want to approve the investment; frequently they would like to do so but are not helped by the value proposition provided. We often define our value proposition by a “what’s in it for me” mindset rather than “what’s in it for them”. A simple reversal of this thought process can yield more rewarding outcomes. Instead of pitching the primary value of any investment in you from a personal perspective, with company-based returns a by-product of this, put the company’s return first and the individual benefit as a by-product. It’s also important to broaden your perception of “value”. Value can be defined as the importance, worth or usefulness of something – it doesn’t have to be purely monetary. Many organisations now make it easier for you to define the value proposition of an investment by including their key values in their induction process, publishing them on their website and often having them displayed on posters and notice boards around the office … it might even be on your screen saver. Have a look at the ‘About Us’ tab on your company website; under this there may be a link to the company’s “Core Values”. The statements on this page will help you unlock your value proposition. Obviously, monetary return on investment will always be in the back of every approver’s mind, but in the most basic of terms your task is to take these core

water MAY 2015

values and relate them to the value generated by the investment you are seeking. You have to create the links for the approver to make it easy for them to say yes and sell the investment decision up the line. It won’t work all the time, but the easier you make it for the approver, the more chance you will have. On another note, in my last column I mentioned that the NRC met recently in Sydney for a planning workshop to define a number of initiatives that will ultimately deliver value to the broader YWP membership within AWA. The outcomes were as follows: to develop a national mentoring framework to standardise our current state-based programs and broaden our reach to join mentors and mentees regardless of geographical boundaries; to work in partnership with the International Water Association to provide a National YWP conference in early 2016; and to work with AWA to update and standardise the YWP and Undergraduate of the Year Award. You will hear more about these initiatives over the next 12 months, but I would encourage you to contact the NRC president (ywp_president@awa.asn. au) if you would like to contribute to the process. Sadly, this will be my last column as NRC President as I will be handing over to Robert Goedecke from Seqwater to take up the 2015– 2017 term. I am confident that Robbie and the rest of the National Representative Committee will do a great job and deliver some outstanding results for YWPs across the Association. It has been an honour to lead the NRC for the period that I have and I thank you all for your support.

AWA News

ANZ to sponsor AWA’s international programs in Asia ANZ has agreed to sponsor AWA’s international programs in Asia. AWA will work closely with the extensive ANZ banking resources in Vietnam, Indonesia and India – three markets that offer considerable opportunity for the Australian water sector and countries where ANZ has a well established banking network. The ANZ sponsorship will enhance AWA’s efforts to connect the Australian and international water sectors through trade events, delegations, exhibitions, inbound visits and exchanges of water professionals. The initial focus will be in Vietnam through sponsorship of workshops, inward visits to Australia and Australian participation in Vietnam’s major international water and wastewater industry event, Vietwater 2015, from 25–27 November. The sponsorship will include support for events in Jakarta, visits by Indonesian PDAMs to view Australian water sites, participation in a water exhibition in Chennai in India in early 2016, and then in mid-2016 exhibiting at Singapore Water Week. The aim of the sponsorship is to improve the management of water in these regions, with a particular focus on improving governance and regulation and enabling financing opportunities and public-private partnerships.

THE NEW ASSET MANAGEMENT PARADIGM – DOING MORE WITH LESS Our growing population, ageing infrastructure and tighter budgets have caused a substantial shift in asset management strategies, yielding innovative solutions to squeeze the assets. We demand more and more of our assets with a decreasing pool of resources available to maintain them. Join us at a special seminar on 16 June at the Deloitte offices in Bourke St, Melbourne, where along with speakers working in this challenging area we explore various approaches from the water industry and beyond, covering a topics from optimisation and monitoring to changes in work culture and outsourcing. Please visit the AWA website and go to the Events tab to register.

PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT OF MEMBRANES IN A DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANT This Technical Training Course will allow participants to gain experience and practical advice from those who have spent time at a plant, and who have been specifically tasked with dealing with normal operations and occasional stuff-ups. Routine procedures such as backwashing of filters and removing fouling may sound straightforward in theory, but when a power surge unexpectedly interrupts a backwash, or strange fibrous material refuses to dislodge from a membrane, trouble-shooting skills are required. This workshop is an opportunity for technical and other professionals working in membrane drinking water treatment

plants to hear about dealing with problems that disrupt operations and affect production. To register please go to the AWA website and click on the Events tab.

YWP CARNEGIE WAVE ENERGY TOUR Young Water Professionals invite you to attend a tour of the first complete grid-connected CETO system in the world, and the only wave project to produce both power and freshwater. The tour will take place 30 May 2015 at HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Perth. Edoardo Sommacal, Business Development Manager at Carnegie Wave Energy, will take participants on a tour of the power and desalination facilities on Garden Island, and explain the wave energy desalination process that provides power and freshwater to the Australian Department of Defence’s largest naval base, HMAS Stirling. Participants are invited to have lunch together at Little Creatures Brewery after the tour for networking. Please go to the AWA website and click on the Events tab for more information.

BRANCH NEWS NEW SOUTH WALES Water Industry Careers Nights The NSW YWPs recently organised a series of Water Industry Careers Nights across five university campuses. They were held at the University of Technology Sydney, University of New South Wales, University of Western Sydney Kingswood, and for the first time at the University of Sydney and University of Wollongong, from Thursday 19 March to Tuesday 14 April. The events were free for students and proudly sponsored by Sydney Water. Their purpose was to give students an insight into the water sector and potential job opportunities that exist within the industry. Over 150 students had the opportunity to listen to YWP presenters from a variety of backgrounds talk about their career paths and tips for success. Feedback received indicated that students were happy with their decision to attend and left more informed about the sector. The YWP committee would like to extend their thanks to the YWP presenters who gave up their time to speak and the student volunteers for helping to set up at the various campuses.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA FOOD 4 THOUGHT: A BREAKFAST WITH THE MINISTER Join AWA for breakfast with the WA Minister for Water, the Hon. Mia Davies MLA on 20 May 2015 at The Hyatt in Perth. This event has been very successful in recent years, attracting over 180 guests with previous speakers such as Hon. Dr Geoff Gallop, Hon. John Kobelke; Hon. Dr Graham Jacobs, Sue Murphy, Maree De Lacey and Hon Bill Marion. Registration details can be found at www.awa.asn.au/Events, or for any enquiries please contact Siobhan Jennings at wabranch@ awa.asn.au.

MAY 2015 water

AWA News

New Members AWA welcomes the following new members since the most recent issue of Water Journal.

NEW CORPORATE MEMBERS

Goulburn Broken Catchment & Management Authority HRS Heat Exchangers ANZ Nash Water Pty Ltd

NEW SOUTH WALES

NEW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS

Corporate Gold Haslin Constructions Pty Ltd

Corporate Silver

Australian Capital Territory B Tansley,

Steel Mains Pty Ltd

D Winfield

Corporate Bronze

New South Wales A Hosking, J Hopgood,

EFIC Envirotech Pty Ltd Integra Water Treatment Solutions UV-Guard Australia

L Delany, N Hames, S Borgonia, Z SmithWhite, P Croft, L Hanson, M Chahine, P Graham, C Woods, C Garido, G Dowling, H Ismail, B Ivanovic, J Palmer, S Chambers, L Chamberlain, T Gralton, G Clemens, R Howorth, K Turner, R Borwell, R Bridge, N Altavilla, C Jenkins, Z Moffat, J Hannah, N Berry, J Fisher, A Antony, Y Wang, L Nghiem, Y Shutova, T Bryden, J Chesterfield, D Taylor, A Turville, M Auliff, N Sivananthan, D George, R Mascarenhas, B Devi, S Mukherjee, M Wang, R Tubbs, M Percy, M Koller, B Clarke Northern Territory A Court, C Dudley, M St Clair, K Boland, T Schuler, Queensland P Barby, A Van Nunen, F Fernando, A Mulligan, I Sadimenko, A Mendoza, W Huby, M Geddes, E Church, L Fredheim, J Charles, G Smart, L Stevenson, C Teske, O Santiago, A Rauf, W Adams, B Carroll, J Marschall, J Wagenaar, K Sedwick, G O’Byrne South Australia L Harnett, N Jones, M Bowens, C Heidenreich, E Banks, T Man,

NORTHERN TERRITORY Corporate Silver Tropical Water Solutions Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND Corporate Platinum Ernst & Young

Corporate Bronze Action Aquatics

SOUTH AUSTRALIA Corporate Bronze Arris Pty Ltd Municipal County of Roxby Downs

VICTORIA Corporate Silver Skilltech Consulting Services

Corporate Bronze Aquatic Fluid Systems Pty Ltd

F Ahammed, S Schutz, G Newcombe, Ben van den Akker, M Irvine, E Quarrell, P Reeve, S Burridge, D Hamlyn, D Iliescu, S Kirby, D Gonzales, S Mills Tasmania G Harvey, M Jordan, M Abela, Z Sweeney Victoria M De Stefano, M Dacre, J Everton, A Fleming, S Hartley, J Langdon, C Walters, C Little, C Nash, B Atkins, C Littlefair, P Johnson, S Smith, M Johnson, D Snell, M Allinson, K Jeffery, SK Khoo, K Brooksmith, B Nissley, J Medagoda, M Nieman, J Xenophontos, J O’Connor, S Koh, E O’Keefe, B Hodge, M Daaboul, R Bennett, J McLaverty, B Ciach, C Wilson, C Tancheff, E Casey, I Irvine, E Smolinska, A Bridson, D Snadden, G Allum, S Jeffries, N Mahalingam, N Narenthiran Western Australia A Adams, I Rakich, J Xu, S McNeil, N Shah

NEW OVERSEAS MEMBERS R Sung, New Zealand; B Jenkins, New Zealand, P Fabrice, New Caledonia; G du Toit, South Africa

NEW STUDENT MEMBERS New South Wales B de Jager South Australia C McPhail, C Onetto Victoria J Woodlock, S Skinner, R Bartel Western Australia S True, J Fernandez, M Salim, M Pakzad Shahabi

AWA EVENTS CALENDAR This list is correct at the time of printing. For up-to-date listings and booking information please check the AWA online events calendar at: www.awa.asn.au/events

May Tue, 19 May 2015

Demonstration of Small Scale Water Recycling, Lutana, TAS

Wed, 20 May 2015

Food 4 Thought: Breakfast with the Minister, Perth, WA

Fri, 22 May 2015

Young Water Professionals (VIC) Dinner 2015, Melbourne, VIC

Tue, 26 May 2015

MONA Heavy Metal Project & IMAS Tour, Hobart, TAS

Wed, 27 May 2015

Nano-particles, Nano-composite Membranes, The Water Industry and Beyond, Melbourne, VIC

Thu, 28 May 2015

Professional Development Workshop – Project Management, Brisbane, QLD

Sat, 30 May 2015

YWP Carnegie Wave Energy Tour, Perth, WA

June Tue, 02 Jun 2015

Work Smarter: YWP Workshop, Melbourne, VIC

Wed, 10 Jun 2015

ACT Water Matters Conference 2015, Canberra, ACT

Sun, 14 Jun 2015

IWA WaterMatex 2015 – 9th IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis & Integrated Assessment – UQ & IWAA, Gold Coast, QLD

Tue, 16 Jun 2015

The New Asset Management Paradigm – Doing More With Less, Melbourne, VIC

Wed, 17 Jun 2015

Practical Management of Membranes in a Drinking Water Treatment Plant, North Sydney, NSW

Thu, 25 Jun 2015

Small and Large Desal Plants – SA Water, Adelaide, SA

water MAY 2015

For your convenience, the 2015 Australian Water Directory is now available online...

The AusTrAliAn WATer DirecTory 2015 26th Edition An invaluable resource and reference tool for the Australian water industry

www.awa.asn.au

To view the digital version now visit www.awa.asn.au/WaterDirectory

AWA News

international

WORKING WITH INDONESIA’S WATER SECTOR Indonesia’s rapid development has placed additional stress on the region’s water security, with only one in two people having access to safe water. AWA has developed a program to support Indonesia’s aim to improve its management of water and wastewater, in the process strengthening trade relations. By Paul Smith, AWA International Manager. The challenge for water management in Indonesia Although Indonesia enjoys 21 per cent of the total freshwater available in the Asia-Pacific region, many of the country’s water security issues are tied to its rapid development, poor urban infrastructure and stretched institutional capacity (World Bank, 2015). Economic growth has not been accompanied by a corresponding expansion of infrastructure and institutional capacity. As a result, nearly one out of two Indonesians lacks access to safe water and more than 70 per cent of the nation’s 220 million people rely on potentially contaminated sources (WHO, 2013). The country has also undergone significant land-use changes, and deforestation and extractive industries have polluted and altered much of the landscape, leaving many areas more vulnerable to extreme events such as monsoon floods. The enormous challenge of environmental degradation directly feeds into many of Indonesia’s water security problems. Vulnerability to extreme events and continued pollution of water supplies pose the greatest challenges. In addition, policy responsibilities are fragmented between different Ministries. Since decentralisation was introduced in Indonesia in 2001, local governments (or PDAMs) have gained responsibility for water supply and sanitation. However, this has so far not translated into an improvement of access or service quality, mainly because devolution of responsibilities has not been followed by adequate funding and capacity building. There are 319 PDAMs in Indonesia. Two (Jakarta and North Sumatra) operate at provincial government level. All others operate at district government level. Most PDAMs are small, with less than 10,000 connections: only four per cent have more than 50,000 connections.

The Citarum River in West Java has the reputation of being one of the most polluted in the world.

water MAY 2015

AWA CEO Jonathan McKeown welcomes the delegation at the NSW Public Works Office.

building relationships with Indonesia’s water sector In order to assist Indonesia’s ambitions to improve the management of water and wastewater, AWA has developed a structured program to support the PDAMs, extending Australia’s capabilities and innovative technologies to build their capacity in water quality, water security, asset management and water governance. In April 2015, with support from the Indonesian Consulate, DFAT in Jakarta and the Indonesian Water Supply Association (PERPAMSI), AWA led a delegation from PDAM Lamangon and PDAM Pamekesan to tour water management sites in Sydney and meet with water professionals. The tour provided an introduction to Australia’s approach to water cycle management and included site tours of some of Sydney’s showcase water management sites. The tour included:

• The Sydney Park Water Sensitive Urban Design scheme, hosted by the City of Sydney; • Water quality improvement devices and stormwater treatment and reuse sites in Bondi, Manly, Sydney and Pittwater local councils; • Tour of Sydney Water’s St Mary’s Water Recycling complex;

Aaron Cortese from Ecosol provides an overview of stormwater treatment at Bondi Beach.

Delegates at Sydney Park WSUD scheme hosted by City of Sydney.

international

AWA News

Delegates at the Sydney Water Recycling Scheme, St Mary’s.

John Radinoff, CEO of Flovac, gives a demonstration of his company’s vacuum-operated sewerage system at Palm Beach.

• Tour of the Darling Quarter 6-Star Green Star Office complex and in-building wastewater recycling treatment plants;

Delegates hear about the Darling Quarter 6-Star Green Star Office complex and in-building wastewater recycling treatment plants from Veolia and John Scott, Property Services Manager of Darling Quarter.

• Tour of a residential development in Palm Beach with innovative vacuum sewerage collection system. The delegation also heard expert insights from the NSW Public Works, City of Sydney Local Council, the Institute for Sustainable Futures and Richard McManus from Alluvium Consulting. AWA is now planning a program of activities with the Indonesian Consulate and the PDAMs to build capacity to deliver safe, secure, sustainable and efficient water and sanitation services. The program of activities for Indonesia will include training, twinning and exchange placements to support:

• Asset management – specifically leak reduction and water quality treatment technology; • Implementation of water quality safety plans and improvement in drinking water quality; and • Integrated Resource Planning with a focus on better understanding the supply and demand balance.

References WHO (2013): Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation of WHO and UNICEF: Indonesia data 2010. Retrieved April 21, 2013. World Bank (2015): Improved Sanitation Facilities (% of population with access). Retrieved May 3, 2015.

Dr Melanie Schwecke from Pittwater Council talks about their innovative stormwater harvesting and reuse for irrigation at Porter Reserve and Pittwater Rugby Park.

Are you interested in getting involved in AWA’s International Program? To build capacity of Indonesia’s water sector and raise the profile of the Australian water sector’s skills and capabilities in this fast emerging economy, AWA will be coordinating a series of inbound and outbound missions over the next 12 months. If you would like the opportunity to showcase your innovative water management capabilities or be involved in outbound missions to Indonesia, please contact Paul Smith, AWA’s International Manager at psmith@awa.asn.au

MAY 2015 water

Opinion

ASSET MANAGEMENT TRENDS AND APPLICATION – CURRENT (COMPLIANCE DRIVEN?) AND FUTURE (PERFORMANCE DRIVEN?) John Doran looks at the changing world of the asset manager Preliminary Overview Asset Management (AM) is not rocket science; in fact, one could arguably call it commonsense. It has been around in various guises of Maintenance Management (MM) in the public and private sectors for decades. The trick to achieving AM success and optimised asset contribution to the business is: Get the commonsense right! A rational approach to prudent stewardship of assets, and their delivery of services or production processes in a durable, dependable manner, safely, effectively and efficiently, are the drivers for the current status of AM. These will remain principal drivers into the future – however, AM has the potential to grow exponentially in focus, application and business contribution with focus shifting from compliance to performance in progressive organisations. In terms of due diligence, no asset stakeholder should expect anything less than exemplary stewardship of, and performance from, the asset base.

History and Evolution of Asset Management Planned Preventative Maintenance practices in the 1960s–70s, and the more advanced MM and reliability engineering (RE) protocols that evolved through various progressions, are all precursors to AM. If one considers early development in the AM space, while MM and RE were gaining more traction in the private sector, in the public sector, due mainly to risk mitigation efforts, AM gained traction with compliance issues coming to the fore. Privatisation/outsourcing became more prevalent and stakeholders become more aware of the massive and growing cost of replacing public sector infrastructure. This resulted in the first editions of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM Version 1 published 2000), which grew out of the Australian National

“AM is not an Engineering/ Technical discipline with defined boundaries, clear scopes and universal understanding, but a business discipline, with potential to improve business performance through ensuring asset contribution delivers optimum outputs, be they production, levels of service, or logistics support.”1. Figure 1 illustrates some of the business imperatives facing asset managers in the contemporary world.

WATER MAY 2015

Figure 1. Contemporary Asset Managers face increasing pressure from a myriad of diverse sources.2

oran, John A – Leading for Success in a Technical World: Applied Leadership – “Soft Skills” for Technocrats D Technical Seminar, 18 May 2012, Asset Management Council, WA Chapter.

eveloped from a base illustration kindly made available by the Institute of Quality Asset Management (IQ-AM) D as applied in their ASQA accredited ‘Graduate Certificate in AM’ course training material.

Opinion AM Manual (1994) and New Zealand Infrastructure AM Manual (1996). The 2011 International Edition of the IIMM included input from working parties in New Zealand, Australia, the United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The British Standards Institute Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 55: 1st edition was published in 2004, largely in an effort to regulate the way agents assuming jurisdiction over public sector undertakings that had been privatised/outsourced were treating multi-million dollar asset bases. This evolved into the International Standards Organisation (ISO) 55000 suite of standards, launched in February 2014, with contributions from 31 participating member countries3 representing the culmination of much effort. ISO 55001 is likely to become the basis for future AM evolution, along with the Global Forum on Maintenance & Asset Management (GFMAM). GFMAM, an association of professional maintenance and asset management societies, which at present has 10 member countries4 has articulated 39 Asset Management Subjects in support of the “enduring objective” of “facilitating the exchange and alignment of maintenance and asset management knowledge and practices”. GFMAM has published the “Competency Specification for an ISO 55001 Asset Management System Auditor/Assessor”. There are also many other industry-specific publications around AM, such as the highly regarded 2008 publication Life Cycle Management of Port Structures, Recommended Practice for Implementation, published by the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructures (PIANC). In the Australian water sector the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) has developed the “Aquamark®” framework and assessment system to “provide a best practice approach to asset management”5 based on seven high-level functions: 1.

Corporate Policy and Business Planning

Asset Capability Planning

Asset Acquisition

Asset Operation

Asset Maintenance

Asset Replacement/Rehabilitation

Business Support Systems.

Australian state governments demonstrate active interest6 and there is an Australian National Asset Management Strategy (NAMS.AU) – see the NAMS.AU Practical Resources for Asset Manager7; the WA Department of Local Government8 approach: “Deliver Asset Management” including an: “AM Framework and

Guidelines” published “for Western Australian Local Governments”, and the WA Department of Treasury and Finance, Strategic Asset Management Framework9.

Thoughts on the Future of Asset Management The AM approach thus far has focused on AM ‘systems’ and compliance, whereas the future is seen to be shifting to a greater focus on ‘optimising asset performance and contribution to the business’. In order to maximise return on asset investment, asset owners and operators seek durable, dependable, safe assets that deliver services, processes or products effectively and efficiently. Having been exposed to water sector organisations that do this extremely well (i.e. they walk the talk), but also to those seeking (despite a great deal of rhetoric) to merely tick compliance boxes (i.e. talk the talk) the contrast in levels of service and efficiency is evident. Ideally the focus on asset performance optimisation and business contribution would embrace the whole-of-life performance of the assets; however, shorter-term “sweating”, or “flogging the assets” approaches may come to the fore due to commercial pressures on occasion. This is a perfectly legitimate approach, given nuances in trading conditions, however, it should not be adopted in ignorance. The crux in such cases is informed decision-making where the commercial impact, short and longer term, is understood and incorporated into the decision-making process. Sustainable business success relies on provision for future reparation of consequences of short-term interventions that may emanate due to commercial pressure. To reiterate: In terms of due diligence no asset stakeholder, owner or shareholder should expect anything less. In application of AM it is important to ensure complete alignment between corporate objectives and how AM is applied at the operational levels in optimising the contribution of AM to the business. Achieving such alignment involves decision-making at various levels, cascading through the organisation in practice and driving alignment of effort. These levels include: • AM Governance and Direction • Strategic Intent • Tactical Execution • Operational Implementation In addition to creating the appropriate environment, context and skilling are equally relevant in achieving whole-of-life asset performance optimisation (Figure 2).

Argentina; Australia; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; India; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Korea (Republic of); Mexico; Netherlands; Norway; Peru; Portugal; Russia; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; United States of America.

razilian Maintenance and Asset Management Society (ABRAMAN), Brazil: Asset Management Council (AMC), Australia: European Federation of National B Maintenance Societies (EFNMS), Europe: Federacion de Mantenimiento (FIM), Latin Americas’ (plus Portugal and Spain): Gulf Society of Maintenance Professionals (GSMP), Arabian Gulf Region: Institute of Asset Management (IAM), United Kingdom: French Institut of Asset Management and Infrastructures (IFRAMI), France: Plant Engineering and Maintenance Association of Canada (PEMAC), Canada: The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP), United States of America: The Southern African Asset Management Association (SAAMA), South Africa – Reference: http://gfmam.org/

https://www.wsaa.asn.au/Pages/Toolbox.aspx#.URSEhqBU18E

.g. Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) – National Asset Management Strategy (NAMS.AU); Tasmanian State Government Framework for e Long-Term Financial and Asset Management Planning for all Tasmanian Councils; the Queensland Asset Management Planning Program 2009 and 2010; the WA Department of Treasury and Finance Strategic Asset Management Framework; NSW Government Treasury and Public Works Total Asset Management approach; Department of Treasury and Finance Victoria Asset Management Framework (AMF).

http://www.mwoa.com.au/events/int_conf_papers/way_peter.pdf

http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au/DeliverAssetManagement.aspx

http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/Treasury/Strategic_Asset_Management/01_SAMF_Overview.pdf

MAY 2015 water

Opinion

Synopsis: Asset Management AM Consideration

Aim

Executive Perspective

WHY AM?

Level

Outcome

Executive Leadership

Resolution-PurposeDirection-Vision-Policy

WHAT would AM look like and seek to achieve?

Executive and Senior Management

Strategy Development and Planning Strategic Asset Management (SAM)

Tactical Execution

HOW is AM success accomplished

Middle Management

Tactical Plans, Systems and Execution

Operational Implementation

DO Practical application

Supervisory, casual effect and action

Optimal Asset Performance in Support of Business Outcomes

Training and Development

CONTEXT

Fundamentals, More Advanced Aspects as Required

Asset Value Optimisation

Strategic Intent

Up-skilling, Common Platform of Understanding

Figure 2. Whole-of-life asset performance optimisation.

Asset Management Success Factors Leadership in creating high performance teams, an understanding of value, structure and corporate culture – as well as an understanding of the impact of AM decisions on organisational risk profiles – all have a significant role to play, including a holistic approach to asset management. While AM is seen as an emerging business discipline rather than a technical discipline, it is a fact that AM has evolved out of the technical areas and “soft skills for technocrats” is thus also a focus area. A further crucial element is the balance between capital efficiency and optimisation of operational performance, an area of ongoing opportunity. The advent of “Operational Readiness” addressed this to a degree; however, significant potential for greater contribution in minimising ‘value leakage’ exists with involvement of the AM professionals earlier in the asset lifecycle. The capacity to prevent value leakage and to leverage the opportunity to influence “lockedin”, or embedded cost is illustrated in Figure 3 and the “Greenfields Example” that follows (Figure 4), demonstrating the importance of creating a solid base for informed decision making.

Minimising ‘Value Leakage’ and Gaining Business Advantage Greenfield Example: A request to develop AM plans for a multibillion dollar greenfield infrastructure project involving open ocean marine infrastructure was received. A risk review of the design identified six ‘durability critical’ elements, leading to the creation of decision support tools reflecting options analysis. ‘Optioneering’ models based on variable assumption inputs were built, the first addressing the issue of cable-tray material. This revealed, based on asset owner assumptions, that changing the cable-tray material, at an estimated additional cost of $1m, returned a net present cost (NPC) saving of >$100m. Figure 4 illustrates the net outcome of this first optioneering model; water sector experience in a desalination environment with cable tray material supporting this outcome. Higher asset availability improved revenue potential by >$4.3Bn. Asset owner feedback was: “The analysis demonstrates true optioneering and effect on revenue streams”10 “From an applied asset management perspective this is excellent work.”11 The balance of the durability critical items reflected further design changes, incurring additional build cost of around $2m rendered NPC savings of an additional >$400m. None of the other issues impacted production availability, so there was no further gain in revenues. Net outcome: Estimated additional investment in modified design of $3m rendered NPC savings of over $500m and potential increase in revenue of >$4.3Bn. Brownfield Application The opportunity for achieving business advantage through prudent application of AM in the brownfield space also exists and, once again, significant gains and value creation in terms of reliability, availability, maintainability, operability, dependability, safety and efficiency gains in existing undertakings have been realised. During the lifecycle of long-lived assets they inevitably go through mid-life upgrades, refurbishment, or rehabilitation, also known as sustaining capital. Each of these represents an ideal opportunity for the application of optioneering in providing decision makers with options in making informed decisions to the best advantage of all stakeholders.

Figure 3. Capacity to influence whole-of-life economic performance of assets, cradle to grave.

e-mail Fri 4/05/2012

e-mail Thu 12/07/2012

WATER MAY 2015

An AM-optioneering approach can also be adopted in creating informed decision-making bases around potential changes in operating parameters. Meeting short-term imperatives that may be

Opinion

Decision Support Example (1 of 6): Net Outcome across all 6: $3m additional D&C spend rendered NPC Savings of >$500m and improved revenue of $4.3Bn at base case assumptions across a 50 year asset life-Cycle Discounted Cash Flow - CUMULATIVE Cable Tray Lifecycle Cost 250

• Application of optimal asset design? • Diligent and appropriate asset maintenance?

100

• The age of equipment in service being within its effective operating life?

150 $ Million

The Royal Commission also addressed AM, querying whether organisations could demonstrate:

100

• An appropriate risk analysis and management regime in place?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Base Design Recommended Material Option

Year

Upgrade Material @ 1st Change Out Mat Option-1

Mat Option-2 Doran, John A. – 2014 Asset Lifecycle Costing and Optimisation Conference, Melbourne, 24 November 2014

Figure 4. Graphical representation of optioneering in example: Minimising ‘value leakage’ and gaining business advantage.

heavily influenced by commercial issues and trading conditions can have a longer-term impact on organisational risk, sustainability and cost profiles. Such decision-making is inevitably deeply challenging and decision makers should be offered every available decision support tool/protocol in assisting them to arrive at sustainable outcomes and avoid premature asset failure as a result of asset ‘sweating’ or ‘flogging’.

Consequences of Getting it Wrong Too often asset decisions are made in ignorance of the longer-term implications, especially where long-lived assets are involved, such as in water and wastewater infrastructure. Potential long-term failure modes are seldom acknowledged in the short term, so impact on the organisational risk profile is all too frequently underestimated, until asset failure risk grows to the point of potential catastrophic failure, with devastating outcomes. How often have we known an executive or board to cut maintenance budgets in any given year, only to do the same in following years because “we did it last year and nothing fell over” with little or no cognisance that, by the time such uninformed decision-making comes home to roost, the consequences can be appalling, even tragic. One only needs to look at some of the issues currently facing the Australian electricity sector and some of the devastating consequences of failure (Victoria’s Black Saturday12 and lawsuits in WA pertaining to many homes lost to fire started by alleged failure of electricity distribution assets – i.e. wooden power poles). Inevitably the decisions on acquisition and maintenance of such infrastructure were made decades ago, driven by then immediate cost-saving measures and, in all likelihood, without foresight of the future risks that may result from such short-term thinking. Gold-plated assets are equally wasteful, so the objective must be to arrive at the best balance of CAPEX v OPEX and operational performance off an informed decision-making base and with due cognisance of future risk and cost profiles. The Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission investigated a plethora of AM issues, the final report including that: “Victoria’s electricity assets are ageing, and the age of the assets contributed to three of the electricity-caused fires on 7 February 2009 – the Kilmore East, Coleraine and Horsham fires”. 12

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/finaldocuments/summary/PF/ VBRC_Summary_PF.pdf

Adapted from quote attributed to Robert DeBard.

• Appropriate numbers, skills, supervision and training of their workforce? • Funding provision for asset renewal, replacement and upgrading is sufficient or ‘reasonable’? • That customers are willing to pay to meet their funding needs? Concluding, in some detail that issues organisations needed to address included: • Asset design • Asset maintenance, operations and management • Asset renewal/replacement decision making: • Aging assets

Conclusions AM is a serious business, gaining in prominence at an accelerating rate, and should be addressed with due diligence, not superficial box ticking to minimally satisfy regulation. A final reiteration: Users of services and products, as well as other stakeholders, have every right to expect exemplary stewardship of, and performance from, the asset base. After all, they have funded the asset base through service payments and continue to do so. While there has been a great deal of progress over the last three decades, this has arguably been compliance driven and, even then, while boxes have been regularly ticked, value may not have been added to the process. The future focus should be on ‘optimising asset performance and contribution to the business’ from well-managed, durable, dependable, safe assets that deliver services, processes or products effectively and efficiently in alignment with corporate objectives, customer charters and stakeholder expectations. Remember: When the crocodiles are snapping at your ears it may be hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp13 ... so early involvement of the AM professional in the lifecycle can render substantial return.

The Author John Doran (email: johnd@go4gr8ams. com) comes from a mechanical engineering background and has led activities across primary value chain operations and maintenance in asset intensive businesses for over 35 years, 20 of those in the water sector. John has provided executive leadership across OperationsProduction, Maintenance, Risk, Projects, Finance and Administration, and Human Resources portfolios concurrently and has provided leadership advice across a wide range of management sectors in Australia, the Middle East and Africa.

MAY 2015 water

Feature Article

Customer & Stakeholder Input into Strategic Servicing & Asset Plans Delivering value and services to meet customer and stakeholder expectations is a significant capacity building challenge for water utility asset managers and planners, write Bhakti Devi and Stuart Waters.

n this article we explore a major capacity building challenge facing asset managers and planners within water utilities. Specifically, we look at the growing requirement to deliver value and services as defined and expected by customers and stakeholders, and the need to obtain customer input in asset management strategies and plans, as emphasised in the new standards for asset planning (ISO 55000). We begin with a brief overview of the history and evolution of asset-based utility services, noting the drivers behind the current paradigm shift in asset management and planning. We then present two case studies of infrastructure-based utility service providers that have successfully engaged their customers and stakeholders in developing strategic plans for their assets and services. The article concludes with a consideration of the skills and capabilities asset managers require in order to make the most of the new customerfocused paradigm, and draws some conclusions as to how best to build this capability across the industry.

