510 Q IWA Publishing 2010 Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.

3 | 2010

2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy: a

portfolio of decentralised and on-site concept designs
V. Brown, D. W. Jackson and M. Khalife

ABSTRACT

The bulk and retail water companies of the greater Melbourne area are developing the 2009 V. Brown
Formerly Melbourne Water Corporation,
Metropolitan Sewerage Strategy to provide sustainable sewerage services to 2060. The objective PO Box 4342,
Melbourne, Vic 3001,
of the strategy is to establish long term principles and near term actions to produce a robust Australia
sewage management system for Melbourne. Melbournes existing sewerage system is largely E-mail: vicki.brown@melbournewater.com.au

centralised and discharges to two major treatment plants. Several small satellite treatment plants D. W. Jackson (corresponding author)
MWH Australia,
service local urban areas generally more distant from the centralised system. Decentralised and 150 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne, Vic 3000,
on-site wastewater systems are options for future sewage management and could play a role Australia
in local recycling. A portfolio of 18 on-site and decentralised concept designs was developed, E-mail: darryl.jackson@mwhglobal.com

applicable to the full range of urban development types in Melbourne. The concepts can be M. Khalife
Formerly MWH Australia,
used in evaluation of metropolitan system configurations as part of future integrated water cycle Melbourne,
Australia
planning. The options included secondary and tertiary treatment systems incorporating re-use of E-mail: mohsen_khalife@yahoo.com.au
water for non potable uses, urine separation, black and greywater separation and composting
toilets. On-site and cluster treatment systems were analysed. Each option is described by its
indicative capital and operating costs, energy use and water and nutrient balances. This paper
summarises and compares the portfolio mix of decentralized and on-site options in Melbournes
context.
Key words | cluster, decentralised, on-site, split system, urine separation, wastewater

CONTEXT OF STUDY

Melbourne is one of Australias major cities. The Greater
Melbourne area has a population of approximately 3.9
million. Melbourne has a temperate climate with an average
rainfall of 650 mm, mostly falling in the winter and spring
months. Mean daily temperature ranges are 148C to 268C in
summer ( January/February) and 68C to 138C in winter
( June/July).
The bulk and retail water companies of the greater
Melbourne area are developing the 2009 Metropolitan
Sewerage Strategy to provide sustainable sewerage services
to 2060. This strategy is responding to: uncertainty in future
sewage production; uncertainty about future sewage reuse,
and the need to prepare for integrated water cycle planning.
The objective of the strategy is to establish long term
doi: 10.2166/wst.2010.296
principles and near term actions to produce a robust sewage
management system for Melbourne.
Melbournes existing sewerage system is largely
centralised. About ninety percent of Melbournes sewage
discharges to two major treatment plants. Several small
satellite treatment plants service local urban areas generally
more distant from the centralised system. Decentralised and
on-site wastewater systems are options for future sewage
management and could play a role in local recycling.
Although the technologies for decentralised and on-site
wastewater systems are considered proven, their use is
currently rare in Melbourne.
This paper outlines the portfolio of 18 decentralised and
on-site wastewater options analysed and compares their
 511 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010

indicative capital and operating costs, energy use and water
and nutrient balances. The concept designs are available
for use by the bulk and retail water companies of Greater
Melbourne for evaluating combinations of centralised,
decentralised and on-site options as part of future integrated
water planning. Further detailed description and analysis
of these options are found in MWH (2009).
assisted in selecting and screening these identified concepts
for Stage 2.
Stage 2 (the subject of this paper) developed quantitat-
ive engineering concept designs of the adopted concepts
from Stage 1. Their water and key nutrient balances and
their costs were also determined.

OPTIONS

Table 1 summarises the 18 options developed. All options

PROCESS
A two stage approach was used to develop the portfolio.
Stage 1 tapped into national and international networks
and literature on decentralised wastewater systems and
innovations in sewage management. A range of high level
qualitative concepts applicable to the range of urban
development types were identified (Institute for Sustainable
Futures 2008; Sustainable Solutions International 2008;
Whitehead and Associates 2008; MACH Systems 2009).
A workshop comprising national, international and metro-
politan technical experts and water industry personnel
meet Australian public health and environmental require-
ments and are assumed to be managed by qualified service
providers. Well established and tested treatment and
collection systems were used in the concepts. Treatment
systems were designed to deliver fit-for-purpose recycled
water for each option.
The options were designed to serve a range of urban
development types. These include greenfield, brownfield
and renewal housing developments, activity centre redeve-
lopments (high density multi-storey dwelling units), and
established sewered areas that allow for retrofitting of

