Kinglake West Sewerage Project - Yarra Valley Water

WA TER FOR A HEALTHY COUNTRY
Kinglake West Sewerage
Project
Post-implementation project review
CSIRO project team: Stephen Cook and Ashok Sharma
YVW project Team: Francis Pamminger, Rita Narangala and Ranga Fernando
June 2013
Prepared by CSIRO and Yarra Valley Water

Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X
Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a
powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills.
CSIRO initiated the National Research Flagships to address Australia’s major research challenges and
opportunities. They apply large scale, long term, multidisciplinary science and aim for widespread adoption
of solutions. The Flagship Collaboration Fund supports the best and brightest researchers to address these
complex challenges through partnerships between CSIRO, universities, research agencies and industry.
The Water for a Healthy Country Flagship aims to provide Australia with solutions for water resource
management, creating economic gains of $3 billion per annum by 2030, while protecting or restoring our
major water ecosystems. The work contained in this report is collaboration between CSIRO and Yarra Valley
Water
For more information about Water for a Healthy Country Flagship or the National Research Flagship
Initiative visit www.csiro.au/org/HealthyCountry.html
Citation
Important disclaimer
CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete
or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that
information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent
permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for
any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any
information or material contained in it.
ii Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Acknowledgements
This project was co- funded by Yarra Valley Water and the CSIRO Water for Healthy Country Flagship.
Francis Pamminger, Ranga Fernando, and Rita Narangala of Yarra Valley Water, have provided the
necessary reports and data, as well as documenting their experiences with Kinglake West Sustainable
Sewerage Project.
The report has been co-authored by the CSIRO and Yarra Valley Water project teams.

Contents
Acknowledgements
Contents
iii
iv
Figures v
Tables v
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10
2 Kinglake West Sewerage Project Overview ..................................................................................... 11
2.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Project Need ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.3 Kinglake West Case Study..................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Development of a preferred servicing approach for Kinglake West....................................... 12
2.5 Sewerage System Overview ................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Impact of bushfires on the study area .................................................................................. 16
3 Assessment of Individual Components ........................................................................................... 17
3.1 Greywater treatment system ............................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Greywater System Performance ........................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Comparison with original sustainability objectives ............................................................... 19
3.1.3 Lessons learnt ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Urine diverting toilets .......................................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.2 selection and installation ..................................................................................................... 23
3.2.3 Performance of urine diverting toilets .................................................................................. 24
3.2.4 Impact of Urine diverting toilets on Nitrogen Loads and the STP .......................................... 25
3.3.1 Lessons learnt ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Agronomic trial .................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.1 Yellow Water Characteristics ................................................................................................ 28
3.4.2 trial methodology ................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.3 Technical Performance and learnings ................................................................................... 31
3.5 Sewer collection system ....................................................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Selection and installation ..................................................................................................... 32
3.6 Sewerage Treatment Plant ................................................................................................... 35
3.6.1 Obtaining the STP site .......................................................................................................... 35
3.6.2 Design of STP and Recycled Water Storage ........................................................................... 35
3.6.3 STP estimated costs ............................................................................................................. 36
4 Evaluation against predicted benefits ............................................................................................ 37
4.1 Economic savings of up to 20%............................................................................................. 37
4.2 Increased reliability in water supply from 90% to 100% ........................................................ 38
4.3 Reduce wastewater discharges by up to 50% ....................................................................... 38
4.4 Reduce nitrogen loads to the STP by up to 80% .................................................................... 39
iv Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

4.5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% ........................................................................... 39
5 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 40
Appendix A – Available information on Kinglake West Sewerage Project 45
References .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Figures
Figure 1 - Kinglake West case study location and site overview (circa 2006) ................................................ 12
Figure 2 – Summary of scenario results from RMIT/CSIRO research for Pheasant Creek .............................. 14
Figure 3 - Kinglake West household servicing configuration ........................................................................ 16
Figure 4 - System configuration at the house lot ......................................................................................... 17
Figure 5 - Urine diverting toilet on display at Murrindindi Shire Council offices, Kinglake West ................... 22
Figure 6 – Nutrient loads in domestic wastewater by source ....................................................................... 22
Figure 7 – Yellow water reuse – potential routes of human exposure.......................................................... 28
Figure 8 – Nitrogen content in yellow water vs storage time ....................................................................... 29
Figure 9 – Configuration of Yellow Water Turf Strips ................................................................................... 30
Figure 10 – Harvested turf strips (left), Test Strip and Irrigation System ...................................................... 31
Figure 11 – Installation of STEP tank ........................................................................................................... 33
Tables
Table 1 - Summary of servicing options explored by Sharma et al. (2006).................................................... 14
Table 2 – Recycled water production from monitored greywater system .................................................... 18
Table 3 - Monitored energy consumption vs manufacturer’s specifications ................................................. 19
Table 4 – Greywater system installation costs ............................................................................................. 20
Table 5 – UDT performance against specifications ...................................................................................... 24
Table 6 - Comparison of untreated wastewater composition ...................................................................... 25
Table 7- Yellow water average nutrient concentrations versus expected concentrations ............................ 28
Table 8 - Comparison of yellow water N:P:K with commercially available fertilisers .................................... 29
Table 9 - Cost comparison of yellow water and seasol ................................................................................. 31
Table 10 - Cost of STEP tank vs grinder pump installation ............................................................................ 33
Table 11 - Costs associated with STP land investigations ............................................................................. 35
Table 12 – STP costs .................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 13 - Comparison between estimated and realised costs..................................................................... 38