Drivers of the current paradigm shift in asset management & planning Our asset planning forefathers pioneered and built infrastructure and assets for water, energy, transport and telecommunications and other such public utilities. The services provided by these assets have been fundamental to the transformation that industrialised society has gone through in the last century. We have been reaping the benefits of their efforts that took the form of infrastructure with long functional life cycles and plenty of spare capacity to accommodate new and growing demand. Managing robustly designed and built assets with long functional life cycles has also meant that over the century we, the community of asset managers, have become conditioned to operating and maintaining assets in their current form. In our enthusiasm and expertise for making the most of the existing assets, we have become skilled at finding highly efficient and sophisticated ways to optimise the operation and maintenance of these existing assets. Consequently, asset management and planning have come to mean planning for the operation and maintenance of existing assets and the creation of very similar assets into the future. After all, if these assets have worked for us for the past 100 years, it seems logical to assume they should work for next 100 years. However, we now recognise that spare capacity in the existing assets is running out fast and that many assets are reaching the end of their functional life. Typically this means replacement of old assets with something similar. At the same time, growth requires additional assets to be created as well. Consequently, metropolitan water customers

water MAY 2015

will contribute to the billions of dollars of funding required to replace ageing assets and to build new ones. This situation applies not just for water services, but also for transport, energy and other utilities. Once we add up the billions of dollars required by multiple utilities (railways, roads, water, energy) we quickly get the picture of enormous financial pressure that will be applied to future services and, more importantly, future customers, who expect to receive uninterrupted services. Add to that changes to climate, customer values and expectations, as well as regulations that are anticipated, and asset management and planning are suddenly starting to look more complex than ever before. It is for these reasons that asset management planning across all industry sectors, including water utilities, is going through a paradigm shift from: • Having a focus on assets to a focus on services and value provided to customers and stakeholders, as evidenced by introduction of ISO 55000; • Having a focus on short-medium term to a focus on the long term. After decades of delivering, operating and maintaining existing assets to obtain the most value out of the asset life cycle, and building new assets of the same type to a level of service set by the regulators, asset managers and planners with engineering expertise are suddenly expected to engage with their customers and consider a much longer-term focus in planning for not only the new assets, but also when renewing the ageing assets. This is a major challenge that all infrastructure-based utility agencies around the world are currently facing. ISO 55000 acknowledges and recognises that this paradigm shift has the same challenge associated with it as any major change within an organisation, hence it identifies Organisational Leadership & Change Management as the means through which this major paradigm shift needs to be made. This article explores the key capacity building challenge of engaging meaningfully and effectively with customers and stakeholders in the context of asset management planning, by: • Presenting two case studies showing how agencies obtained customer input and engagement in development of their strategic plans for their asset based service; • Outlining key considerations that could be incorporated into an organisational program that aims to build capacity and skills of its asset managers and planners to become adept at engaging their customers and stakeholders.

asset management CASE STUDY 1: New Zealand Transport Agency The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is a Crown entity tasked with promoting safe and functional transport by land, including the responsibility for driver and vehicle licensing. The Network Performance Team at NZTA undertook a customer engagement exercise with a cross-section of NZTA’s customers for the Customer First initiative. The Customer First initiative was about building a better understanding of customer needs, and driving a shift of culture internally to a stronger focus on: • Safer journeys – with an emphasis on reducing death and injury; • Economic growth – reducing costs and improving journey times for users; • Corporate social responsibility – managing the environment and providing a satisfactory whole customer experience. For the Customer First initiative to be successful, it was critical to have a robust and ongoing relationship with NZTA’s stakeholder base for solid two-way communication. The NZTA business was complex and had many components. There was limited understanding within the broader community about what NZTA does and how it does it, as well as the intent and content of the Customer First initiative. To achieve the aims of the project a recognised Collaborative Governance process was applied. The team used the Appreciative Inquiry method of paired interview around a memorable positive journey. While some participants initially struggled with the concept of not immediately exploring the problems with roads or NZTA, there was universal agreement after the activity that it was effective in setting the scene. NZTA found that road users were actually quite keen to find out more and listen to them, especially if NZTA had listened to them first. As road users learned about different perspectives and experiences of other users, they became more aware, and asked different questions. The participants liked and were energised by focusing on what worked (i.e. a positive focus). Building relationships with road users takes some time and was facilitated by telling stories. Attitudes changed as people built understanding of others’ perspectives. The approach improved understanding about NZTA; overcame prejudices and increased respect and appreciation. Staff experienced the community stakeholders in a positive light, felt safe and supported in the engagement activities, and saw clear benefit to their transport planning from the engagement activities. Most importantly, the engagement process started to challenge longheld mindsets about the value customers can add to asset management.

Feature Article CASE STUDY 2: City of Sydney’s Decentralised Water Master Plan The Decentralised Water Master Plan 2012–2030 was developed by the City of Sydney Council and explored the opportunities for providing local recycled water services and water-sensitive urban design to its residents and businesses. To seek input into the development of the master plan within a tight time-frame and budget, two reference groups were created – a Stakeholder Reference Group and a Community Reference Group. The Community Reference Group was set up by inviting community members to provide input into the development of the master plan. The Stakeholder Reference Group consisted of representatives nominated by senior general managers and CEOs of key agencies in the New South Wales Government and local authorities. Four meetings of each of the two reference groups were facilitated by an engagement specialist. The timing of the meetings was aligned with milestones in the master plan development. The overall purpose of the meetings was to not just take the members of both reference groups on the journey of developing the master plan, but to actively seek their creativity and ideas in shaping it. At reference group meetings, the members were presented with the findings and outputs of the master plan analysis phase to seek their input and to respond to any queries. The community members who volunteered to be part of the reference group greatly appreciated the opportunity to be involved in the planning process. They showed a high level of interest in the subject matter, even though they had no previous background in water planning. They also engaged actively in the meetings, showing a high level of willingness to learn. Their feedback and input was helpful in shaping the master plan through getting validation on and development of key assumptions that formed the basis of the concept designs and costing of the various schemes within the master plan. Members of the Stakeholder Reference Group were given firsthand information on the drivers and rationale behind the development of the master plan itself, as well as in development of concepts that formed the key elements of the master plan.

The City of Sydney’s Decentralised Water Master Plan.

Consultants who worked on the technical analysis that underpinned the master plan appreciated the value the input added to their work. Moreover, they expressed a high level of satisfaction in sharing their innovative work that has implications for the whole community.

MAY 2015 water

Feature article KeY consIDeratIons In Development of capacItY BuIlDIng for customer anD staKeholDer engagement

strategic and long-term situations, a number of collaborative governance frameworks exist. See, for example, Twyford’s Power of CO pathway (www.twyfords.com.au).

The cases described in this paper are the exceptions rather than the rule. In order to ensure that good customer engagement becomes the norm there is a real need for focused capacity building programs for asset managers and planners. We recommend that any capacity-building program aimed at making the managers and planners become adept in incorporating customer and stakeholder input be designed to achieve the following outcomes: 1.

The asset managers and planners become familiar with some key internationally accepted frameworks for involving the community in project decision making. For standard situations that framework could be the International Association for Public Participation Engagement Frameworks (see IAP2.org). For more complex,

That planners and managers are supported to learn the practice of engagement and collaborative governance by applying new frameworks to selected projects, by doing it. The practice of engagement must be central to the job description of the asset managers and planners. It is no longer sufficient to outsource it to external ‘engagement’ teams.

Organisational mindset and culture must develop from the leadership down, in such a way that asset managers and planners are supported to bring customers into decision making and are rewarded for doing so. As organisational culture becomes more open to engaging customers and stakeholders, the necessary paradigm shift in long-term asset planning and management will be enabled. wJ

the authors Dr Bhakti Devi (email: bhakti.devi@sydneywater. com.au) is a Civil & Environmental Engineer with a PhD in Urban Water Management. She has over 15 years of experience in developing sustainability strategies and programs for water utilities and local government. She is the Strategist in the Liveable City Solutions Division of Sydney Water. Prior to joining Sydney Water in 2013, Bhakti led the development of the Decentralised Water Master Plan 2012–2030 at the City of Sydney Council.

Stuart Waters is the Managing Director and Senior Consultant at Twyfords, specialising in capacity building of organisations for collaboration and engagement with their customers and stakeholders. Stuart is a co-author of two publications in the field of community engagement and collaborative governance: Beyond Public Meetings: Connecting Community Engagement with Decision-Making and Power of Co: The Smart Leaders’ Guide to Collaborative Governance.

BINTECH SYSTEMS WATER SOLUTIONS !

W NE T

ALY

L ICA

LLE

TRO

N CO

FLOW METERS

NEW CRONOS ECONOMY ANALYTICAL CONTROLLERS

• MAGNETIC FLOW METERS • ULTRASONIC METERS -TRANSIT TIME / DOPPLER • OPEN CHANNEL • CUSTOM SPOOL SYSTEMS

• BIOFILM ANALYSER • RESIDUAL CHLORINE • DISSOLVED OZONE • DISSOLVED OXYGEN • TURBIDITY

TOLL FREE 1300 363 163 water MAY 2015

• SUSPENDED SOLIDS • PH/ORP • CONDUCTIVITY • FLUORIDE

sales@bintech.com.au

LEVEL SYSTEMS • ULTRASONIC TRANSMITTERS AND CONTROLLERS • POINT LEVEL SWITCHES • MAGNETIC LEVEL GAUGES • SLUDGE LEVEL SYSTEMS • WIRELESS SYSTEMS

www.bintech.com.au

asset management

Feature Article

Structural Failure Management of Corroding Reservoir Infrastructure Over the past five years Vinsi Partners has encountered a number of concerns in the design and construction of select water reservoirs. Brad Dockrill, Warren Green and Brett Eliasson present two case studies.

his article highlights two case studies where Vinsi Partners (Vinsi) observed the failure of vertical stressing bars in reservoir walls while undertaking structural risk assessments of water assets. Had these failures not

been identified and rectified, the consequences could have been catastrophic (Figure 1).

Failure 1: Queensland Reservoirs Vinsi was commissioned to undertake a structural risk assessment of 10 concrete reservoirs in Queensland. As part of the assessment the following was undertaken: â&#x20AC;˘ Visual inspection; â&#x20AC;˘ Review of water analysis testing; â&#x20AC;˘ Evaluation of structural engineering design drawings.

During the visual inspection the failure of two vertical stressing bars was observed at one reservoir. Exactly when the failure had occurred, and how or why, was unknown. The initial concern was that the 50ML reservoir was located in and directly above a residential area. The consequences of failure could have been extreme. During discussions with the client there was anecdotal evidence to suggest other bar failures, and bars were required to be removed at two other reservoirs. A preliminary structural adequacy review utilising Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to allay immediate concerns was then undertaken. A monitoring regime was established, with contingency plans in place to lower water levels if required. This planning enabled a detailed site and materials investigation to be carried out to confirm design parameters, consider future remedial options and, ultimately, manage risk while maintaining normal operations.

Failure 2: Tasmanian Reservoirs Vinsi was engaged to undertake a study into observed defects and deterioration in over 25 structures including reservoirs, pump stations and wet wells in Tasmania. Utilising in-house concrete diagnostic testing and site investigation skills, appropriate remedial options and specifications were provided. During these investigations we learned of previous failures to vertical stressing bars in pre-cast wall elements at one of the reservoirs.

The assessment It was established that the failure was caused by corrosion causing existing micro-cracks in the bar to increase. The corrosive medium for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) was pitting (localised) corrosion at the base of pre-existing cracks of the bar leading to crack propagation and growth, or pitting corrosion causing crack initiation, propagation and growth. The combination of pitting corrosion and tensile stress can result in brittle and catastrophic failure of a bar. This can lead to a stressed bar being ejected vertically (to release energy) from the concrete wall panel. The design and construction methods employed to the reservoirs in question did not afford long-term corrosion protection to the bars, creating a very real failure risk.

Figure 1. Failed vertical stressing bar.

Armed with this knowledge, focused condition assessments of the reservoirs in Queensland and Tasmania were carried out. A visual survey, combined with select diagnostic testing (concrete, steel and water), ascertained deterioration mechanisms and appropriate service life cycles.

MAY 2015 water

Feature Article To complicate matters further, the as-designed structural behaviour was found on many occasions to differ from that inservice. For example, while the original design intent was to have a “sliding wall base”, often the base joint had deteriorated to such an extent that a portion, and in a worst-case instance, the entire wall circumference, was now essentially “pinned”. This variance in support conditions resulted in wall stresses vastly different to asdesigned, with potentially harmful results. This information, combined with the FEA, enabled a scenario analysis to be developed linking service life, structural capability, reservoir capacity and options for remediation. This in turn enabled a risk profile to be formulated with asset owner involvement, based on prioritising likelihood and consequence. The assessment of risk, although often subjective, follows key parameters and is prioritised dependent on the functions of: • Likelihood: How likely is it that the adverse outcome could happen? Categorised typically from “Rare” to “Almost Certain” • Consequence: How severe could the impact of each risk be on the owner? Categorised typically from “Negligible” to “Extreme” The risks associated with any potential failure of a reservoir are many and varied and may include:

Figure 2. Controlled induced failure of vertical bars.

• Safety; • Financial; • Reputation; • Environmental; • Legal; • Business disruption. Residual risk and condition ratings were established using predefined and agreed criteria, combining hard engineering data with client liabilities. The clients now had a prudent and informed decision-making process regarding future reservoir usage.

Engineering Remediation At Vinsi, often the first consulting engineering option considered is “do nothing”. This can often be a perfectly manageable strategy when appropriate operation management, maintenance and engineering nous are combined. In these cases, “do nothing” was not a viable solution. A number of process controls incorporating reservoir level monitoring and an inspection regime to observe bar failures were implemented to enable assets to remain on-line. This was critical in enabling the asset owners to continue to service their customers. Measures, including controlled induced failure, grout injection and structural strengthening were used in remediation works. Figures 2, 3 and 4 illustrate appropriate remediation measures. Figure 2 shows those bars that were considered in the “line of fire” to personnel when accessing the reservoir roof, or equipment were failed and removed in a documented, controlled procedure. Figure 3 shows existing vertical stressing bars, which were protected by grout injection. Introducing a passive film around the bar limits the rate of corrosion to the remaining sound bars and

water MAY 2015

Figure 3. Grout injection to existing bars. significantly reduces the risk of an unpredicted failure. These works were subject to a number of trials to resolve constructability issues prior to site mobilisation. As Figure 4 shows, areas where bars were failed, as well as areas defined through the analysis as being structurally inadequate due to altered site restraints, were typically strengthened through the use of carbon fibre laminates. This process is relatively simple, with quick turnaround times.

Conclusion These case studies show that for many reservoirs of this type it is more likely to be a case of when, rather than if, a failure will occur. They also show that, using a co-operative partnership with asset owners, considered and proactive inspection and monitoring/repair regimes combined with sound engineering judgement, the risk of failure can be minimised to acceptable levels.

asset management

Water &CSG A special supplement produced by the Australian Water Association

Figure 4. Structural strengthening. The specialist knowledge gained through the repair and remediation process has been invaluable in streamlining processes, with obvious cost-benefit gains. Asset owners must understand their risks and implement strategies to prevent failure. A small spend now can ultimately save a huge cost and unplanned losses in the future. WJ

THE Authors

Water&CSG A special supplement produced by the Australian Water Association

UNDERSTANDING THE RISKS OF CSG EXTRACTION TO WATER RESOURCES CHALLENGES IN SUSTAINABLE USE OF CSG WATER FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE USING AERIAL TECHNOLOGY FOR FARMLAND EROSION SOLUTIONS EMERGING CONFLICTS BETWEEN WATER USERS AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTS SIGNALS NEED FOR WATER REFORMS

Brad Dockrill (email: mail@vinsi.com.au) has over 29 years of experience as a professional engineer and is a Director and Structural Engineer at Vinsi Partners, based in Newcastle. Brad’s experience includes the design of commercial, residential, large industrial and mining structures. He has also had experience with the condition assessment and development of remedial, maintenance and strengthening strategies for these structure types as well as marine and civil infrastructure. Warren Green is a Director and Corrosion Engineer at Vinsi Partners, based in Sydney. He holds an MSc in Corrosion Science and Engineering and is a Fellow and CPEng of Engineers Australia. Warren has over 29 years of experience in corrosion engineering and materials technology covering marine, infrastructure, industrial, civil and building structures. Brett Eliasson is a Partner and Structural Engineer at Vinsi Partners, based in Sydney. He has over 28 years of experience in the consulting fields of Structural, Civil and Remedial Engineering coupled with Materials Technology.

CSG:

JUST THE LATEST ROUND IN AN UNDERGROUND WAR? CASE STUDIES • Arup: Assessment of Options for Using Coal Seam Gas Water in the Central Condamine Alluvium • GE Power & Water: Integrated Water Treatment Solution for Coal Seam Gas-to-Liquid Natural Gas

To view the Water & CSG supplement please visit www.awa.asn.au/journal or

Click here

Feature Article

THERE’S NO CONTAINING WATER ASSET VALUATION METHODOLOGIES Now is the time for water authorities to make a thorough evaluation of their assets, says auditor Anne Lockwood, especially given Australia’s fundamental need to manage water resources as efficiently as possible.

s the 2015 financial reporting season approaches, water authorities will again turn their attention to the valuation of their assets in accordance with relevant accounting standards. Given that property, plant and equipment is generally the most significant asset on water operators’ balance sheets and one of the strongest drivers of depreciation, accurate asset values are integral to reporting financial performance and to the budgeting process.

and buildings as offices or maintenance sheds may not be the

Water Authorities will usually undertake a formal valuation process every five years. For example, Victorian Water Authorities’ assets are due to undergo this formal process for 30 June 2016. However, the accounting standards do require an ongoing assessment of the appropriateness of the carrying value of property, plant and equipment and that it represents fair value for every financial report produced.

Each methodology may arrive at a different value and there is no

June 2015 will be the second reporting season in which reports must comply with AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement, which may mean the historical method for assessing worth may no longer be the most appropriate.

There are three valuation methodologies that meet the stipulations

The new standard had some hidden consequences for some entities when introduced because the definition of ‘fair value’ was changed from being a ‘neutral value’ to being an ‘exit price’ – i.e. the price received to sell an asset or transfer a liability. This means all valuation methodologies need to be compliant with the AASB definition of ‘exit price’, even if there are no plans to ever sell them. Additional stipulations of AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement include: • The price represents an orderly transaction and not a forced sale;

best commercial use. As a result, water authorities will need to factor this assessment into their asset valuation process. Determining accurate and fair asset values can also help water authorities develop a clearer view of their risk and make betterinformed business decisions. However, there’s more than one way to assess how much property, plant and equipment are worth. “one size fits all” solution, so it’s important to choose a valuation methodology that best reflects the nature of your water authority. So, what are the options available to water authorities to revalue their assets? And which one is the best choice?

Understanding the options of AASB 13: • Market approach examines market transactions involving identical or similar assets or liabilities. This option is not suitable for water infrastructure because there is no active market for similar assets to use as a guide, so it is widely accepted as inappropriate for water authorities. • Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) approach considers how much it would cost to replace the service capacity of an asset. Most organisations assume the cost approach is the most useful for water authorities, particularly for the majority of rural and

• The price is measured using assumptions that market participants would use;

regional assets; however, it’s worth taking a closer look at some of

• You need to use the price in the principal market, or the most advantageous market (the market where you could get the best price) – the most advantageous market is only used if there is no principal market;

Although it’s currently recognised as the industry standard and

• Transport costs are only taken into account when determining fair value if location is a characteristic of the asset – i.e. the need to incur transport costs to get asset to market;

required could also increase both cost and time demands.

• For non-financial assets, fair value is based on current use, unless market or other factors suggest that ‘highest and best use’ would maximise the fair value, in which case ‘highest and best use’ will be used. The requirement to assess ‘highest and best use’ may impact water authorities’ holdings of land and buildings. It is quite common for water authorities to hold large parcels of valuable land and buildings due to historical circumstances and the use of these land

water MAY 2015

the strengths and weaknesses compared to the income approach.

is bolstered by clear guidelines, making it easier to adopt, this method requires a lot of high-level judgements that could lead to less reliable outcomes. The significant level of input and judgement

The level and scope of assets to be valued would need to be determined in accordance with materiality thresholds, which would involve a number of stakeholders having to agree on the determination of the level of assets to be valued, so that all could be comfortable that material misstatements would not occur. Assets would also need to be physically inspected and undergo individual condition assessments, which would then require independent assurance given they would be a significant source of information on which values would be determined. These

Feature Article

r eports would determine physical deterioration factors, effective remaining lives, residual values, functional obsolescence (excess capacity and over engineering) and economic obsolescence (albeit unlikely in the water authorities’ case given the essential services nature of the asset and service supplied). dditionally, while the International Valuation Standards Council A (IVSC) has specific guidelines for measuring assets under the DRC method, given the high level of judgement and assumptions, a number of asset classes may be assessed as Tier Three valuation hierarchy requiring significant levels of increased disclosure and sensitivity analysis in the financial reports. nder a DRC cost methodology, the large number of significant U judgements and assessments that would need to be made would also require high levels of extensive and detailed input from water authorities to valuers, which would likely add time and costs to the process. • Income approach takes future amounts, such as income and expenses or cash flows, and converts them to a single value for the present. idely used within industries with large infrastructure that provide W essential services like electricity, gas and water, the income approach tends to be more affordable and can provide greater control over modelling data, since once the discounted cash flow (DCF) model is developed it can be maintained and updated annually in a relatively cost-effective manner. The key to this methodology is the ability to separately identify cash flows associated with the core assets, where those cash flows are set to generate a commercial return for the entity. CF models are widely used in the Australian market and, as such, D they are understood by a number of professionals. Under a DCF model the perpetuity of the asset is assumed (as appropriate) and this is reflected in the terminal calculation that can go into perpetuity to reflect the nature of the essential service and its delivery requirements. I f the cash flows relating to the core assets are heavily subsidised, however (due to the essential service nature), then the income approach may not be appropriate, as the “service potential” of the asset may not be recognised, resulting in an undervalued asset.

Establishing a more strategic valuation plan Based on these factors, which method should water authorities choose? The best strategy might not be an either-or situation, but a hybrid approach, depending on the circumstances of the cash flows and the nature of the assets. For instance, the income approach could be used to test-check the cost model, ultimately resulting in greater accuracy and confidence. A different valuation method might also be appropriate for different types or locations of assets. For example, an authority might select a depreciated replacement cost method for its regional assets and an income approach for its high demand urban assets. Understanding the value of your assets under both approaches is valuable and useful information for management, boards and regulatory authorities, especially when the two valuation approaches may provide materially different outcomes. As a whole, water authorities should evaluate the pros and cons of each method against their cash flow structures and ability to make the judgements required for the cost approach. Only by giving further consideration to alternative models can the industry ensure it arrives at the most appropriate valuation possible. Given the role that knowing the true value of an asset plays in an organisation’s ability to drive growth, raise capital and make strategic business decisions, the time to start investigating the strengths of a hybrid or different approach is now. And with Australia’s urgent need to manage water resources as efficiently as possible, this task has the potential to make a significant impact. WJ

The Author Anne Lockwood (email: Anne.Lockwood@bdo. com.au) is a Melbourne-based Audit Partner with audit, tax and advisory firm BDO. Anne has more than 22 years of audit and advisory experience, including assisting clients comply with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards, APRA Prudential Standards, other regulatory requirements and the Corporations Act.

MAY 2015 water

Feature Article

TURNING DISTILLERY WASTE INTO ENERGY AND REUSABLE WATER Converting by-products into valuable energy and recoverable clean water can make a major contribution to the sustainability of distilleries, write Craig Menouhos and Ian Hart.

anaging waste is a challenge for any industry, and one that is becoming ever more difficult. For example, in the UK the average cost to dispose of trade effluent has increased by more than 25 per cent over the last five years. In addition, operational and utility costs continue to go up; average charges for electricity have risen by more than 30 per cent over the same period and the cost of water has also greatly increased. It is widely accepted that these trends are fixed, and that costs will continue to rise year-on-year. With this in mind, Veolia Water Technologies has developed several proven solutions to turn waste and wastewaters into renewable energy and/or reusable water, dependent on the industry waste streams and site-specific needs.

Distillery waste streams Distilleries produce three main waste streams: draff, the spent grains from fermentation; pot ale, the residue from initial distillation; and spent lees, the residue from the second distillation. The traditional approach to dealing with these wastes (Figure 1) is to dewater the draff and blend it with evaporated pot ale (pot ale syrup) to make a by-product (distiller’s grain) for sale as cattle feed. Spent lees, wash waters and other aqueous wastes are treated, typically by a biological trickling filter, prior to discharge to sewer or a watercourse. But a number of factors are combining to change this approach.

for sewer disposal is making this route more expensive. Thirdly, the rising cost of mains water, where it is used, impacts on operating costs. Is there a better way? Veolia has developed a number of innovative solutions for distillery wastewaters, which have significant benefits. The basic system treats wastewaters to meet a standard that allows for water re-use, minimising both sewer discharge and mains water costs. For a little more investment, high-strength wastewaters can be treated to produce biogas as a renewable energy source. Looking ahead, the latest process developments can provide sustainable solutions combining bio-energy production and water recycling. Typical of the basic approach is the wastewater treatment plant for the new Macallan distillery in Moray, Scotland. Draff and pot ale disposal will be via the CoRD (The Combination of Rothes Distillers) biomass plant at Rothes (also in Moray), but spent lees and washwaters will be treated on site to meet the SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) consent for discharge to the environmentally sensitive River Spey. The Veolia treatment plant, which is due to come on-line during 2015, is based on dissolved air flotation (DAF) followed by a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Because MBRs use an ultrafiltration membrane as the final process step, the permeate produced is of an exceptionally high quality and there is a long-term goal to further treat the permeate by reverse osmosis for re-use in the distillery as boiler make-up water, reducing Macallan’s overall water footprint and ensuring sustainability. A more ambitious project was a DBFO (design, build, finance and operate) complete bio-energy scheme for Diageo at Roseisle in Scotland (Figure 2), which has been in operation since 2009.

Figure 1. Traditional distillery waste treatment. Firstly, the increasing cost of energy makes pot ale evaporation expensive, while the fluctuating price of cattle feed brings the value of distiller’s grain into question. Secondly, many of the trickling filters currently in service were installed by the distilleries up to 50 years ago and, consequently, efficiency is now poor. In addition, the tightening of consent limits for the discharge of wastewater to watercourses requires further treatment, while the adoption of the Mogden formula (www.ofwat.gov.uk) for charging based on COD

water MAY 2015

Figure 2. Bio-energy plant at Roseisle.

Feature Article With this scheme the pot ale and draff are separated from the spent lees and wash waters, mixed with dust and culms, and dewatered, dried and burned in a specially designed dual fuel (biomass and biogas) fired boiler to produce steam and electrical energy that is used on site. The spent lees, as commonly occurs in distilleries, is contaminated with a low level of copper picked up from the still. In order to ensure that the copper consent is met, this spent lees is treated by an ion exchange plant to remove the copper prior to mixing with the liquors from the dewatering process. The combined liquors are treated in an expanded granular suspended bed (EGSB) high rate anaerobic reactor. This uses a granular anaerobic biomass to convert a high proportion of carbonaceous COD into methane-rich biogas, which is used as an additional fuel for the boiler. Following the anaerobic treatment stage, the aqueous stream is passed to a membrane bioreactor (MBR). This is an aerobic process in which aerobic bacteria remove most of the residual COD and also convert ammonia into nitrate (nitrification). It also incorporates an anoxic denitrification stage to reduce total nitrogen. Meeting the SEPA discharge consent necessitates membrane filtration as a final process stage, and this produces a high-quality effluent that can be fed directly to a reverse osmosis unit to be reused as boiler make-up water.

in one, the Memthane process typically reduces the influent COD by more than 99% and this usually means that no additional expensive aerobic post-treatment is necessary. Further, if the wastewater contains significant levels of nitrogen and phosphorus it may also be possible to recovery valuable nutrients by struvite precipitation. Treating high-strength wastewater by anaerobic membrane bioreactors produces a treated effluent that is usually low enough in COD to be discharged directly to sewer and with low enough turbidity to be recycled via reverse osmosis. Biogas production provides a sustainable source of renewable energy and the possibility of nutrient recovery offers a potentially saleable by-product. There are now 10 Memthane plants in operation around the world and these have demonstrated that the combination of reduced effluent discharge costs, low operating costs, energy recovery and water recycling makes the process not only technically and economically attractive, but also sustainable, reducing both carbon and water footprints. Currently, pilot plant trials are being carried out at three distilleries and it is estimated that a typical 8MLa distillery would benefit by about £800,000 pa in energy, as Figure 3 shows.

Excess biomass generated in the biological treatment processes is mixed with the draff prior to dewatering to provide additional biofuel for the boiler. The system came on-line in 2009 and provides 98 per cent of the steam and 80 per cent of electrical power used at the distillery, reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions at the site by approximately 56,000 tonnes. A similar plant at Leven in Scotland is currently treating a flow of 6,100m3/day containing 118 tonnes of COD. Water recovery is 60 per cent and the recovered energy meets 80 per cent of the distillery’s needs while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 95 per cent.

A new approach While this total bio-energy approach is both economically attractive and sustainable, Veolia has been working to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Memthane® combines the advantages of anaerobic digestion and membrane bioreactor (MBR) technologies in a compact anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR). The system consists of a high-efficiency anaerobic bioreactor followed by a membrane ultrafiltration system. Wastewater is fed to the anaerobic bioreactor where the organic components are converted into biogas, which usually more than satisfies the process energy requirements, with surplus being available as a renewable energy fuel for boilers or CHP plants. The effluent from the anaerobic reactor is pumped to the ultrafiltration modules, where permeate is separated and biomass is returned to the bioreactor. The permeate has negligible suspended solids concentration and can potentially be fed directly to a reverse osmosis plant, allowing around 70 per cent or more of the wastewater to be recovered at a quality similar to that of softened mains water. This water can be used for applications where potable water is not mandatory, such as boiler or cooling tower make-up and CIP (clean in place). The ultrafiltration membrane retains sludge in the system, minimising surplus sludge production and disposal costs. It also retains high molecular weight COD (which is often difficult to biodegrade in conventional anaerobic reactors) for a sufficiently long period that most of it is broken down. This not only reduces the COD, but also enhances biogas production. Combining two steps

Figure 3. Memthane® in a distillery application. Adding water recycling via reverse osmosis and the benefits in reduced discharge cost and mains water savings could easily add a further £100,000 pa [approximately $AU195]. This type of project, converting by-products into valuable energy and recoverable clean water, can make a major contribution to the sustainability of distilleries and will set a new standard in the industry. WJ

THE AUTHORS Craig Menouhos (email: craig.menouhos@ veolia.com) is an industrial chemist with 21 years of experience in water treatment. He has a comprehensive understanding of business and technical solutions in the food and beverage, and municipal sectors. He is currently Client Manager – Food & Beverage for Veolia in Australia. Ian Hart (email: ian.hart@veolia.com) is Industrial Business Development Director, Veolia Water Technologies UK. He is responsible for developing the business in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical and energy sectors. Ian has more than 25 years of experience developing project solutions for water treatment and other process industries. Before joining Veolia, he was a Director of Irish-based consultant engineers, PM Group.

MAY 2015 water

Feature Article

Delivering Water and Sanitation to Melanesian Informal Settlements Preliminary findings of a review of WASH services in informal settlements in the Melanesian region. By Alyse Schrecongost, Katherine Wong, Penny Dutton and Isabel Blackett.

elanesia is a region in the south-western part of the Pacific Ocean, to the north and north-east of Australia. It includes Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji, which are among Australia’s closest neighbours. Melanesia comprises more than 98 per cent of the total land area of all Pacific islands and about 82 per cent of all Pacific Island population.1 Urbanisation is occurring rapidly in Melanesia, with housing shortages and unaffordability driving the growth of existing and new settlements both within and beyond the boundaries of major cities across the region. This is happening at a rate that far outpaces city or regional efforts to plan for or serve them. Settlements are difficult to reach using traditional public service delivery approaches, while the lack of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) service delivery leads to poor public health and environmental outcomes.

This article presents the preliminary findings of a review of WASH services in the informal settlements in the capital cities of the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea.2 These findings are a first step to motivating stakeholders and guiding future policies and solutions.

What are informal settlements? Characteristics of informal settlements vary within and across the study countries, but all share inadequate access to basic services. Informal settlements are defined as follows: Informal or unplanned residential areas that have developed outside of the formal urban planning rules of a city, often in physically marginal or peri-urban areas. They are characterised by uncertain or illegal land tenure;

minimal or no water supply, sanitation, electricity, and other services; informal employment and low incomes; and lack of recognition by formal governments.3 Growth in informal settlements far outpaces city-wide growth, as families grow and extended family members from their home islands move in. In Honiara, Solomon Islands, some settlements are expanding at an estimated 26 per cent per annum, compared to formal city growth of 2.7 per cent,4 and are expected to make up 64 per cent of Honiara’s population by 2023.5 This population growth, in combination with complex land tenure laws and the vulnerability of many settlements to natural disasters, contributes to missing or poorly delivered basic public services. In particular, poor WASH services result in significant health and environmental problems for settlement residents. The effects of these problems extend beyond the confines of settlements; as one official from the Ministry of Health in the Solomon Islands stated, “diseases have no boundaries.”6 Without adequate attention, these service gaps and their effects will continue to increase.

Water access Water supply services to settlements vary between and within countries. Settlers in Suva, Fiji have relatively good access to water. However, in Honiara, Solomon Islands and Port Moresby, PNG, settlers report having inadequate or only just enough water to meet basic drinking and hygiene requirements.7,8,9 Many households share piped water from community standpipes. In some cases, pipes are tapped illegally. Households tend to pay for this water on a per-container basis. Per-unit charges are greater than prevailing legal tariffs, and can be cost-prohibitive for

Asian Development Bank. Basic Statistics 2014. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2015.

his paper is based on research undertaken by Castalia Ltd for the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) on “Review of Sanitation and Water T Services in Informal Urban Settlements in Melanesian Countries”.

orld Bank – Water and Sanitation Program. 2015. Social Research Findings and Recommendations. PNG: Sanitation, Water Supply, and Hygiene in Urban W Informal Settlements. World Bank.

ensus data and Chand, Satish, and Charles Yala. “Informal land systems within urban settlements in Honiara and Port Moresby.” Making Land Work 2 (2008): C 85–106.

Calculated using average growth figures, and assuming constant growth rates.

Interview with the Ministry of Health.

Social Research Findings and Recommendations. PNG: Sanitation, Water Supply, and Hygiene in Urban Informal Settlements. World Bank – Water and Sanitation Program. 2015. Note this is very small sample and appears to be very rough estimates. Household totals were 347 to 3,328 litres of water per month.