Table 1 | Summary of options and development type

Urban development type Option No. Description

Option 1 On-site, tertiary treatment

Option 2 On-site, tertiary treatment & urine separation
Option 3 On-site, tertiary treatment & dry composting toilet
Greenfield/Brownfield Option 4 Cluster, secondary treatment & on-site dry composting toilet
Option 4 W Cluster, secondary treatment & on-site wet composting treatment unit
Option 5 Cluster, tertiary treatment
Option 6 Cluster, tertiary treatment & urine separation
Option 7 On-site, existing dwelling & secondary treatment
Option 8 On-site, existing dwelling, secondary treatment & urine separation
Existing Dwellings in Option 9 On-site, existing dwelling, tertiary treatment & dry composting toilet
Unsewered Towns
Option 10 Cluster, existing dwelling, secondary treatment & on-site dry composting toilet
Option 10 W Cluster, existing dwelling, secondary treatment & on-site wet composting treatment unit
Dwelling Renewals Option 12 On-site, existing dwelling & tertiary treatment
Established Option 11 Cluster, sewer mining & tertiary treatment
Sewered Option 13 Cluster, sewer mining & secondary treatment
Area Option 14 Cluster, sewer mining & tertiary treatment for Indirect Potable Reuse
Activity Centre Option 15 Activity centre redevelopment & tertiary treatment
Redevelopment Option 16 Activity centre redevelopment, tertiary treatment & urine separation
 512 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy
plumbing where appropriate and use of the existing sewer
system (Options 11, 13 and 14).
In this paper, sewer mining (used in Options 11, 13 and
14) involves extracting raw sewage from an existing sewer
and treating it at the cluster site. The sewer mining
treatment plant site is adjacent to the sewer main. The
recycled water from the plant can be used either on public
open spaces or in-house, depending on its quality. Any
product not used (e.g. sludge) is returned to the sewer.
Tables 2 and 3 present more details of the options with
on-site (household) scale treatment and cluster scale
treatment, respectively. For this analysis, a cluster treatment
plant serves 50 houses in all urban development types
except activity centres where 100 units are served. Some
options (e.g. Options 4 and 10) have both on-site and
Table 2 | Options with on-site (household) scale treatment
Option No Waste stream treated on-site
1, 12 All sewage from house
2 All sewage from house
except urine
3, 9 Greywaterp Non-water flushing
toilet products
4, 10 Non-water-flushing toilet
products (excreta and urine)
4 W, 10 W Water-flushing toilet (water and Wet composting treatment
urine) and kitchen sink water Other wastewaters to cluster system
6 Urine
7 All sewage from house
8 All sewage from house
except urine
Definition of greywater is in accordance with AS1547:2000 i.e. all domestic wastewaters (including kitchen sink liquid wastes) but excluding blackwater. Blackwater is toilet wastewater.
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010
cluster scale treatment elements and thus are shown in both
Table 2 and Table 3.
In this study, flows and mass balances for two different
but plausible scenarios reflecting a range of assumed social,
technological and environmental trends were assessed over
the study period (MWH 2009). Data presented below are
based on one of the scenarios of flows and loads in Year
2060. In the scenario, in-house fixture water use is assumed
to decrease over the next 50 years as a result of a plausible
increase in water efficiency of fixtures.
Irrigation areas were determined, as outlined in AS/NZ
1547 (2000), based on hydraulic loading rates for the
various soil types. Anticipated nutrient loadings and plant
uptake rates similar to those outlined in EPA Victoria
(1991) and Crites & Tchobanoglous (1998) were adopted.
Reuse of effluent or other products from
Treatment description on-site treatment units
Tertiary treatment using Recirculating Reed In-house cold water washing machine
Textile Bed Reactors with additional polishing inlet, toilet flushing & car washing
at home
Household garden/lawn irrigation
As Option 1 In-house cold water washing machine
Urine stored on-lot in tank inlet, toilet flushing & car washing
at home
Household garden/lawn irrigation
Urine transported to remote
commercial farm site
Tertiary treatment using Recirculating Reed In-house cold water washing machine
Textile Bed Reactors with additional polishing inlet, toilet flushing & car washing
Dry composting toilet vault urine leached at home
to ground Compost from dry toilet used in home
garden
Dry composting toilet vault urine leached Compost from dry toilet used in home
to ground (Greywater to cluster system) garden
Effluent from on-site unit used for
on-site irrigation or lawns and gardens
by sub-surface irrigation
Urine stored on-lot in tank (All other Urine transported to remote
wastewaters to cluster system) commercial farm site
Secondary treatment using Recirculating On-site subsurface irrigation of lawns
Reed Textile Bed Reactors and gardens
As Option 7 On-site subsurface irrigation of lawns
Urine stored on-lot in tank and gardens
Urine transported to remote
commercial farm site
 513 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy
Table 3 | Options with cluster scale treatment
Waste stream treated in
Option No cluster scale treatment units
4, 4 W, Greywater See Note 1
10, 10 W
5, 15 All blackwater and greywater
6, 16 All blackwater and greywater
excluding urine
11 All sewage
13 All sewage
14 All sewage
These irrigation areas were calculated based on the remain-
ing volume of recycled water after in-house use and other
uses as applicable for each option. Tables 2 and 3 show
where irrigation of the recycled water may be required.
Tertiary treatment provides a high quality effluent
suitable for non potable uses inside the house for toilet
flushing and cold water inlet to washing machines in
accordance with Australian regulations. Secondary treat-
ment is deemed suitable for on-site sub-surface irrigation.
Dry composting toilets refer to waterless units used for the
collection of human faeces and urine. Wet composting
toilets use normal water flushing toilets but utilise a
compost and vermiculture medium. Cluster systems gener-
ally adopted a variation of Septic Tank Effluent Pressure/
Gravity (STEP/STEG) system for collection of primary
treated wastewater to the cluster treatment unit. Indirect
potable reuse (in Option 14) allows for advanced treatment