Executive summary
The Kinglake West Sewerage project was undertaken by Yarra Valley Water (YVW) to determine whether it
was possible to deliver a more sustainable sewerage solution in a developed, unsewered ‘backlog’ area, as
identified in theoretical studies. The Kinglake West region was selected for the study as it contained many
of the challenges that are typical of backlog areas in that it had many failing septic systems, is remote from
existing infrastructure and is in an environmentally sensitive area.
Through analysis of options, the best configuration for this site was determined to consist of the following:
• Greywater treatment systems on each property, providing recycled water for toilet flushing,
laundry and garden irrigation;
• Urine diverting toilets, with ‘yellow water’ being collected and applied at a local turf farm;
• Reticulated sewerage using septic tank effluent pumps (STEP); and
• A new sewerage treatment plant (STP) producing Class B effluent (yet to be completed).
Such a system was considered to be more sustainable because it was considered that it could be delivered
at a lower economic cost, increase the reliability in water supply, reduce wastewater discharges, reduce
nitrogen loads, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This report has been written to firstly assess whether the predicted results have been achieved, and
secondly to document the transferrable knowledge that may be useful to others in the industry.
This post-implementation review has found that although environmental improvements were delivered,
they were not as significant as predicted and they also came at a higher than expected cost. As a result, the
additional direct costs exceeded the external environmental benefits, which had been instrumental in
justifying this demonstration project as a more sustainable solution. A comparison of predicted
achievements with what was actually achieved is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of results
Parameter Theoretical prediction 1 Actual results
achieved 2
Economic savings Up to 20% Approximately 40%
more expensive
Increase in reliability in of
water supply
Reduction in wastewater
discharges
Reduced nitrogen loads to
the STP
Reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions
From 90% to 100% 100% 3
Up to 50% 28%
Up to 80% 56%
30% Not yet determined
but unlikely to be
achieved 4
1
The theoretical results were achieved when compared against a gravity sewer - which has been the traditional servicing solution used in the
Victorian water industry, and was YVW’s default servicing
2
The field results include the additional changes that occurred between design and construction as detailed in Section 4.
3
While this numerical target was achieved, it was achieved because householders selected larger rainwater tanks when they rebuilt after the
bushfire, rather than from the greywater system identified from the theoretical study.
4
The STP is not yet operational, however it is unlikely to be achieved in part because the greywater system were more energy intensive than
expected
vi Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Valuable insights have also been obtained reviewing what was required to construct the scheme and get it
operating. As technologies achieve broader acceptance and uptake it is likely some of these issues would
be resolved through standards development that would assist in ensuring the minimum levels of
performance and reliability. It must be recognised that servicing approach taken for Kinglake West was
innovative, and therefore the actual performance of approaches in the field was uncertain.
The lessons learnt from this project are presented in a way to provide insights to the industry on why
specific elements were successful, or what is required to make the specific elements successful. The
knowledge acquired for each of the project components is summarised below:
Sewerage reticulation
• A highlight of the project was a successfully functioning STEP effluent sewer system – while this
approach is relatively common in the United States there are very few reported examples in
Australia (Asquith, 2010 );
• STEP tanks offer a good approach to extending wastewater services to small communities. They
enable a staged approach to providing services, while also reducing capital and operating costs for
collection systems and STP.
Sewerage Treatment Plant
• An innovative approach to designing the STP recycled water storage was adopted, which has
resulted in more accurate sizing and significant cost savings, and this has been accepted by the
Victorian EPA.
• The hypothesis that reduced wastewater volumes would reduce treatment plant cost did not
materialise in this project. For this to occur, a mechanical aeration unit is required. Lower volumes
will then translate into lower energy costs.
Greywater treatment systems
• Greywater systems that utilise biological processes can be affected by cold climate, which
consequently lowers their reliability, and increases the power required for operation. In this case,
the greywater systems also competed with rainwater tanks to increase water supply reliability, and
should accordingly have been assessed for viability at each specific location.
• Selection and installation of in-house units, such as greywater systems, would benefit from having a
stream-lined approach responsible for the installation, supply and maintenance of such a system.
Ideally, a single party managing this would be ideal, as additional responsibilities complicate the
process and introduce a greater risk of potential failure somewhere along the process.
• The high establishment costs of household greywater recycling systems, and the complexity of
devolving some management and O&M responsibilities to householders means that these systems
may be better suited to higher or medium density developments. In this setting a cluster scale
approach could be implemented where a single system serves a number of households, and is
managed and operated under the control of an owner’s corporation.
Urine diversion and yellow water reuse
• Using urine separating toilets does significantly reduce the nutrient load going to the sewage
treatment plant
• Harvested nutrients from domestic sewage can deliver agronomic benefits. The Kinglake West
agronomic trial of yellow water demonstrated the potential benefits on the crop health of
turfgrass, while arguably delivering a better visual quality
• Further refinements are still required to deliver a financially viable proposition for urine separating
toilets. Key issues that were identified included:

o Application of yellow water from urine separating toilets was found to be in the order of
100 times more expensive than commercially available fertilisers
o A major contributor to the high costs was the significant dilution of the urine with toilet
flush water. This dilution increased the costs associated with collecting, transporting and
storing the yellow water and then increases the need for increased effort to achieve
required application concentrations
o The viability would be enhanced with a refined toilet design that uses less water, and/or
higher density collection sites
o Multi story buildings using waterless urinals are seen as a potentially feasible urine
harvesting site.
Adapting to changing conditions
• Changes in circumstances require the flexibility to adapt. In this instance, when customers rebuilt
their houses after the bush fire they installed larger rainwater tanks, and in hindsight, the need for
installing greywater systems was reduced.
Implementation of future trial projects
• Developing a strong partnership with stakeholders contributes positively to the success of a new
servicing project such as this. In this instance, a strong partnership was created among a water
utility, local community, a turf farmer, regulatory authorities and research organisations.
• Trialling new products in new environments would benefit from first being testing in a small-scale
pilot trial. In this case, the project would have benefited from a pilot trial of the urine diverting
toilets and greywater systems. This would have identified that there was a significant difference
between the manufacturer’s specifications for the performance of the urine separating toilets and
greywater systems with the actual performance observed at Kinglake West.
• The trialling of new products often incurs unforseen costs. The uncertainly in the costs associated
with innovative servicing approaches needs to be accounted for. The capital costs of the Kinglake
West project are likely to be as much as 60% higher than forecast.
• Finally, innovative approaches benefit greatly from post implementation assessment and
monitoring, such as occurred in this project. This ensures that lessons can be used for refining
approaches for future YVW projects, while also providing the broader urban water sector with
important knowledge that can help facilitate increased adoption of more sustainable approaches.
Ultimately, the project has provided YVW with important insight into the implementation of innovative
servicing projects, and could prove a useful case study to the broader water industry in Australia.
viii Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