WHO. “Water Sanitation Health: What Is the Minimum Quantity of Water Needed?” World Health Organisation. 2015.

ettlers in Port Moresby consume an estimated 6.2 to 22.5 litres per person per day. WHO considers a minimum of 7.5 litres of water per person per day to S meet the requirements of most people under most conditions. WHO considers about 20 litres per capita per day necessary to meet basic personal and food hygiene needs (excluding laundry and bathing).

water MAY 2015

Feature Article poor households.10 There are often not enough shared taps in a community, and water reliability (pressure and flow) is intermittent. This leads to crowding and long waits, causing residents to spend significant time collecting water each day. Due to this high cost and inconvenience, households typically supplement their collection of piped water with rainwater, water from shallow wells, or surface water. This water tends to be used for bathing, dishwashing and laundry. In some cases, households ration water at the expense of basic hygiene behaviours like regular handwashing.11

Figure 1. Containers and informal filling sites contaminate utility water. Source: Social Research Findings and Recommendations. PNG: Sanitation, Water Supply and Hygiene in Urban Informal Settlements. World Bank-Water and Sanitation Program, 2015. Both illegal connections and informal water sources increase the risk of illness from water contamination, as dirt and polluted water at the collection point can enter containers (Figure 1). Informal collection and storage containers are irregularly cleaned and harbour water-borne contamination and bacteria (Figure 2). Residents do not commonly practice boiling or other forms of water treatment. Women and girls are typically responsible for collecting water for the entire household. They endure long waits and carry heavy loads of water (between 20 and 30 kilograms) over multiple trips to collect and bring water home, a physical burden that can lead to degenerative health effects.12 They are also exposed to the risk of sexual and physical violence when they collect water away from their homes, particularly at night.

Sanitation access

In Suva, residents have greater financial means to improve and maintain latrine superstructures, and most have access to piped water for pour flush toilets and hand-washing. In Port Vila, communities were more apt to organise themselves around shared toilet options. However, in Port Moresby and Honiara, most households rely on pit toilets or openly defecate in the bushes or creeks. When available, toilets tend to be shared by multiple families and are poorly maintained. Many people (particularly children, elderly and disabled residents) resort to open defecation because they cannot access or are afraid of/disgusted by poor toilet conditions. Open defecation, particularly at night, exposes women and children to risk of violence or abuse. Across all the study countries, waste from these toilets is consistently handled unsafely, often with straight pipes to nearby streams or to shallow, unsealed underground containment structures with inadequate storage or drainage. Toilets are virtually never emptied; households typically abandon filled toilets and dig another toilet nearby (as shown in Figure 3). In communities in low-lying areas, this waste may regularly flood into communities. In settlements with high water tables, toilet facilities may be elevated and hang over water bodies, which can be frightening or unsafe for children, the elderly or disabled users.

Why do informal settlements have inadequate WASH services? Utilities often do not have a clear mandate or obligation to serve informal settlements. In some cities, they are expressly restricted from connecting customers without formal land tenure. When utilities have the legal authority to provide services, they often lack the financial and political motivation to extend services to informal settlements. Many utilities already struggle to provide acceptable water services to existing customer bases and are unable to cope with the pace of urban growth in formalised communities. It is often not financially feasible for utilities to extend water mains or distribution lines to new communities, particularly peri-urban settlements, under current institutional arrangements. Extending services to settlements can be technically challenging (and, therefore, more expensive and time consuming). Utilities cannot always rely on conventional infrastructure options to serve settlements that are located on marginal lands, haphazardly organised, and lack complementary infrastructure.

Figure 2. Makeshift water storage container from Blacksands Settlement in Vanuatu.

Across the region, sanitation services in settlements are limited or missing entirely. No settlements in the study have access to organised faecal waste management services, and coping mechanisms are consistently inadequate.

Although some settlements are close to existing infrastructure and are technically feasible to serve, they are (or are perceived to be) commercially more difficult to serve relative to formal urban communities. Some utilities are reluctant to serve settlers because of concerns that settlers will vandalise distribution lines for illegal connections. Although illegal water connections do occur in the settlements, these connections are not as prevalent as many believe. In Honiara, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) helped Solomon Water assess the source of non-revenue water, which comprised 60 per cent of the utility’s water. Prior to JICA’s study, this non-revenue water was attributed to theft.13 The

In Port Moresby, settlers who buy water per-container pay a higher rate (between K3.79 to K100 [US$1.53 to US$40.39] per 1,000 litres) than they would for a legal connection (K1 [US$0.38]) per 1,000 litres.

Greenwell, James, Judith McCool, Jacob Koolc, and Mosese Salusalud. “Typhoid fever: hurdles to adequate hand washing for disease prevention among the population of a peri-urban informal settlement in Fiji.” Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal: WPSAR 4, No. 1 (2013): 41–45.

Social Research Findings and Recommendations. PNG: Sanitation, Water Supply, and Hygiene in Urban Informal Settlements. World Bank – Water and Sanitation Program. 2015

Solomon Water. 2014. Interview with Solomon Water, Alyse Schrecongost, Katherine Wong, and Ingvar Anda. In person. Honiara, Solomon Islands.

MAY 2015 water

Feature Article resources independently because waste management is a public good and “common pool resource” that requires coordinated investment and planning to yield benefits. Utilities have no incentive to engage in settlement sanitation because they do not directly internalise the health and environmental benefits of sanitation services; traditional sewers are extremely expensive to build and operate; appropriate technologies for marginal lands are unclear; and utilities have little to no prospect of collecting meaningful levels of revenue from connected customers. Where utilities and Governments are willing to serve settlements, the enabling environment (such as national targets, policy environments and financial/organisational capacity) to foster comprehensive, effective programming is limited or missing. Settlement residents do not have the political voice to demand improved services.

Figure 3. Abandoned toilet basin over a full pit. study found only 10 per cent of non-revenue water is from illegal connections, with the rest attributed to leakages (80 per cent) and technical losses such as meter inaccuracy (10 per cent).14 When services are available, many low-income settlers struggle to pay their water bills. In Port Vila, the cost for 7,500 litres of water (50 litres per person per day for a family of five for a month) is 23 per cent of an average monthly settlement household income.15,16 Even if settlers have the ability to pay tariffs, connection fees may be cost-prohibitive. Utilities also find it difficult to collect and enforce bill payment from settlement customers using standard customer engagement models. For example, many communities who share standpipes cannot organise to collect payments from households. Cultural norms can also hinder bill payment. In Honiara, migrants from rural areas are accustomed to receiving water supplies without payment; these settlers expect water to be provided by their traditional ethnic group leaders for free. For sanitation, the situation is more challenging. Across all the study countries, utilities’ mandates are limited to sewerage services (as opposed to sanitation services, which include non-piped options). Networks are grossly inadequate, and sewered coverage ranges from 0 to 50 per cent. Out of the four study countries, only a few settlements in Suva were connected to sewers; these cases are isolated exceptions. No city or utility has comprehensive programs to manage non-sewered waste flows. Some stakeholders are taking the first steps to managing these flows. For instance, Honiara City Council and the Water Authority of Fiji (WAF) have two septic tank trucks and sludge disposal points; however, these programs primarily service middle- or upper-income households or commercial customers. Settlement households can potentially improve their toilet with locally available and affordable options. However, no private sector providers target this market segment with goods or professional services. The settlements do not have access to waste management services, and households cannot organise waste management

With some exceptions, there are few national stakeholders, NGOs, or civic organisations that actively advocate for improved WASH services in the settlements. Utility investments are influenced by internal, Government and donor technical preferences, which tend to favour investments in large-piped water infrastructure systems to formal areas. Decision-makers do not consistently make (or highlight) the connection between WASH services in the settlements and urban environmental/public health.

Current efforts to improve service delivery to settlements There are examples of successful efforts to improve water service delivery to settlements. For instance: • WAF sidesteps land tenure requirements by placing customer meters at the edge of a settlement rather than at households. The household then installs distribution piping from the meter (shown in Figure 4). • Eda Ranu, the utility in Port Moresby, PNG, provides services through community standpipes with bulk tariff rates to avoid penalising those who share meters under increasing block tariff schedules. • Solomon Water partners with World Vision, a local NGO, to improve understanding of and programming for settlement customers’ willingness and ability to pay for services. • In Port Vila, one vatu from every cubic metre of water sold goes into the “Water Special Fund” held by UNELCO, which inter alia “contributes to the construction of new water connections for the benefit of low-income earners.” The fund has yet to be used to help low-income households. These water service efforts provide examples worth studying further and replicating or scaling where appropriate. Unfortunately, no country demonstrated meaningful efforts to deliver sanitation services in settlements or to support comprehensive city-wide faecal sludge management.

Where do we go from here? No single project or program is a “silver bullet.” Solutions need to respond to the particular circumstances found in each settlement, and be implemented with relatively limited financial and technical resources. However, there are recommendations that apply to the region.

Solomon Water. 2014. Interview with Solomon Water, Alyse Schrecongost, Katherine Wong, and Ingvar Anda. In person. Honiara, Solomon Islands.

The water tariff is based on UNELCO website data from November 2014. The average monthly settlement household income in Port Vila is VT1030 [US$103].

his is the average monthly household income for the lowest decile in urban Vanuatu. (See: Table 2-3 http://www.vnso.gov.vu/index.php/component/advlisting T /?view=download&fileId=2006).

water MAY 2015

Feature Article

Figure 4. Unprotected settlement water meter (top left), exposed PVC pipes linking meters to households (right), and unsafe water storage (bottom left). Central Government authorities need to establish clear national mandates; identify the authority responsible for service delivery; clarify obligations to implement services; and set clear service level targets for settlements. These targets should emphasise outcomes (such as improved access, reduced cost and measurable environmental benefits), and better processes like engagement with settlement residents, particularly women. Government agencies, donors and NGOs need to improve the enabling environment for new programs to ensure continuous sector support after implementation stages. Stakeholder research is needed to help funders, regulators and implementers better reach under-served communities. New technical and financial service delivery strategies need to be developed, tested and implemented in areas that are difficult to reach. These strategies should address the immediacy of need, as well as the long-term nature of the challenge in informally settled communities. Sanitation research should focus on developing a financially viable and actionable list of waste management options. Regional research programs can promote innovation, which helps utilities identify the best options to test in their cities. Donors can pilot technical approaches, such as decentralised sewers or innovative financing methods, which are appropriate for settlement communities. Development partners can identify appropriate, feasible project options for settlement communities as part of technical assistance packages. Outcome-oriented performance incentives can resource and motivate implementing agencies to identify and invest in the most effective policies, technologies and capacity-building opportunities to achieve performance targets. Lastly, stakeholders need to work together to develop and implement projects. NGOs may better engage settlement communities than utilities alone, while utilities have more resources to scale-up projects than NGOs. Co-ordinated partnerships between NGOs, utilities and other organisations can ensure long-term service delivery. WJ

The Authors Alyse Schrecongost (email: amschrecongost@ gmail.com) has been researching, managing, advising and evaluating international development, resource management and WASH projects for nearly 15 years. Currently an independent consultant, Alyse previously worked at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where she was a core member of the Transformative Technology Initiative and Urban Sanitation Markets Initiative. Katherine Wong (email: katherine.wong@ castalia-advisors.com) is an economist with experience in analysing water, energy and other issues in an international context. She is currently an analyst at Castalia, an economic consulting firm with a focus on infrastructure and development projects. She has worked on projects for the World Bank, the New Zealand Government, and private sector clients. Penny Dutton (email: pennydutton@iinet.net. au) is a Regional WASH Social Research and Community Development Consultant with the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. She has over 20 years of experience working on water and sanitation projects in SE Asia and the Pacific. Isabel Blackett (email: iblackett@worldbank. org) has over 20 years of experience in sanitation, including in Africa and East Asia for UNICEF, DFID, KfW, the private sector, and other bilateral development agencies. She has worked as a Senior Sanitation Specialist in the World Bankâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water and Sanitation Program regional office in East Asia and the Pacific since 2005, focusing on the regional program, and also recently on WSPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s emerging urban sanitation agenda.

MAY 2015 water

technical papers

Asset Management The Changing Nature Of Asset Management To A Management Systems Approach

S Muruvan et al.

T Cauchi & F Ibrahimi

C Charlesworth & J Everton

R Koech et al.

C Kelly & A Bardak

MD Short et al.

M Hafeez et al.

J Edwards et al.

An exploration of the shift towards a management systems approach

An Audit Framework For Management Of Groundwater Assets Of The Victorian State SOBN

A review of key aspects of the framework

Integrity Testing Of Embedded Fasteners

An ultrasonic technique for assessing the integrity of bolts below the surface

Smart Metering Effect Of Elevated Temperature On Water Meter Accuracy

An investigative study using three positive displacement mechanical meters

Stormwater Treatment A Statistical Approach To Assess Stormwater Treatment Device Performance Data

A demonstration of how statistical methods can be used to gauge presented data sets

Water Reuse Benchmarking The Energy-Health Nexus For More Efficient Water Recycling

Key findings from a new energy benchmarking approach This icon means the paper has been refereed

Water Resources A New Integrated Continental Hydrological Simulation System

An overview of the Australian Water Resources Assessment Modelling System

Biosolids & Source Management Anaerobic Digestion At Wastewater Treatment Plants

Opportunities with and without policy support

Disclaimer: The papers in this section have been peer reviewed for relevance, clarity and contributing constructively to the sharing of knowledge about water. It is not intended that any conclusions drawn by authors may be used as validation of the performance of a process or product; AWA expressly refutes any suggestion that publication herein implies endorsement. Although reviewers consider the credibility of data presented, it is not possible for them to vouch for the accuracy of such data.

NEXT ISSUE:

JUNE 2015 • OZWATER REPORT + WINNING PAPER • SMART METERING & SCADA • OPERATIONS & BUSINESS MODELS • GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

PAUT provides a cross-section image of bolt threads.

• WASTEWATER TREATMENT • CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

THE CHANGING NATURE OF ASSET MANAGEMENT TO A MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS APPROACH An exploration of the shift towards a management systems approach to asset management in the water sector S Muruvan, G Ryan, D Vincent, B Marshall

ABSTRACT The introduction of the new international standard ISO 55000 series has created more interest in asset management than at any other time in the last 30 years. The application of a management systems approach to the traditional management of the asset life cycle has been developing over a number of years, but the formalisation of this concept into a globally accepted standard is seen as a major step forward. This paper explores the shift towards a management systems approach to asset management in the water sector, the benefits of its application, and some practical tips for implementation of ISO 55001 as the sector focuses on greater customer benefit and continuous improvement. The paper draws from a recent Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) project to develop implementation guidelines for ISO 55001 applicable to the Australian urban water sector. The project was supported by 25 of WSAA’s members, including many of the larger water utilities across Australia. This is a high level of participation for a collaborative project, indicating the intense interest from the water industry in ISO 55001. This paper details some key lessons learnt through the pilot testing of the guideline by water utilities. The participants were able to leverage off the pilot test gap analysis and use the information to make changes to their asset management system Keywords: Asset management, ISO 55001, implementation, guidelines, collaboration, water management.

INTRODUCTION Over the next few years many of the major Australian water utilities are likely to either adopt the ISO 55001:2014(E) standard (referred to herein as ISO 55001) as the framework for their

asset management systems or will be required by stakeholders or regulators to demonstrate alignment or compliance with ISO 55001. To assist utilities in making this process as efficient as possible and to help establish regulator expectations, the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) initiated a collaborative project between 25 water utilities with the aim of developing a guideline for the implementation of ISO 55001. GHD Pty Ltd and AMCL Pty Ltd were appointed to develop the guidelines under the guidance of a Steering Committee comprising WSAA members. The project’s key objectives were to: • Explain the context of ISO 55001 and the relevance of an asset management system; • Explain each requirement of ISO 55001 and provide generic and urban water industry-specific evidence requirements or ‘artefacts’ to be used to support the seeking of compliance with or certification to ISO 55001; • Align the requirements of ISO 55001 with WSAA’s Aquamark framework. The Aquamark framework is a threetiered asset management process framework that includes 750+ measures encompassing corporate policy and business processes, asset capability planning, asset acquisition/ creation, maintenance, operations, renewal and business support systems. • Provide an outline of the sequential approach to implementation of ISO 55001, drawing from the experience of water utilities that have sought certification; • Assist water utilities prepare for a certification audit under ISO 55001. The guidelines sought to not replicate the information provided in the ISO

55000 series or any other existing guidelines on the implementation of ISO 55001. They were developed based on the key lessons from the assessment, audit and implementation of a number of asset management systems from the last 10 years that have included both BSI: PAS 55 (the British Standards Institute Publically Available Specification) and ISO 55001, across multiple industries. The project included the documentation of several case study examples and the pilot testing of the application of the guideline by seven water utilities that had already commenced implementation of an ISO 55001 compliant asset management system.

METHOD The project was developed in a highly collaborative manner: • Project initiation by the WSAA membership through its Asset Management Committee; • Project governance via a Steering Committee comprising a WSAA project director and coordinator, and WSAA water utility chair and participant representatives; • Guideline review by all 25 participating WSAA members. The members included statewide, bulk and retail metropolitan, regional and municipalbased water utilities, representing the Australian water industry at all scales; • Provision of case study examples by participants and pilot testing by seven participants; • Project participant workshop to share and explore leading practices in the application of ISO 55001 from across the participant group and from external infrastructure businesses that have progressed down the path of ISO 55001 certification.

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers The project was delivered in four main phases: Phase 1 – Review and scoping • Baselining the core requirements of ISO 55001; • Comparing ISO 55001 to Aquamark, including mapping ISO 55001 ‘shall’ statements to each Aquamark measure; • Review of existing published guidelines on ISO 55001 and PAS 55; • Review existing case study examples of Australian water utilities seeking alignment or compliance with ISO55001. Phase 2 – Develop draft guideline • Develop the draft guideline for review by WSAA participating members. Phase 3 – Pilot testing guideline against seven water utilities • Review each utility’s current approach to ISO 55001; • Validate utility self-assessments and gaps to ascertain their readiness to certify against ISO 55001; • Test use of the guideline and feedback on its usability; • Feedback on the applicability of an updated Aquamark that could be used to assess alignment to ISO 55001, and over the longer-term maturity of the ISO55001 system. Phase 4 – Finalisation • Project participant workshop;

years, the focus is now on extracting value from the asset base to deliver maximum customer benefit. Consequently, application of the ISO 55000 series provides an opportunity and a framework for water utilities to appropriately structure asset management to meet these objectives in a way that is internationally recognised and reflects contemporary good practice for asset-rich organisations. According to ISO 55000, the fundamentals on which asset management is based are: • Value Assets should only exist to provide value to an organisation and its customers and stakeholders. For water utilities, this puts the focus on determining how their asset networks contribute to utility objectives and realise value, rather than on the assets themselves.

awareness and competency, and engaging with staff and stakeholders regarding asset management. • Assurance An asset management system can provide assurance that assets will fulfil their required purpose, and supports the need to effectively govern an agency. Assurance applies to all assets, asset management and the asset management system. It includes providing the appropriate level of capability, competency and resources to meet objectives as well as the monitoring, review and continual improvement of asset management. THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS APPROACH

• Alignment Aligning all asset management decisions, plans, documents and activities to corporate objectives is an important consideration throughout ISO 55001. The ‘line of sight’ concept developed to support PAS 55 illustrated this alignment, although this is not a concept contained within ISO 55001.

Many water utilities have certified or aligned management systems for quality (ISO 9001), environment (ISO 14001), health and safety (OHSAS 18001, AS/NZS 4801, SafetyMap or other), or drinking water quality management. ISO 55001 is structured in a similar way to these management systems and is equally important in managing a utility. The ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ (PDCA) cycle sourced originally from ISO 9001 is evident in ISO 55001, as shown in Figure 1, overlaid on the asset management system diagram.

• Leadership Leadership and commitment from senior or top management is essential for successfully establishing, operating and continually improving asset management. In particular, key leadership roles of management are in establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities, ensuring

ISO 55001 specifically references the definition of risk in ISO 31000 and suggests guidance from that standard. Given its similarity to other management systems, ISO 55001 lends itself to an integrated management system (IMS) approach. An integrated approach has the advantage of enabling an asset management system to build on existing management systems,

• Publication of the ISO 55001 implementation guideline. This paper outlines some of the important aspects of ISO 55001 relevant to the water sector in Australia as detailed in WSAA’s ISO 55001 Implementation Guidelines.

DISCUSSION CONTEXT OF ISO 55000 SERIES

The ISO 55000 series describes a management system for asset management, based on the primary aim that “asset management enables an organization to realize value from assets in the achievement of its organizational objectives.” (ISO 55000 Cl 2.2). The (simplified) objectives of Australia’s urban water utilities are typically to meet customer and stakeholder needs through their assets and services. With high levels of investment in the sector in recent

WATER MAY 2015

Figure 1. ISO 55001 core requirements and the PDCA cycle.

reducing time and effort in its creation and improving cross-functional coordination. The ISO 55000 series explores what an asset management system is, but does not explain how asset management is to be conducted. The standard is intended to apply across the broadest range of cultures, organisations and assets. Consequently, it is totally generic and has no requirements or references to any sector or industry, or any asset type or group. BENEFITS OF AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Some of the benefits of an asset management system are outlined in ISO 55000 and include improved financial performance, enhanced reputation, managed risk, and improved services and outputs. The key benefit, however, is in providing assurance that all relevant activities of the utility are aligned with its objectives, thereby eliminating waste or misdirected effort and achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in meeting utility objectives. The assurance can then be used to demonstrate good corporate governance and stewardship of assets to owners (state or local government in the Australian water industry context), regulators, customers and other stakeholders. IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

Implementing ISO 55001 requires a different approach, thinking and attitude from past asset management practice. The structure of ISO as a management system is different from traditional life cycle approaches. In particular ISO requires the commitment of the utility leadership and a desire to make real change and application of resources. Utilities not willing to take this step are unlikely to realise the real benefits that it provides. It will not be sufficient for mature utilities to supplement current practices with some new ones aligned to ISO: this is missing the point and benefits of implementation. A stronger commitment to extracting value from assets through implementing an asset management system designed to meet objectives is required. Some of the most important lessons learnt by the pilot test utilities and by applying the experience of the consultant team are explored in the following text: • Seek Guidance A compliance assessment can be undertaken with only the Standard as a guide, but its nature as a generic and high-level statement of requirements leaves much to the user to interpret. A number of learned institutions, industry associations,

utilities across all sectors, and certifiers and auditors, have all interpreted the Standard and some precedents and guides have been established, drawing from the decade of use of PAS 55, other management systems and asset lifecycle frameworks and guides. Using these precedents, and the WSAA Guidelines, will provide a current interpretation to assist utilities in their quest to seek compliance with ISO 55001. • Take leadership on the journey Ensure that the leadership team is committed to implementation of ISO 55001. Awareness and understanding by leadership of the benefits and value that an asset management system can bring to the utility is an important precursor to this commitment, as well as identifying the expected resource requirements. A stepwise approach may be necessary – treat it as a journey, implementing those aspects that appear to provide the greatest benefits initially to provide the momentum to continue. • Define and engage with your stakeholders Stakeholder requirements relating to a utility’s usual water customers are typically well defined in customer charters or service obligations. Less well defined may be other external stakeholders and their requirements, such as owners and service providers, or internal stakeholder requirements from, for example, finance, corporate or customer service departments. This highlights a need for a greater level of engagement with these stakeholders to identify and document their requirements and reporting needs relating to the asset management system, and the risks and issues relating to the ability of the utility to meet the intended outcomes of its asset management system.

Assess what scope and asset portfolio components will derive most value. This will require interaction and engagement across the full breadth of the utility, and probably a level of iteration as well, to arrive at a reasonable and accepted scope and portfolio. • Integrate with other management systems where possible If the utility is certified to other management systems, or have implemented/are seeking to implement an Integrated Management System (IMS), then consider the asset management system as complementary to these systems and able to be integrated. The basic Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process will apply to all of them, reducing time and effort in creation of the asset management system. • Consider an Information Management Strategy This or a similar document is critical to meeting the requirements of ISO 55001, and will capture and help to ensure that relevant asset management information requirements are defined and aligned with asset management objectives. The Strategy should include documented information management processes (including means of collection, availability, protection and control), a consistent and clear hierarchy and structure (format, attributes, quality) for asset-related information, and the appropriate alignment of financial and non-financial information. • Have an established change management approach Review the utility’s approach to planned change management to ensure it is relevant to the asset management system and incorporates change risk evaluation, change control, implementation and post-implementation assessment.

• Spend time on your asset management objectives Some attention is required to establish asset management objectives that relate to the utility’s corporate objectives and enable a clear line of sight to asset and service-related levels of service and relevant reporting KPIs.

• Check consistency of assetrelated risk assessment tools These should align with the corporate risk framework, so that they can be applied at the right granularity to support asset-related and operational decision making, but still be rolled up for significant risks to the corporate level.

• Define the asset management system scope based on what the utility requires from its assets to derive value Develop a good initial definition and description of the asset management system (AMS) specifically in terms of its scope, boundaries, functions and processes, and interfaces with other management systems and external service providers and stakeholders.

• Review and update committee structures Line management arrangements are commonly in place for most asset lifecycle management processes. Cross-business integration on asset management can, however, be limited, for example, to a Capital Works Committee or similar. Review the committee arrangements to determine what best meets the needs of the

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

• Integrate your service providers In managing outsourced activities, many utilities have strong processes for selection, evaluation and managing performance of service providers. In considering the asset management system, these processes typically need extension to consider aspects such as outsourced activity risks to asset management objectives, information management and sharing, awareness of service providers as to how they contribute to meeting the utility’s asset management objectives, and competency assessment of service providers. • Make a start! Even if the utility is not aiming for certification, there will be aspects of ISO 55001 that will provide immediate benefits and improve business outcomes. Make a start on these and work to continually improve. DEVELOPING AN ISO COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE WATER INDUSTRY

The Aquamark™ Asset Management Benchmarking Framework was developed by WSAA as an industry-owned and managed framework for assessing asset management process maturity. The framework has been applied in successive benchmarking projects since 2004, involving up to 44 water and wastewater utilities across all Australian States and Territories and internationally in North America (USA and Canada), Middle East (United Arab Emirates and Sultanate of Oman), China (Hong Kong), New Zealand, and The Philippines. A number of utilities apply Aquamark annually to assess progress in asset management development and align business improvement programs.

WATER MAY 2015

55001 – as well as its current function as a lifecycle-based asset management framework and benchmarking model.

Under the core functions, Aquamark is further subdivided into 61 Processes, 217 Sub-Processes, and 752 Measures. This structure provides increasingly detailed descriptions of the processes for life cycle management of assets for the water sector.

• Enabling greater application of Aquamark across the globe.

Comparing how ISO 55001 and Aquamark are currently assessed, the approaches are quite different: • ISO 55001 is a ‘compliance’ model. That is, an asset management system either complies with the relevant clause, or it doesn’t – referred to as a non-conformity. Auditors typically categorise non-conformities as either major (if the non-conformity is perceived to pose a significant risk to meeting the asset management objectives), or minor (otherwise). • Aquamark is a ‘maturity’ model. That is, the assessment approach or scoring is based on increasing levels of maturity in process capability (process development and documentation, and process execution (process coverage and frequency, and process effectiveness). As part of the project, Aquamark and ISO 55001 were aligned, new measures created and a scoring system established to enable Aquamark to be used for compliance assessment against ISO

Such alignment has the benefits of: • Simplifying compliance and maturity assessment through the one model structure; • Reducing confusion in the water sector over selection of an asset management framework; • Assisting the industry to gain regulator and other stakeholder acceptance of Aquamark as a leading practice compliance tool;

The revised model was pilot-tested with seven water utilities covering statewide, metropolitan bulk and retail, and regional water utilities across Australia. The pilot test demonstrated the validity of the model, provided feedback on the water industry guidelines draft, and enabled a greater appreciation of the implementation gaps and challenges remaining in the water industry relating to ISO 55001. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the compliance assessment for ISO 55001, and includes likely compliance and non-conformities for each of the requirements in ISO 55001. Aquamark will be revised and updated to align with ISO 55001 in preparation for the WSAA 2016 International Asset Management Performance Improvement Project, expected to obtain wide support in the water industry in Australia and internationally.

PROJECT OUTCOMES A number of key outcomes were delivered as a result of this project, including: • Development of an ISO 55001 implementation guideline based on

AUSTRALIA

• Extend audit and management review to asset management processes Typically, many asset management planning processes (such as growth planning or renewals planning) are not audited as they are not directly related to external obligations or are not specifically included within any quality management system. This highlights the need to specifically address the requirements of the asset management system in the performance evaluation, corrective and preventive actions, audit regime and management review processes.

Aquamark is structured quite differently to ISO 55001 as it is based on the asset life cycle, as shown in Figure 2. There are seven core functions in Aquamark, with Function 1 – Corporate Policy and Business Planning overlying all the life cycle functions from Asset Capability Planning to Asset Replacement. Function 7 – Business Support Systems relates to the information systems and data used to support the other functions. Aquamark is specifically designed with the urban water sector in mind, although many of the requirements are generic and can be applied to other infrastructure agencies such as gas, electricity and transportation.

utility with respect to decision-making, awareness, communication and management review.

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Figure 2. WSAA’s Aquamark Asset Management Framework.

Figure 3. Illustrative ISO 55001 compliance assessment. real industry experience, testing and validation; • Identified leading practice in the Australian water industry to share in the Guidelines and at a participant workshop; • Pilot-tested the guideline by seven water utilities and documented the key priorities and lessons learnt in implementing ISO 55001; • Enabled the collaboration of 25 water utilities on the implementation of ISO 55001; • Greatly increased the depth of understanding of ISO 55001 within the Australian water industry; • Developed an innovative new tool to undertake and present the outcomes of an ISO 55001 self-assessment; • Developed a clear guideline for both water utilities and their regulators on what it means to have an ISO 55001compliant asset management system; • Identified improvements to the WSAA Aquamark asset management process framework in comparison with ISO 55001 for updating in preparation for the WSAA 2016 International Asset Management Performance Improvement Project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The contributions of all 25 participating water utilities in this collaborative WSAA project are acknowledged. In particular, the efforts of those utilities that participated in the pilot test trial and contributed case study material and constructive feedback is appreciated.

THE AUTHORS Sugandree Muruvan (email: Sugandree. Muruvan@watercorporation. com.au) is the Asset Strategy and Integration Manager at the Water Corporation based in Perth, Western Australia. She is the Utilities Project Manager on the WSAA ISO 55001 Implementation Guideline project. Greg Ryan (email: Greg.Ryan@wsaa.asn.au) is Manager Utility Excellence with the Water Services Association of Australia, and is based in Melbourne. He is the project director of WSAA’s ISO 55001 Implementation Guideline project, and leads WSAA’s asset management improvement program including the development of WSAA’s Aquamark Asset Management Benchmarking Framework.

Don Vincent (email: Donald.Vincent@ghd.com) is Principal Consultant with GHD Pty Ltd in Melbourne. He leads the consultant team for WSAA’s ISO 55001 Implementation Guideline project. He has led and delivered numerous collaborative projects in asset management, benchmarking and practice development across the water sector. Brenton Marshall (email: Brenton.Marshall@amcl. com) is the AMCL Territory Manager, Australia & New Zealand. He is responsible for the development and delivery of all asset management consulting services and training within AMCL’s Australian business.

REFERENCES SAI Global ISO 55000: 2014 (E): Asset Management – Overview, Principles and Terminology. SAI Global ISO 55001: 2014 (E): Asset Management – Management Systems – Requirements. SAI Global ISO 55002: 2014 (E): Asset Management – Management Systems – Guidelines for the Application of ISO 55001. Water Services Association of Australia – ISO55001 Implementation Guidelines, May 2015.

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUDIT FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER ASSETS OF THE VICTORIAN STATE OBSERVATION BORE NETWORK (SOBN) A review of key aspects of the framework T Cauchi, F Ibrahimi

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The State Observation Bore Network (SOBN) comprises a variety of assets that are significant to the delivery of groundwater management in Victoria. Sustainable management of these assets, including routine maintenance and monitoring aspects, is critical to the longevity, operational efficiency and asset/ business risk mitigations in the longer term and for achieving a continuum in data capture integrity. The successful management of these assets, thereafter, is underpinned by the development of a robust, repeatable and defensible approach/framework.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) requires the periodic measurement of groundwater levels and pressure from approximately 2,500 bores associated with the State Observation Bore Network (SOBN) located across Victoria. The SOBN groundwater monitoring program is crucial for effective groundwater management in Victoria, comprising the primary asset used to monitor and manage the resource, which is used to supply water for potable, industrial and irrigation purposes across the state. SOBN also encompasses and informs groundwater management of the southern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin. As such, the SOBN incorporates assets relied on by groundwater managers in Victoria and, more broadly, across eastern Australia.

This paper presents key aspects of an audit framework developed to assist the asset owner – the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), providing it with an appreciation of the current level of confidence in the collection, management and timely delivery of groundwater monitoring data, as well as the observation and undertaking of routine bore maintenance activities in accordance with the conditions of an established monitoring contract. The framework uses fundamental asset management principles and physical field audits of SOBN monitoring and routine maintenance activities, as well as data management processes and procedures, commensurate with industry best appropriate practices. Three years on from its development, the framework provides an efficient and effective step towards advanced asset management for DELWP, and provides improved decision making capabilities, with more accurate and validated data outputs from the field, living up to its expectations of providing a robust, repeatable and defensible approach.

WATER MAY 2015

It is essential that DELWP has utmost confidence in the accuracy and repeatability of these measurements, as well as the long-term consistency of the data collected and delivered, to maintain a good handle on effectively managing this important and crucial asset base. Externally undertaken auditing is required by DELWP on a regular basis, to provide an appreciation of the temporally variable level of confidence in the collection, management and timely delivery of groundwater level data, and also to identify and diagnose bore maintenance activities in accordance with the conditions of the monitoring contract. This additional capability provides a step change in the management regimes adopted for this important asset statewide, with benefits extending to more sustainable decision making from an economic, social and environmental perspective moving forward.

METHOD PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The audit framework was designed by GHD, based on significant learnings from a series of back-to-back global asset management benchmarking exercises for the water industry over the last 10 years. Its development involved iterative collaboration with the major stakeholder (DELWP) and the external party responsible for undertaking the monitoring of SOBN, herein referred to as the Field Services Provider (FSP). The following major performance assessment areas were adopted to underpin the audit framework development: • Quality Management of the FSP – provides a focus on relevant company quality management system details and staff suitability for works undertaken; • Access and Hazard Management – provides a focus on access to monitoring sites, including both site-specific and generic hazard management aspects; • Site Observations – focus on sitespecific observations that should be considered under the DELWP monitoring guidelines (DSE, 2010). This primarily involved a physical assessment/audit of bore monitoring and maintenance works; • Data Collection – focuses on the FSP’s monitoring equipment, maintenance works required or undertaken, data collection and decontamination procedures; • Data Management – considers the FSP’s data management procedures, including data handling, verification, validation and delivery.