- micro filtration or reverse osmosis - before release to an
environmental buffer or raw water storage and then to
additional water treatment.
Treatment selection was based on a literature review
(O Brien 2005; Landcom 2006; Scholes 2006) and a rapid
market survey of technology suppliers. On-site and cluster
treatment units are generally based on Recirculating Textile
Bed Reactors as manufactured by Orenco Systems Inc.
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010
Reuse of effluent or other products from cluster
Treatment description treatment unit
Secondary treatment using Recirculating Public open space sub-surface irrigation
Reed Textile Bed Reactors with disinfection
Tertiary treatment using Recirculating Public open space irrigation
Reed Textile Bed Reactors with additional In-house cold water washing machine
polishing inlet, toilet flushing & car washing at
home (via third pipe from cluster unit
to houses)
As per Option 5 As per Option 5
Urine transported from on-site storage
tanks to remote commercial farm site
As per Option 5 As per Option 5
Secondary treatment using Recirculating Public open space sub-surface irrigation
Reed Textile Bed Reactors with disinfection
Tertiary treatment using Recirculating Effluent released to an environmental
Reed Textile Bed Reactors with additional buffer/raw water storage for further
polishing water treatment as part of an indirect
potable reuse scheme
In those cases where the effluent quality from this system by
itself was deemed inadequate to meet strict health standards
(e.g. those which have in-house non-potable use or above
ground irrigation of private or public spaces), additional
membrane filtration and disinfection was included as noted
in Tables 2 and 3.
Urine separation systems have an on-site urine collec-
tion tank. Collection of this urine is assumed to be via a
dedicated road tanker which transports the urine at regular
intervals to a farm for storage and on-farm application. This
is in in-line with the practice used elsewhere (Johansson
et al. 2000). Further detail pertaining to the implementation,
efficacy, health and effects of urine application as a fertilizer
are beyond the scope of this paper.
FINDINGS
Presentation of data
Following design, each option was analysed to provide
information on: life span of system elements, estimated
capital and operating costs, periodic maintenance and
operation costs, energy use, residuals, water and nutrient
budgets, and water reuse potential.
 514 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy
Characteristics reported in this paper are: capital costs,
operating costs, water recycling and savings, nutrient
recovery and energy use. A comparison of the 18 options
is given for each of these factors. Other factors being
considered in the strategy development are related to the
existing physical infrastructure and geographical growth
patterns. Capital and operating costs for cluster systems
include the cluster collection system and return (third pipe)
system from the cluster treatment unit to the households.
Costs are presented on a per household basis inclusive
of the Australian Goods and Services Tax. The data is
presented in Australia Dollars (AUD). At the time of writing
(July 2009) the exchange rate was AUD 1 USD 0.78.
Capital cost
Cluster system costs were reduced to a cost per household
for comparative purposes. Figure 1 presents the capital
costs per household for the options.
It shows:
Options with split systems (those designed to collect and
treat separate wastewater streams as opposed to com-
bined wastewater systems) using dry composting toilets
and on-site or cluster greywater treatment (Options 3, 4, 9
and 10) have the highest capital costs of the options. This
is largely due to the high cost of the dry composting toilet
installation in Australian contexts for single dwellings.
This high cost is related to the need to have about 1.5 m
below the toilet pedestal for regular access to the vault.
Options with split systems using on-site wet composting
systems and cluster greywater treatment (Options 4 W
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13
Option no.
Figure 1 | Capital cost per household in AUD.
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010
and 10 W) are about AUD10,000/household lower in
capital cost than the equivalent dry composting options
(Options 4 and 10).
Options with an individual on-site urine storage tank
(Options 2, 6, 8 & 16) have capital costs about 25%
higher than equivalent options without urine separation.
The increased cost is mainly due to the provision of an
individual urine storage tank at each household. For
activity centres (Options 15 and 16) the increase is only
about AUD 1,000/household as only one urine tank is
provided at each activity centre thus achieving econom-
ies of scale.
Options with cluster treatment systems have capital costs
approximately 25% lower than comparable on-site
systems (e.g. Options 1 and 5, Options 2 and 6).
Cluster sewer mining options and activity centre options
have significantly lower capital costs compared with the
other options. These options do not require new sewer
pipes and allow for extraction from existing sewers in
cluster options, and account for in-house plumbing only
in multi-storey buildings.
The cost of Option 14 may not be indicative of the total
cost associated with this option. The reported cost excludes
those costs downstream of the cluster wastewater treatment
unit that interface with centralised potable water systems
including transfer costs to the necessary environmental
buffer or raw water storage and further water treatment.
These cost exclusions were necessary as the comparison is
intended to be made on the common components only.
Operating and asset renewal costs
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are based on
energy usage, regular maintenance and operational service
agreements. Asset renewal costs are based on asset lives of
components of the system and current replacement value.
Figure 2 summaries these costs per household per year for the
options. It is concluded that total costs per household are:
significantly lower for cluster options than for on-site
options (Options 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 12), and
14 15 16
significantly higher for wet composting systems (Options
4 W and 10 W) than for dry composting systems (Options
4 and 10).
 515 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010