1 Introduction
The Kinglake West Sewerage Project was implemented by Yarra Valley Water (YVW) to demonstrate an
innovative approach to providing wastewater services with improved sustainability outcomes. In particular,
the Project explored approaches for delivering wastewater infrastructure in peri-urban areas that are
currently serviced by failing septic systems – a situation typical of many YVW “Backlog” areas. The potential
options for servicing Kinglake West were initially explored using an innovative methodology that applied
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). The approach ensured that in addition to
traditional financial evaluation, the servicing options were assessed using economic, environmental and
social criteria for sustainable development.
At the time of writing, the Kinglake West Sewerage Project was largely completed with the exception of the
sewerage treatment plant (due for completion in mid-2013). The aim of this report was to determine if the
Project delivered a more sustainable solution, as identified in a theoretical study and as a basis for a
funding submission.
The findings presented are based on a review of documents from the feasibility assessment and planning
stages of the development, as well as post-implementation monitoring studies (See Appendix A for
summary of documents provided by Yarra Valley Water). Also, input was provided by YVW staff involved in
the project. The remainder of the report is structured as follows:
• A brief introduction to the Kinglake West Sewerage Project, including the context for its
development and the system components implemented;
• A background to the selection of the preferred sewerage servicing option for Kinglake West, which
includes identifying the sustainability objectives that underpinned this selection;
• An assessment of the sustainability performance of the individual components of the sewerage
system, relative to the objectives in the planning and design phase of the project;
• An overall assessment of the Project, including performance against the Project objectives, and the
implications for future sustainable sewerage services in backlog areas.
10 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

2 Kinglake West Sewerage Project Overview
2.1 Project Background
Yarra Valley Water serves over 1.7 million people through a water supply network of 9,500km and sewer
network of over 9,000km, with associated pumping, storage and treatment works. Provision of new
infrastructure is YVW’s largest capital expenditure. The company has a commitment to ‘provide its services
within the carrying capacity of nature’, which is central to their Environment Policy and Company Strategy.
Accordingly, when assessing servicing options YVW considers not only direct costs, but also the broader
community costs and benefits.
A major research project was initiated by YVW with CSIRO and RMIT’s Centre for Design to explore the
sustainability of alternative water and sewerage servicing options (See: CSIRO, 2005; Grant and Opray,
2005). Since the majority of new infrastructure provision occurs in ‘greenfield’ sites, this provided the initial
focus for YVW in addressing the challenge of improved sustainability. This centred on a development in
Kalkallo, in Melbourne’s northern growth corridor. Furthermore, as infill development comprises around
30% of the new developments serviced by YVW, so this was the next focus with a case study in the Box Hill
Principal Activity Centre.
In addition to providing services to new developments, YVW has a significant Backlog Program, with more
than 17,000 homes in suburban and peri-urban fringes that are currently served by septic systems. In many
cases, thes systems are failing, posing environmental and public health risks. To date, the predominant
method for servicing these areas has been to replace septic tanks with reticulated sewerage systems. It is
estimated that completing YVW’s Backlog Program would require an investment of approximately $320
million. CSIRO and RMIT were commissioned by YVW to undertake a study into more sustainable
approaches for servicing these backlog areas. The research proved that it was theoretically possible to
deliver alternative solutions that would be more sustainable than conventional reticulated sewerage.
The aim of the Kinglake West Project was to put this theory into practice via a trial. YVW sought funding
from the Victoria Water Trust and was successful on the basis that the trial would provide learnings for the
broader Victoria water industry. In a 2006 review of Victoria’s Backlog program, the Victorian Auditor-
General concluded that some Backlog funding may have been better used to search for alternative
solutions that could more promptly and more cost effectively reduce the public health risks facing
communities, as well as improving sustainability performance.
2.2 Project Need
There are a number of trends driving the need to consider alternative configurations for providing
wastewater services in previously non-sewered areas. These were highlighted by Randall (2003), and
include: population increase in the peri-urban fringe that leads to increased risk of contamination of
groundwater from onsite systems, resulting both public health and ecological impacts; increasing
degradation of surface water quality from sub-surface and land application wastewater practices; the fact
that it may be more economical to service small communities with decentralised approaches, rather than
connecting to existing centralised systems; and finally, the growing water scarcity that is driving the need to
consider recycling of wastewater. In addition, it has also been recognised that there is potential value in
recovering the nutrients in wastewater for food production (Cordell et al., 2009). It is against this setting
that Yarra Valley Water undertook to investigate more sustainable wastewater services in backlog areas.
Makropoulos and Butler (2010) argued that decentralised technologies for water services are relatively
unproven and untried in comparison to centralised approaches, and that there are significant knowledge
gaps associated with their performance and operational costs. Larsen et al. (2009) highlighted that while
there is recognition of the potential benefits of source separation of wastewater, and there have been

numerous trials and pilot projects, the associated technologies are still considered immature and risky by
water professionals. This uncertainty in the performance of alternative wastewater servicing
configurations is a major impediment to mainstream adoption.
2.3 Kinglake West Case Study
Kinglake West is located on Melbourne’s urban fringe, approximately 45 km northeast of Melbourne’s
central business district. A small area of 74 residences was selected as the study area for the Project (Figure
1). These properties did not have reticulated water or sewerage: potable water supply being from onsite
rainwater tanks and in some cases groundwater bores, with sewage being managed using septic tanks.
A report by Whitehead and Associates (2006) concluded that these properties were largely unable to
manage their wastewater onsite. In winter, none of the lots studied had the capacity to manage
wastewater loads due to a number of factors including allotment size, soil type and slope. The report found
that even with the application of best practice technology, 72% of the wastewater generated in an average
rainfall year could not be managed on-site. Accordingly, the area is on YVW’s Backlog Program but was not
scheduled for servicing until 2021.
Aside from the need for better sewage management, the study area was selected because it is far from
existing infrastructure and would be difficult to service conventionally (i.e. by connection to the
metropolitan sewerage system). It is adjacent to an environmentally sensitive National Park which will
benefit from improved sewage management. Lastly, it is close to agricultural areas which are potential endusers
for recycled water and other products.
Figure 1 - Kinglake West case study location and site overview (circa 2006)
2.4 Development of a preferred servicing approach for Kinglake West
YVW sought to achieve three main objectives at Kinglake West:
• Objective 1: Enhance the environmental, public health and waterway health through innovative
wastewater management
• Objective 2: Identify a lower community cost solution
12 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