FRAMEWORK OPERATION

The audit framework simply assesses each major activity related to the fulfilment of DELWP’s groundwater monitoring and maintenance contract. The framework was transparently developed and designed to be used repeatedly in periodic audits undertaken by successive agencies, organisations or contracting parties. It focuses on contractual requirements relating to each of the major performance assessment areas. The FSP was required to demonstrate compliance with each of these requirements. The ‘requirements’ were primarily qualitative in nature and typically derived from the Monitoring and Maintenance Contract on which this audit framework is based. Typically, the requirements could be assessed on a simple Yes/No basis, with compliance requirements stipulated for the Auditor to reference. A comments field was accommodated to justify specific responses, such as the applicability or non-applicability of particular aspects for a particular audit event. ASSESSING COMPLIANCE

Compliance was ‘scored’ in terms of four main assessment compliance qualifications: • Reliability – documents/evidence is reliable/repeatable without requiring modification/alteration; • Accuracy – documents/evidence is truly representative of intended purpose and provides factual information; • Accessibility – documents/evidence is accessible to required agency/ contractor at any time, without requirement for approval. This may include online access where applicable; • Execution – documents/report/outcome is executed/used/implemented for the intended purpose. Subsequently, a semi-quantitative approach was applied where each of these compliance qualifications was scored on an unweighted linear scale from 0 (lowest possible score) to 25 (highest possible score) based on the following criteria: • Score of 25: Complete compliance with no improvement opportunity identified; • Score of 15–25: The audit aspect is addressed but improvement opportunities are identified; • Score of 5–15: The audit aspect is not addressed or is addressed poorly, and improvement opportunities are identified;

• Score of 0: The audit aspect is not addressed whatsoever and may result in contractual non-compliance. A total average score was then developed for each major performance assessment area. Items that were not applicable to a specific situation were not scored, to avoid bias weighting of the overall average. The scoring mechanism was intended to reduce the level of subjectivity and ambiguity associated with such assessments and allowed future assessments to be carried out with consistency. However, the scoring mechanisms developed and adopted were still subject to the judgement of the audit team, with respect to contractual obligations and achieving DELWP’s overall objectives. Because of this, the outputs were used as an indicative guide in assessing fulfilment of contractual obligations.

DISCUSSION & RESULTS IDENTIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The audit program for the 2012–2014 contract period included audits of five field monitoring events, and the FSP regional offices. In summarising the findings of each audit, improvement opportunities were recommended as required and were designated priorities to provide DELWP with an indication of potential impact to the monitoring and maintenance contract and schedule for rectification. The qualitative prioritisation ranking implemented is defined as such: • High priority: significant non-compliance of the DELWP monitoring and maintenance contract requirements. Address the suggested improvement opportunities as soon as practicable; • Medium priority: minor non-compliance of the DELWP monitoring and maintenance contract requirements or ambiguous compliance issues owing to a lack of documented procedures or evidence of compliance; • Low priority: no non-compliance issue. Improvement opportunities suggested for consistency or optimisation of the data collection, management or delivery process. Prioritised management strategies were recommended occasionally with the intention to help fill data gaps or respond to the improvement opportunities identified. While these management strategies did not necessarily highlight

contractual non-compliance issues, they highlighted improvement or optimisation opportunities in the monitoring and maintenance of the SOBN. This level of prioritisation can be crucial, should the asset owner operator decide to also extend the prioritisation to a risk-based assessment, which applies a risk weighting to each assessed area, and outlines mitigating strategies, aligned with the corporate risk management frameworks of the organisation. Most infrastructure asset owners and operators adopt this method to stay abreast of business and operational risks posed by their assets, and to inform potential future compliance requirements with global asset management standards, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 55000 series and the British Standards Institution’s (BSI) Publicly Available Specification PAS55. VISUALISING AUDIT OUTPUTS

Charted outputs were used to provide a rapid assessment of potential noncompliance or improvement areas, based on the outputs of each audit undertaken. Figure 1 provides an example of the output chart for the Quality Management major performance area. Each of the queries on the left of the chart underwent semi-qualitative assessment to produce the temporally comparable bar chart on the right. Figure 2 provides a comparison of each of the audits undertaken during the period 2012–2014, with respect to the major performance areas. This clearly shows consistently excellent results for Quality Management throughout the period, and progressively improving results for Data Management aspects.

CONCLUSION OUTCOMES OF THIS PROJECT

The audit framework was supported by DELWP for development and was endorsed as a useful tool for ongoing sustainable management of SOBN. The framework utilised fundamental asset management principles and physical field audits of SOBN monitoring and routine maintenance activities, as well as data management processes and procedures, which provided step change towards more sustainable asset management decision making moving forward. The assessment of audits undertaken during the period 2012–2014 showed overall compliance with all major aspects of the DELWP contractual requirements for provision of field services. A number of improvement opportunities were identified throughout the audits; however, these primarily related to low- and medium-

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers opportunities in relation to groundwater monitoring and routine maintenance of this important asset (i.e. SOBN). The audit results have also been used in an internal audit within DELWP undertaken by Price Waterhouse Coopers, and are likely to be used in a Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) audit scheduled for later in 2015. Given its success, the audit approach is currently being considered for application to the Audit of DELWP’s surface water contract audit, scheduled for later in 2015, to realise the same business and technical benefits. STREAMLINING FUTURE AUDITS

Figure 1. Example of chart outputs for quality management aspects.

Prior to undertaking the next audit of the groundwater monitoring and maintenance contract, a review of the existing audit framework was suggested to be undertaken with reference to any changes applied to the Contract. The purpose of this was to ensure that the framework remains relevant to further improve the efficiency and comparability of audit results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Authors wish to thank the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

THE AUTHORS

Figure 2. Outcome comparison of audits from 2012–2014. priority issues that did not represent contractual compliance issues but, rather, represented improvement or optimisation opportunities in the monitoring and maintenance of SOBN. Recommended actions (management strategies) relating to each of the identified improvement opportunities were suggested to DELWP, including removal of specific clauses from future monitoring and maintenance contracts to close out medium-priority issues identified on several occasions that were deemed unnecessary and/or irrelevant based on current modern practices. An outcome of implementing the developed audit framework is that DELWP has an improved appreciation of the current level of confidence in the data it collects and is better equipped to identify potential improvement

WATER MAY 2015

opportunities in relation to groundwater monitoring and maintenance of SOBN. INCIDENTAL BENEFITS

Three years on from its development in 2012, the audit framework provides an efficient and effective step towards advanced asset management for DELWP, and provides improved decision making capabilities with more accurate and validated data outputs from the field. The ability to assess longer term temporal trends has also become possible with comparison of successive audit results, with improved reliability, accuracy and accessibility. The framework continues to be used by DELWP and has become useful in reporting to the Minister of Water, as well as identifying potential improvement

Tony Cauchi (email: tony. cauchi@ghd.com) obtained a Bachelor of Engineering (Geological) from RMIT University, Melbourne in 2005. He is a Chartered Professional Engineer and Senior Hydrogeologist with GHD, with over nine years’ consulting experience. Farshad Ibrahimi (email: Farshad.ibrahimi@ghd. com) is GHD’s Global Service Line Leader for Asset Operations, with a career spanning 18+ years of private and public sector project experience in Australia and abroad.

REFERENCES Annual Assessment Report: 2012-14. Report for Department of Environment and Primary Industries. GHD (2014): Audit of SOBN: Groundwater Monitoring and Maintenance. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2010): State Groundwater Monitoring Program: Groundwater Data Collection and Data Management Operating Guidelines, September 2010.

INTEGRITY TESTING OF EMBEDDED FASTENERS An overview of an ultrasonic technique for assessing the integrity of bolts below the surface using phased array technology and computer processing of acoustic data C Charlesworth, J Everton

ABSTRACT

• Fatigue

Sub-surface corrosion of embedded or shrouded fasteners is a common damage mechanism that can be of high consequence to the integrity of pipework and structures. In the water industry examples are flange bolts, rock bolts and embedded anchors. Typically, the corrosion is just below the accessible surface. The usual form of corrosion damage is a gradual necking of the bolt. This provides no clearly defined reflectors to enable ultrasonic detection of corrosion by conventional methods. The absence of reliable nondestructive testing technology has led to the development of a variety of proofloading techniques, which indirectly assess the extent of corrosion.

• Corrosion fatigue

Recently, an ultrasonic technique has been developed for assessing the integrity of bolts, for a distance up to 200mm, below the surface. It utilises phased array technology and computer processing of acoustic data. The output is a colour-coded view of the fastener in section, with locations of material loss clearly identified. It is expected that this advanced testing technology will fill the current gap in fastener inspection methods.

Fatigue is only briefly discussed in this paper. Failure will typically involve progressive growth of transverse cracks. These cracks are easily detected by traditional ultrasonic inspection from the fastener end face. The usual location of corrosion is just below the accessible surface (Linquist Hoeke et al., 2009). The corroded zone is not protected by the high pH of concrete, i.e. it is above the concrete and extends downwards into degraded concrete near the surface (concrete is degraded by carbonation and/or chloride ingress). See Figure 1. Two corrosion damage mechanisms operate simultaneously: • Crevice Corrosion: A crevice increases the “time of wetness”, facilitating corrosion. The stagnant liquid in the crevice also undergoes complex changes in chemistry, which accelerate corrosion. • Galvanic Corrosion: A galvanic cell is formed between the embedded steel

and the steel above. The steel in the intact concrete is passive due to the high pH environment. It is cathodic to steel in the environment, above. Therefore, the corrosion of the steel near and above the concrete is accelerated. When corrosion is combined with fatigue there is a cumulative and multiplicative effect on the degradation rate, i.e. corrosion fatigue.

LIMITATIONS OF MANUAL ULTRASONIC INSPECTION As mentioned, a manual, normal (0º) probe will reliably detect transverse cracking. An intact fastener will provide a reflection from the “back wall” i.e. the far end of the fastener. If a crack is present, there will be a reflector at a shorter distance from the probe. This is easily discerned by a competent operator. Also, if the fastener is completely consumed by corrosion, the back wall will be lost. However, corrosion of the type in Figure 1 (gradual necking) provides no readily discernible reflector to the ultrasonic signal. The operator is confronted with a cacophony of complex minor reflections

INTRODUCTION Reliable, practical and economic nondestructive testing technology has been developed to detect the majority of damage mechanisms affecting ageing equipment and structures. However, anchor fasteners, embedded in concrete or grout, have been an unresolved problem. Sometimes these fasteners are shrouded by steel work above the concrete. The most common damage mechanisms leading to failure of embedded or shrouded fasteners are (Charlton, 2011):

Figure 1. Typical corrosion necking of an embedded steel fastener.

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers from the gently sloping surfaces, which are indistinguishable from the general background noise (referred to as “grass” along the horizontal axis of the display).

HISTORY OF CORROSION FAILURES AND THE NEED FOR A NEW METHOD The cost of fastener failures is estimated as billions of dollars and 85% of these failures involve fatigue (Charlton, 2011). As explained previously, corrosion and fatigue form a damaging combination.

array of computer-controlled ultrasonic probes (Olympus, n.d.) i.e. PAUT. The same principles can be applied to the ultrasonic inspection of metals. The number, type, positioning and pulsing of these probes can be varied to suit the application and produce sectional images of the component under test. In essence, PAUT can help to interpret the multitude of signals that would otherwise be difficult to resolve and characterise manually.

Examples of publicised recent Australian incidents are:

PAUT APPLIED TO EMBEDDED FASTENERS

• Arthurs Seat Chair Lift (The Age, 2003): Corrosion fatigue of the anchor bolts on a pylon caused the structure to topple. Water pooling around the base was found to be a major contributing factor. Eighteen people were injured, but fortunately there were no deaths.

A PAUT method has been developed for inspection of fasteners. Figures 2–5 provide an example of the results.

• Scrivener Dam (Australian Government – National Capital Authority, 2013– 2014): Corrosion of shrouded anchor bolts on the five “fish belly” overflow flood gates resulted in: – Lowering of water level by 0.5m to reduce stress on the anchor bolts – Continuous watch on the dam – Warning to properties downstream of dam – Major remediation works. A reliable method of regular inspection of these fasteners, at both Arthurs Seat and Scrivener Dam, would have avoided these crises. The lack of a practical ultrasonic or electromagnetic technique has led to the use of a number of indirect inspection techniques. They usually involve proofloading or the measurement of deflection under load. In the case of rock bolts, seismic signals have been used. The writers have been involved with unsuccessful attempts to detect necking of bolts by manual ultrasonic techniques. There was an urgent need for a better method to be developed. This need has been recognised worldwide and some industry associations have proposed research in this area (CIRIA, 2014).

PHASED ARRAY ULTRASONIC TESTING (PAUT) Most of us are familiar with ultrasonic medical imaging to produce pictures of internal organs. This technology uses an

WATER MAY 2015

Transport and Infrastructure • Light poles • Signs • Ground anchors in tunnels, revetments and batters Energy and Chemical • Anchors for heavy machinery • Anchors for large vessels • Anchors for towers and flues Mining • Ground anchors in shafts, tunnels, revetments and batters • Anchors for heavy machinery

DISCUSSION The PAUT method has limitations: • Distance: Beyond 200mm from the end face of the fastener, the probability of detection (PoD) of necking type defects is low and unreliable; • Fastener Size: Fasteners less than 20mm in diameter are too small for this technique; • Defect Sizing: Not fully quantitative. However, size ranking of defects in an image is possible. Nevertheless, the technique is a useful development. The majority of industrial anchor bolts on large equipment are within the diameter constraint. In nearly all cases the expected deterioration is within the distance constraint. Precise defect sizing is desirable but not essential.

Figure 2. Embedded fastener used in trial – 22mm diameter, 800mm long, 220mm shrouded and protruding from concrete.

This method can perform as a relatively fast and economic screening tool for corrosion. Most embedded fasteners continue the threads into the “corrosion zone”. The threads, or lack thereof, provide an ideal indicator of corrosion. The PAUT technique can clearly detect the presence, or absence, of threads. The applications of this PAUT development are numerous, across a wide range of industries: Water • Anchors in dam walls • Ground anchors in tunnels, revetments and batters • Anchor bolts on pumps • Anchor bolts on saddles

Figure 3. Fastener removed. Note corrosion in shrouded zone. 0.5mm artificial defects (notches) cut at lower end of threads and 100mm and 200mm from end face.

Communications • Anchors for towers and masts It is expected that the current PAUT method will be further developed, as technology advances and experience is gained.

CONCLUSIONS Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) of embedded and shrouded fasteners is a significant development. It facilitates the efficient and regular inspection of fasteners with a high probability of detection (PoD) of the common damage mechanisms. At this stage it can be regarded as a screening tool for detecting sub-surface corrosion. Precision will improve as technology advances.

Figure 4. PAUT provides a cross-section image of threads. The large red indication at lower end of threads on the righthand side, is the top 0.5mm notch.

If PAUT is widely applied, incidents such as the Arthurs Seat pylon collapse or the Scrivener Dam crisis could be prevented. Anchor fasteners are widespread across many industries. The potential applications for this method are thus increasing rapidly.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Authors wish to thank ALS for permission to publish this paper.

THE AUTHORS Dr Chris Charlesworth (email: Chris. Charlesworth@alsglobal.com) is Advanced Inspection Technology Manager at ALS Industrial in New South Wales. He has been involved in advance Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection for over 10 years in the areas of site management, development and inspection management. John Everton (email: John.Everton@alsglobal. com) is the Principal Corrosion Engineer at ALS Industrial in Victoria. He has a metallurgy degree and post-graduate qualifications in management and risk management. John has spent most of his working life in manufacturing, including steel tubing, cast iron pipe, steel bright bar and steel castings. In recent years, he has specialised in corrosion and failure analysis in Australia, and overseas in Asia and Africa. Figure 5. Isolated red indication denotes notch at 100mm depth.

REFERENCES Australian Government – National Capital Authority (2013–2014): Annual Report. Canberra: Australian Government. Charlton R (2011): Threaded Fasteners: Part 1 – Failure Modes and Design Criteria of Connections. Corrosion 2011 (Paper No. 11164). Houston: NACE International. CIRIA (2014): Grouted (Ground) Anchors - Condition Appraisal and Remedial Treatment. Retrieved from Research: http://www.ciria.org/Research/ Project_proposals2/anchors.aspx Hartman W, Lecinq B, Higgs J & Tongue D (2010): Non Destructive Integrity Testing of Rock Reinforcement Elements in Australian Mines. Coal Operators’ Conference (pp 161-170). Woolongong: University of Wollongong. Linquist Hoeke L, Moser R, Singh P, Kahn L & Kurtis K (2009): Degradation of Steel Girder Bearing Systems by Corrosion. Corrosion 2009 (Paper No. 09228). Houston: NACE International. Olympus (n.d.): Intro to Ultrasonic Phased Array. Retrieved from Knowledge: https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ultrasonics/intro-to-pa/

Figure 6. Isolated yellow indication at the lower centre of view denotes notch at 200mm depth.

The Age (2003): Hulls Defends Safety Inspections. Retrieved from Fairfax Digital: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567717879. html?from=storyrhs. 4/9/2003

MAY 2015 WATER

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Technical Papers

SMART METERING

EFFECT OF ELEVATED TEMPERATURE ON WATER METER ACCURACY An investigative study using three positive displacement mechanical meters R Koech, D Pezzaniti, B Myers

ABSTRACT In certain parts of Australia, summer temperatures can exceed 40ºC. Domestic water meter performance under these extreme conditions is not well understood. The internationally adopted standard for pattern approval and verification (OIML R49-2 2006) does not require determination of the influence of both elevated water and ambient temperature on the error of measurement of the meter. A study was therefore undertaken to investigate these aspects using three positive displacement mechanical meters: two new 20mm nominal diameter (DN20) meters and one used 32mm nominal diameter (DN32) meter. A combination of temperature conditions was varied from 20°C to 50ºC and the meter accuracy was determined. There was increased under-reading with the increase in water and ambient temperature. However, the measurement error largely remained within the limits of the maximum permissible error (MPE). It is concluded that, based on the results of this study, periodic elevated temperatures do not significantly affect the performance of domestic water meters and, therefore, do not adversely affect the water suppliers or consumers. Keywords: Water meter, temperature, accuracy measurement

INTRODUCTION The measurement accuracy of water meters is important to both users and suppliers. Inaccurate water metering may lead to some users being randomly advantaged or disadvantaged, and this has equity, fairness and legal implications (Water Efficiency Division, 2009). In many cases, for instance in Australia, water meters for metering water for domestic use are owned and maintained by water utility companies.

WATER MAY 2015

It is a legal requirement in Australia that the measurement accuracy of water meters be verified periodically, either in situ or under laboratory conditions. The testing is required to be undertaken in accordance with OIML R49–2 (2006) by testing facilities accredited by the National Association of Testing Australia (NATA). The Australian national standard version of this international standard is NMI R 49–2 (2009). Testing may also be done as per AS 3565.4 (2007), which has additional guidance on timely sampling and assessment of in-service compliance of populations of water meters. The recommended water and ambient temperature conditions during testing is 20±10 °C, which largely accounts for seasonal and climatic variations. However, ambient temperatures in certain parts of Australia can be as high as 46ºC, leading to elevated supply water temperature, potentially higher than the 30ºC limit currently applied in testing of water meters intended for metering cold potable water. Elevated temperature may also cause the meter body and internal components to expand; this has been acknowledged as playing a significant role in the performance of ultrasonic flow meters, and correction factors are applied (Tawackolian et al., 2013). While significant research has been done on the accuracy of water meters operating at reference conditions (Arregui et al., 2005; Mutikanga et al., 2011), a review of literature yielded no study focused on the effect of elevated water and ambient conditions on accuracy and measurement uncertainties of domestic water meters used for metering cold portable water. Anecdotal evidence from some organisations in the water industry (including consumers) suggests that there are concerns as to the reliability of the readings obtained from water meters during prolonged hot periods. This study was undertaken to explore the extent of error that may be

attributable to both elevated water and ambient temperature for domestic water meters. Mechanical meters were chosen for this study because they are widely used in Australia for metering cold water for domestic purposes.

BACKGROUND TO WATER METER TESTING BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MECHANICAL WATER METERS

Mechanical meters consist of movable mechanical parts that rotate/oscillate with the flow of water and a register that displays the measured volume. These meters can be further categorised as either velocity type or positive displacement meters. In velocity type meters, the speed of rotation of the movable parts is used to measure the velocity of water, which is then converted into the volume of water that has passed through the meter (that is, volume is inferred from the velocity). Positive displacement meters, on the other hand, consist of tiny compartments inside the meter chamber (piston or nutating disc) of known volume, which move with the flow of water. Each rotation of the meter displaces a known volume of water – hence the name ‘positive displacement.’ The movement of the disc or piston is transferred to a sealed register (either by mechanical or magnetic coupling), which records the flow. The design of a velocity meter allows it to be used for metering water of diverse quality, as some debris and other impurities in the water can easily pass through it. Positive displacement meters, on the other hand, are more sensitive to suspended particles in water and are usually fitted with a strainer at the inlet. Water supplied for domestic use is normally free of ‘large’ debris, hence the widespread use of positive displacement meters.

Technical Papers METER ERROR MEASUREMENT AND CONDITIONS

(1) where Vi is the volume recorded by the EUT and Va is the actual volume (as determined by a reference method). For a gravimetric measurement system Equation 1 may be expressed as:

(2) where ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3) and m is the mass fluid mass measured (kg). Increasingly, in many countries water meter testing and pattern approval are undertaken according to international standards (Water Efficiency Division, 2009). The internationally recognised standard for water meter testing and pattern approval is OIML R 49–2 (2006), while the materials, construction and other technical requirements are described in OIML R 49–1 (2006). In Australia, the modified versions of these standards are NMI R 49–2 (2009)/NMI M 10–2 (2011) and NMI R 49–1 (2009)/NMI M 10–1 (2010) respectively. The terms used by these standards to characterise the flow rates of a water meter are as follows: (i) minimum flow rate, Q1; (ii) transitional flow rate, Q2; (iii) permanent flow rate, Q3; and (iv) overload flow rate, Q4. Among other requirements, the two standards specify that water meters should be manufactured from materials that cannot be adversely affected by fluctuations in water temperature within the working ambient temperature range specified by the manufacturer. The ambient temperature and working water temperature ranges specified by NMI M

Figure 1. MPE for Accuracy Class 2 meter.

The MPE of meters approved in accordance with the international standard OIML R 49–1 (2006) is dependent on the flow rate and water temperature, and is classified under Accuracy Classes 1 and 2. The MPE for Accuracy Class 2 meters, commonly used for domestic water metering is: ±5% for Q1≤Q≤Q2; ±2% and ±3% for Q2≤Q≤Q4 in the temperature ranges 0.1°C to 30ºC and > 30ºC, respectively (Figure 1). FACTORS AFFECTING WATER METER ACCURACY

The performance of a water meter, just like many other metrological instruments, degrades over time for a variety of reasons, including mode of installation, water quality, flow rate and meter design. The effects of these problems on the water meter in most cases worsen with the age of the meter or volume of water passed. The useful life of the DN20 water meters commonly used for domestic purposes in Australia is about 15 years, or when the accumulated volume is about 3.5m3 (WSA 12, 2012), after which the accuracy of measurement generally declines.

METHODOLOGY ERROR OF MEASUREMENT

meters. Flow rates and ambient/water temperatures used ranged from 32 to 5,000 L/h and 20°C to 50ºC respectively. The three water meters were arranged in series in a test rig (Figure 2) and placed in an environmental chamber to enable the tests to be undertaken under controlled ambient conditions. The water temperature and pressure were measured upstream of the meters (in the inlet section of the pipeline). The water for the tests was pumped from an insulated reservoir situated adjacent to the environmental chamber (Figure 2). A heating element inserted into the reservoir was used to heat the water in the case of tests requiring inlet water temperature ≥ 30ºC. The gravimetric tank method was used to determine the error of measurement of the water meters in this study. The capacity of the gravimetric tank was 400L (Figure 2). The method involves collecting and weighing (by means of a calibrated strain gauge) water that has passed through the meters under test in the tank. The mass of water collected is then converted into the equivalent volume of water taking into account the water temperature, pressure and salinity (the procedure is explained in detail in the next subsection). A comparison of the two volumes of water (recorded by the meter/s under test and the gravimetric tank) gives the estimated error of measurement of each meter (Equation 1). After each test the water collected in the tank was discharged into the reservoir tank.

Tests to investigate the effect of elevated temperature on the accuracy of water meters were conducted at the Australian Irrigation and Hydraulics Technology Centre (AIHTC), a facility that is accredited to NATA and operates in Table 1. Details of water meters used for the study. accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 (2005) – General Meter Model1 Nominal Diameter Condition Requirements for the DN (mm) Competence of Testing and A Elster 20 New Calibration Laboratories. B Itron DT8 20 New Two new DN20 and one DN32 positive displacement C Elster 32 Used2 (piston type) meters were 1 The mention of the meter model is for the purpose of clarity selected for tests (Table 1). only, and does not imply recommendation, endorsement or otherwise on the part of the authors. These meters were approved 2 Accumulated volume 19000m3 under Accuracy Class 2

MAY 2015 WATER

SMART METERING

Water meters, as is the case with practically all measuring equipment, are designed to operate within a range of performance or measurement accuracy. This means that in most cases there is going to be a variation between the ‘measured’ and the ‘true’ volume, the difference being the meter error or error of indication, which may be positive or negative. The error of indication of a water meter is, therefore, the deviation of the measurement indicated by the meter or equipment under test (EUT) from the actual or reference value, and is commonly expressed as a percentage (Eqation 1).

10–1 (2010) are -5°C to 55ºC and 0.1°C to 30ºC respectively, while the maximum admissible water temperature is 50ºC. On the other hand, the recommended ambient temperature range in accordance with OIML R 49–1 (2006) is +5°C to 55ºC. However, as this particular standard is intended for metering of both cold and hot potable water, the admissible water temperature is variable and can be as high as 180ºC.

Technical Papers

Table 2. Ambient and inlet water temperature configurations. Ambient Air Temp (ºC)

Inlet Water Temp (ºC)

SMART METERING

Test

Figure 2. Experimental test rig. The test procedure used to investigate the effects of water temperature on the measurement accuracy of a water meter (intended for the metering of cold and hot water) for pattern approval purposes is described in detail in OIML R 49–2 (2006). It is worth noting that, in this procedure, only the water temperature is varied, while the ambient temperature and all other factors are maintained at reference conditions. However, for the purpose of this study, it was necessary to vary both the ambient and the inlet water temperature to simulate more closely the conditions exhibited in the field, especially in the parts of Australia that frequently experience prolonged hot summers. The test procedure used was as follows: 1.

Ambient and inlet water temperature conditions were set according to the details provided in Table 2. For each condition, ambient temperature was stabilised for a period of 10–15 minutes before commencement of tests. For each temperature condition, meter accuracy was assessed at five flow rates for the Elster DN32 meter (32 L/h; 400 L/h; 1650 L/h; 2500 L/h and 5,000 L/h) and four flow rates for Itron DT8 & Elster DN20 (32 L/h; 400 L/h; 1650 L/h; 2,500 L/h). During testing, temperature levels and flow rates were respectively maintained within ±2 ºC and ±5% of the nominal.

The salinity of the water used for the test was determined to be 341 µS/cm, and the gauge pressure measured upstream of the meters under test was within the range 100 to 200 kPa.

WATER MAY 2015

Figure 3. Relationship between the density and temperature of pure water (adapted from McCutcheon et al., 1993). DENSITY ADJUSTMENT FOR TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE AND SALINITY

For many applications, the standard density of pure water of approximately 1,000 kg/m3 (measured at 4ºC) may be applicable. However, for accurate measurement purposes, it is often necessary to accurately determine the density of water for a range of influential conditions. While water density for highaccuracy water meter calibration may be determined by direct measurement, for instance using a densitometer (Engel and Baade, 2012), in many testing facilities water density is routinely determined using standard expressions. In this study the water density was adjusted for temperature (McCutcheon et al., 1993), pressure (NMI, 2004) and salinity (McCutcheon et al., 1993). In brief, the density of water decreases with the increase in temperature (see Figure 3), and hence the volume

increases for the same mass. Conversely, the density increases with the increase in pressure and salinity. MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

Measurement uncertainty is a parameter that characterises the distribution of values in any measurement and is caused by random and systematic errors. Practically, this means that the true value of a measurement (T) differs from its measured value (TM) by the magnitude of the associated measurement uncertainty (U) (Equation. 3).

(3) In metrological facilities, measurement uncertainties are quantified in order to understand the quality of measurement and to allow objective comparison with results from different laboratories. In this study, the uncertainty analysis was undertaken in accordance with Uncertainty in Measurement: the ISO

Technical Papers

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

DISCUSSION As already explained, the density of water is affected by change in temperature, salinity and pressure. In this study, the gravimetric method was used to determine the error of measurement of the water meters and, hence, the mass of water collected in the tank had to be converted to an equivalent volume. The Error of measurement (%)

Error of measurement (%)

Meter C was the exception at the flow rate of 32 L/h since it had a significantly higher (negative) error. However, it is worth noting that this meter was of a bigger size (DN32) than the other two; it is common for bigger meters to be grossly inaccurate at very low flow rates.

The effect on the meter accuracy of increasing both the water and ambient temperature is depicted in Figure 6, which shows the error curves at the reference conditions (20ºC) and at 50ºC. These graphs clearly show (as indicated in Figures 4 and 5) that an increase in both the water and ambient temperature leads to a shift to the negative in the error of measurement. As in the previous cases, the meter error also remains within the MPE.

500

1000

1500

2000

Nominal flow rate (L/h)

2500

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

density of water is used in this conversion, and hence the results shown have been corrected for change in water density. The error shift towards the negative is as a result of the decrease in density occasioned by the increase in water and ambient temperature conditions. Another plausible explanation for the underregistration is the effect of temperature on the water meter body and the viscosity of the water used for the tests. A slight expansion of the meter chamber as a result of an increase in temperature may lead to an increase in the volume of water displaced per cycle, thereby causing under-registration. On the other hand, the viscosity of water is reduced with the increase in temperature, which in turn increases the risk of some water slipping through the meter unrecorded and causing the meter to under-register. It is worth noting the changes in the error of measurement in the case of meters A and B were minor and the errors were still within the MPE as per OIML R 49–1 (2006). The change in the error of measurement for meter C was also small Error of measurement (%)

RESULTS It is clear from the results shown in Figure 4 (Tests 1–3) that, on average, there is a shift in error towards the negative with the increase in ambient temperature while keeping the water temperature constant. However, as shown by the performance envelope, the meter errors still fall within the MPE as per OIML R 49–1 (2006).

The effect of increasing the ambient temperature while maintaining the water temperature constant at 20ºC is shown in Figure 5. The graphs show the drift in meter error towards the negative while remaining largely within the MPE, which is similar to the trend portrayed in Figure 4.

500

1000

1500

2000

Flow rate (L/h)

Meter A

2500

5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 -11 -13 -15 -17 -19 -21

1000

2000

3000

4000

Flow rate (L/h)

Meter B

5000

Meter C

500

1000

1500

2000

Flow rate (L/h)

2500

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Error of measurement (%)

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Error of measurement (%)

Figure 4. Effect of increasing ambient temperature on meter accuracy (water temperature constant at 20ºC), Tests 1–3.

500

1000

1500

2000

Flow rate (L/h)

Meter A

2500

5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 -11 -13 -15 -17

1000

2000

3000

4000

Flow rate (L/h)

Meter B

5000

Meter C

500

1000

1500

Flow rate (L/h)

2000

2500

Meter A

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Error of measurement (%)

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Error of measurement (%)

Figure 5. Effect of increasing ambient temperature on meter accuracy (water temperature constant at 20ºC), Tests 1 and 3.

500

1000

1500

Flow rate (L/h)

2000

2500

Meter B

5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 -9 -11 -13 -15 -17 -19 -21

1000

2000

3000

Flow rate (L/h)

4000

5000

Meter C

Figure 6. Comparison of error curves at 20°C (water and ambient) and at 50ºC (water and ambient), Tests 1 and 9.

MAY 2015 WATER

SMART METERING

Guide (2005). The following error sources, which are typical of gravimetric measurement systems, were considered in the uncertainty analysis: uncertainty of the strain gauge used (drift, repeatability, resolution and calibration error); density of water (correction for temperature, salinity and pressure); and buoyancy (correction for the displaced air).

Technical Papers The cause of the error shift can be explained 0.30% by the changes in the density of water. 0.25% It also possible that 0.20% the expansion of the 0.15% meter body and its internal components 0.10% may cause a relatively 0.05% minor under-reading of the meters. The 0.00% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 study results are strictly Flow rate (L/h) relevant to meters subjected to elevated Figure 7. Relationship between measurement uncertainty temperatures for a and flow rate. short period of time. The – between the flow rates of 400–2,500 significance of the outcomes on revenue L/h. The theoretical uncertainty analysis to the water supply and expense to user undertaken, which relates to the procedure was not explored. It is recommended that and equipment used, is shown in Figure 7. the influence due to cold temperature also be investigated and a volume-weighted It is, therefore, reasonable to assessment undertaken. conclude that the periodical elevated

SMART METERING

Uncertainty

0.35%

water and ambient temperatures do not significantly alter the performance of domestic water meters used for metering cold water. While only a small sample of meters was tested, the results of this study should nonetheless allay doubts about water meter performance during short periods of elevated water and ambient temperature. The prolonged effect of elevated water and ambient temperature (or endurance testing) on the water meter accuracy was beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, the results presented here are only applicable to water meters exposed to elevated water and ambient temperatures for a short period of time. It is, however, unlikely that water meters intended for metering of cold potable water may be exposed to such elevated conditions while in operation.