$2,000 demands from the piped water network. The recycled water
$1,800 is shown separately for: in-house demands (toilet flushing,
$1,600 cold water washing machine inlet); and, for all other
$1,400 external recycled water demands (car washing at home,
$1,200 on-site lawn and garden irrigation and public open space
$1,000 Asset renewal irrigation). The reduction of in-house water demands from
$800
O&M
the piped network is possible only in those options noted in
$600
Table 1 with recycled water treated to tertiary level. For

$400
those options, the average reduction is 17% of in-house
water demands. The study determined the irrigation areas
$200
required for sustainable irrigation for each option to ensure
$0
1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13 14 15 16 this was viable.
Figure 2 | Operating and asset renewal costs per household per year in AUD. Figure 3 shows that:

All the options provide similar levels of water recycling

Water savings
The options assume that all households are connected to a
utility managed piped water network. All options reduce the
dependence of a household on water from the network.
Higher potential potable water replacement is achieved
when a tertiary treatment plant recycles water for non-
potable in-house use, however the quantum of the actual
water saved becomes less as the water efficiency of
appliances increases from Year 2009 to Year 2060.
Figure 3 shows the annual volume of recycled water in
kilolitres per household and the reduction of in-house water
70
60
50
40
and this is consistent with the objective to provide
secondary, tertiary or higher level fitforpurpose recycled
water for reuse. The volume of water recycled is
potentially significant if the adoption of the options is
on a large scale.
The variation in total water recycled and in-house use
is dependant on the design for reuse in each option.
Nitrogen recovery
Nitrogen recovery fluctuated considerably between
options. Figure 4 illustrates the potential annual nitrogen
25%
recovery per household for each option from: 1) irrigation
of treated effluent; 2) urine separation and utilisation at a
20% remote farm site; and 3) compost from wet composting
toilets. Recovery from irrigation varied from 0.02 to
3.04 kg/household/year. For urine and wet composting
15%
12