• Objective 3: Demonstrate to the water sector a sustainable alternative wastewater servicing
configuration for small communities.
YVW commissioned CSIRO and RMIT to assess potential servicing options using an innovative methodology
that applied Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC).
- CSIRO undertook water and contaminant balance modelling for a range of servicing options
(Sharma et al, 2006). Table 1 summarises the options explored;
- Conceptual designs of the options were developed to determine what infrastructure components
would be required;
- Capital and operating costs were also estimated to calculate life cycle costs (LCC);
- The outputs from the CSIRO study were then used as inputs for assessing the environmental
impacts of each option. RMIT used the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to assess options
against the following environmental criteria: greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative energy
demand, depletion of mineral resources and fossil fuels, eutrophication, carcinogens, land use,
water use, and solid waste.
A summary of the research results is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1 - Summary of servicing options explored by Sharma et al. (2006)
1.1 Gravity servicing option without septic systems. Curb and channel stormwater drainage.
1.2 Common effluent drainage (CED) system with existing septic systems.
Swales employed for stormwater drainage.
2.1B Wastewater source separation into urine, greywater and blackwater and treated greywater reuse (no
storage) for garden watering.
Pressure Sewer System.
Swales employed for stormwater drainage.
2.2B Wastewater source separation into urine, grey water and blackwater and treated greywater reuse
with storage for garden watering and toilet flushing.
Pressure Sewer System.
Swales employed for stormwater drainage.
2.2C Wastewater source separation into urine, greywater and blackwater and treated greywater reuse
with storage for garden watering, toilet flushing and laundry.
Pressure Sewer System.
Swales employed for stormwater drainage.
2.2D Same as Option 2.2C but no separate urine collection.
2.4 Pressure sewer system. Swales employed for stormwater drainage.
Wastewater flow Nitrogen Volumetric reliability Community cost Greenhouse Gases
Comparison against base case Option 1.1
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1.1 1.2 2.1B 2.2B 2.2C 2.2D 2.4
Options
Figure 2 – Summary of scenario results from RMIT/CSIRO research for Pheasant Creek
The results showed that alternative solutions could offer the following benefits against Option 1.1
(representing conventional gravity servicing used in the Victorian water industry):
• Economic savings of up to 20%
14 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

• Increased reliability in water supply from 90% to 100%
• Reduce wastewater discharges by up to 50%
• Reduce nitrogen loads to the STP by up to 80%
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%
Maximising greywater reuse reduces the volume of wastewater that is pumped for treatment, as well as
the volume of rainwater pumped for use. Whilst there are some greenhouse gas emissions associated with
the greywater treatment system, it was calculated that these would be offset by the aforementioned
savings. The greywater systems have the additional benefit of increasing security of supply, since previous
dry periods have seen residents needing to purchase water to fill their rainwater tanks from water carters.
The effectiveness of a urine diversion scheme is highly dependent on how far the urine needs to be
transported for reuse. There is a certain point where the greenhouse gas emissions from transporting the
urine outweighs the benefits from fertiliser substitution and reduction in sewage volumes - this was found
to be approximately 50km for a 1 litre flush volume (RMIT, 2007).
In relation to costs, the use of a pressure sewer rather than deep gravity sewers and a pumping station was
predicted to produce significant savings. Further savings were predicted to be achieved through greywater
treatment. Even though greywater systems were estimated to cost $11,500 per lot, it was calculated that
overall cost savings could be achieved through reduced sewage transfer and treatment.
The options were further evaluated against the original project objectives, and underwent a multi-criteria
assessment bringing together the economic, environmental and social considerations. Option 2.2C was
selected as the optimum servicing solution – consisting of urine diversion, greywater treatment and reuse,
and a pressure sewer system. Although this was not the cheapest option, it scored the highest overall due
to strong environmental performance and innovation. The option is described in greater detail below.
2.5 Sewerage System Overview
The selected sewerage solution comprised:
- Greywater treatment systems: Greywater is treated and stored for toilet flushing, garden
irrigation and cold water supply to laundry (optional). The rainwater tank meets other water
demands as well as providing backup supply.
- Urine diverting toilets: These allow urine to be collected and stored in an onsite tank. Urine is
collected by truck from each household for agricultural purposes. The urine tanks do not have
overflow to sewer (in order to minimise gaseous nitrogen losses), requiring them to be emptied
proactively before completely filling.
- Sewerage reticulation: Blackwater is collected in a septic tank onsite for primary treatment,
before being transferred via a pressurised sewer utilising septic tank effluent pumps (STEP). A
local treatment plant further treats the effluent before it is irrigated on surrounding land. At the
time of this report, the STP had not yet been built (expected completion in mid 2013). Until its
completion, effluent is being collected at a central storage tank at the STP site and educted to
Whittlesea STP.

Figure 3 - Kinglake West household servicing configuration
2.6 Impact of bushfires on the study area
The work described above, including the business case to the Victorian Water Trust, was completed prior to
2008. Community consultation had just commenced in early 2009 when bushfires swept through the northeastern
region of Melbourne, including Kinglake West. The impact was devastating, with lives lost and most
of the homes in the study area destroyed.
Rebuilding efforts began months later and residents started enquiring about the sewerage project, which
had been put on hold. Community consultation was restarted and following a community information
session in May 2009, enough support for the project was received to allow it to go ahead.
The nature of the project became more typical of a ‘greenfield’ site, with onsite infrastructure being
installed at the same time as homes were rebuilt. In many respects, this was easier than retrofitting an
existing house. However it meant that the sewerage project needed to keep pace with construction and
many tasks had to take place concurrently.
16 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

3 Assessment of Individual Components
This section reviews the individual components of the Kinglake West scheme, highlighting the system
performance and the lessons learnt that could be applied in improving future implementation of these
approaches.
3.1 Greywater treatment system
Greywater is collected from bathroom and washing machine wastewater where it is transferred to a sump
well. It is then pumped to the treatment system where it is pre-screened to remove lint, then undergoes
biofiltration and UV disinfection. The recycled water is stored in 300 litres storage and pumped on demand
for garden irrigation, toilet flushing and cold water laundry supply. Excess greywater and backwash water
from the filter media is fed by gravity to the septic tank.
The configuration of the greywater system at the household scale is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 - System configuration at the house lot