CONCLUSIONS The effect of elevated water and ambient temperature was investigated using two new and one used positive displacement water meter for metering cold potable water. The results show that there is a minor error shift towards the negative in the meter accuracy with increasing water and ambient temperature. Practically, this means the meters tend to under-register the volume as the temperature increases. Even with the shift in the error, the accuracy of the meters largely remained within the MPE. It is concluded, therefore, that elevated water and ambient temperatures, as may occur during Australia’s summer season, do not significantly change the performance of domestic water meters used for metering cold water.

WATER MAY 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Authors wish to acknowledge Ashley Hasler, Michael Whitcombe and Promil Mehra for their assistance with the set-up of the experiments.

THE AUTHORS Dr Richard Koech (email: rkoech@une.edu. au) is the Program Leader, International Development and Training (Agriculture Water Management), School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England. David Pezzaniti is a Senior Research Engineer and leads a group of staff members working in the Urban Water Resources Group and the Australian Irrigation and Hydraulics Technology Facility at the University of South Australia. Dr Baden Myers is a Research Engineer in the Centre for Water Management and Reuse, part of the School of Natural and Built Environments at the University of South Australia.

REFERENCES Arregui F, Cabrera EJ, Cobacho R & GarciaSerra J (2005): Key Factors Affecting Water Meter Accuracy. IWA Specialised Conference “LEAKAGE 2005”. Halifax, Canada.

Calibration – Measurement Uncertainties and Practical Aspects. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 25, pp 40–53. ISO/IEC 17025 (2005): General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Switzerland. McCutcheon SC, Martin JL & Barnwell TO (1993): Water Quality, in Handbook of Hydrology, Maidment DR (Ed). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Mutikanga HE, Sharma SK & Vairavamoorthy K (2011): Investigating Water Meter Performance in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Kampala, Uganda. Water SA, 37, 4, pp 567–574. NMI (2004): Determinations of Recognised-Value Standards of Measurement, Recognised-Value Standard of the Density of Water. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. NMI M 10–1 (2010): Meters Intended for the Metering of Water in Full Flowing Pipes. Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. NMI M 10–2 (2011): Meters Intended for the Metering of Water in Full Flowing Pipes. Part 2: Test Methods. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. NMI R 49–1 (2009): Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water. Part 2: Metrological and Technical Requirements. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. NMI R 49–1 (2009): Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water. Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. NMI R 49–2 (2009): Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water. Part 2: Test Methods. National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. OIML R 49–1 (2006): Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water. Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements. International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML), Paris. OIML R 49–2 (2006): Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water. Part 2: Test Methods. International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML), Paris. Tawackolian K, Buker O, Hogendoorn J & Lederer T (2013): Calibration of an Ultrasonic Flow Meter for Hot Water. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 30, pp 166–173. Uncertainty in Measurement: The ISO Guide (2005): National Measurement Institute, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

AS 3565.4 (2007): Meters for Cold and Heated Drinking and Non-Drinking Water Supplies, Part 4: In-Service Compliance Testing. Standards Australia, Sydney.

Water Efficiency Division (2009): National Framework for Non-Urban Water Metering: Final Regulatory Impact Assessment. Australian Government – Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Engel R & Baade HJ (2012): Water Density Determination in High Accuracy Flow Meter

WSA 12 (2012): Meter Selection and Installation Code of Practice. WSAA, Sydney, Australia.

Technical Papers

A STATISTICAL APPROACH TO ASSESS STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE PERFORMANCE DATA A demonstration of how statistical methods can be used to gauge whether or not presented data sets are sufficient to draw reliable conclusions C Kelly, A Bardak

This paper uses data from a fieldtesting case study of an engineered treatment technology to demonstrate how statistical methods can be used to determine whether or not the data sets being presented are actually sufficient to be able to draw reliable conclusions. The assessment is conducted for Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen data, and shows that the required number of paired samples is different for each of these parameters and depends on the variability of the data sets. It is necessary to engage with academia and regulators to reach a consensus on the robustness of a statistical approach, and this paper provides an example.

INTRODUCTION Stormwater runoff transports a range of pollutants and is a significant nonpoint source of urban water pollution. It has long been established that the pre-treatment of stormwater runoff prior to reaching its final destination is essential for river and catchment health (Herr and Sansalone, 2015). Effective treatment requires technologies that are appropriate to site constraints, as well as rainfall and pollutant load characteristics.

There is a range of engineered stormwater treatment systems to consider. Assessing the performance of hard engineered systems requires quantification of inputs and outputs to receiving environments under a diverse range of event durations, flow rates and loads (Herr and Sansalone, 2015). Stormwater Australia has released a consultation draft of its Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol, or SQIDEP (2014), which includes a requirement for statistical assessment to validate the performance data. There remains an important step in the further development of SQIDEP, which is to engage with academia and regulators to reach a consensus on the robustness of a statistical approach. Field-testing data are used in this paper to illustrate a statistical assessment process to determine whether or not the data sets being presented are actually sufficient for statistically valid conclusions to be drawn. The paper presents a worked example of the proposed analysis technique using a data set reported in Kelly and Bardak (2015) for a proprietory stormwater treatment device (the Jellyfish Filter). Details on experimental set-up, sampling methods used and definitions of qualifying events are reported in Kelly and Bardak (2015).

METHOD DETAIL AND RESULTS Initially, potential outliers are identified, examined and removed (if necessary). The data is then tested for normality to identify which statistical methods can be used on that set. For cases where the raw data is not normally distributed, but appears to be positively skewed, a lognormal transformation may be applicable (Singh et al., 1997). Normally distributed data allows standard statistical

analysis to be conducted, such as the paired t-test, and calculations involving confidence intervals, and the number of paired samples required to achieve a given confidence level. Table 1 displays a data set of 10 qualifying events (Kelly and Bardak, 2015), which is used to demonstrate this statistical approach for three pollutants: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN). The Event Mean Concentration (EMC) is a flow-weighted concentration parameter derived for each storm. It can be calculated as follows (Geosyntec Consultants & Wright Water Engineers, 2009):

where:

The Concentration Removal Efficiency (CRE) method was used to calculate the per cent removal in Kelly and Bardak (2015). It is also used in this paper to demonstrate the statistical methodology. CRE% was calculated for each event as follows (Geosyntec Consultants & Wright Water Engineers, 2009):

It should be noted that there are several recommended methods that can be used to calculate the contaminant removal efficacy, such as CRE, Efficiency Ratio, Mass Reduction Efficiency, etc. Selection of a relevant percentage removal calculation method is discussed in SQIDEP (Stormwater Australia, 2014) and Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers (2009). The following statistical assessment approach can be applied to all of these methods.

MAY 2015 WATER

STORMWATER TREATMENT

ABSTRACT It has long been established that the pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to reaching its final destination is essential for river and catchment health. There is a plethora of stormwater runoff treatment devices either available or about to enter the market. Stormwater Australia has released a consultation draft of its Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP), which includes a requirement to undertake statistical assessment as part of the validation of performance data.

Technical Papers

Table 1. Influent and effluent data for TSS, TP and TN. TSS EMCi (mg/L)

TSS EMCe (mg/L)

TSS CRE (%)

TP EMCi (mg/L)

TP EMCe (mg/L)

TP CRE (%)

TN EMCi (mg/L)

TN EMCe (mg/L)

TN CRE (%)

180.0

13.0

0.2

1.3

170.0

2.0

0.4

0.0

2.8

0.5

19.0

2.0

0.1

1.1

0.5

26.0

4.0

0.2

0.1

3.1

1.1

25.0

4.0

0.2

0.1

1.9

51.0

10.0

0.5

0.2

6.0

2.3

74.0

8.0

0.3

0.1

3.2

1.6

21.0

5.0

0.5

0.1

5.7

2.5

13.0

1.0

0.2

0.1

2.0

1.3

18.0

3.0

0.14

0.09

1.3

1.0

STORMWATER TREATMENT

Event Number

Notes: EMCi: Event mean concentration of influent sample; EMCe: Event mean concentration of effluent sample; CRE: Concentration removal efficiency.

OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION

An outlier is defined as a data point that is distinctly separate from and inconsistent with the majority of the data points (Walfish, 2006). Outliers can have negative effects on data analyses as they skew and distort the data set or, conversely, can provide useful information about abnormal characteristics of the data (Seo, 2006). Therefore, it is a critical step to identify and detect outliers. A basic approach for identifying outliers is outlined in Tukey (1977), and involves simple numerical and graphical methods that are used when constructing box plots of the data (Walfish, 2006). It identifies a potential outlier as any data point more than 1.5 interquartile ranges (IQRs) below the first quartile, or above the third quartile; that range is referred to as the inner fences. An extreme outlier is a value that is outside the outer fences, and can be defined as three interquartile ranges below the first quartile or above the third quartile (Tukey, 1977) and should be thoroughly investigated. The box and whisker plots graphically display outliers, and examples can be seen in Figure 2 for the three parameters of interest. Figure 1 describes the features of the box and whisker plot, including all relevant statistical measures. There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes an outlier in the literature; it is a subjective decision. An analysis should be conducted to determine why the outlier may have occurred, and if a justifiable reason can be identified then the data point may be legitimately excluded (Walfish, 2006). Most importantly, data that have been excluded as outliers must still be reported along with the reasons for their exclusion, as they still form part of the evaluation process.

WATER MAY 2015

Outlier Max Observation Below Upper Inner Fence Q3

Median Q1 Min Observation Above Lower Inner Fence Figure 1. Definition of features in a Box and Whisker Plot. As seen in the Box and Whisker Plots in Figure 2, a number of influent and effluent data points fell outside the inner fences, but were within the outer fences (see Tukey (1977) for calculation method of the inner and outer fences). However, the data between the inner and outer fences all fell within referenced parameters, which suggest typical concentration occurrences in Australia (Duncan, 1999); therefore, there is no justifiable reason to exclude any data points from this data set. The CRE (%) data was also analysed for outliers, but all CRE percentages fell within the inner fences. Therefore, all data points have been used. NORMAL DISTRIBUTION VALIDATION

Following outlier evaluation, the next step in this approach is to test for data normality using graphical methods and parametric statistical analysis. The Stormwater Australia protocol calls for log-transformed inlet and outletpaired samples (Stormwater Australia, 2014), however if the baseline data is already normally distributed then there is no requirement to conduct a

Figure 2. Box and Whisker Plots for TSS, TP & TN, with outliers labelled with their event number.

Technical Papers

Figure 3. Q-Q plots for the Concentration removal efficiency (CRE) % distribution for TSS, TP and TN against Z-Score (distance from the mean).

log-transformation on the data. If the baseline data is not normally distributed, a log-transformation may be required, which will result in some minor variations to the statistical processes, as described in Olsson (2005) regarding confidence levels, and Singh et al. (1997) regarding transformation back to original data. LOG TRANSFORMATION OF DATA

Lognormal distributions tend to be common in environmental data sets, as results from contaminant concentration data sets tend to follow a skewed probability distribution. In the case that the raw data is not normally distributed, but appears to be positively skewed, then a lognormal transformation may be applicable (Singh et al., 1997). The log-transformed data is then run through parametric tests as per normally distributed data, albeit with slight variations (Olsson, 2005; Singh et al., 1997). However, it should be noted that, if this log-transformed dataset still fails the normality test (graphical method and Shapiro-Wilk Test (1965)), then a lognormal distribution is not suitable and another transformation should be adopted (Limpert et al., 2001). GRAPHICAL METHODS TO IDENTIFY NORMALITY

Graphical methods involve plotting data frequency on a histogram, a box-plot, a stem-and-leaf plot, or a quantile-quantile plot (Q-Q plot), then visually inspecting it in order to conclude if the data is normally distributed. For histogram plots, the data will display a uniform

“bell” shape if it is normally distributed. It should be noted that skewed data and data with large kurtosis (high and wide peak), even though it may have the appearance of a “bell” shape, is not considered normally distributed. The Q-Q plot is the most common and effective method to graphically identify if data is normally distributed (Razali and Wah, 2011). Using this method, normally distributed data will plot as a straight line, with minimal variance. Figures 3 and 4 display how the data in Table 1 are distributed. The per cent removals of TSS, TP and TN can be seen to be normally distributed according to the linear Q-Q plot (Figure 3). The inlet and outlet Q-Q plots in Figure 4 were constructed using a log transformation of the inlet and outlet data. These results indicate that the percentage removal is normally distributed, while the inlet and outlet EMCs are log normally distributed. Visual inspection alone, however, usually does not provide conclusive evidence that the data is normally distributed, and a numerical parametric analysis should be conducted (Razali and Wah, 2011). PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF NORMALITY

A parametric statistical analysis involves using numerical statistical methods to test data against the null hypothesis that the data is normally distributed. There are many such statistical methods available, however the Shapiro-Wilk Test (1965) is considered to be the most powerful (Razali and Wah, 2011).

Table 2 presents the results of the parametric tests on the CRE% removal data from Table 1. The test statistic, W, is calculated using the following formula:

where:

The per cent removal data is normally distributed as the p-value from the Shapiro-Wilk Test in Table 2 is greater than 0.05. This numeric result supports the graphical analysis of Figure 2. The influent and effluent results were also tested for normality after being log transformed, and the results shown in Table 3. The p values in Table 3 show that the influent and effluent data for all three water quality parameters are lognormally distributed. This is a critical step in preparation for the subsequent paired t-test, as a valid test requires that data be normally distributed (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965). It should be noted that, while it is crucial to prove that the influent and effluent data are lognormally distributed in preparation for the paired t-test, it is also important to prove that the percentage removal rates are also normally distributed. This is critical, as the confidence interval is constructed around the percentage removal, which requires the data to be normally distributed.

MAY 2015 WATER

STORMWATER TREATMENT

Figure 4. Q-Q Plots of log-transformed inlet and outlet concentration paired samples for TSS, TP and TN. The linear plots demonstrate the data is now normally distributed.

Technical Papers Table 2. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Parametric Test for % removal to test for normality of the data distribution.

TSS

% TSS

% TP

% TN

Influent

Effluent

Influent

Effluent

Influent

Effluent

0.039

0.511

0.449

7.012

5.574

2.893

3.215

3.208

2.589

0.040

0.551

0.516

8.054

5.724

3.032

3.234

2.979

2.835

W (test statistic) 0.982

0.928

0.872

W (test statistic)

0.871

0.974

0.954

0.994

0.929

0.913

p-value (>0.05)

0.441

0.116

p-value (>0.05)

0.111

0.915

0.693

0.996

0.448

0.357

0.974

NON-PARAMETRIC TESTING

STORMWATER TREATMENT

Table 3. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Parametric Test for log-transformed influent and effluent data.

If there are no transformations that can be utilised to transform the raw data into a normal distribution, then nonparametric tests need to be used to test for differences in populations. An example is the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test instead of the paired t-test (McDonald, 2014). Confidence intervals can also be calculated non-parametrically, as described in Geyer (2003), or utilising methods such as bootstrapping (Wang, 2001). However, these methods can sometimes be complex in nature and require specialised statistical software to conduct statistical modelling. A less mathematically intensive method would be to increase the sample size to larger than 30, as the Central Limit Theorem states that, as sample size increases, the distribution of sample means approaches a normal distribution, regardless of initial distribution (Bonacci, 2012). STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE – PAIRED T-TEST

The paired t-test is used to assess the statistical difference (or significance) between two normally distributed data sets. In this case, it is used to compare the influent and effluent data sets to establish if their population means are statistically different. If it can be confirmed that the two sets of data do not have the same population mean, then it can be concluded that there is a statistical significance between them (Cramér, 1946). The following steps describe the methodology used in conducting a paired t-test (Shier, 2004): 1.

Construct a null hypothesis, i.e. that there is no statistical difference between the population means. Calculate the difference for each pair. This is done by subtracting the effluent concentration from the influent concentration for each event (i.e. for each event pair of data, where i varies from 1 to n).

WATER MAY 2015

Calculate the mean of the differences ( )

Calculate the standard deviation of the differences ( )

Calculate the Standard Error (SE) of the mean difference:

Calculate the t-statistic, using a t-distribution with n – 1 degrees of freedom:

t-distribution tables can be referenced to find the corresponding p-value (probability) with the t-statistic (T) and n – 1 degrees of freedom.

For a 95% confidence level, if the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis (there is no difference between the sample set means) is rejected, and the data sets are considered statistically different. The paired t-test was conducted on the log transform of the influent and effluent test data, and results are presented in Table 4. The paired t-test results for TSS, TP and TN are significantly beyond the 95% confidence level (p<0.05), therefore we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the influent and effluent concentration data sets are statistically different.

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

After the data has been proven to be statistically significant, a 95% confidence interval can be constructed. The 95% confidence interval is defined in Neyman (1937) as follows: “There is a 95% probability that the calculated confidence interval encompasses the true value of the population mean.” This involves calculating the standard error, then adding/subtracting the standard error to/from the mean to create the upper and lower bounds. There is a 95% probability that the true population mean exists within these bounds (Tan and Tan, 2010; Neyman, 1937).

where:

For the 95% confidence level, the Z score equates to 1.96 for a two-tailed test. In this case, as the CRE percentage defines the removal efficiency of the stormwater treatment device, confidence intervals were constructed around the

Table 4. Paired t-test results for the field test data reported in Table 1. The log-transformed influent and effluent concentrations are being compared for statistical difference. H0 = there is no difference between the concentration means of the influent & effluent populations

TSS

Mean of Differences (µd) Loge(mg/L)

2.267

1.011

0.672

Std. dev. of Differences(σd)

0.858

0.746

0.525

Std Error (SE)

0.271

0.746

0.166

T-Statistic

8.357

4.288

4.042

0.002

0.0029

Degrees of Freedom (n-1) Paired t-test Result (Must be < 0.05)

9 1.6x10

-5

Technical Papers mean CRE percentage for each pollutant, rather than the influent and effluent concentration data. This is due to the fact that justification is required by the approving authority for the percentage removal of the device, rather than the justification of influent and effluent concentrations at the testing site, which can be justified by aligning with referenced parameters for typical concentration occurrences in Australia as described in Duncan (1999). Table 5 presents the confidence intervals for the data.

MINIMUM NUMBER OF PAIRED SAMPLES

Ensuring sufficient samples are collected for any type of field research should be considered imperative to ensure that statistically relevant conclusions can be derived from the results. However, in most stormwater data sets, no statistical processes are utilised to guide the minimum sample size, and Burton and Pitt (2002) suggest that most follow subjective professional judgement. In order to numerically and statistically show that there are sufficient data collected to ensure the required confidence level, Burton and Pitt (2002) proposed the use of a variety of basic equations, based on coefficients of variation, Z-scores, sample set means, and standard deviations. The Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring Manual (Geosyntech, 2009), however, describes an equation specifically for sampling stormwater treatment removal rates around a stormwater treatment device, based on similar methods described in Burton and Pitt (2002). The BMP Performance Monitoring Manual (2009) begins with the formula defining percentage removal (as a fraction rather than a per cent):

TSS

Sample Set Mean (µ)

91%

63%

51%

Z-Score (Zα/2)

1.96

Std. dev. (σ)

0.07

0.28

Number of Samples (n)

Std Error of the Mean (SE)

17%

Lower Confidence Bound

87%

46%

34%

Mean

91%

63%

51%

Upper Confidence Bound

95%

80%

68%

where

Next, setting the lower boundary of the influent confidence interval to the upper boundary of the effluent confidence interval gives:

The Coefficient of Variation (COV) is then substituted for in the above equation using the standard relationship:

It is more accurate to make the assumption that as it is highly likely that . Substituting and rearranging the above equations and solving for ‘n’ eventually yields:

This formula will then calculate the minimum required number of paired samples for a specific confidence level. The results of this equation for the CRE test data can be seen in Table 6. It is shown in Table 6 that TSS requires less than one paired sample, TP requires just over three paired samples, and TN requires almost 10 paired samples to ensure a 95% confidence level of the mean % reductions in concentrations from Table 5. Given that there are 10 samples in the data set, and the minimum number of paired samples required for each pollutant is all less than 10, we conclude this data set will achieve statistical significance with a 95% confidence level. Table 6 is a calculation used to inform required sample numbers, rather than an a posteriori calculation.

Table 6. Minimum number of paired samples required to establish CRE% at the 95% Confidence Level. TSS

Z-Score (Zα/2)

1.96 1.96 1.96

COV

0.07 0.44 0.54

% Removal

91% 63% 51%

Number of Paired Samples Required to Meet 95% Confidence Interval

0.03 3.46 9.87

POPULATION VARIABILITY & SAMPLE NUMBER It is clear from Table 6 that the number of paired samples required to achieve the 95% confidence level can vary greatly depending on the target pollutant and the variability of the particular data set. Also, it might appear strange that there is less than one paired sample required to satisfy the 95% confidence level for the mean TSS removal figure (91%). Revisiting the TSS baseline data in Table 1, however, shows a very consistent per cent removal rate for each event regardless of influent concentration. Contrast this, however, with a different TSS data set, using more paired samples than shown in Table 1, where the results will be very different. Table 7 is a set of TSS data from a different site, using a different treatment device to that used for Table 1 data. Table 7. Alternative example influent and effluent data for TSS for a different site and different treatment device to that used in Table 1. Event Number 1

TSS EMCi TSS EMCe (mg/L) (mg/L) 247

TSS CRE (%) 89

300

280

233

113

208

156

121

114

MAY 2015 WATER

STORMWATER TREATMENT

It can be observed that TSS has a much lower range than TP and TN. This can be attributed to the fact that the TSS data is more closely correlated and robust than the other two data sets, as a narrower confidence interval will indicate a more precise estimate, while a wider confidence interval indicates a less precise estimate of the true population mean (Tan and Tan, 2010). From Table 5 it can be concluded that we are 95% confident that the true population mean of the per cent removal is between the lower and upper limit for each pollutant type.

Table 5. Confidence Levels for TSS, TP and TN about CRE % Removal.

Technical Papers

Table 8. Minimum number of paired influent/effluent samples required to establish the mean CRE% for TSS removal at the 95% Confidence Level.

STORMWATER TREATMENT

TSS Z-Score (Zα/2)

1.96

COV

0.645

% Removal

41%

Number of paired samples required to meet 95% Confidence Interval

24.32

It can be seen in Table 7 that there is much greater variability around the TSS treatment removal performance, with per cent removal varying from 6% to 89%. It is important to note that the SQIDEP protocol (2014) calls for 15 qualifying events, a criterion that this data would satisfy. However, if we apply the minimum number of paired samples calculations as per the above, we can see in Table 8 that the data set falls well short of the required number, at 24 paired samples required to establish the mean CRE% for TSS (41%) at the 95% confidence level. The importance of calculating a minimum number of paired samples has been clearly established and it will be necessary to explore this in great detail for the statistical validation of performance data under SQIDEP. Burton and Pitt (2002), however, take this calculation one step further as we discuss next.

CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND STATISTICAL POWER (α AND β VALUES) Most statistical tests convey a certain required level of confidence (α). This indicates and sets the criteria for a decision about the null hypothesis for the test (Privitera, 2011). Statistical power (β), on the other hand, is frequently ignored, even though it can sometimes be more important than confidence level (Burton and Pitt, 2002). Confidence levels are defined as:

Whereas statistical power can be defined as:

When evaluating data using a statistical test, power is the sensitivity of the test for rejecting the hypothesis. It is important that power and confidence be balanced for an effective monitoring program. Most studies ignore power, while providing a high value (typically 95%) for the level of confidence. This is a flawed approach

WATER MAY 2015

because both false negatives and false positives are important (see section on errors). In many field monitoring programs, power issues (such as false negative problems) may actually be more critical than confidence (Burton and Pitt, 2002). TYPE I AND TYPE II ERRORS

A Type I error can be defined as the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true (a false positive) and is typically associated with the confidence level, or α value. The confidence level chosen is the largest probability of committing an allowable Type I error and still rejecting the null hypothesis (Park, 2008). A Type II error can be defined as the probability of incorrectly retaining the null hypothesis (a false negative), and is typically associated with statistical power, or β value. The power of the test will determine the likelihood of selecting an incorrect null hypothesis, and is often used to determine the required sample size (Park, 2008). In many environmental programs, the importance of a Type II error (β) can be very high. This would be equivalent to having a null hypothesis of “the water sample is not contaminated”, then retaining the null hypothesis, when it was actually false. This could lead to environmental damage, health risks to the public, and possibly fines imposed by regulatory agencies, as a contaminated discharge of water would occur (Burton and Pitt, 2002). A higher statistical power (1-β) can be used to minimise this type of error, and should be carefully selected. Typically, a power of 80% (β = 0.2) is recommended, whereas if the Type II error is to be ignored, then a power of 50% (β = 0.5) is adopted. Therefore, if statistical power were to be included in the above equation used to calculate the minimum number of paired samples required, the equation becomes:

where

It should be noted that while should be chosen from the two-tailed

should be chosen Z scores Z score, from the one-tailed distribution Z-scores (Teixeira et al., 2009). Given that, confidence level and statistical power should be balanced to ensure further confidence in the results, but without making the test too exclusive. Therefore, the confidence level can be reduced to 90% and the power increased to 80%. Z-scores for these values are:

Table 10 presents the results for the number of paired samples required if the Type II error is included with an 80% power level and balanced with a 90% confidence level requirement (using Table 1 data). When compared to Table 6, it can be seen in Table 10 that when the power is included, the number of paired samples required almost doubles, even though the confidence level is reduced from 95% to 90%. The importance of setting the power to 80% cannot be underestimated, and can be a critical element to increasing the statistical quality of data presented. LIMIT ON MINIMUM NUMBER OF PAIRED SAMPLES

This approach for assessing proprietory device performance claims recommends that field-testing is continued until the required number of paired samples is met as per the criteria shown for Table 6 or 10. However, SQIDEP (Stormwater Australia, 2014) calls for a minimum number of monitoring events that are statistically relevant. Given the variable nature of fieldtesting stormwater treatment devices, the number of paired samples required can be very high if the data is not particularly consistent, as shown by the TSS removal data in Table 8. One solution could be that, for the full performance claims to be verified, the 90% confidence interval and 80% power requirements must be met. However, if the required number of paired samples has not been achieved under these statistical criteria, then perhaps the overall performance of the device could be reduced by a scaling factor. Further

Table 9. Summary of the available choices with Type I and Type II Errors when assessing the null hypothesis. Do Not Reject H0 H0 is True H0 is False

Reject H0

Correct Decision

Type I Error

1 – α: Confidence Level

α: Size of Test (Significance Level)

Type II Error

Correct Decision

β: Size of Test (Power Level)

1 – β: Power of Test

Technical Papers

Table 10. Number of paired samples required to establish CRE% at the 90% Confidence level and 80% Power level. TSS

Z-Score (Zα/2)

1.64

Z-Score (Zβ)

0.84

COV

0.07

0.44

0.54

% Removal

91%

63%

51%

Number of paired samples required to meet 90% Confidence Interval

0.05

5.57

15.9

CONCLUSION The draft Stormwater Australia Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP) requires inter alia, statistical assessment of the data presented. It is necessary to engage with academia and regulators to reach a consensus on the robustness of a statistical approach, and this paper is offered as an exemplar approach to help inform the discussion. The following statistical procedures have been proposed: 1.

Outlier Identification in raw data and removal if justified

Normal distribution validation of raw data (data transformation conducted if required)

Statistical significance of influent and effluent data (paired t-test, or a nonparametric alternative if not normally distributed)

Confidence Interval calculation of removal efficiency metric Minimum number of paired samples calculated.

Some discussion is still required around point 5, but if all the steps above are completed and the statistical tests are satisfied, then consultants and authorities will have a sound scientific basis for accepting treatment efficacy claims of the device. Just as importantly, this process will establish objective performance evaluations, reduce contestable decisions; result in benefits for the community and authorities; and allow for a clear path to market for device proprietors.

Charles Kelly (email: charles. kelly@holcim.com) has over 16 years’ experience in the construction, consulting and manufacturing industries. He is currently Commercial Manager – Humes Water Solutions and is undertaking research and development of existing and new stormwater treatment products for the Australian market. Charles holds a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Engineering, and a PhD in Mechanical/Environmental Engineering. Anton Bardak is a Civil Engineer with three years’ experience in the water engineering industry. After two years with KBR as a graduate water and wastewater engineer, he joined Humes as a Water Solutions Engineer and now focuses solely in the area of stormwater management. Anton provides technical support and designs for the national Humes business and is also heavily involved in ongoing research and development.

REFERENCES Bonacci K (2012): Central Limit Theorem, Indiana University Southeast, viewed at homepages. ius.edu/kbonacci/HOMEPAGE%20K300_files/ K300%206-5.pdf Burton A & Pitt R (2002): Stormwater Effects Handbook: A Toolbox for Watershed Managers, Scientists, and Engineers, Lewis Publishers. Cramér H (1946): Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University Press, Asia Publishing House. Duncan H (1999): Urban Stormwater Quality: A Statistical Overview (Report 99/3), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Geosyntec Consultants & Wright Water Engineers (2009): Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring, Water Environment Research Foundation, viewed at www.bmpdatabase. org/Docs/2009%20Stormwater%20BMP%20 Monitoring%20Manual%20(Interim%20Ch%20 1-6,%20App).pdf Geyer C (2003): Nonparametric Tests and Confidence Intervals, School of Statistics, University of Minnesota. Herr C & Sansalone J (2015): In Situ Volumetric Filtration Physical Model to Separate Particulate Matter from Stormwater. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE) EE.1943-7870.0000946, 04015017.

McDonald J (2014): Paired t-test, Log Normal Transformations and Wilcoxon Ranked Sign Test, Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed., Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland. Neyman J (1937): Outline of a Theory of Statistical Estimation Based on the Classical Theory of Probability, University College, London. Olsson U (2005): Confidence Intervals for the Mean of a Log-Normal Distribution, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Journal of Statistics Education, 13, No 1. Park H (2008): Hypothesis Testing and Statistical Power of a Test, The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University, US. Privitera G (2011): Chapter 8: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing, Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 225, Sage Publications. Razali M & Wah Y (2011): Power Comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests, Journal of Statistical Modelling and Analytics, 2, pp 21–33. Seo S (2002): A Review and Comparison of Methods for Detecting Outliers in Univariate Data Sets, Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh University, US. Shapiro S & Wilk M (1965): An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples), Biometrika, 52, p 591, Great Britain. Shier R (2004): Statistics: Paired t-tests, Mathematics Learning Support Centre, www. statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/paired-ttest.pdf Singh A, Singh A & Engelhardt M (1997): The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/S-97/006. Stormwater Australia (2014): Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP) for Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices, Consultation Release by Stormwater Australia viewed at stormwater. asn.au/images/SQID/SQIDEP_Release_version_ December_2014.pdf Tan S & Tan S (2010): The Correct Interpretation of Confidence Intervals, Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare, 19, 3. Teixeira A, Rosa A & Calapez T (2009): Statistical Power Analysis with Microsoft Excel: Normal Tests for One or Two Means as a Prelude to Using Non-Central Distributions to Calculate Power, Journal of Statistics Education, 17, 1. Tukey J (1977): Exploratory Data Analysis, AddisonWesley.

Kelly C & Bardak A (2015): Evaluation of Treatment Performance of a Stormwater Treatment Membrane Filter under Australian Conditions, Australian Journal of Water Research, 2, 2, pp 2203–9490.

Walfish S (2006): A Review of Statistical Outlier Methods. Pharmaceutical Technology, viewed at www.pharmtech.com/review-statistical-outliermethods.

Limpert E, Stahel W & Abbt M (2001): Log-Normal Distributions Across the Sciences: Keys and Clues, BioScience, 51, 5.

Wang F (2001): Confidence Interval for the Mean of Non-Normal Data, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 17, pp 257–267.

MAY 2015 WATER

STORMWATER TREATMENT

engagement and consultation is required to determine the most appropriate approach for calculating the minimum number of required paired samples.

THE AUTHORS

Technical Papers

BENCHMARKING THE ENERGYHEALTH NEXUS FOR MORE EFFICIENT WATER RECYCLING OPERATIONS Key findings from the application of a new energy benchmarking approach to optimise recycled water systems

WATER REUSE

MD Short, B van den Akker, R Regel

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on the findings of a 12-month study, undertaken at SA Water and supported by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence and UniSA, which set out to explore and develop a new approach to energy benchmark and optimise water recycling systems – so-called ‘energy–health’ benchmarking. The project also made the first steps toward developing a new suite of energy benchmarks for a range of advanced water recycling processes. Several South Australian recycling schemes were selected to ‘road test’ the new benchmarking approach, with the results of these investigations presented for two of the case studies.

Recycled water is an important, climateindependent water source in the diverse supply portfolio of today’s ‘climateready’ water sector (Rodriguez et al., 2009; WSAA, 2012). South Australia is at the forefront of water recycling operations nationally, with some 32% (≈28 GL) of metropolitan Adelaide’s wastewater recycled during the 2012–13 financial year. While recycling provides valuable resource-recovery functions for increasingly scarce and valuable water and nutrient resources, recycling processes are among the most energyintensive operations conducted by water utilities today (Cook et al., 2012; Spies and Dandy, 2012).

Following an extensive literature review of specific energy data for a range of recycling processes, preliminary benchmarks for water recycling processes were developed for so-called Guide (50th %ile) and Target (20th %ile) performance values. Detailed processlevel energy benchmarking was then undertaken at each of the case study sites using the newly-developed Guide and Target performance benchmarks. Health-based process performance criteria (i.e. pathogen log reduction values) were then integrated into the process benchmarking and optimisation approach to identify optimisation and energy efficiency opportunities at the process level. Overall, the study provides the first known set of indicative energy benchmarks for a range of advanced water recycling processes and has made the first steps toward developing a new approach for the Australian water industry to use in future water recycling process optimisations.

In addition to the high capital costs of recycling systems, many schemes are perceived to over-treat water without justifiable public health or local environmental benefits, resulting in excessively high resource inputs, operational and maintenance (O&M) costs, electricity use and environmental emissions (Bichai and Smeets, 2013). Given the high energy demands and associated cost, recycling operations must be further optimised to provide true ‘fit-for-purpose’ recycled water at least cost. Since one can manage only what one measures, water utilities must first benchmark the energy performance of their current operations in order to inform and drive future optimisation and efficiency initiatives. Due to the recognised site-specific nature of water industry operations (Friedrich et al., 2009), such benchmarking investigations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Keywords: Energy benchmarking, recycling, energy efficiency, process-level optimisation, energy–health nexus.