10
30
10%
8
20
6
5%
10
4

0 0% 2
1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13 14 15 16
Recycled outside house Recycled in-house % reduction of 0
1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13 14 15 16
in-house demands
Irrigation Urine separation Wet composting toilets
Figure 3 | Water recycled and savings in piped network demandkilolitres per
household per year. Figure 4 | Nitrogen recoverykg/household per year.
 516 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010

systems, the recovery is estimated at 10.6 and 0.74 kg/ 3.5

household/year, respectively.
3
It is concluded that:
2.5
Options with urine separation (Options 2, 6, 8 and 16)
provide by far the greatest opportunity to recover and 2

reuse nitrogen compared with the other options. The

1.5
effect of ammonia nitrogen found in human urine and its
residual in crops, availability of total nitrogen for crop 1

uptake, and case studies to this application are reported

0.5
in Johansson et al. (2000).
Other options with significant opportunity to recover 0
1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13 14 15 16
and reuse nitrogen are those involving on-site secondary
Figure 6 | Energy usage kW h/day per household year.
or tertiary treatment (Options 1, 7 and 12), or cluster
secondary treatment with no composting toilets (Options 9, and 10) where solids are matured and reused (buried) on
13), where the recycled water still has quite high nitrogen site. Reuse options for biosolids, otherwise, have not been
levels that could be beneficially reused in irrigation. assessed. However, as the sewage source is largely domestic,
biosolids should be of good quality and have high reuse
Phosphorus recovery and reuse potential. Solids management for STEP/STEG design
Figure 5 shows the potential annual load of phosphorus per options (Options 4, 4 W, 5, 6, 10 and 10 W) is minimal as
household reused. It is concluded that: 1) urine separation most of the solids are captured in the on-site tank which
(Options 2, 6, 8 and 16); and 2) irrigation where recycled may only require desludging every 8 10 years.
water still has significant phosphorus levels i.e. on-site
secondary and on-site tertiary treatment (Options 1, 2, 7, 8 Energy use
and 12); and cluster secondary treatment (Option 13), can
For the on-site options, energy consumption includes
provide significant opportunity to recover and reuse
pumps in the on-site treatment, irrigation and recycle
phosphorus.
systems. For cluster units, energy includes the on-site
STEP pump units, the cluster treatment units and the
Biosolids
third pipe pumping units.
Biosolids are centrally managed for all the options Figure 6 summarises the energy use per household per
except options with dry composting toilets (Options 3, 4, day for the options. These values compare with typical
1.8 Australian household electricity consumption rates of
1.6
15 20 kW h day (TPG Telecom Limited 2010). It is observed

1.4
that on-site options (Options 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 12) require
about five to six times more energy than cluster and activity
1.2
centre options.
1

0.8
Table 4 | Energy consumption for urine conveyance
0.6

0.4 Truck configuration

Distance (one way) km Single truck B double configuration

0.2

0 100 250 MJ/p/year 210 MJ/p/year

1 2 3 4 4W 5 6 7 8 9 10 10W 11 12 13 14 15 16
Irrigation Urine separation Wet composting toilets 200 375 MJ/p/year 260 MJ/p/year