3.1.1 GREYWATER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
A total of 20 greywater treatment units were installed at properties in Kinglake West. The systems have not
performed as expected, with the two main issues being their reliability of operation and their power
consumption. There were also complaints from some householders concerning the quality of the treated
greywater effluent and some odour problems
Reliability of operation
Most of the systems experienced frequent failures during and soon after commissioning. Many of the
failures were caused by a poorly designed sump pump that accompanied the system. This was eventually
rectified by the supplier who replaced it with a more established sump product. Problems were also
experienced with the recycled water pump – the Davey Rainbank system which consists of a pump coupled
with a switching device (marketed for rainwater harvesting applications with mains backup supply). This
system was recommended by the greywater system supplier and normally functions well where the backup
to greywater is reticulated mains supply. However in the case of Kinglake West, the backup supply was
rainwater, and the operation of the rainwater pump conflicted with the switching device, which had to be
replaced.
Even after the sump and recycled water pump issues were resolved, the greywater systems continued to
perform poorly. Monitoring of one system detected two failures over a 30-day period, and lower-thanexpected
recycled water production the majority of the time (refer Table 2).
Table 2 – Recycled water production from monitored greywater system
Function of grey water system results
Supply >80% of demand 3
Supply 50-80% of demand 4
Days
Supply 1-50% of demand 14
Supply 0% of demand 9
Total days monitored 30
Times system failed 2
The low rate of recycled water production can be attributed to the relatively cold climate of Kinglake
affecting the biological process. The optimum operating temperature for the biofiltration process is 18
degrees Celsius or greater, and efficiency is impacted at colder temperatures particularly for nitrogen and
phosphorous removal (Kuk Kwun et al. 2000). Kinglake West is located at an elevation of more than 500
metres, and during winter regularly experiences overnight minimum temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius
(with overnight temperatures in summer usually not exceeding 12 degrees). The colder climate meant that
the processer speed had to be manually adjusted, reducing the daily production of greywater by around
50%.
Power consumption
YVW commissioned an independent company to monitor the energy consumption of the water and
sewerage system components, including associated pumps. This was carried out at a household occupied
by two adults and a child, and reported in Water and Energy Savers (2012). The house was one year old and
had WELS 4-star rated fittings and 3-star appliances. Energy and water flows were monitored over a 30 day
period at 15 minute intervals, from November to December 2011. Whilst the monitoring period and sample
size are limited, the results are indicative of the performance of the greywater systems overall, and
consistent with anecdotal reports and observations.
During the three days when the greywater system was meeting >80% of demand, it produced 133 L/day
and consumed 5.3 kWh/day on average (including sump and recycled water pump). This equates to 40.2
18 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

kWh/kL produced (Lepp, 2012). However, since the greywater system was producing less than this volume
the majority of the time, the average kWh/kL over the 30 day monitoring period was much higher. This is
because the energy consumption of the system remains similar even when in standby mode.
Table 3 - Monitored energy consumption vs manufacturer’s specifications
Manufacturer’s Specifications
Source: EPA Certificate of Approval
106.3/07
Monitoring Results
Source: Lepp, 2012
Daily load* (litres) 1200

In relation to supply reliability, the original CSIRO study assumed a 25 kL rainwater tank, which was the
typical size observed during site visits in 2005. Water balance modelling showed that this tank size could
provide about 90% reliability for indoor and garden irrigation demands (Sharma et al. 2006). However,
following the 2009 bushfires, many of the homes were rebuilt with much larger tanks. An assessment of
rainwater tank sizes at Kinglake West found that for 20 households surveyed, the average rainwater tank
size is 45 kL (of which 10 kL is mandatory reserve for fire-fighting). Some households have up to 75 kL of
storage. The bigger than anticipated size of rainwater tanks has impacted the usefulness of greywater
systems in augmenting demand.
The cost of the systems has proved to be significant, both in terms of capital and operating costs. In
particular, installation costs were inflated due to the issues relating to the sump pump and recycled water
pump (Table 4).
Table 4 – Greywater system installation costs
Greywater system component Cost per household Paid by
Greywater system including sump
pump
$10,000 YVW
Recycled water pump $2,000 YVW
Installation $9,800 YVW
Greywater and recycled water
pipework*
TOTAL $22,300
$500 YVW/Household
* Installation of separation greywater pipework and recycled water pipework (‘purple pipe’) was the responsibility of
the homeowner and their builder. YVW contributed $500 towards this, however the actual costs borne by the
homeowner were in some cases higher.
The electricity cost of operating the greywater system was calculated to be $8.45/kL from monitoring
results. This was the cost over the 3 day period when the system supplied >80% demands. When calculated
over the 30 day monitoring period (taking into account low production days), the average cost per kilolitre
is even higher. In addition, maintenance of the system by an approved contractor costs $420 for an annual
inspection and water quality analysis.
3.1.3 LESSONS LEARNT
The trial of the greywater treatment systems at Kinglake West concluded in October 2012. Participants
were given the option to either have the units removed by YVW, or assume responsibility for ongoing
operation and maintenance. Of the 20 households who participated, 6 have opted to keep the treatment
system. It is expected that it will cost $2,500 per household to decommission the systems, which includes
removal of the treatment units and re-plumbing of the households.
The lessons learnt in implementing greywater treatment systems are as follows:
- Evaluating the need for a greywater treatment system
The need for a greywater system should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than
implemented across the board. In Kinglake West, this would have taken into account the larger
rainwater tanks as well as any secondary sources such as groundwater.
Installing greywater systems solely for the sake of reducing wastewater volumes pumped and
treatment was not found to be worthwhile, from either a cost or environmental perspective. It
was found that the greywater system had no impact in reducing the capital or operating costs
associated with the STP. Specifically, YVW officers noted that the scenario used to size the STP
20 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

was based on inflows that assumed the area was fully developed and there were no greywater
units or UDTs.
- Selection of greywater treatment system model
The greywater system selected was not suited to the climate of Kinglake West. The system’s poor
performance has led to high power consumption and operating costs, and low reliability.
At the time, selection was influenced by the fact that there were a limited range of Victorian EPAapproved
models available at the time of tendering (only two EPA-approved systems submitted
tenders). It is worth noting that subsequent to the project tender, the other EPA-approved
manufacturer has gone out of business, whilst three other new systems have gained EPA
approval. The transient and early nature of the industry creates an additional barrier to
customers who want a dependable, proven product and long-term maintenance provider.
- Installation of the system
Three different parties were used for installation, supply, and maintenance of the greywater
systems at Kinglake West. This approach was taken in order to keep the same installation
contractor for the toilet and other plumbing work. Unfortunately, separating the functions leads
to a lack of clarity and willingness to assume responsibility when there were performance issues.
From YVW’s perspective, using a single party for installation, supply and maintenance of onsite
systems would make future projects easier to manage, and result in better customer service for
householders.
- Some behavioural adaptation is required
While the greywater treatment system was marketed as an automated system requiring no
householder intervention, it has become evident that some behavioural changes are needed to
ensure smooth operation. This includes, for example, avoiding the use of harsh household
cleaning products that can impede the biological process. Engaging householders could help
ensure that these changes are adopted. Such engagement is particularly important in existing
communities such as Kinglake West (in contrast to new developments where residents have
selected to live in a sustainable home, and already have a high degree of engagement).
- Capital and operating costs
High establishment costs can be a deterrent to households installing an alternative water source
(Mankad and Tapsuwan, 2011). In the case of Kinglake West, this barrier was removed since the
systems were paid for by YVW. However the high operating costs (particularly electricity costs)
led to the eventual decommissioning of the systems.
Given the relatively high standby costs of the system, it would be best suited to applications with
high hydraulic loads in order to better utilise the capacity of the system (and minimise $/kL
costs).
3.2 Urine diverting toilets
3.2.1 OVERVIEW
Urine Diverting Toilets (UDTs) are still new to Australia, having been installed at only a handful of pilot sites
such as Currumbin Ecovillage in Queensland and Maryborough Education Centre in Victoria (Hood et al.
2009; Crockett et al. 2003) and the University of Technology Sydney. Unlike most other pilots which are
based in greenfield developments, and where residents have made a conscious choice to live in a
‘sustainable’ estate, Kinglake West is the first existing community to have UDTs installed. A total of 30 UDTs
were installed at the 23 households who elected to participate in the trial.
UDTs are designed to collect faecal matter at the back of the toilet bowl, while urine is diverted to the front
(Figure 5). The faecal matter is either flushed to the sewerage system or is stored and composted. At