WATER MAY 2015

Benchmarking approaches offer a standardised way of measuring, monitoring and improving performance across a variety of water sector

operations. Energy benchmarking is a relatively new phenomenon for the water sector and falls under the International Standard ISO50001:2011 Energy Management Systems (ISO, 2011). The Standard defines benchmarking as “… the process of collecting, analysing and relating energy performance data of comparable activities with the purpose of evaluating and comparing performance between or within entities.” The basic goal of energy benchmarking is to undertake an initial energy review to establish a performance baseline that can then be used to monitor and improve future energy performance. Previous energy benchmarking of SA Water’s wastewater treatment operations (Krampe, 2013) highlighted the impracticality of ‘plant-level’ energy performance assessments, with ‘process-level’ benchmarking the only means by which to achieve best practice energy performance. This need for disaggregated process energy data requires energy sub-metering at the individual process level. Following initial plant-level energy benchmarking of its wastewater treatment operations (Krampe and Trautvetter, 2012; Krampe, 2013), SA Water has implemented extensive energy sub-metering across its metropolitan treatment plants, providing detailed process-level energy breakdowns via SCADA systems and giving plant operators real-time information on the energy use of key unit processes or process groups (refer Figure 3 of Steele et al. (2013)). Prior energy benchmarking work at SA Water excluded water recycling operations due to a lack of available performance benchmarks for comparison and methodological issues with

Technical Papers wastewater performance metrics (Krampe, 2013; Steele et al., 2013). As a leader in water recycling, biogas energy production and biosolids reuse, Australia should be striving for best practice performance in terms of treatment process energy efficiency. Before this can be achieved, relevant performance benchmarks for recycling processes must be developed and a suitable benchmarking approach devised. Accordingly, the aim of this research was to make the first steps toward the development of a suite of new energy benchmarks for various water recycling processes and also to propose a new approach for energy benchmarking and optimisation of Australian water recycling operations.

APPROACH THE PROBLEM WITH WASTEWATER BENCHMARKING METRICS

Beyond the performance metrics of energy benchmarking discussed above, the regulatory context for recycling operations differs greatly to that for wastewater treatment operations. The regulation of Australian water recycling operations is guided by the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (the Guidelines). The only other country to have formally adopted quantitative microbial risk assessment-based guidelines for public health regulation of municipal water supply is the Netherlands (Bichai and Smeets, 2013). The Guidelines give a range of indicative pathogen log10 reduction values (LRVs) for key microbial pathogens (viruses, protozoa and bacteria) across various engineered treatment process ‘barriers’ (Table 1), as well as providing indicative pathogen LRVs for non-engineered onsite preventive measures (see Table 3.5 of the Guidelines).

In addition to organic load-specific factors, flow-specific energy performance metrics (i.e. kWh/unit volume) are also applied during wastewater energy benchmarking. While prior work has cautioned against the use of such flow-specific metrics for energy benchmarking of wastewater systems in favour of load-specific metrics (kWh/ PE/y) (Balmér, 2000; Crawford, 2010), the basis for this is less relevant to water recycling operations, wherein plant operators often have much greater control over plant inflows than do their wastewater counterparts. Accordingly, flow-specific energy use is seen as a valid energy performance metric for benchmarking of recycling operations and is reported here.

While providing the water industry with a comprehensive framework for building and operating recycling schemes, the Guidelines also present the industry with a unique opportunity to tailor and optimise recycling systems to achieve least-cost, low-energy fit-forpurpose recycled water quality

Table 1. Indicative log10 reduction values of enteric pathogens and indicator organisms by selected treatment process barriers and on-site preventative measures (reproduced from Tables 3.4 and 3.5 of NRMMC et al., 2006). Treatment process Secondary treatment Dual media filtration with coagulation Membrane filtration

Bacteriaa

Virusesb

Protozoac

1.0–3.0

0.5–2.0

0.5–1.0

0–1.0

0.5–3.0

1.5–2.5

3.5–>6.0

2.5–>6.0

>6.0

Reverse osmosis

>6.0

Lagoon storage

1.0–5.0

1.0–4.0

1.0–3.5

Chlorination

2.0–6.0

1.0–3.0

0–0.5

Ozonation

2.0–6.0

3.0–6.0

N/A

>1.0–>3.0

>3.0

Ultraviolet (UV) light

2.0–>4.0

On-site control measure

Bacteria, Viruses, Protozoa

Drip irrigation of crops

2.0

Drip irrigation of raised crops Subsurface irrigationd

5.0 4.0–6.0

Spray drift control

1.0

Buffer zones (25–30 m)

1.0

No public access during irrigation

2.0

Based on LRVs for E. coli and other bacterial pathogens including Campylobacter b Based on LRVs for viruses including adenovirus, rotaviruses and enteroviruses c Based on LRVs for Cryptosporidium d LRV varies according to irrigation setting (i.e. crops, plants/shrubs, grassed areas) N/A = not available a

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER REUSE

Prior work to energy benchmark wastewater systems has been done in the context of a different treatment objective (i.e. nutrient removal and environmental protection) to that required for recycling operations (i.e. pathogen removal and public health protection). The standard metric for energy benchmarking of wastewater treatment operations normalises energy use against an organic load factor (e.g.,

ENERGY BENCHMARKING OF RECYCLING SYSTEMS: A NEW APPROACH

kWh/PEBOD60/y, or energy use (kWh) per population equivalent (PE) organic load of 60g five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) per year) (Haberkern et al., 2008; Crawford, 2010). While ideal for wastewater applications, this approach is irrelevant for assessing the energy performance of water recycling operations and does not reflect the relevant regulatory framework underpinning recycled water supply in Australia – the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (NRMMC et al., 2006).

Technical Papers

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the Glenelg–Adelaide Recycled Water Scheme.

WATER REUSE

by exploiting the intrinsic value of ‘nonengineered’ on-site preventive measures and by applying risk-based system design. Unfortunately, many schemes are not necessarily designed with these principles in mind, resulting in overengineered process configurations and high operational energy requirements. In such cases, the Guidelines offer avenues for optimising process efficiency for energy savings; however, to fully exploit this potential, a suitable method is first required and this was the motivation for the current project. CASE STUDY SITES AND DATA ANALYSES

Commissioned in December 2009, the Glenelg–Adelaide Recycled Water Scheme (GARWS) can provide up to 3.8GL/year of recycled water to selected sites within the Adelaide metropolitan area for dual reticulation and unrestricted municipal irrigation. A 35ML/d recycled water treatment plant (RWTP) provides for advanced treatment and recycling of secondary effluent from the Glenelg WWTP. A schematic overview of the GARWS is shown in Figure 1. A second study site at the Christies Beach WWTP, the so-called ‘C Plant’, provides up to 9GL/year of recycled water for commercial food crop irrigation in the adjacent McLaren Vale district. Recycled water supply from the Christies Beach C Plant comes via four-stage Bardenpho process activated sludge treatment in two reactor basins, with six membrane bioreactor (MBR) tanks, followed by low-pressure UV disinfection via six Calgon C3500 D reactors configured in three channels (two duty, one standby).

WATER MAY 2015

Our proposed method for energy benchmarking of recycled water systems involved a dual approach. Conventional flow-specific energy benchmarking was initially undertaken, as introduced earlier. Following this initial processlevel assessment, relevant process performance data (e.g. energy use, UV dose, membrane loading rates) was analysed in conjunction with the public health performance criteria for each treatment process operation (i.e. V, P and B pathogen LRVs) to identify potential energy optimisation opportunities or process changes within the limits of the operating envelope (i.e. public health performance criteria) for the recycling process and scheme as a whole. To ensure the highest possible data quality, benchmarking analyses drew on performance data from the 2013–14 financial year (01/07/2013–30/06/2014), with these data extracted from SA Water’s online SCADA systems and associated databases. Where specific sub-metered energy data were not available (e.g. for some ancillary equipment), energy use was calculated according to first principles as a function of electrical equipment ratings (kW) and equipment runtimes (hours/day) from SCADA. Annual inflow to the Glenelg RWTP for the study period was of the order of 2.0 GL.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION NEW ENERGY BENCHMARKS FOR RECYCLING PROCESSES

Based on the initial literature review of flow-specific energy performance data for recycling operations internationally (refer Short et al.,2014, Appendix D), Guide (50th %ile; or industry average) and Target (20th %ile; or industry best practice) performance benchmarks

were developed for a range of recycling technologies relevant to Australia (Table 2). It should be noted that, while based on a comprehensive review, these performance benchmarks remain indicative and ongoing work is required to improve and further develop them according to plant size class or hydraulic throughput, since these are key determinants of flow-specific process energy performance (Mizuta and Shimada, 2010; Krampe and Trautvetter, 2012). Moreover, benchmark values for UV disinfection in particular incorporate energy data from some potable water applications, as well as a broad spectrum of operational UV doses (i.e. 25 to >200 mJ/cm2). FLOW-SPECIFIC PROCESS ENERGY BENCHMARKING

Detailed process-level energy benchmarking was performed for the major functional process groups at the Glenelg RWTP, including major pump stations, filtration and disinfection. Within these functional groups, and wherever energy sub-metering allowed, further disaggregation of process-level benchmarking was done (e.g. delineation of UV and chlorination process energy within the ‘disinfection’ functional group). Results of this process-level energy benchmarking are shown in Table 3 for both the Glenelg RWTP and GARWS, and Figure 2 for the RWTP only (i.e. excluding product water distribution pumping). Total scheme-level GARWS data of Table 3 shows that product water distribution (Pump Station 3) was the single largest energy user at nearly 60% of total GARWS energy during 2013–14 and, when all major pumping processes are combined, the total energy use fraction for pumping requirements is considerable (>75%). While Target performance values for pumping efficiency exist (e.g. 5.0–6.0 Wh/kL∙m; Krampe and Trautvetter, 2012), the development of benchmarks for water distribution pumping energy based on literature data is challenging, due to variable delivery head/pressures and pumping distances. As such, no attempt was made here to develop these benchmarks and contrast with the Glenelg Pump Station 3 energy use. It should be emphasised, however, that the Glenelg recycled water distribution pumping head is considerable (100m; 1,000 kPa), which explains the relatively high proportional energy use.

Technical Papers

Table 2. Indicative Guide and Target energy benchmarks for key water recycling technologies, processes and systems (kWh/ kL); average values for each process also provided for reference. Where they exist, equivalent benchmarks from the current industry standard of Haberkern et al. (2008) are given alongside our new benchmarks in italics. Average (mean)

50th %ile (Guide value)

20th %ile (Target value)

UV (medium pressure)

0.095

0.065

0.02

UV (low pressure)

0.084

0.031

0.012

Process group

UV (generic)1,2

0.026–0.30

MBR MBR

0.95 1

N/A

Ozonation

0.163

Ozonation

0.030 0.95 0.7–0.9 0.055

N/A

0.613 0.026 0.03–1.05

Chlorination

0.012

0.003

0.001

Microfiltration

0.137

0.122

0.061

Ultrafiltration

0.228

0.174

0.116

Tertiary membrane filtration (generic) Whole-of-plant recycling

N/A 2.112

0.10–0.15 1.104

0.58

Benchmarks of Haberkern et al. (2008) after Krampe and Trautvetter (2012) 2 Target benchmark value relates to an equivalent UV dose of 40–50mJ/cm2 3 Variable process configurations may include product water pumping/distribution energy N/A = not available 1

inverters into existing compressors/PID controllers if not already installed.

Figure 2. Breakdown of Glenelg RWTP electricity use (% total; excluding final effluent distribution Pump Station 3) showing the relative contribution of the benchmarked sub-processes. The Glenelg RWTP data (excluding Pump Station 3) shows that the UF process is the largest single process electricity user (≈45% total) (Table 3; Figure 2). Benchmarking UF process specific energy use (≈0.14 kWh/ kL) against our new performance benchmarks of Table 2, indicates that it is performing somewhere between the Guide (0.174 kWh/kL) and Target (0.116 kWh/kL) benchmark values, placing its performance among the top 30–40% of similar systems internationally, and

suggesting only marginal potential for future process optimisation. Having said this, and given that compressed air requirements dominated the remaining energy balance of the combined UF process (40% total) after UF feed Pump Station 2 energy (52% total), recommendations were made to assess the size of existing air compressors relative to current RWTP flow rates and process air requirements, with a mind to possibly down-sizing them, and/ or integrate variable frequency drives/

The equal second largest RWTP energy user was UV disinfection, which consumed some 109 MWh during the 2013–14 monitoring period (17% total) and had a flow-specific energy use of 0.0624 kWh/kL. Comparing this again to the respective Table 2 performance benchmarks for low-pressure UV systems, it is clear that the current energy use of the Glenelg UV reactors is well above both the average Guide (0.031 kWh/kL) and best practice Target (0.012 kWh/ kL) values, indicating good potential for further process optimisation. Acknowledging that our Table 2 benchmarks are indicative, benchmarking the Glenelg UV system performance against the more established Target value of Haberkern et al. (2008) (i.e. 0.030 kWh/kL; Table 2) still suggests that UV energy use is >200% of what it might otherwise be if optimally configured.

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER REUSE

After accounting for UF process energy, the remaining ≈55% of total RWTP electricity is consumed by pumping wastewater from the Glenelg WWTP to the balance storage basins via the fine screens (18%), UV disinfection (17%) and ancillary/non-benchmarked processes (15%), which relate to plant building services (i.e. lighting, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC)). Backwash return pumping from the fine screens (2.8%) and chlorination (1.3%) make up the remaining energy balance.

Technical Papers

Table 3. Glenelg RWTP benchmarked energy data for major functional groups and sub-processes, as well as total scheme-wide GARWS energy use. Functional process group

Major pump stations

Filtration

Disinfection

Sub-process1

Total energy (kWh/y)

Flow-specific energy (kWh/kL)

Pump Station 1

113,542

0.0556

Pump Station 3

869,953

0.6502

Fine screens backwash

17,479

0.0086

TOTAL

1,000,974

0.491

Fine screens motors

2,360

0.0012

Pump Station 2 (UF)

147,712

0.0724

UF air scour blowers

4,800

0.0024

UF CIP pumps

2,479

0.0012

UF CIP waste pumps

312

0.0002

Backwash return pumps

14,157

0.007

UF air compressors

114,310

0.056

Chemicals exhaust fans

6,132

0.003

TOTAL

292,262

0.143

Chlorination

8,140

0.0047

UV reactors

108,744

0.0624

TOTAL

116,884

0.067

Residual/non-benchmarked

93,538

0.046

RWTP TOTAL

633,705

0.311

1,503,658

0.737

GARWS TOTAL

Refer to Figure 1 for further information on plant configuration and sub-processes 2 Based on Pump Station 3 actual pumped volume rather than RWTP feedwater volume 2 CIP = clean-in-place 4 Excluding Pump Station 3 product water distribution 5 Including Pump Station 3 product water distribution

WATER REUSE

For the Christies Beach site, ongoing energy benchmarking work at the site to some extent overlapped with work done during this project, so results presented here are focused on UV disinfection only. Process electricity use by the Christies Beach C Plant UV reactors during the 2013–14 monitoring period was ≈660 MWh or some 10% of total C Plant energy use, with a flow-specific energy use of 0.105 kWh/kL. Comparing this to the relevant Guide (0.031 kWh/kL) and Target (0.012 kWh/kL) values of Table 2 suggests that the UV system is performing poorly and has good potential for process optimisation.

upstream process change at the Glenelg WWTP during early 2012, wherein molasses dosing was replaced with sucrose dosing during activated sludge treatment, the UVT of RWTP feedwater improved considerably (≈65–70%).

ENERGY–HEALTH BENCHMARKING: THE CASE OF UV

As a result, the UV reactors were receiving a higher quality influent and were dosing at levels exceeding their design requirements. Although these particular UV reactors have the capacity to modulate ballast power within the range of 50–100%, interrogation of ballast power levels from the plant’s SCADA system showed that, after startup, it was consistently at the minimum 50% threshold, again meaning that the reactors were operating at dose rates above their validated requirements.

The Glenelg UV system was originally designed to deliver a minimum validated reduction equivalent dose of 50mJ/cm2 (operational set-point 54mJ/cm2) at a minimum UV transmissivity (UVT) of 50% (operational set-point 55%), assigning the system an LRV credit of 1.0 log10 for virus inactivation and 4.0 log10 LRV for protozoa and bacteria. Following an

This example of an upstream operational change at the WWTP highlights the potential for direct and potentially beneficial impacts to downstream recycling operations in terms of process efficiency, and serves as a useful reminder to operators of the direct linkages between wastewater treatment and recycling, and the potential

WATER MAY 2015

for realising synergistic benefits from WWTP process optimisations in terms of improved recycling process efficiency. For the current dual reticulation and unrestricted municipal irrigation enduses of the Glenelg recycled water, the Guidelines require minimum pathogen LRVs of 6.5 log10 for viruses and 5.0 log10 both for protozoa and bacteria. Under its original design configuration, the GARWS as a whole achieves pathogen LRVs of 7.5 log10 for virus, 7.5 log10 for protozoa and 11.0 log10 for bacteria, indicating that the recycling scheme is achieving a water quality some 10-fold higher than is required for the limiting pathogen (in this case viruses, which are also more infective than bacteria and carry a higher disease risk, relative to protozoa as per the Guidelines). Given that the UV system was found to be under-performing in terms of its benchmarked energy use relative to Guide and Target values, and considering that it also holds a 1.0 log10 surplus pathogen LRV credit for viruses, there is good potential for the UV system to be optimised for energy savings.

Technical Papers Let us assume that the UV system was to be modified such that it achieved a lower dose rate than originally designed (i.e. 10mJ/cm2). In this case, it would achieve pathogen LRVs of zero log10 for viruses, 2.5 log10 for protozoa and 3 log10 for bacteria, crediting the overall GARWS with LRVs of 6.5 log10 for viruses, 6.5 log10 for protozoa and 10 log10 for bacteria – meeting or exceeding the end-use requirements under the Guidelines. This reduction in UV dose could be achieved by changing the UV reactor configuration in each of the five duty trains (i.e. from 5×2 reactor duty trains plus 1×2 reactor standby train, to 1 duty and 1 standby reactor per train; Figure 1) which would not only conserve electricity (≥55 MWh/y), but would also help prolong asset life (lamps, ballast cards) and reduce other O&M costs linked to having surplus reactors in service.

By virtue of the nature of its recycled water end-uses, the majority of pathogen LRVs for the Christies Beach site comes from on-site preventative measures at point-of-use rather than engineered treatment barriers, as is the case for the dual reticulation Glenelg system (Table 1). For example, pathogen LRVs for the Christies Beach recycled water include 5.0 log10 reductions for drip irrigation of raised crops and up to 2.0 log10 credits for restricting public access during and after irrigation. What this means for the Christies Beach UV system is that the combination of LRVs from on-site preventative measures plus a 1.5 log10 virus inactivation credit for the MBR process provides sufficient pathogen reductions to comply with health regulations even with a 50% reduction in UV dose (i.e. 20 mJ/cm2). At this dose, the UV system still achieves 3.5 log10 protozoa and 4.0 log10 bacterial inactivation as per SA Health requirements, with combined pathogen LRVs of 6.5 log10 for viruses and ≥10.0 log10 for protozoa and bacteria — more than satisfying the end-use health requirements. From an energy

Whether or not the above process changes are indeed desirable from a risk management perspective is a separate issue. For example, in some cases plant operators or recycling scheme managers may wish to retain spare log credits as ‘buffers’ against potential process barrier upsets, so this should be factored into the broader decision-making process regarding such optimisations for energy savings. Clearly, energy savings during water recycling must not be pursued at the expense of core public health protection requirements; however, such savings can be made where system-wide pathogen LRVs allow, in line with our approach. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES WITH ENERGY–HEALTH BENCHMARKING IN RECYCLING

By integrating energy- and healthbased performance aspects into the benchmarking and optimisation of water recycling systems, it is possible to identify areas where process improvements or changes can be made to conserve electricity without compromising the fundamental public health performance of the recycling scheme. Since process changes to existing recycling schemes require explicit regulatory health approvals from relevant state regulators, utility personnel can only begin to optimise the process performance and energy efficiency of their recycling operations by taking this integrated approach in conjunction with sub-metered energy data. The earlier example of the Glenelg UV system highlights the value of this approach and the real potential for tailoring of recycling scheme process configurations to deliver low-energy, least-cost, fit-for-purpose solutions. As well as being a means by which to optimise existing systems, the energy–health approach may ultimately offer a way of achieving low-energy, fit-for-purpose recycled water by design rather than by retrospective process optimisation (e.g. by having new benchmarks which integrate energy use and pathogen inactivation performance; kWh/LRVpathogen). Before this can happen,

however, our benchmarks must be further refined and the approach further developed to answer questions such as how should the energy use of nonpathogen LRV-accredited processes, such as pumping or building HVAC, be properly accounted for during energy– health benchmarking? Other challenges to address during the further development of this energy– health benchmarking approach include how to integrate or disentangle upstream wastewater treatment energy use by pathogen LRV-accredited processes such as activated sludge. This question becomes even more challenging when the lines of distinction between wastewater treatment and water recycling systems are blurred, as is the case for MBRs. Yet more challenges and questions relate to how we should properly account for avoided electricity use and ‘electricity credits’ in cases where recycled water supply is offsetting a more energy-intensive marginal supply (e.g. where recycled water offsets a desalinated reticulated water supply). In this case, recycled water supply can carry a net negative electricity cost, or effective electricity credit, based on the difference between the flow-specific energy intensities of the two supplies (e.g. Park et al. 2008). With this scenario becoming increasingly prevalent globally, utilities may need to take a more holistic view of energy benchmarking system boundaries to include the net energy implications of such marginal water supply offsets. These and other important questions will be addressed as part of a new three-year research project (RP2017: Energy Benchmarking for Efficient, Low-Carbon Water Recycling Operations) via the Low Carbon Living CRC, in which SA Water and Sydney Water are industry partners. Current opportunities exist through this project for PhD research, and interested parties should contact the Project Leader.

CONCLUSIONS This paper has presented some results from a recent study that, for the first time, sought to apply energy benchmarking to optimise water recycling systems for electricity savings. Overall, the study reaffirms the value of energy benchmarking as a means by which to optimise the process performance of water treatment systems and conserve electrical energy. While the suggested process optimisations may not yet have been implemented, potential

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER REUSE

At the Christies Beach site, the C Plant UV system was designed to meet a minimum UV reduction equivalent dose of 40 mJ/cm2 (operating set-point 45 mJ/ cm2) at 60% UVT through each channel, with a maximum flow set-point per channel of 360 L/s. Analysis of UV dose and flow data from SCADA indicated that the reactors were over-dosing due to the below design hydraulic loading rates they were receiving.

perspective, this effective 50% UV shutdown translates to an immediate 50% reduction in electricity use (≈1 MWh/day), as well as concomitant O&M and asset-related savings as detailed earlier for the Glenelg UV system. This optimisation was implemented in July 2014 and to date has saved some 230 MWh of electricity.

Technical Papers energy savings identified from the UV system alone at the Glenelg RWTP were in the order of 9% of total RWTP energy (excluding distribution pumping energy). This work has provided some new indicative energy benchmarks for a range of recycling treatment processes and has made the first steps toward developing and road-testing a novel approach to energy benchmarking and optimisation of water recycling operations.

WATER REUSE

Much like previous Australian benchmarking analyses for wastewater treatment systems, results from this study demonstrate the real potential for optimising treatment process performance for energy savings during water recycling operations; however, for this to be achieved, high quality submetered energy data is needed and this requires utility investment. While there is clearly good potential for substantial operational energy savings, the efficacy and treatment performance of recycling process barriers must be maintained in order to meet the relevant healthbased performance targets of particular recycling schemes, and the noble pursuit of energy savings must not compromise public health protection. This project has identified several energy efficiency opportunities in the operation of water recycling processes, and in accordance with better understanding process pathogen log removals, has identified potential future changes to operating criteria that can save on electricity and maintenance costs and prolong asset life. The project has also served to further highlight the intrinsic energy value of ‘non-engineered’ on-site preventative measures for achieving the log reductions required to produce fit-for-purpose recycled water. Outcomes from this research are envisaged to influence future decision making in relation to plant design, operations and business development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was co-funded by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence and UniSA. The Authors wish to thank Nick Swain, Mike O’Brien, Nirmala Dinesh, Michael Corena and Grant Lewis (SA Water), Helen Beard (Allwater), Jörg Krampe (Vienna University of Technology), Chris Saint (UniSA) and plant operators at the study sites for their assistance during the project. The primary author also acknowledges the support of the CRC for Low Carbon Living (project RP2017).

WATER MAY 2015

THE AUTHORS Dr Michael Short (email: michael.short@ unisa.edu.au) is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Water Management and Reuse, University of South Australia. His research broadly focuses on improving process and environmental performance of water industry operations across a range of areas, including water and wastewater treatment, water recycling and biosolids. Dr Ben van den Akker (email: Ben.vandenAkker@ sawater.com.au) is a Senior Research Scientist (Wastewater Microbiology) at the South Australian Water Corporation. Dr Rudi Regel (email: Rudi.Regel@ sawater.com.au) is the Recycled Water Coordinator at the South Australian Water Corporation. He has worked for several years in wastewater and recycled water operations and commissioning, and has a keen interest in energy and process optimisation. In previous roles he has managed research trials, overseen managed aquifer recharge scheme operations and contributed to applied limnological investigations in Australian reservoirs and rivers.

REFERENCES Balmér P (2000): Operation Costs and Consumption of Resources at Nordic Nutrient Removal Plants. Water Science & Technology, 41, 9, pp 273–279. Bichai F & Smeets P (2013): Using QMRA-based Regulation as a Water Quality Management Tool in the Water Security Challenge: Experience from the Netherlands and Australia. Water Research, 47, 20, pp 7315–7326. Cook S, Hall M & Gregory A (2012): Energy Use in the Provision and Consumption of Urban Water in Australia: An Update. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia. Prepared for the Water Services Association of Australia. Crawford G (2010): Best Practices for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment: Initial Case Study Incorporating European Experience and Evaluation Tool Concept. Water Environment Research Foundation, USA and IWA Publishing, UK. ISBN: 9781843393917. Friedrich E, Pillay S & Buckley CA (2009): Environmental Life Cycle Assessments For Water Treatment Processes: A South African Case Study Of An Urban Water Cycle. Water SA, 35, 1, pp 73–84. Haberkern B, Maier W & Schneider U (2008): Steigerung der Energieeffizienz auf

kommunalen Klaeranlagen (Improving Energy Efficiency in Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants), s.l.: Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Agency). ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2011): Energy Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use. ISO 50001:2011(E). Geneva, Switzerland, 25pp. Krampe J (2013): Energy Benchmarking of South Australian WWTPs. Water Science & Technology, 67, 9, pp 2059–2066. Krampe J & Trautvetter H (2012): Energy Benchmarking of SA Water’s WWTPs. SA Water Corporation. Mizuta K & Shimada M (2010): Benchmarking Energy Consumption In Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants In Japan. Water Science & Technology, 62, 10, pp 2256–2262. NRMMC, EPHC, AHMC (2006): Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling. Managing Health And Environmental Risks (Phase 1). Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), Australian Health Ministers Conference (AHMC). National Water Quality Management Strategy, ISBN 1 921173 06 8. Park L, Bennett B, Tellinghuisen S, Smith C & Wilkinson R (2008): The Role of Recycled Water In Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. California Sustainability Alliance (available at: http://sustainca.org/ programs/water_energy/recycled_water_ study). Rodriguez C, Van Buynder P, Lugg R, Blair P, Devine B, Cook A, Weinstein P (2009): Indirect Potable Reuse: A Sustainable Water Supply Alternative. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 3, pp 1174–1209. Short M, Saint C, Regel R & van den Akker B (2014): An Integrated Approach For Performance Benchmarking Of Water Recycling Operations. Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, Brisbane, Australia. ISBN: 978-1-922202-18-5 (available at: http://www.australianwaterrecycling.com. au/research-publications.html). Spies B & Dandy G (2012): Sustainable Water Management: Securing Australia’s Future In A Green Economy. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE). ISBN: 978 1 921388 20 0. Steele R, Krampe J & Dinesh N (2013): Process Level Energy Benchmarking As A Tool To Improve The Energy Efficiency Of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water, 40, 2, pp 129–134. WSAA (2012): Climate Change Adaptation and the Australian Urban Water Industry. Occasional Paper 27, Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) Ltd. ISBN: 1 920760 54 7.

Technical Papers

A NEW INTEGRATED CONTINENTAL HYDROLOGICAL SIMULATION SYSTEM An overview of the Australian Water Resource Assessment Modelling System (AWRAMS) M Hafeez, A Frost, J Vaze, D Dutta, A Smith, A Elmahdi

ABSTRACT Assessing water resources and accounting for their availability and use at a regional and continental scale requires comprehensive and consistent information on water distribution, storage, availability and use across Australia. This information needs to be accurate, up to date and take account of local climatic and hydrological conditions. It also needs to be produced in a robust, transparent and repeatable manner. The Australian Water Resource Assessment Modelling System (AWRAMS) is being developed by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology through the Water Information Research and Development Alliance (WIRADA) initiative. It provides seamless water balance information and data for the nation for past and present, using observations where available, and modelling otherwise.

AWRAMS is being developed to enable the Bureau to meet its legislated role (Water Act 2007) in providing an annual National Water Account (NWA) and regular Australian Water Resource Assessment Reports, along with near realtime water situation monitoring, including soil moisture. All the AWRA model components are integrated within the operational system and provide water balance fluxes and

Keywords: Water resource assessment, AWRAMS, National Water Account, BoM, WIRADA, Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY BACKGROUND In Australia, extended drought conditions and climate change concerns have highlighted the need to manage water resources more sustainably. Assessing water resources and accounting for their availability and use at a regional and continental scale requires comprehensive and consistent information on water distribution, storage, availability and use across Australia. This information needs to be accurate, up to date and must take account of local climatic and hydrological conditions. It also needs to be produced in a robust, transparent and repeatable manner. In 2004, the Australian Government started the National Water Initiative (NWI), a policy blueprint to improve the way Australia manages its water resources. As part of the NWI process the Bureau of Meteorology (the Bureau, BoM), through the Water Act 2007, has been given responsibility for compiling and delivering comprehensive water information across the water sector (BoM, 2012). To enable the Bureau to meet its legislated role (Water Act 2007), in 2008 the Bureau and CSIRO agreed

to collaborate on research activities in the field of water information through the Water Information Research and Development Alliance (WIRADA) initiative (Van Dijk et al., 2010), which is now in its seventh year of operation. Several hydrological models have been developed and each model has its own weaknesses and strengths in the representation of hydrological processes, due to the different levels of complexity and data requirements and the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose. It is important to select a suitable hydrological model to simulate the required continental and regional hydrology. Trambauer et al. (2013) reviewed 16 well-known continental-scale hydrological and land surface models and developed a framework for assessing their suitability. A suitable model should be assessed against the following criteria: (1) the representation of the hydrological processes that are most relevant for simulating the hydrologic conditions; (2) the availability of input data and model resolution (spatial and temporal); (3) the capability to be downscaled from continental to regional or river basin scale. The Australian Water Resource Assessment Modelling System (AWRAMS), designed and developed under WIRADA, provides seamless water balance information and data for the nation, past and present, using observations where available, and modelling otherwise. AWRAMS is a new integrated continental hydrological simulation system designed and prototyped to provide an annual National Water Account (NWA) and regular Australian Water Resource Assessment (AWRA) reports. More information on these products can be obtained on the website (on NWA: www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa and on AWRA www.bom.gov.au/water/awra).

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER RESOURCES

AWRAMS is a new integrated continental hydrological simulation system that has two model components to represent processes between the atmosphere and the landscape (AWRA-L) and in gauged rivers (AWRA-R), including all major water storages and fluxes in and between (surface, subsurface and groundwater) these components. This paper provides an overview of AWRAMS and demonstrates its applicability by presenting key results of AWRAMS implementation at continental and river basin scales.

stores information, generated at a daily time step with national coverage at around 5km resolution. This constitutes a unique example of implementing a coupled landscape model, a simple representation of groundwater, and a regulated river system model at a regional and continental scale and rolled out in high priority regions across Australia. The outputs provide valuable information on Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water resources for water management practitioners, policy makers and researchers.