Figure 5 | Phosphorus recoverykg/household per year. Scaled from Johansson et al. (2000) page 32 Figure 19.
 517 V. Brown et al. | 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage strategy
In addition to the energy noted above, transport energy
for the urine separation systems also needs to be taken into
consideration. This varies depending on the type of vehicle
used and the distance travelled. Table 4 summarises this
transportation energy.
CONCLUSIONS
The portfolio of concept designs presented in this
paper provides a useful tool to compare a wide range of
decentralised and on-site wastewater systems. In the case
of Melbourne, for which this data was prepared, it enables
a rational basis for selection of options for further
consideration based on their capital and operating costs,
water savings, nutrient recovery and energy use.
In summary:
cluster and activity centre systems provide economies of
scale in cost and energy use;
all systems offer significant water reuse, as designed; and
there is potential for nutrient recovery in irrigation
systems, urine separation systems and wet composting
systems.
When using this data, one needs to be cognizant of the
local circumstances in relation to Melbournes context.
Additional factors in comparing options include site
availability, soil types, climate, cultural and social accep-
tance of options, local opportunities and value placed on
nutrient recovery, local technology supply chain and
operating skills, and relevant regulations and institutional
and environment drivers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Owen Phillis, Project Leader of the 2009 Metropolitan
Sewerage Strategy and the members of the Decentralised
Systems Stakeholder Group Francis Pamminger (Yarra
Valley Water), Gordon Logan (South East Water), Mark
Upton (Mornington Peninsula Shire Council), Matthew
Potter (Melbourne Water), Muthu Muthkaruppan (City
West Water), Roger Farquhar (MACH Systems), Sarah
West (EPA Victoria) and Tony Priestly (CSIRO Land and
Water) are acknowledged for their guidance on the scope
and methodology in this project.
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 62.3 | 2010
REFERENCES
AS/NZS1547 2000 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management.
SAA Australian/New Zealand Standard- Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
Crites, R. & Tchobanalous, G. 1998 Small and Decentralised
Wastewater Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH.
EPA Victoria 1991 Guidelines for Wastewater Irrigation. Victoria
Environment Protection Agency, Melbourne, Australia,
Publication No. 168.
Institute for Sustainable Futures 2008 Development of Qualitative
Decentralised Systems Concepts. Technical Report for the 2009
Metropolitan Sewerage Strategy. Compiled by Cynthia Mitchell,
Kumi Abeysuriya and Dena Fam, Institute for Sustainable Futures.
Johansson, M., Jonsson, H., Hoglund, C., Stintzing, A. R. & Rodhe, L.
2000 Urine SeparationClosing The Nutrient Cycle. Final
Report On The R&D Project Source-Separated Human Urine
A Future Source Of Fertilizer for Agriculture in the Stockholm
Region. Prepared by VERNA Ecology in collaboration with
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease
Control, Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental
Engineering for Stockholm Water Company, Stockholm.
Landcom 2006 Wastewater Reuse in the Urban Environment:
Selection of Technologies. Landcom, Department of Planning
New South Wales Government, accessed 14 March 2010. http://
www.landcom.com.au/whats-new/publications-reports.aspx
MACH Systems 2009 Development of Qualitative Decentralised
System Concepts for the Metropolitan Sewerage Strategy.
Technical Report in two volumes for Metropolitan Sewerage
Strategy, MACH Systems Pty Ltd, February, 2009.
MWH 2009 Metropolitan Sewerage StrategyDecentralised and
On-site Concept Designs. Report prepared for Metropolitan
Sewerage Strategy by MWH Australia Pty Ltd, March 2009.
O Brien, E. 2005 The Application of Membranes In On-site Sewage
Treatment. Performance Assessment for On-site Systems:
Regulations, Operation and Monitoring. Proceedings of
On-site 05 Conference, Lanfax Laboratories, Armidale, New
England, 27 30 Sep, pp. 313 319.
Scholes, P. 2006 Nitrogen Reduction Trials of Advanced
On-site Effluent Treatment Systems. Environment Bay of Plenty,
Environmental Publication 2006/12, Whakalane, New Zealand.
Sustainable Solutions International 2008 2009 Melbourne Metropolitan
Sewerage Strategy: Membrane Bioreactor Systems, Recirculating
Textile Packed Bed Bioreactors, and Shortcut Biological Nitrogen
Removal. Technical Report for 2009 Metropolitan Sewerage
Strategy by Sustainable Solutions International, November, 2008.
TPG Telecom Limited 2010 Power Consumption, accessed 14
March 2010. http://users.tpg.com.au/users/robkemp/Power/
PowerConsumption.htm
Whitehead and Associates 2008 Qualitative Decentralised Systems
ConceptsResidential Development Scenarios for Low, Medium
and High Density Greenfield, Redevelopment and Retrofit Sites.
Technical Report for 2009 Metropolitan Sewerage Strategy,
Whitehead and Associates, November, 2008.
Copyright of Water Science & Technology is the property of IWA Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of Water Science & Technology is the property of IWA Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.