Kinglake West, the urine is piped to a 1,100L underground PE tank on each property. The ‘yellow water’
(urine diluted with toilet flush water) is then collected manually by suction pump into portable 1kL tanks,
and trucked to a nearby storage site.
Figure 5 - Urine diverting toilet on display at Murrindindi Shire Council offices, Kinglake West
The separation of urine significantly reduces the nutrients in the wastewater stream and allows this
resource to be recovered and reused for agriculture. In theory, this is a particularly effective means of
separating the waste streams since urine is only a small percentage of the household wastewater volume
(typically

- Decreasing environmental contamination from nutrients, pharmaceuticals and hormones;
- Energy savings at wastewater treatment facilities; and
- Water conservation.
The original contaminant modelling by CSIRO (Sharma et al. 2006) quantified some of the above benefits
for Kinglake West. It revealed the following load reductions in the wastewater discharge stream when UDTs
are used:
- A reduction of 81% in nitrogen loads per year (689 Kg less)
- A reduction of 31% in phosphorous loads per year (69 Kg less)
- A reduction of 17% in BOD loads per year (517 Kg less)
The case for proceeding with UDTs was based on the potential to recover these nutrients and use them for
beneficial purposes. This would also reduce nutrient loads to the STP and improve the efficiency of STP
processes (YVW, 2007, Sustainable Sewerage Servicing for Small Communities – Pheasant Creek, p.9).
3.2.2 SELECTION AND INSTALLATION
Selection of Toilet
There are currently several models of Urine Diverting Toilets (UDT) available; however none have
WaterMark certifications against Australian standards. Without WaterMark Certification, a product cannot
be legally installed into a plumbing system. In fact, an Australian standard does not currently exist for urine
diverting toilets, which would be the first step to allowing such toilets to be installed in Australia (Schlunke
et al. 2008). This has proved a stumbling block for other UDT trials in Australia (Byrne, 2011).
The approach taken for this project was to select the most suitable model based on overseas experience,
and seek an exemption from the Victorian Plumbing Industry Commission (PIC) for a trial. A number of UDT
models were assessed during the selection process, including the Wostman Ecoflush, Dubbletten, Sealskin
and Gustavsberg (the latter ceased production in 2009). The Wostman Ecoflush was selected on the basis
of its similarity to existing Australian toilets considering user-friendliness, ease of maintenance,
appearance, flush volume and cost. Following consultation with the PIC, a ‘modification’ was granted to
install non-WaterMarked UDTs in Kinglake West as part of a trial.
Installation
The Wostman Ecoflush is an S-trap toilet with a 100mm waste outlet pipe, and the installation method is
similar to that of a conventional toilet. The exception is the 50mm urine pipework. In the same way that the
main waste pipe has a water seal to prevent odours, the urine pipe also needed to be installed with a bend
to form a water trap. The water trap was located upstream of the urine pipe entering the floor, where it
connected to a 100mm outlet. Unfortunately this water trap was later found to be insufficient to prevent
odours (see later discussion).
The urine pipework was installed using 100mm PE pipe in order to reduce the risk of precipitate
accumulation and blockages (Johansson et al. 2000). For the same reason, bends – which could slow down
flow – were minimised.
The urine collection system was designed with no overflow to the septic system, since such a connection
would allow nitrogen to escape via the (septic system) waste vent. It is necessary for the urine pipework
and storage system to be completely sealed since the ammonia can evaporate, reducing the valuable
nitrogen content in the urine (Stintzing et al. 2007). As a consequence, a conservative approach was
needed in scheduling the collection of yellow water from tanks. In many cases however, tanks were
reported to be only 50% full when pumped out, which increased the costs of yellow water collection.