Technical Papers The AWRAMS uses on-ground observations and remotely sensed data sets, combined with hydrological science AWRA –L AWRA-R and computing Landscape River technology, to estimate water balance fluxes and AWRA-L AWRA-LR stores. This includes all major water Calibration/validation testbed storages, and the movement of water Benchmarking in and between these, at a 0.05 Operationalisation degree (~5km) spatial resolution and daily time step Annual AWRA Annual National (Vaze et al., 2013). Report Water Accounts It is flexible enough to use all available data sources, Figure 1. The AWRA modelling system. Where, AWRA-L: whether modelling AWRA-Landscape model; AWRA-R: AWRA-River model; AWRA-LR: AWRA Integrated Regulated river system model. data-rich or datasparse regions, to In the first six years of WIRADA, provide nationally consistent and robust AWRAMS was developed through estimates of water balance terms. The two core components, representing AWRAMS has evolved from AWRA v0.5 the Australian terrestrial water cycle (2008) to AWRA v4.5 (September 2014), (Vaze et al., 2013). The AWRAMS has two with AWRA v4.5 currently being used main modelling components (Figure 1): for reporting purposes by the Bureau. • A Landscape water balance component Similarly, the model components are (AWRA-L: Viney et al., 2014 ) is a integrated in a coherent framework (i.e. one-dimensional, 0.05 degree, gridthe AWRAMS, Figure 1) such that the based water balance model over the integrated research system in CSIRO is continent that has semi-distributed readily transferable to, and implemented representation of the soil, groundwater in, the operational environment at and surface water stores. The model the Bureau (Dutta et al., 2014). provides daily, monthly and annual AIM OF STUDY gridded estimates of landscape run-off, This paper provides an overview evapotranspiration, soil moisture and of AWRAMS and demonstrates its groundwater recharge/storage/lateral applicability by presenting key results flow at the regional and continental of AWRAMS implementation at (national) scale seamlessly from the continental and river basin scales. past to the present (100 + years). It does not include detailed technical It also provides the option of lateral descriptions of any of the AWRAMS exchanges of groundwater between components or their implementation grid cells at the continental scale. for the AWRAMS (Viney et al., 2014). • A River system component (AWRA-R: AWRA-LANDSCAPE MODEL Dutta et al., 2013; Lerat et al., 2013) is a regulated river system model AWRA-L, which includes landscape and that uses a node link flow network groundwater components of the AWRA to accumulate catchment runoff from system, is a daily, grid-based biophysical AWRA-L, route streamflow including model of the water balance between river losses, incorporate reservoirs the atmosphere, the soil, groundwater and model flooding and irrigation. and surface water stores. Each grid It also includes pumping to and from cell contains one or two hydrological the groundwater store where data response units (HRU) that represent is available and transfer of river/ shallow-rooted and/or deep-rooted floodplain/irrigation losses from vegetation cover on which the water AWRA-R to be input into AWRA-L and energy flux simulations occur groundwater store. (Viney et al., 2014). The proportion

WATER RESOURCES

BoM data

WATER MAY 2015

External data

of the cell between shallow versus deeprooted HRU is determined according to vegetation mapping, and the soil store water balance for each HRU is modelled independently within each cell. The model aims to produce interpretable water balance component estimates, so that they agree as much as possible with water balance observations, including point gauging data and satellite observations. The landscape component of the model (AWRA-L version 4.5) currently includes descriptions of the following landscape stores, fluxes and processes (Figure 2), and operates at 0.05° grid resolution nationally: • Partitioning of precipitation between interception evaporation and net precipitation; • Partitioning of net precipitation between infiltration, infiltration excess surface runoff, and saturation excess runoff; • Surface topsoil water balance, including infiltration, drainage and soil water evaporation; • Interflow generated at the interface of the soil layers (layer 1/layer 2 & layer 2/layer 3), estimated as a function of the soil stores and physical parameters describing the soil characteristics; • Shallow soil water balance, including incoming and exiting soil drainage and root water uptake; • Deep soil water balance – same as above; • Groundwater dynamics, including recharge, evapotranspiration and discharge; • Surface water body dynamics, including inflows from runoff and discharge, open water evaporation and catchment water yield. In addition, the following vegetation processes are described: • Transpiration, as a function of maximum root water uptake and optimum transpiration rate, vegetation cover adjustment, in response to the difference between an actual and a theoretical optimum transpiration, and at a rate corresponding to vegetation cover type. A landscape water yield component is determined by combining surface runoff and groundwater discharge (AWRA, 2010; AWRA, 2012). For model

Technical Papers AWRA-RIVER MODEL AWRA-R, the river system component of AWRAMS, is a conceptual hydrological model designed for both regulated and unregulated river systems (Lerat et al., 2013). The AWRA-R model is designed using a node-link concept (Figure 3). The river network begins and ends with a node, and all nodes are interconnected by links. A link is used for transfer of flow between two nodes with or without routing and transformation. Runoff from gauged or ungauged tributaries or Figure 2. A conceptual diagram showing different hydrological processes in the AWRA-Lv4.0 the local contributing model (Vaze et al., 2013). area between two about the equations used in the AWRA-L verification purposes the landscape nodes is fed into model and theoretical background are water yield outputs of all grid cells in the connecting link as an inflow at described in a separate technical report any catchment are combined to compare the relevant location, and all other (Viney et al., 2014 and AWRA technical with streamflow at the outlet of the physical processes (such as diversions, supplement reports 2010 and 2012). catchment. More technical information groundwater fluxes and overbank flow) occurring between the two nodes are Flow from upstream Flow from upstream incorporated in the link. Observed reach 1 (observed or simulated) reach 2 (observed or simulated) streamflow, reservoir and diversion data is used where and when available. Reach Inflows

Node Reach Bifurcation point

Ungauged runoff (AWRA-L)

Bifurcation point

Storage Diversion (irrigation) + (urban) Return from irrigated area Reach evaporation Reach rainfall

(linear relationship)

Overbank flow to floodplain (flow threshold)

Return flow from floodplain

Downstream flow (anabranch)

Flux to Groundwater (Monod Function) Downstream flow (Main stem outflow)

Figure 3. Conceptual representations of a river reach within AWRA-R (Lerat et al., 2013).

AWRA MODEL CALIBRATION PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL For AWRA-L, the calibration process is carried out to find the set of 21 optimised model parameters that gives the best concordance between model predictions and observed data, using an automated optimisation algorithm called

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER RESOURCES

Reservoir evaporation Reservoir rainfall Change in stored volume

AWRA-R (version 4.5) consists of the following components that are used to compute different parts of the water balance: 1) Ungauged runoff modelling; 2) Streamflow routing; 3) Floodplain inundation modelling; 4) Irrigation modelling; 5) River and groundwater interaction modelling; 6) Storage routing; 7) Rainfall and evaporation fluxes from river; 8) Anabranch flow; and 9) Urban water use. Most of these components of the river system model have been developed over the last year and are designed to seamlessly blend observed and simulated data sets (e.g. irrigation, flooding).

Technical Papers

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Map showing a) National calibration and validation catchments for AWRA-L Model; and b) Coverage of AWRA-R modelling regions across Australia (Lerat et al., 2013).

WATER RESOURCES

shuffled complex evolution for the two HRUs. Selected parameters are varied spatially according to mapped data (e.g. ASRIS soil hydraulic conductivity and available water storage). The model is currently calibrated using gridded simulations aggregated to the catchment scale (Vaze et al., 2013). The optimiser seeks to maximise a mathematical function that describes the level of agreement between predicted and observed time series of streamflow. In order to carry out proper calibration and validation for the AWRA-L model at the continental scale, streamflow data from 589 unimpaired catchments (295 for calibration and 294 for validation) spread across Australia are currently used. The main objective is to find a single set of continentally applicable model parameters that best facilitates model predictions of streamflow, soil moisture and evapotranspiration in all catchments across Australia (Vaze et al., 2013). The optimised model parameters obtained through calibration are used to run the model for obtaining daily streamflow predictions Australia-wide. Model predictions are then evaluated by applying this global parameter set in an independent set of 294 gauged validation catchments (Figure 4a). Similarly, the AWRA-R model is calibrated using an auto-calibration procedure, in which the model parameters are jointly calibrated for each of the modelled reaches. Gridded surface runoff generated by AWRA-L is used to estimate runoff from ungauged headwater catchments and an ungauged area along each AWRA-R reach (Vaze et al., 2013).

WATER MAY 2015

The AWRA-R v4.5 has been applied in 39 catchments across Australia covering 574 reaches and 628 gauging stations (Dutta et al., 2014) covering seven regions (Carpentaria Coast, North East Coast, Pilbara-Gascoyne, Tasmania, Lake Eyre Basin, Murray-Darling Basin and TanamiTimor Sea Coast), as shown in Figure 4b.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION AWRA-L MODEL RESULTS

AWRA-L v4.5 is calibrated to streamflow from 295 calibration catchments from the set of 780 unimpaired catchments collated by Zhang et al. (2013). Performance according to streamflow over 294 catchments not used in calibration shows that AWRA-L performs well compared to WaterDyn (Raupach et al., 2009) and another national grid model CABLE-SLI (Haverd et al., 2013) (Figure 5a), with the distribution over the sites of Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) being higher (reflecting that WaterDyn and CABLE are not calibrated to streamflow nationally). It also performs at a similar (although lower) standard to locally calibrated and nearest neighbour regionalised rainfall runoff models (GR4J, SpringSIM, Sacramento), even though AWRA-L is calibrated nationally with a single parameter set used nationwide. It is noted that these models are used for reference purposes only, and their performance reflects the purpose for which they were designed. That is, WaterDyn was designed for monitoring terrestrial water balance, CABLE was designed to be a land surface scheme within the ACCESS numerical weather prediction model, and AWRA-L is designed for water reporting and monitoring, in particular representing

hydrological processes producing streamflow well. Similarly, while the locally calibrated nearest neighbour regionalised rainfall-runoff models produce streamflow well, they are not designed to estimate or report on soil moisture and ET. AWRA-L performance was assessed according to reproduction of satellite-based estimates of evapotranspiration, according to the CMRSET algorithm (Guerschman et al., 2009) over the unimpaired catchments (Figure 5b). AWRA-L v4.5 performs similarly to WaterDyn, while CABLE is superior to both. Model performance was also assessed according to reproduction of probe-based measurements of soil moisture down to 90cm, according to the OzNet (www.oznet.org.au) dataset within the Murrumbidgee catchment (Smith et al., 2012) and the SASMAS (www.sasmas. unimelb.edu.au/moisture.htm) dataset within the Goulburn region (RĂźdiger et al., 2007). AWRA-L v4.5 performs similarly to CABLE according to monthly correlation with the point measurements over the distribution of sites in both the Murrumbidgee and the Goulburn (see Figure 5c and 5d), and both are superior to WaterDyn. Two satellitebased estimates of soil moisture are also included in the evaluation (ASCAT and AMSR-E), and AWRA-L performs better than both of those also, mainly because the satellite measurements only represent the top few centimetres rather than the full profile soil moisture, and because pixel size covers a much larger area. AWRA-L outputs showing evapotranspiration and landscape water yield across Australia for the

1.0

0.8

Monthly Pearson's r

0.6 0.4 0.2

0.2

0.8

Monthly Pearson's r

1.0

0.4 0.2 0.0

WaterDyn

CABLE

AWRAL_4.5

AWRAL_4.0

b) Monthly correlation of model compared to satellite based CMRSET actual evapotranspiration estimates over 294 validation catchments.

1.0

0.6

AWRAL_3.5

AWRAL_3.0

WaterDyn

CABLE

Sacramento

SpringSIM

GR4J

AWRAL_4.5

AWRAL_4.0

AWRAL_3.5

a) Streamflow according to Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) over 294 validation catchments.

0.6 0.4 0.2

c) Monthly correlation of model compared to probe based profile (0-90cm) measurement of soil moisture for the Murrumbidgee OzNet sites.

WaterDyn

CABLE

ASCAT

AMSRE

AWRAL_4.5

AWRAL_4.0

WaterDyn

CABLE

ASCAT

AMSRE

AWRAL_4.5

AWRAL_4.0

AWRAL_3.5

AWRAL_3.0

0.0 AWRAL_3.0

Monthly Pearson's r

0.4

0.0 AWRAL_3.0

0.0

0.6

AWRAL_3.5

Monthly NSE

Technical Papers

d) Monthly correlation of model compared to probe based profile (0-90cm) measurement of soil moisture for the Goulburn SASMAS sites.

Figure 5. AWRA-L version performance for streamflow, soil moisture and ET at Continental Scale. July 2013–June 2014 year are presented in Figures 6a and 6b. A map of decile rankings of average soil moisture profile (0–1m) also shows (Figure 6c) recent drought conditions (2013–2014) in Northern New South Wales and Southern Queensland. AWRA-R MODEL RESULTS

a) Annual Runoff [mm]

b) ET [mm]

The summary statistics (daily NSE and absolute bias in %) of the model performance during the calibration and validation periods are presented in Figure 7. In the calibration, the model performed reasonably well in all seven modelled regions with median daily NSE of 0.65 as shown in Figure 7a. The performance of the model was similar in the MDB with the median daily NSE of 0.64. Within the MDB, the performance varied from sub-region to sub-region with

c) Soil moisture

Figure 6. AWRA-L 2013–2014 annual runoff, actual ET and (0–1m) average soil moisture deciles.

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER RESOURCES

The AWRA-R model is developed to provide a water balance of any regulated river system. The model (AWRA-Rv4.5) was calibrated and validated against the

observed streamflow data in more than 500 gauges. Based on the lengths and quality of the streamflow data at the selected gauges and climatic variability in the MDB region, the period of 1970– 1991, covering both wet and dry climate, was selected for calibrating AWRA-R. A more recent period of 1992–2013 was selected for validating the model. This period included the millennium drought in MDB from 2000–2009, which was followed by an intense wet period (2010–2013).

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Daily NSE (validation mode)

Daily NSE (calibration mode)

Technical Papers

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

b) daily NSE: validation Absolute bias (validation mode)

Absolute bias (calibration mode)

a) daily NSE: calibration 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

c) annual bias: calibration

d) annual bias: validation

WATER RESOURCES

Figure 7. Summary statistics of the model performance (daily NSE and bias) for different regions and MDB sub-regions during the calibration (period: 1970–1991) and validation (1992–2013) of the AWRA-Rv4.5 model. daily NSE ranging between 0.45–0.85. The median values of annual bias during the calibration were very low (< 1%) for all modelled regions. Within the MDB, the median bias was less than 7% for all sub-regions, as shown in Figure 7c. The calibrated model performed very well under the validation mode with the median daily NSE of 0.68 for all modelled regions including the MDB. Within the MDB, the daily median NSE varied between 0.43–0.90, as shown in Figure 7b. This was consistent with the results under the calibration mode. In the validation, the median value of annual bias was 12% for all modelled regions including the MDB (Figure 7d). In addition, AWRA-R has components including irrigation diversion (Hughes et al., 2014) and floodplain inundation (Teng et al., 2014) for water accounting. This paper only discusses the simulated results for those two model components, and both of these modules have been applied and tested within the MDB. Figure 8 provides examples of AWRA-R simulated irrigation fluxes and stores, required for closing the river water balance for the NWA report, in the Namoi Valley. More details about the calibration and validation of the AWRA-R irrigation module across the MDB in 60 reaches are

WATER MAY 2015

available in Lerat et al. (2013) and Hughes et al. (2014). These 60 reaches represent almost all of the diversions for irrigated agriculture within the MDB. Hughes et al. (2014) reported that there is good agreement with observed or estimated diversions on goodness of fit statistics where these data are available, and represents an improvement on previous versions of the model. Figure 9 shows an example of the daily time series of four floodplain fluxes: 1) overbank flow to floodplain; 2) return flow from floodplain; 3) net loss from floodplain due to evaporation and groundwater recharge; and 4) floodplain storage volume for two floodplain reaches in Paroo for the entire period of simulation. The variation of flooded area over time during the flood events is also shown in the figure. The model simulated floodplain fluxes for over 180 reaches located within floodplains in MDB.

SUMMARY AND WAY FORWARD AWRAMS is the first national operational integrated water balance model representing a coupled landscape, groundwater and regulated river system at continental scale, for estimating consistently across the continent how

much water flows in and out of systems. It is being developed to enable the Bureau to meet its legislated role (Water Act 2007) in providing an annual NWA and regular water resources assessment report. All the AWRA model components are integrated within the operational system to provide water balance fluxes and stores information, generated at a daily time step with national coverage at around 5km resolution. The outputs provide valuable information on Australia’s water resources for water management practitioners, policy makers and researchers. Outputs of AWRAMS are used annually by the Bureau to populate the water balance terms in the annual NWA and the water resources assessment report. AWRAMS is also currently being used as a hydrological modelling system for investigating the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining development on water resources in the Australian Government–funded Bioregional Assessment Program. A regularly updated soil moisture product is in development for use as input to crop growth models and guidance for farmers. The Bureau plans soon to be able to offer regularly updated AWRAMS

200 150

200

100

Floodplain net loss (+ve)/ gain(-ve) due to rain, ET and GW seepage

100

150

(b)

Return ﬂow from ﬂoodplain (c)

20 15 10

Irrigation area km2

Crop demand (ML/day)

200

250

Diversion (ML/day)

Diversion GW

Flooded Area

150 100 50 GW use (ML/day)

(a)

250

300

Technical Papers

Floodplain storage

200 100

Inﬂow from upstream node

(e)

Figure 9. Simulated time series of daily floodplain fluxes by AWRA-R along a floodplain reach in Moonie.

Available soil water (mm)

Runoff (ML/day)

300

(d)

1978−01−01

1979−01−01

1980−01−01

1981−01−01

1982−01−01

1983−01−01

Figure 8. Irrigation fluxes from the AWRA-R irrigation model for a district in the Namoi valley: (a) Diversion and groundwater use; (b) District irrigation demand; (c) Irrigated area; (d) Runoff from irrigated areas; and (e) Available soil water for irrigated areas (Lerat et al., 2013). products such as river basin statistics, soil moisture (and/or evapotranspiration), and a monthly status report.

Calibration of the AWRA-L and AWRA-R models is currently being developed and set up on the Raijin supercomputer (currently the 24th fastest in the world) at the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI). Current runtime for a 100-year run of AWRA-L across Australia is under 24 hours when using only three cores and 3GB of RAM. Within the Bureau of Meteorology AWRA-L is running on a daily schedule with the modelled outputs (including soil moisture, evapotranspiration and gridded runoff), generated each night to extend the century record to now and available at 9am. AWRA-L output and input variables are being updated daily and served on a THREDDS Data Server (TDS) that allows data download, subsetting of NetCDF data with server side processing, web coverage and map services for rendering in ArcGIS or other tools.

This TDS also has data visualisation with transparent overlays of AWRA-L outputs on base maps and could be used as the base technology for a service displaying AWRA-L outputs, updated daily, on the Bureau’s public website. In future a publicly accessible website will be developed, displaying the soil moisture, ET and gridded runoff for Bureau internal and external users (email: awrams@bom.gov.au for details). All outputs (and inputs) to the model will also be available to registered users for download. Finally, the code of the AWRA modelling system is to be released to the research community as a community modelling system that can be developed and leveraged by the university sector and become a true asset for Australian water resource management. Over the next few years, the Bureau plans to consolidate and fully integrate AWRAMS as a regulated river system model (AWRA-LR), benchmark it against observations and other peer jurisdictional model outputs, and start using it as an operational hydrological modelling

MAY 2015 WATER

WATER RESOURCES

While a prototype was developed under WIRADA, the AWRAMS Implementation (AWRAMSI) Project is using Agile software development principles to refactor the WIRADA prototype into a simpler, more efficient, cross-platform code base that can be easily maintained, developed and shared with the research community. The AWRAMSI code base is predominantly Python (currently 2.7.6), with the AWRA-L and AWRA-R model kernels coded in Fortran and C respectively. The AWRAMSI code is version-controlled within Git, and automatically built and tested with Jenkins, with a baseline of 80% of the code covered by automatic tests (to prevent bugs). The AWRAMSI code has been successfully deployed and tested on laptops (Mac OS X), servers (Red Hat Linux), mid-range

clusters and supercomputers (CentOS).

Technical Papers system within the Bureau’s Linux-based IT infrastructure. The Bureau invites stakeholders to collaborate closely in rolling out the models developed in AWRAMS, as well as in carrying out a scientific comparison of the models with their local jurisdictional models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Authors appreciate the hard work of many current and former staff from the Bureau and CSIRO who worked to develop the AWRA modelling system under the WIRADA AWRA projects from 2008 onwards. Similarly, the Authors also acknowledge the AWRAMSI project team including developers Joel Rahman, David Shipman, Stuart Baron-Hay and Max Monahan, and hydrologists Robert Pipunic and Avijeet Ramchurn.

THE AUTHORS

WATER RESOURCES

Dr Mohsin Hafeez (email: m.hafeez@bom.gov.au) is a Supervising Hydrologist and Head of the Water Resources Modelling Unit in the Bureau of Meteorology. He is leading the research aspects of the Bureau’s team on AWRAMS for the WIRADA AWRA project, as well as operational aspects of AWRAMS implementation on the Bureau’s IT infrastructure. He has a PhD in Engineering (Water Resources Management) and more than 19 years’ research and project management experience in sustainable land and water management across the globe. Dr Andrew Frost is a Senior Hydrologist in the Bureau of Meteorology. He has a PhD in Engineering (Hydrology) from the University of Newcastle, and 11 years’ subsequent experience working predominantly with the BoM/ eWater CRC and in the UK. Dr Jai Vaze is a Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship. He is also the AWRA Project Leader and Research Team Leader of Water Resources Assessment team within CSIRO. He has a PhD in Environmental Engineering from University of Melbourne. Dr Adam Smith is a Senior Hydrologist in the Bureau of Meteorology. Adam has 13 years’ experience as a Hydrologist at ANU, Melbourne University, and

WATER MAY 2015

for the past eight years has worked at the Bureau of Meteorology, where he has been leading and managing the AWRA Modelling System Implementation (AWRAMSI) Project for three years. Dr Dushmanta Dutta is a Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship in Canberra. He holds a PhD in Hydrology from the University of Tokyo, Japan, and a MEng degree in Water Resources Engineering from the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Dr Amgad Elmahdi is a Chief Hydrologist Engineer and Manager of Water Resources Assessment Section in the Bureau of Meteorology. He has more than 20 years’ experience in Hydrology and Water Management, including a decade working internationally on United Nations water resources assessment and management projects.

REFERENCES Australian Water Resources Assessment (2010): Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government, www.bom.gov.au/water/ awra/2010. Australian Water Resources Assessment (2012): Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government, www.bom.gov.au/water/ awra/2012. BoM (2012): The Water Act 2007 and Water Regulations 2008, InfoSheet 2, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government, www.bom.gov.au/water/about/publications/ document/InfoSheet_2.pdf Dutta D, Lerat J, Hughes J, Kim S & Vaze J (2013): A Simple Storage Based Floodplain Inundation Modelling Approach in AWRA-R For Estimating Floodplain Fluxes. Proceedings of the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013, pp 2541–2547. Dutta D, Vaze J, Kim S, Hughes J, Teng J, Yang A, Crosbie R & Frost A (2014): AWRA-LGR Description and Integration: Current System and Future Plans, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia, 30 pages. Guerschman JP, Van Dijk AIJM, Mattersdorf G, Beringer J, Hutley LB, Leuning R, Pipunic RC & Sherman BS (2009): Scaling of Potential Evapotranspiration With MODIS Data Reproduces Flux Observations and Catchment Water Balance Observations Across Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 369, 1–2, pp 107–119. Haverd V, Raupach MR, Briggs PR, Canadell JG, Isaac P, Pickett-Heaps C, Roxburgh SH, van Gorsel E, Viscarra Rossel RA & Wang Z (2013): Multiple Observation Types Reduce Uncertainty in Australia’s Terrestrial Carbon

and Water Cycles. Biogeosciences, 10, 3, pp 2011–2040. Hughes J, Dutta D, Yang A, Kim S, Marvanek S, Vaze J & Mainuddin M (2014): Improvement of AWRA-R Irrigation Model and its Applications in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. Lerat J, Dutta D, Kim S, Hughes J, Vaze J & Dawes W (2013): Refinement and Extension of the AWRA-R Model, CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. Raupach MR, Briggs PR, Haverd V, King EA, Paget M & Trudinger CM (2009): Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP) – CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Component: Final Report for Phase 3, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, Australia. Rüdiger C, Hancock G, Hemakumara HM, Jacobs B, Kalma JD, Martinez C, Thyer, M, Walker JP, Wells T & Willgoose GR (2007): Goulburn River Experimental Catchment Data Set. Water Resources Research, 43, 10, W10403. Smith AB, Walker JP, Western AW, Young RI, Ellett KM, Pipunic RC, Grayson RB, Siriwardena L, Chiew FHS & Richter H (2012): The Murrumbidgee Soil Moisture Monitoring Network Data Set. Water Resources Research, 48, 7, W07701. Teng J, Dutta D, Vaze J, Marvanek J & Ticehurst C (2014): Improvement of AWRA-R Floodplain Inundation Model and its Applications in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. Trambauer P, Maskey S, Winsemius H, Werner M & Uhlenbrook S (2013): A Review of Continental Scale Hydrological Models and Their Suitability for Drought Forecasting in (sub-Saharan) Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 66, pp 16–26. Van Dijk A (2010): The Australian Water Resources Assessment System. Technical Report 3. Landscape Model (version 0.5) Technical Description. CSIRO: Water for A Healthy Country National Research Flagship. Vaze J, Viney N, Stenson M, Renzullo L, Van Dijk A, Dutta D, Crosbie R, Lerat J, Penton D, Vleeshouwer J, Peeters L, Teng J, Kim S, Hughes J, Dawes W, Zhang Y, Leighton B, Perraud J-M, Joehnk K, Yang A, Wang B, Frost A, Elmahdi A, Smith A & Daamen C (2013): The Australian Water Resource Assessment Modelling System (AWRA). Proceedings of the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013, pp 3015–3021. Viney N, Vaze J, Crosbie R, Wang B & Dawes W (2014): AWRA-LG v4.5: Technical Description of Model Algorithms and Inputs. CSIRO, Australia. Zhang YQ, Viney N, Frost A, Oke A, Brooks M, Chen Y & Campbell N (2013): Collation of Streamflow and Catchment Attribute Dataset for 780 Unregulated Australian Catchments, CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.

Technical Papers

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Opportunities with and without policy support JA Edwards, S Burn, M Othman

ABSTRACT Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a crucial technology that stabilises sewage sludge and, in addition, can help wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in their drive to become energy neutral. Unfortunately, the rate of use in Australia of AD for bioenergy generation at WWTPs is much lower than in Europe and the US. This paper investigates why this is so, what role policy has played, and what opportunities exist to realise a higher usage of AD at Australian WWTPs. Comparing AD policies in Australia against overseas nations such as Denmark, Germany, the UK and the US, it was found that strong bioenergy generation incentives and clear longterm renewable energy and climate change policy was responsible for the high use of AD overseas. Furthermore, strong incentives to use AD for treating municipal and commercial organic biowaste also enhanced AD growth.

bioenergy. Therefore, although Australian bioenergy and climate change policy is poorly supported, AD at WWTPs has significant room for growth. Keywords: anaerobic digestion, codigestion, bioenergy, policy, biogas.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR BIOENERGY PRODUCTION Anaerobic digestion (AD) is an established technology proven to treat and reduce the quantity of sewage sludge efficaciously at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), especially at plants where space restrictions and strict odour regulations are encountered. Additionally, AD is a technology proven to generate carbon-neutral renewable energy and reclaim nutrients that would otherwise be lost to non-anthropogenic processes. Therefore, in order to realise the new paradigm of WWTPs as being

energy neutral or even net-energy generators, as well as wider goals to abate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and become bio-refineries, AD is being viewed as a necessary component of a plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s treatment train. In Australia AD is not utilised as commonly as in other jurisdictions and bioenergy output pales in comparison to places like Denmark, Germany and the UK. There are currently 59 WWTPs that have AD processes installed in Australia, with 46 generating bioenergy. This represents 55% of all Australian AD installations, the remaining 45% being taken up by other AD types digesting industrial, municipal/commercial biowaste and agricultural substrates. Denmark, Germany, the UK and the US use AD and generate substantially more bioenergy at WWTPs as well as industrial, commercial and agricultural AD processes (Figure 1). Furthermore, numerous WWTPs in

Australia does not provide adequate bioenergy generation incentives, nor does it have a stable bipartisan longterm renewable energy policy. However, municipal and commercial biowaste is being discouraged from being landfilled due to increasing landfill levies and unmet landfill diversion targets. With a dearth of viable alternatives to landfilling of biowaste in Australia, WWTPs are suited to follow overseas examples and treat these wastes by co-digesting with sewage sludge â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially given they can use the bioenergy onsite and do not need to rely on poor prices for selling bioenergy to the grid.

Sewage Sludge Biowaste Agriculture Industry Figure 1. Number and type of anaerobic digester in each nation generating bioenergy. Note: no figures could be sourced for industry use of AD in the US.

MAY 2015 WATER

BIOSOLIDS

An opportunity to upgrade currently underutilised AD infrastructure to capture and generate bioenergy at WWTPs may also be viable as energy prices continue to rise. In rural areas the business case for upgrades may be further assisted by the new emissions reduction fund draft methodology that grants carbon credits for covering anaerobic lagoons and collecting

Technical Papers Europe and the US have begun accepting, directly into their digesters, high-strength organic waste streams from industry, agriculture and municipalities in order to co-digest with sewage sludge. This provides additional bioenergy generation that offsets a large proportion of the whole WWTP energy use. In Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, supportive bioenergy and waste management policy is known to have helped the uptake of AD as a technology. So what are the policies overseas? Is current Australian policy doing its best to promote the use of AD technology? And do WWTPs need strong policy support or can AD be utilised without it? This paper investigates the current use and state of AD policy in Australia and how Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s AD policy compares to benchmark nations. In doing so, this paper demonstrates the opportunities and barriers that face a WWTP looking to use or expand AD, with or without policy support.

SUMMARY OF AD IMPLEMENTATION AND POLICY: AUSTRALIA AND ABROAD BIOENERGY INCENTIVES

BIOSOLIDS

As shown in Figure 1, the implementation of AD in Australia is far lower than in other nations. The lack of adequate government incentives for AD bioenergy exported to the grid is most likely the key reason for the poor uptake of AD, as once onsite energy needs are met the incentive to produce additional energy is low. AD bioenergy does not qualify for a feed-in-tariff (FiT) in all states in Australia, with the exception of Victoria, where systems smaller than 100kW capacity are eligible and receive $0.062/kWh (as of 1 January 2015). AD bioenergy is eligible for large-scale generation certificates (LGC) under the Renewable Energy Target (RET) policy, where plants received on average in 2013 $0.038/kWh. Small-to-medium sized AD plants (less than 1MW generation capacity) that look to export the majority of their bioenergy are disadvantaged by the RET, because costs associated with connecting and staying connected to the electricity grid will exceed revenue from LGC and energy sales. This is due to a combination of both high costs to access and supply to the grid, and LGC prices not being high enough. The bioenergy incentives in Australia, therefore, fail to build on the potential contribution that small-to-medium sized

WATER MAY 2015

AD plants producing bioenergy can make. This is contrary to the European and US approach, where small-to-medium capacity AD installations receive higher FiTs as incentive to export bioenergy. In Germany and the UK, AD reactors that have a capacity less than 500kW receive a higher FiT than those with greater capacity, (BMU, 2007). In the US, although only being applied in a handful of states, FiTs are also favourable for small-to-medium sized AD plants. For medium-to-large AD, like that in WWTPs, the lack of incentives for exporting bioenergy to the grid in Australia is not typically a concern. Bioenergy in these plants is generated and used on-site, offsetting heat and electricity use in the wider wastewater treatment process. Additionally, large agricultural and industrial based AD reactors at abattoirs, piggeries and some dairies, for example, offset their own onsite energy use apportioned to rendering, rearing and milking processes, respectively. The use of bioenergy onsite ensures the highest value for the product as it offsets the need to buy energy from retailers. Furthermore, bioenergy used onsite in this manner is still eligible for LGCs without the need to connect to the grid. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

renewable energy policy, despite being a net-energy exporter from oil and gas reserves (IEA, 2011). THE ROLE OF BIOSOLIDS

Biosolids regulation for the benefit of human health and environmental protection was the initial driver of AD at WWTPs and continues to be crucial. Australian biosolids policy is similar in scope to the overseas jurisdictions studied, where re-use is encouraged but with caveats on heavy metal concentrations, pathogen removal and land application rates. To treat and reuse biosolids in compliance with these standards is expensive. In 2012, $315 million was spent on biosolids management by WWTPs in Australia (Pollution Solutions and Design, 2012). Unfortunately, policy mechanisms and market conditions do not adequately reflect the value of reclaiming crucial components found within biosolids products including carbon, phosphorous and ammonia, or the potential for biosolids to offset CO2 emissions from avoided synthetic fertiliser use. Policy also does not reflect the benefit land-applied biosolids provides by sequestering carbon in soil and significantly improving soil quality (Lal, 2005; Spargo et al., 2008).

The dissolution of bipartisan support for the Renewable Energy Target (RET) in 2014 as well as no agreed pathway on a carbon tax, a GHG emission trading scheme or an emission reduction fund, is a prime example of the changing nature of renewable energy policy in Australia. The lack of a long-term stable renewable energy policy has resulted in significant market uncertainty with only $40 million being invested in renewable energy in the first half of 2014, compared to $2.7 billion in the full year prior (Sharpe, 2014). Feedstock supply security, funding mechanisms and market demand for bio-products (including bioenergy) are intrinsically tied to government policy.

The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) offers a framework whereby biosolids could be valued for offsetting emissions and carbon sequestration by earning carbon credits, although to date, despite industry calls for its inclusion as a CFI methodology, biosolids treatment and land application has yet to qualify as a methodology for the scheme. Policy support to struvite formation technologies that use AD supernatant would assist in helping WWTPs balance biosolids management budgets, too. Biosolids policy in Europe and the US is much the same as in Australia, with little support to help treat and stablise the sludge for higher beneficial use.

Decision makers interested in AD have repeatedly called for a consistent approach to waste management and renewable energy, but to date this has not been forthcoming. Places like Europe and many states in the US, where long-term renewable energy policy has enjoyed stability and bipartisan support, provide examples of consistent, secure and long-term policy. Denmark is a chief example for Australia as it has witnessed stable long-term and ambitious

WASTE MANAGEMENT

While solid waste management policy may not seem pertinent to WWTP AD installations treating solely sludge, the practice of co-digesting municipal and commercial organic waste (biowaste) is well established overseas. In Denmark, Germany, the UK and in parts of the US, strong solid waste management policies have helped position WWTPs as alternative treatment facilities for biowaste. This has enabled WWTPs

Technical Papers

Table 1. Summary of WWTP AD profile and key policies in five jurisdictions studied, adapted from (Edwards et al., 2014).