3.2.3 PERFORMANCE OF URINE DIVERTING TOILETS
Water Usage
To assist residents in adapting to the Urine Diverting Toiltes (UDT), YVW engaged the Institute of
Sustainable Futures (ISF) to conduct a social research study. In parallel to the Kinglake West trial ISF also
trialled the installation of UDTs at their Sydney office. As part of their trial, they commissioned Caroma to
test the Wostman Eco-flush against Australian standard AS 1172.1 – 2005 Water Closets. Although this
standard is not intended for testing UDTs, the results prove useful in understanding the toilet’s
performance in the field. The testing showed that the Wostman used significantly greater volumes for
flushing than indicated by the manufacturer (Table 5). Like most other models, the Wostman has a halfflush
setting designed for flushing urine, to minimise dilution and conserve water. However, both the halfflush
and the full-flush used more water than claimed in specifications.
A more serious issue was the need for multiple flushing by users. Residents reported that the urine barrier
(separating the urine outlet from the rest of the toilet bowl) tended to retain faecal matter. This required
extra flushing to clean it. In addition, many female residents used the full-flush after urinating in order to
flush away toilet paper. Some UDT installations overseas encourage their users to dispose of toilet paper in
a separate bin. This was not a requirement of Kinglake West residents, being a significant behavioural
change. Instead, users were encouraged to minimise toilet paper and to place it in the back section of the
bowl. However, as confirmed by the Caroma testing, the half-flush fails to discharge any toilet paper and so
a full-flush was required after every use. All the extra flushing diluted the yellow water, which limited its
effectiveness as a fertiliser (see Section 3.4 for more details).
Table 5 – UDT performance against specifications
Performance criteria
Manufacturer’s
Specification
‘Urine flush’ volume 0.2 litres* 1.3 litres
Full flush Volume 2.5 litres^ 5.1 litres
Actual Performance
*It is unclear whether the ‘0.2L’ quoted by the manufacturer refers to the volume of water used for flushing, or the
volume actually entering the urine pipe.
^The manufacturer’s installation instructions state that the full flush is adjustable from 0 - 6 L, and recommends a
setting of 2.5L.
Odour Issues and Blockages
Soon after installation, a number of residents reported odour issues with the toilets. Different approaches
were tested, including installing an additional water trap in the downstream 100mm pipework (this solved
many of the problems). Another strategy was to leave a residual volume in the urine tank when emptying,
to prevent odours from the tank travelling back up the urine pipe into the bathroom. In addition, a number
of toilets were found to have a faulty pan whereby an air gap allowed odours to escape from the waste
pipe. This could be fixed using a grout fill but required the toilets to be re-installed (approximately 30% of
stock was affected).
Early on, some residents experienced intermittent toilet blockages. Upon investigation, this was found to
be due to clogging of the urine outlet. As urea in urine degrades, it can undergo chemical precipitation into
struvite and calcium phosphates, causing blockages (Stintzing et al. 2007). Hair and toilet paper contribute
to the problem. Unfortunately, the design of the toilet does not protect the urine outlet from foreign
matter entering. YVW distributed citric acid cleaner to residents, which helped to reduce instances of
blockages. Residents were instructed to dissolve the citric acid powder in hot water and leave it to soak in
the urine drain overnight, once every couple of months.
No blockages were reported to occur in the urine pipe itself, which was installed using guidelines and
experience from overseas UDT projects.
24 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Social Research Outcomes
The use of Urine Diverting Toiltss (UDT) at Kinglake West was innovative in the Australian context, and the
level of householder acceptance could only be assumed. A European review by Lienert and Larsen (2009)
revealed that there has been a high degree of acceptance of UDTs in both public spaces and in the home.
Users found them to compare favourably against conventional toilets in terms of design, hygiene and smell.
However the drawbacks were considered to be inferior flush performance, and more laborious cleaning
procedures. While Lienert and Larsen (2009) found that households were accepting of the UDT as a
concept, only an improved design would motivate them to keep a UDT in their home. The review also
found that users also need to be convinced of the ecological benefits. A Swedish project where most of the
collected urine was transported back to the local STP resulted in very low acceptance, since people
understandably did not want to endure the practical inconvenience if there was no significant benefit to
the environment.
The outcomes from the social research by ISF (Mitchell et al. 2011) echoed the above, in that
improvements in UDT design are necessary for more widespread uptake. A couple of the UDTs in Kinglake
West were replaced with conventional toilets at the request of the homeowners. However, on the whole,
while users recognised there were shortcomings in the UDT design, they were willing to adapt to the new
technology. One factor was the intensive support provided to users in the form of materials (manuals,
signage and cleaning kits) and personal contact with YVW and the social researcher. In the feedback
received during the social research, the issues caused by the UDTs tended to be considered minor when
compared to the problematic greywater systems.
3.2.4 IMPACT OF URINE DIVERTING TOILETS ON NITROGEN LOADS AND THE STP
Table 6 compares the blackwater from Kinglake West with the characteristics of typical domestic
wastewater from Metcalf & Eddy (2003). It shows the impact that urine diversion (in combination with
greywater reuse and primary treatment in the septic tank) has on the wastewater composition.
Concentrations of N, P and BOD are reduced since urine holds a large proportion of these nutrients in a
relatively small volume. Per capita loads have also been estimated based on flowrates of 127 L/capita-day
of blackwater 5 . This shows that nitrogen and phosphorus loads are approximately one third of those found
in typical domestic wastewater.
Table 6 - Comparison of untreated wastewater composition
3.3 Parameter
Kinglake West Blackwater Typical Domestic Wastewater
(Metcalf and Eddy, 2003)*
Concentration Load Concentration Load
Total nitrogen 57 mg/L 2.64 kg/year 70 mg/L 6.13 kg/year
Phosphorous 8.3 mg/L 0.38 kg/year 14 mg/L 1.05 kg/year
BOD 5 day 150 mg/L 6.70 kg/year 350 mg/L 30.66 kg/year
*Typical ‘high strength’ domestic wastewater based on 240L/capita-day (the most similar to Kinglake West flowrates).
One of the perceived benefits of urine diversion at Kinglake West was that it could reduce the energy
required by the STP. At conventional STPs, oxygen delivery is required for the nitrification process
(conversion of ammonia to nitrite and then nitrate). Karlsson (1996) estimated that 4 kg of oxygen is
5
This wastewater flow rate is based on figures from YVW on volume to eduction tank divided by connected properties and estimated household
size

equired for every 1 kg of nitrogen during nitrification. Hence, if an aerator has an oxygen transfer capacity
of 1 kg oxygen per kWh, then 4 kWh is required for each 1 kg of nitrogen removed.
The technology proposed for the Kinglake West STP is a recirculating trickling filter system, utilising foam
blocks as the biological media. This type of system is typically not designed to nitrify. Hence, urine diversion
will not impact energy consumption at the STP. However, it will reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in the STP influent and effluent. This has the benefit of minimising the amount of nutrients
exported to waterways from the irrigation scheme and storage during overflow events. Furthermore, less
nitrogen loading could also impact on the fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from the STP. As less nitrogen
loading may result in a lower probability of incomplete denitrification taking place, leading to less fugitive
N 2 O emissions occurring (Hall, et al., 2011).
It was calculated that if the STP was designed for nutrient removal, then urine diversion would only reduce
the energy required by around 8.5% (Tonkovic, 2012).
3.3.1 LESSONS LEARNT
Urine Diverting Toilets
In summary, the design of the Urine Diverting Toilets (UDT) used at Kinglake West had shortcomings that
inhibited user acceptance. Importantly, the UDT’s design flaws impacted on the usefulness of the yellow
water as a fertiliser (discussed in the Section 3.4). The toilet’s flush volumes were higher than specified by
the manufacturer, and the internal urine barrier tended to retain faecal matter, requiring extra flushing. As
in the case of the greywater systems, a reliance on manufacturer specifications led to certain expectations
in regards to the quality of urine and frequency (and costs) of collection. Ultimately, the cost and
inconvenience of urine diversion is not considered to justify the benefits of resource recovery.
Given that the main issues relate to UDT design, dilution and urine collection costs, this suggests that urine
diversion may be better suited to particular contexts, such as waterless urinals in commercial buildings.
Organisational Learnings
An innovative project with many stakeholders (YVW, households, contractors, suppliers, regulating
authorities) can be very complex to implement. As part of the social research component, ISF conducted indepth
interviews and facilitated a YVW workshop to identify organisational learnings. The following key
lessons can assist in ensuring more successful implementation of future innovations (Mitchell et al. 2011):
• A focus on customer outcomes, with the flexibility to incorporate user feedback and adapt the
project quickly in order to meet desired outcomes;
• Clarifying roles and responsibilities of both YVW and households with documentation;
• Pre-piloting innovative technology so there is a greater understanding of in-situ practice, both for
individual elements such as UDTs but also in combination with other elements. Piloting of the UDTs
would have enabled the early identification of cases where the manufacturer’s specifications were
not being met so that solutions to addressing these problems could have been developed before
widespread installation;
• A designated project owner who assumes overall responsibility for all aspects of the project;
• Consideration of whether existing organisational processes should apply, or workshopping new
processes with the relevant internal stakeholders;
• Improved communication and co-ordination of different tradespeople.
In the case of Kinglake West some of the above, such as the pre-piloting, and were not practical to achieve
given that the impact of the bushfires that meant households needed to be re-buil
The trial of UDTs at Kinglake West has now concluded with the completion and evaluation of the agronomic
trial. Since the viability of applying yellow water at this site was found not to be feasible, it was decided to
remove all the UDTs and collection tanks. In their place, conventional toilets will be installed with
connection to the STEP tank.
26 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