Demographics

Denmark

Germany

USA

Australia

Population

5,560,077

80,996,685

63,742,977

318,892,103

22,507,617

Number of WWTP AD Generating Bioenergy

1400

146

(37% of total AD plants)

(15% of total AD plants)

(55% of total AD plants)

WWTP AD Bioenergy Generation

(0.67% of elec. consumption)

Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy Targets

220GWh

3100GWh (0.58% of elec. consumption)

52% of electricity by 2020

38.6% of electricity by 2020

40% of heat and cooling by 2020

15.5% of heat and cooling by 2020

10% of transport fuel by 2020

Waste Management

Financial Incentives for AD bioenergy

Generous feedin-tariff for elec. and gas

Most generous feed-in-tariff for elec., gas and heat

Landfill diversion targets

Ban on biodegradable waste to landfill

Landfill levy

1241 (83% of total AD plants *Not including industrial AD)

720GWh

46 (55% of total AD plants) 120GWh

(0.22% of elec. consumption)

Unknown

30% of electricity by 2020 10% of heat by 2020

37 States elec. targets ranging from 1-33% by 2010-2030

10% of transport fuel by 2020

13 states have not set targets:

Generous feed-in-tariff for elec.

Varied elec. feed-intariff 21/50 states, 1 for heat energy

(0.05% of elec. consumption) 20% of elec. by 2020 SA additional state target 50% of elec. by 2035 VIC only feed-intariff that includes AD (<100kW capacity)

Renewable elec. and heat certificates

Renewable elec. credits in 37/50 States

65% diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill

3 states and 3 cities ban biodegradable waste from landfill

Diversion targets for municipal solid waste (typically 65%)

Significant landfill levy highest for biodegradable waste

Varied use of small landfill levy set by state or municipality

Landfill levies 4/6 states, NSW highest

Nationwide renewable elec. credits

QLD, TAS set no levy

Biosolids

Regulation

All jurisdictions are highly regulated protecting human health and environment. Pathogens, heavy metals, and toxic organics primary concerns.

End use

All jurisdictions use biosolids for agricultural land application, composting, landfilling/landscaping, and incineration

to access a new revenue stream through charging gate fees and to increase biogas generation (Bolzonella et al., 2006; ZupanÄ?iÄ? et al. 2008). In the US a number of co-digestion facilities have been established (East Bay Municipal Utility District and Des Moines Waste Reclamation Facility); in Germany and Denmark WWTP AD facilities have been both augmented for co-digestion and new plants have recently been built (Braun & Wellinger, 2009). Co-digestion of biowaste and agricultural manures is also common in Germany and Denmark.

Although many Australian states have implemented a landfill levy, designed to increase the cost of landfilling per ton and make alternative treatment methods for biowaste more attractive, the levy is often set too low and in at least one case has been removed. Landfill levy rates vary across states, as shown in Figure

2, and not all states have implemented it. Those who have implemented high levies, like NSW, have more biowaste processing and alternative waste treatment facilities (EPHC, 2010), while other states where the levy is low have not managed to disincentivise landfilling to an extent where it is less cost-effective than alternative treatments. In the UK, where the landfill levy has been raised significantly over the past five years, there has been a strong correlation with increased diversion rates of biowaste (Watson, 2013; WSP Environmental, 2013). Landfill levies overseas are used in tandem with landfill diversion targets or bans. Australia has opted for ambitious diversion targets, too. However, many Australian state targets are in danger of not being met. In Victoria, the 65% diversion target for municipal waste set

MAY 2015 WATER

BIOSOLIDS

Co-digestion has so far been overlooked by Australian WWTPs. This can be partly apportioned to low FiT and a failure of State Government waste management policy to prioritise recycling and resource recovery of biowaste. Higher landfill levies, ambitious

targets for landfill diversion, or total bans on biowaste to landfill has enabled overseas WWTPs to establish themselves as biowaste treatment alternatives. Moreover, overarching mandatory directives (EU Landfill Directive) ensure targets for biodegradable waste treatment are adhered to. Biowaste is the largest component of municipal solid waste sent to landfill at 35% (EPHC, 2010), and approximately 41% of municipal kerbside collected waste is food waste (Sustainability Victoria, 2011).

Technical Papers Environment, 2014b). This methodology qualifies projects that replace deep open anaerobic lagoons with AD reactors (including covered anaerobic lagoons) for bioenergy capture and use.

Figure 2. Landfill levies of all Australian states compared with the UK. (Note: Queensland reduced their landfill levy to zero in 2012/13.) by the Towards Zero Waste Policy has not been met in the lead-up to the 2015 deadline, and sits at 44% (DEPI, 2013). This has led the Victorian government to draw interest to an increase in its landfill levy for biowaste specifically in its newest waste policy (DEPI, 2013). WA and NSW are also lagging behind their targets, although WA’s recent substantial landfill levy increase will assist in funding new treatment infrastructure. A recent analysis by the Blue Environment report suggests more alternative treatment infrastructure for municipal and commercial organic waste is needed (Randell et al., 2014) (see Table 2). Councils have also identified the need for more alternative treatment infrastructure (WSP Environmental, 2013; Metropolitan Waste Management Group, 2009).

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WWTP AD IN AUSTRALIA ONSITE BIOENERGY USE

With such volatile renewable energy policy in Australia there is little likelihood for short-term improvements in the financial support for bioenergy generation. Instead, AD bioenergy is best suited for the offsetting of energy used within the wastewater treatment

process, so WWTPs can become energy neutral. This is especially crucial as energy prices rise and WWTP operators look for ways to minimise energy bills. This niche application still has room for growth, as mothballed small-tomedium sized AD reactors, previously teetering on the threshold of being viable, will be made cost-effective by rising energy costs. Furthermore, WWTPs with decommissioned or nonbioenergy collecting AD reactors could be retrofitted and upgraded. More than half of the AD reactors in use at WWTP in Australia are underutilised, as shown in Figure 3. Within this 13 do not collect any bioenergy and 19 generate heat energy only and flare excess gas generation. RURAL LAGOONS CAPTURE GHG EMISSIONS

The replacement of anaerobic lagoons may also provide additional growth for AD implementation in WWTPs, particularly in rural communities. A prevalent component of many wastewater treatment trains in rural Australia, anaerobic lagoons are set to become eligible for Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU) under a CFI methodology under the Federal Government’s new Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) (Department of the

Table 2. Municipal solid waste resource recovery performance for Australian states (Randell et al., 2014).

BIOSOLIDS

State

Diversion Target

Target Year

Diversion Rate in 2010/11

New South Wales

66%

2014

57%

Queensland

65%

2020

48%

South Australia

65%

2015

61%

Tasmania

Target Not Set

40%

Victoria

65%

2015

44%*

Western Australia

50%

2015

41%

* Revised figure published in (DEPI, 2013).

WATER MAY 2015

Unfortunately, it is unknown exactly how many ACCUs will be purchased by the ERF, and such lagoon replacement projects would have to compete against other carbon offsetting technology in the manufacturing, mining and coal power industries on a purely lowest-cost emissions reduction criterion. However, a project that can add further emission reduction value by exploring innovative uses of the bioenergy generated may have a competitive advantage. For example, a WWTP that replaces a lagoon with AD and upgrades biogas collected to generate transport fuel that runs said WWTP vehicle fleet (a proven technology (Patterson et al., 2011) may add further emission reductions and collect more carbon credits as described under the ERF transport methodology (Department of the Environment, 2014a). CO-DIGESTION

As mentioned previously, co-digesting municipal or commercial biowaste with sludge at WWTP AD reactors has the potential to fill the dearth of organic solid waste treatment infrastructure in Australia. This is because co-digestion provides a new revenue stream in gate fees, increased biogas generation, and increased digester stability due to synergies between the nutrient and chemical characteristics of the two wastes (Iacovidou et al., 2012). AD reactors operating at WWTPs have significant potential to treat biowaste with augmentation to existing reactors or replacing end-of-life reactors. Excess capacity can be found in preexisting digesters treating just sludge, where digesters were built to cater for never eventuating population growth (Krupp et al., 2005), or where excess capacity can be achieved by optimising methanogenesis through co-digestion, the rate limiting step when using sludge as a lone feedstock. The latter is a prime example of the improved performance formed by co-digesting sewage sludge with biowaste. Swift and efficient methanogenesis needs a carbon-tonitrogen ratio of between 12–70, and sewage sludge ranges of from 3.5–7. Adding biowaste supplies more carbon, increasing the ratio (Zhou et al., 2013). Moreover, co-digestion

Technical Papers CONCLUSION

Figure 3. End use of bioenergy generated by WWTP digesters. dilutes potentially inhibitory substances and introduces desirable micronutrients providing further synergistic effects in the hydrolysis, and fermentation phases (Gómez et al., 2006; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2011; Parkin & Owen, 1987; MataAlvarez et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2013). Put simply, biogas co-digestion of sludge and biowaste can increase biogas yield, enhance biosolids stabilisation and quicken biogas production rates, all in all leading to better use of an existing reactor’s capacity and solids retention time (Zupančič et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2004; Parkin & Owen, 1987; Marañón et al., 2012). Co-digestion can also provide opportunities for the use of struvite technology on digester supernatant. AD supernatant is well suited to land application as phosphorous and ammonia are re-solubilised during AD treatment (Münch & Barr, 2001). Struvite formation technology could be added to supernatant treatment to add further value (Shu et al., 2006; Ueno & Fujii, 2001).

Gate fees associated with AD of biowaste is also an issue. Gate fees are difficult to assess although there is some limited publicly available information (Parry, 2014; Parry, 2013; Bolzonella et al., 2006). In Italy, without the selling of excess energy, a pay-back period on codigestion augmentation and pre-treatment investment of 3.5 years was determined for the Viareggio and Treviso plants (Bolzonella et al., 2006). This was with a treatment cost of €50/ton. How the gate fee competes against alternative options for organic waste will also be crucial, especially against more established composting facilities. Another pertinent question is how to amalgamate solid waste management with the current business model of water utilities. Showing that a more valuable biosolids product will be generated, that plant operation costs will be lowered due to offsetting grid energy costs, and that a new, potentially lucrative, revenue stream from tipping fees can be attained provides some robust arguments in favour of integrating co-digestion into a water utilities core business.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible with funding from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) – Office of the Chief Executive Scholarship, and an Australian government postgraduate award.

THE AUTHORS Joel Alexander Edwards (email: s3137258@student. rmit.edu.au) is conducting his PhD investigating alternative treatments for kerbside municipal organic waste at the School of Civil Environmental and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne. Stewart Burn is a Visiting Professor – Manufacturing Flagship CSIRO, at the School of Civil Environmental and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University. Maazuza Othman is Senior Lecturer at the School of Civil Environmental and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University.

REFERENCES BMU (2007): EEG – The Renewable Energy Sources Act – The Success Story of Sustainable Policies for Germany, Bonn. Bolzonella D, Battistoni P & Susini C (2006): Anaerobic Codigestion of Waste Activated Sludge and OFMSW: The Experiences of Viareggio and Treviso Plants (Italy). Water Science & Technology, 53, 8, p 203.

MAY 2015 WATER

BIOSOLIDS

The co-digestion pathway is gaining momentum in Australia’s WWTPs. Yarra Valley Water’s co-digestion proposal for their Aurora site, Sydney Water’s joint research with the Office of Environment and Heritage and SA Water’s fullscale trials of high-strength organic wastes provide three clear examples. Furthermore, a recent survey of WWTP operators showed that the anaerobic codigestion of alternative organic wastes with sewage sludge was the highest prioritised resource recovery option, ahead of other such items as biosolids improvement and phosphorus recovery (Burn et al., 2014).

Like all new ventures there are some barriers to co-digestion. For example, EPA guidelines in Victoria from the new Energy from Waste Guidelines, suggest any biosolids generated from co-digestion operations will be considered as a prescribed industry waste until proven otherwise. NSW and Queensland apply compost guidelines to biosolids from AD treating purely biowaste. This is not necessarily crippling for a WWTP AD codigestion operation, yet time and effort is required in order to prove digestate is safe for a higher end use, and with no guidelines the process would be costly.

Australian AD policy, when compared to a number of overseas nations, has weak support for bioenergy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting carbon sequestration in digested biosolids. This stems principally from its turbulent and inconsistent renewable energy and climate change policies, and provides a tough environment for the growth of AD technology in Australia. However, WWTP AD systems seemingly operate in a niche that enables them to utilise LGCs, offset their current energy costs, and potentially help treat solid municipal and commercial biowastes through anaerobic co-digestion, while expanding revenue and further decreasing energy costs. Moreover, future policy developments will assist rural WWTPs replace old lagoon treatment systems with AD and allow them access to ACCUs.

Technical Papers Available at: www.iwaponline.com/wst/05308/ wst053080203.htm [Accessed August 25, 2014]. Braun R & Wellinger A (2009): Potential of Codigestion, Tulin. Available at: www.iea-biogas.net/ files/daten-redaktion/download/publi-task37/ Potential of Codigestion short Brosch221203.pdf. Burn S, Muster T, Kaksonen A & Tjandraatmadja G (2014): Resource Recovery from Wastewater, Alexandria, Water Environment Research Foundation. Department of the Environment (2014a): Draft Explanatory Statement – Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Methodology (Transport) Determination 2014, Canberra. Available at: www.environment.gov.au/system/ files/pages/a6d1ee7d-2e4d-42b2-b9c843a5564c2302/files/transport-explanatorystatement.pdf. Department of the Environment (2014b): Exposure Draft: Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Methodology (Domestic, Commercial and Industrial Wastewater) Determination 2014, Canberra. Available at: www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ a6d1ee7d-2e4d-42b2-b9c8-43a5564c2302/files/ waste-water-determination.pdf. DEPI (2013): Getting Full Value: The Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, Melbourne. Available at: www.depi.vic.gov. au/environment-and-wildlife/sustainability/ waste-management-and-resourcerecovery/?a=182537. Edwards J, Othman M & Burn S (2014): Universal Policy Drivers and Barriers for the Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organic Waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, SUBMITTED. EPHC (2010): National Waste Report 2010, Canberra. Available at: www.scew.gov.au/ system/files/resources/020c2577-eac9-0494493c-d1ce2b4442e5/files/wastemgt-nat-wastereport-final-20-fullreport-201005-0.pdf. Gómez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J, Moran A & Garcia AI (2006): Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Primary Sludge and the Fruit and Vegetable Fraction of the Municipal Solid Wastes. Renewable Energy, 31, 12, pp 2017–2024. Available at: linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148105002892 [Accessed July 16, 2014]. Iacovidou E, Ohandja D-G & Voulvoulis N (2012): Food Waste Co-Digestion With sewage sludge--realising its potential in the UK. Journal of environmental management, 112, pp.267–74. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/22940124 [Accessed April 29, 2014].

BIOSOLIDS

IEA (2011): Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Denmark, Paris: International Energy Agency. Available at: www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/Denmark2011_ unsecured.pdf. Kim H-W, Han SK & Shin HS (2004): Anaerobic Co-digestion of Sewage Sludge and Food Waste Using Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion Process. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 50, 9, pp 107–14. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/21592783.

WATER MAY 2015

Kim H-W, Nam J-Y & Shin H-S (2011): A Comparison Study on the High-Rate Codigestion of Sewage Sludge and Food Waste Using a Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor System. Bioresource Technology, 102, 15, pp 7272–7279. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21600764 [Accessed March 26, 2014]. Krupp M, Schubert J & Widmann R (2005): Feasibility Study for Co-digestion of Sewage Sludge with OFMSW on Two Wastewater Treatment Plants in Germany. Waste Management (New York, NY), 25, 4, pp 393–399. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/15869982 [Accessed August 25, 2014]. Lal R (2005): Forest Soils and Carbon Sequestration. Forest Ecology and Management, 220, 1–3, pp 242–258. Available at: linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0378112705004834 [Accessed July 11, 2014]. Marañón E, Castrillon L, Quiroga G, FernandezNava Y, Gómez L & Garcia M (2012): Codigestion of Cattle Manure with Food Waste and Sludge to Increase Biogas Production. Waste Management (New York, NY), 32, 10, pp 1821–1825. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/22743289 [Accessed January 21, 2014]. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Mace S & Astals S (2011): Codigestion of Solid Wastes: A Review of its Uses and Perspectives Including Modeling. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 31, 2, pp 99–111. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/21351815 [Accessed April 3, 2014]. Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S & Llabres P (2000): Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Wastes. An Overview of Research Achievements and Perspectives. Bioresource Technology, 74, pp 3–16. Metropolitan Waste Management Group (2009): Metropolitan Waste and Recovery Strategic PLan: Part 2 – Municipal Solid Waste Infrastructure Schedule, Melbourne. Available at: www.mwmg.vic.gov.au/images/documents/ about/Part_2.pdf. Münch EV & Barr K (2001): Controlled Struvite Crystallisation for Removing Phosphorus From Anaerobic Digester Sidestreams. Water Research, 35, 1, pp 151–159. Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0043135400002360 [Accessed January 29, 2015]. Parkin BGF & Owen WF (1987): Fundamentals of Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Sludges, 112, 5, pp 867–920. Parry DL (2014): Co-Digestion of Organic Waste Products with Wastewater Solids, International Water Association; Water Environment Research Foundation. Available at: www.iwaponline.com/wio/2014/pdf/ wio2014WF9781780405384.pdf. Parry DL (2013): Improving Economics. BioCycle, April. Patterson T, Esteves S, Dinsdale R & Guwy A (2011): An Evaluation of the Policy and TechnoEconomic Factors Affecting the Potential for Biogas Upgrading for Transport Fuel Use in the UK. Energy Policy, 39, 3, pp 1806–1816. Available at: linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/

pii/S0301421511000279 [Accessed June 13, 2014]. Pollution Solutions and Design (2012): Biosolids Snapshot, Alice Springs. Available at: www.environment.gov.au/system/ files/resources/2e8c76c3-0688-47ef-a4255c89dffc9e04/files/biosolids-snapshot.pdf. Randell P, Pickin J & Grant B (2014): Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia, Melbourne. Available at: www.environment.gov. au/resource/waste-generation-and-resourcerecovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks. Sharpe F (2014): Weapons of Gas Reduction (Greenhouse Gas, That Is). Ecogeneration, 84, pp 43–46. Shu L, Schneider P, Jegatheesan V & Johnson J (2006): An Economic Evaluation of Phosphorus Recovery As Struvite From Digester Supernatant. Bioresource Technology, 97, 17, pp 2211–2216. Available at: www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0960852405005304 [Accessed February 10, 2015]. Spargo J, Alley M, Follett R, Wallace J (2008): Soil Carbon Sequestration with Continuous No-Till Management of Grain Cropping Systems in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Soil and Tillage Research, 100, 1–2, pp 133–140. Available at: linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167198708000895 [Accessed October 10, 2014]. Sustainability Victoria (2011): Victorian Local Government Annual Survey, Melbourne. Available at: www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/ media/resources/documents/publications and research/publications/a - b/publications annual survey 2010-11 report victorian local government.pdf. Ueno Y & Fujii M (2001): Three Years Experience of Operating and Selling Recovered Struvite From Full-Scale Plant. Environmental Technology, 22, 11, pp 1373–1381. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11804359 [Accessed January 13, 2015]. Watson D (2013) Municipal Waste Management in the United Kingdom, Copenhagen. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managingmunicipal-solid-waste/united-kingdommunicipal-waste-management. WSP Environmental (2013): Investigation into the Performance (Environmental and Health) of Waste to Energy Technologies Internationally, Perth. Zhou P, Elbeshbishy E & Nakhla G (2013): Optimisation of Biological Hydrogen Production for Anaerobic Co-digestion of Food Waste and Wastewater Biosolids. Bioresource Technology, 130, pp 710–718. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/23334031 [Accessed March 20, 2014]. Zupančič GD, Uranjek-Ževart N & Roš M (2008): Full-Scale Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Organic Waste and Municipal Sludge. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 2, pp 162–167. Available at: linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0961953407001341 [Accessed July 29, 2014].

water Business

WATER BUSINESS HOW TO REMOVE STRUVITE AND PRODUCE FERTILISER New to the Australian market is a technology capable of creating a by-product phosphate fertiliser for sale, simply by removing struvite and reducing phosphate in sewage treatment plants. The technology, called AirPrex®, is an advanced struvite removal and biosolids enhancement process by German cleanteq group CNP. It is now available in Australia and New Zealand via water and wastewater treatment expert Hydroflux. AirPrex® can remove struvite for fertiliser, but also reduce phosphorus load returned to the plant by 90 per cent. This improves sludge dewatering performance, reduces polymer consumption, creates higher cake solids and reduces a plant’s overall operational expenditure. “This technology is ideal for municipal sewage treatment plants as it can reduce operational expenditure by removing struvite, which can block pipes and cause expensive mechanical issues. All without increasing chemical use,” said John Koumoukelis, Director of Hydroflux. “The by-product fertiliser can be sold or offered to industry or community for use, creating another opportunity for councils to support their local area.” CNP G.m.b.H of Germany have several AirPrex® installations throughout Europe. The technology is most applicable for sewage treatment plants with equivalent population loadings from 50,000 through to 1.5 million. For more information please go to www.hydrofluxhuber.com.au.

EDUR DAF PUMP SAVES CAPITAL COST, ENERGY AND MAINTENANCE COSTS A single DAF Pump is said to be able to replace the entire air bubble system on DAF (Dissolved Air Floatation) plants, according to pump supplier, Hydro Innovations. Their Edur® “Multiphase” pumps draw in air through a “snorkel” in the suction line, sheer the air, then feed it into the DAF plant, producing a discharge stream into the tank that is saturated with 30 to 50 micron air bubbles. Conventional DAF systems normally consist of a wastewater tank, compressor, air saturation vessel and effluent pump. The effluent pump draws effluent from the tank and pumps it into the air separation vessel. A compressor pumps air into this same vessel. The air/water mixture is “saturated” under pressure, then released back into the wastewater tank at atmospheric pressure where tiny bubbles form and adhere to the suspended matter (fats, oils and other small wastewater particles). The bubbles, with their attached suspended matter, float to the surface of the tank, where floatables can be skimmed off the surface. By using Edur® Multiphase pumps, which can produce their own microbubbles, asset owners can do away with the compressor, the air saturation vessel and any control and/or ancillary components for these items. The reduction of these system components, and the simplification of the system design, results in lower investment costs and higher operational reliability. The Edur® Multiphase (DAF) pump is also an efficient alternative. Now, one pump can replace the conventional pump, air saturation tank, and the compressor. Energy costs (as well as maintenance costs) of running the compressor are eliminated. Luft Air

The smallest of the Edur ‘Multiphase’ range. Edur® multiphase pumps can deliver flows from 1 l/s for smaller DAF plants to 15 l/s for larger DAF plants, and produce pressures to 12 Bar. A variety of materials and seal arrangements enable Edur pumps to operate in a wide range of applications. Available materials include ductile iron, “gunmetal” bronze, stainless steel and super duplex. Mechanical seals are available as balanced, double and tandem. For more information please email info@hydroinnovations.com.au or phone 02 9898 1800.

MCBERNS STRENGTHENS PRESENCE IN NSW Due to changes in its distribution arrangements, McBerns will now have a stronger presence in New South Wales. The company has been operating in Queensland for the past 23 years and has become a leader in the design and manufacture of Odour Control Filter Units and 4-Side Void Protection Safety Access Covers. McBerns’ Engineering and Operations team has over 100 years of water industry experience collectively and is capable of providing technical expertise and support in odour management. McBerns is also able to design and manufacture a wide range of safety access covers for the water/ wastewater industry and private sector. Luft Air

Zulauf Schmutzwasser Inflow Waste-water

Kompressor Compressor

Lösestrecke Solution Line Lösestrecke Solution Line Standardpumpe Standard pump

Flotat Flotate

Feststoffe Solids

Ablauf Effluent

EDUR Mehrphasenpumpe EDUR multiphase pump

Schematic of the Edur® Multiphase pump.

MAY 2015 water

Water Business the new system, which is expected to exceed the plant’s high energy needs and will feed through to the surrounding local communities and Council buildings. Infratech Industries Director Felicia Whiting said the benefits extend beyond energy efficiencies to improve the treatment plant’s water quality and create nearly 70 new jobs for the local community as a result of the project.

McBerns has recently released industrial size odour control units; the ZC4000 can process and treat extreme levels of H2S in excess of 1000ppm and airflows over 200l/s. The units are modular, portable and selfcontained within a small footprint. The McBerns Safety Access Covers provide a significant improvement in worker and public safety when access covers are in the open position. The built-in 4-side void protection makes it easy and quick to have a complete safety barrier around any open pit. All lids are custom designed and manufactured in Queensland and meet Australian/NZ standards. McBerns now distributes directly into New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory, and overseas into New Zealand, the UK, US and Asia. McBerns will be visiting customers in NSW over the next few months. If you have any McBerns products, particularly odour filters, that need servicing or media replacement, or you wish to consult with McBerns regarding odour management or access cover design, please call 07 5445 1646. For more information visit www.mcberns.com

GROUND-BREAKING FLOATING SOLAR TECHNOLOGY LAUNCHES IN AUSTRALIA Infratech Industries has launched Australia’s first floating solar system, which will generate an estimated 57 per cent more power than fixed land-based systems. The proprietary tracking, cooling and concentrating technology uses water to counteract the gradual loss of output caused by overheating solar panels to create a better performing and more efficient system. Based in South Australia’s Jamestown, the Northern Areas Council Waste Water Treatment Plant is the first to implement

water MAY 2015

“Blue-green algae is a major concern for wastewater treatment plants and the shade produced by the floating solar panels combats this problem by limiting the photosynthesis process. The energy goes into the panels, not the water, so the surface stays cool, which helps to lift the quality of treated wastewater,” she said. “On a broader scale, the technology is suitable for any body of water, including drinking water and moving water bodies such as lakes. Since it reduces evaporation by up to 90 per cent, it can have a powerful saving for areas affected by drought and dry climate such as Australia, California, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines,” she said. The Northern Areas Council will reap additional economic benefits with a cost saving of approximately 15 per cent on their current energy expenditure, plus an additional one per cent margin on the excess energy provided to the local community. More than 15 Australian engineers and research scientists in the Nano Science and Technology Department in Adelaide’s Flinders University were involved in the project’s technological and engineering development. The development team will remain involved as research and development continues into integrated water treatment, phosphorus treatment systems and energy storage.

Jon Dee, Australia’s leading expert in energy efficiency and co-founder of the Planet Ark and DoSomething organisations, has applauded the innovation and leadership of Infratech Industries.  “Solar PV panels currently generate renewable electricity on more than 1.36 million Australian rooftops, so we’ve more than shown our acceptance of solar technology,” said Dee. “However, many people want to see more solar innovation being undertaken in Australia by local companies, in a way that helps the environment and generates local jobs at the same time. “The development of Australianowned, researched and developed floating solar is to be applauded as it shows that Australian companies can be leaders in the transition to economies that are powered by increasing amounts of renewable energy. In addition to reducing greenhouse emissions, there is also strong potential to export this technology to other countries, which can only lead to even more jobs.” As such a major milestone in the renewable energy movement, Whiting expects a national and international spotlight will be focused on Jamestown with visiting ambassadors from South East Asia, France and the Hon. Minister Ian Hunter MLC for Climate Change attending the launch, with key members of the SA Cabinet having already visited the site. “Just how strong Australia's post2020 emissions reduction targets remains unknown, however we do know solar innovation is a milestone towards Australian councils, communities and businesses making a difference. As Australians evangelise this type of technology, it is our hope that renewable energy becomes the mainstream rather than niche solution. Change is not beyond us and this is definitely a strong step forward,” Whiting said.

water Business VICTAULIC TEAMS UP WITH PIHA TO IMPROVE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION Victaulic has joined forces with Australia's largest multi-disciplinary pipeline construction company, PIHA, to refine the process of HDPE-lined steel pipelines that will reduce operating costs and open up long-term growth opportunities. PIHA is now offering their HDPE Tight Fit lined steel pipe with grooved ends compatible with Victaulic original and advanced groove couplings. HDPE lined steel pipe provides the corrosion protection and lengthened life of system typically gained from HDPE pipe while increasing the strength, durability and pressure rating of the system. The grooved HDPE Tight Fit lined pipe is complemented by a range of Victaulic couplings that can be specified based on the needs of the project, making it the ideal solution for a range of applications including slurry/tailings, natural gas, water injection systems, water disposal systems, crude oil, sour and wet gas, carbon dioxide production and injection. Victaulic rigid couplings produce a joint with the same performance characteristics of a flange, but offer additional benefits to the initial installation, future system maintenance and overall project costs. “Victaulic is proud to work with PIHA, who have a first class reputation for delivering top-quality piping solutions,” said David Sharkey, Vice President Victaulic Australia, New Zealand, and South East Asia. “Victaulic is focused on providing innovative solutions that customers need to get ahead. The grooved-end HDPE-lined steel solution does just that – helping our customers meet and exceed their schedules while reducing overall installation costs.” Now more than ever industries across Australia are attempting to reduce operational costs to maintain a competitive position in the export of minerals and commodities. Pipeline construction is one area that can greatly contribute to a reduction in the total cost of ownership. Costs of pipeline installation come from two factors – materials and assembly. While material costs only slightly vary based on raw material costs, assembly costs can vary greatly based on the installation method chosen. Victaulic coupling installation is up to five times faster than traditional flanged joints by easing installation and reducing the amount of material handled, resulting in overall time and cost savings during pipeline assembly.

For example, a 14”/350mm flanged joint can require up to 16 bolts and nuts to be installed, while a Victaulic coupling only requires 2 – cutting the on-site assembly time alone by 80 per cent while reducing the numbers of hands needed on-site to install. When factoring in the pipe end preparation required to weld on flanges and additional risk factors, such as bolthole alignment issues, cost savings through the use of Victaulic add up. The use of Victaulic couplings on PIHA’s HDPE Tight Fit lined pipe can also offer a more streamlined method for pipeline rotation that requires minimal system downtime, minimal on-site labour and increased safety. Unlike flanged joints, which must be fully disassembled before rotation of the pipe, Victaulic couplings can be loosened and pipes rotated within the joint without having to remove the bolts and nuts. This completely eliminates the bolthole realignment issues

commonly found with flanged joints. The unique 360 degrees of rotation inherent with the Victaulic system can be worked into a tailing management plan to significantly increase the lifetime of a system while reducing the impact of regular maintenance operations, getting the system back up and running faster.

HYDROVAR®, the modern variable speed pump drive is taking pumping to a new level of flexibility and efficiency. Call us today to discuss your applications requirements.

Ph: 1300 4 BBENG www.brownbros.com.au DELIVERING PUMPING SOLUTIONS

MAY 2015 water

Water Business of Technology in the Netherlands and developed in a unique public-private partnership between the University, the Dutch Foundation for Applied Water Research (STOWA), the Dutch Water Boards and Royal HaskoningDHV. Worldwide, there are dozens of plants in operation and under construction, including in Brazil, Australia and in South Africa’s Gansbaai and Wemmershoek.

The Victaulic method for mechanically joining pipe has been used successfully for over 95 years simplifying design, installation, and operation of piping systems. When used together with PIHA’s grooved-end HDPE Tight Fit lined steel pipe, the complete system provides a fast, easy bolted connection and requires minimal fabrication. It combines the advantages of fast installation, design integrity and reliable operation. The pipes are prefabricated at PIHA’s warehouse in Perth and shipped together with couplings, or can also be grooved and lined on-site, depending on the project size and requirements. For more information visit www.victaulic.com

ROYAL HASKONINGDHV’S NEREDA® TECHNOLOGY TO BE DEPLOYED IN THIRD SOUTH AFRICAN WTP International engineering and project management consultancy Royal HaskoningDHV’s wastewater treatment technology Nereda® is being implemented at the Hartebeestfontein Wastewater Treatment Works. Johannesburg-based WEC Projects won the tender issued by East Rand Water Care Association (ERWAT) aimed at improving the capacity of the Hartebeestfontein WWTW by 5ML/day. Nereda is a new aerobic granular sludge technology that purifies wastewater by controlling the growth and formation of microorganisms. The technology was invented by the Delft University

water MAY 2015

Graham Hartlett, Sales and Marketing Manager of WEC Projects said: “When this project came out on tender, we immediately recognised that it would be an excellent match for the Nereda technology. The advantages of being able to use the existing infrastructure added much value to the client. Nereda technology can be deployed on a smaller footprint. Capital and operational costs are also big factors to consider.” According to the Nereda Global Director, Rene Noppeney: “The technology represents the next level in the evolution of water treatment technology. Aerobic granule treatment is the next technology and is here to stay. The great benefit of Nereda is that it is proven in practice, also in South Africa. It requires less spaces and resources, uses much less energy and involves no chemicals. The first implementation of Nereda in Gauteng is the perfect opportunity to showcase this award-winning technology and WEC Projects is excited at the prospect.”

HACH LAUNCHES 5500SC AMMONIA MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYSER Hach is introducing an important and innovative new technology for the water industry, the 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyser. The 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyser offers a reliable, easy-to-operate and low-maintenance solution to allow chloraminating water treatment facilities to continuously monitor their chlorine to

ammonia ratio on-line and assure there is no free ammonia in the system that could lead to nitrification. Continuous on-line monitoring with the 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyser provides a more accurate and complete picture of the chloramination process, giving operators all the information they need to eliminate nitrification events and taste and odour issues. The analyser is easy to use, featuring a user-friendly interface, simple troubleshooting menu and color-coded reagent bottles. “Hach has been a front runner in this space for 15 years and we’ve learned a lot from our customers. We’ve taken our proven, existing measurement methodology and improved every aspect of the user experience,” says Jeff Stock, Global Product Manager for Disinfection at Hach Company. At-a-glance status lights are a convenient indicator that the instrument is up and running. PROGNOSYS, the analyser’s onboard predictive diagnostic software, provides early insight into the measurement reliability and service requirements of the instrument. The dual colorimeter design leads to faster results, while the state-ofthe-art pressurised reagent delivery system eliminates the hassles associated with standard pumps. With the 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyser, it has never been easier to monitor your chloramination process online. For more information on Hach’s chloramination control solutions, visit www.hachpacific.com.au or call 1300 887 735.

The new force in PE

Zetco is an ISO9001 certifiedÂ company.

Quality ISO 9001

CHLORAMINATION MADE EASY. ! W NE

The NEW Hach 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyzer provides all the information you need to eliminate nitrification events; and taste and odor issues. With PROGNOSYS, the analyzerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s onboard predictive diagnostic software, you will have early insight into the measurement reliability and service requirements of your instruments.