3.4 Agronomic trial
The application of UDTs and the recovery of yellow water for use in agricultural has received significant
interest in the literature (See: Cordell et al., 2009; Larsen et al., 2009; Karack and Bhattacharyya, 2011;
AdeOluwa and Cofie, 2006). The case for recovering nutrients from urine is based on the premise that urine
only constitutes 1% of domestic wastewater flow but constitutes around 80% of the nitrogen and 45% of
the phosphorus. Recovering the urine offers the following benefits (Fewless et al., 2011):
• Reduced environmental contamination from nutrients
• Energy saving at STP
• More efficient anaerobic digestion of blackwater
• Water conservation
• Reduces demand for phosphate rock fertiliser, which is depleted non-renewable resource (Cordell,
et al., 2009).
However, there is a lack of empirical studies that have actually analysed the achievement of the above
benefits in real case studies. Also, there is need to understand the cost effectiveness of urine diversion and
recovery for agricultural production by analysing the whole supply chain of yellow water in comparison to
similar growth prompters used for crop production.
This section covers the collection, storage and application of yellow water in an agronomic trial. Yellow
water was collected in a 1,100 L polyethylene tank on each property, which was designed to provide about
60 days storage for a household of 4 people. In practice, the tanks were emptied at shorter intervals to
guard against the potential of an overflow. The field maintenance data showed that in January 2012, 22
household collections of yellow water were made for the month. The use of bladder tanks was avoided due
to odour issues experienced at other pilots (Hood et al. 2009). Yellow water was pumped from each
property into portable 1,000L plastic ‘cubes’, since these were easily transportable and could be ‘batched’
for storage.
A nearby turf farm in Kinglake West, Green Acres, agreed to trialling the application of yellow water. Turf
production is a good candidate for yellow water application since it requires high and regular rates of
fertiliser application and is not a food crop, hence minimising the risks to human health. Moreover, turf
grass is a resilient crop that can tolerate the higher salinity levels found in yellow water (Wrigley, 2012).
Despite the unknown impacts of yellow water on turf, Green Acres were willing to participate in the trial.
Prior to the yellow water trial, a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) was conducted and
supplied to the Victorian Department of Health. The QMRA identified potential routes of human exposure
(Figure 8) and proposed measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels. The main preventative measure was
the storage of yellow water for at least 6 months, as recommended by World Health Organisation
guidelines, to reduce risk of the transmission of microbial diseases. The relatively high pH in yellow water
(8.8 – 9.2), caused by conversion of nitrogen to ammonium, is conducive to pathogen inactivation
(Johansson, 2001). Some of the yellow water batches at Kinglake West were stored for up to 15 months.

Figure 7 – Yellow water reuse – potential routes of human exposure
3.4.1 YELLOW WATER CHARACTERISTICS
YVW engaged agronomic scientist Roger Wrigley, of the University of Melbourne, to design and supervise
the trial. In order to determine the application rate, yellow water from 40 storage cubes was sampled and
analysed. This confirmed low nutrient concentrations compared to expected values from a literature review
(Table 7) due to dilution by high flush volumes as described previously.
Table 7- Yellow water average nutrient concentrations versus expected concentrations
Parameter
Values in Kinglake Yellow Water*
Minimum Maximum Average
Typical Values in Literature
(Wrigley, R., 2010)
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 500 2,600 1,581 4,000 – 8,000
Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 42 160 102 200 - 500
Potassium (mg/L) 93 540 290 1,000 – 3,000
Conductivity (uS/cm) 4,300 16,000 10,685 27,000
*Average of samples from 40 cubes, ranging in age from 4 days to >12 months
There was significant variability among the cubes in terms of nutrient content, but this was not correlated
to age (Figure 8). Storage time generally does not affect the nitrogen content if the collection system and
storage are sealed so that nitrogen gas cannot escape. Phosphorous and potassium levels were also highly
variable between cubes. The variability was most likely due to differences in toilet flushing habits between
households, and to a lesser extent, differences in urine composition (due to diet, etc.). The variable nutrient
content between different batches is a barrier to reuse, since it requires application rates to be adjusted.
28 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Figure 8 – Nitrogen content in yellow water vs storage time
Yellow water was compared with commercially available fertilisers in terms of nutrient content. The N:P:K
ratio (nitrogen: phosphorous: potassium) is commonly used to represent the available nutrients in fertiliser
by weight. It can be seen that when compared to other fertilisers and growth promotants, the yellow water
is lower in nutrients and much higher in salinity (Table 8). This highlights that the yellow water from
Kinglake West could not be used to entirely replace other fertilisers without salinity being an issue.
Table 8 - Comparison of yellow water N:P:K with commercially available fertilisers
Liquid Fertiliser
Conductivity*
(uS/cm)
N:P:K ratio
Blood and Bone 1,234 5.0: 0.9: 1.1 % w/v
Seaweed and Fish puree complex 687 3.5: 0.6: 0.7 % w/v
Seaweed extract (SEASOL) 341 4.6: 1.2: 3.1 % w/v
Kinglake Yellow water 10,685 0.15: 0.01: 0.02 % w/v
* When diluted for application, if required
3.4.2 TRIAL METHODOLOGY
The agronomic trial took place over five turf strips of 8m x 315m (0.25 Ha each). Yellow water was applied
at two different loadings, as shown in Figure 9. Green Acres uses Seasol as a growth promotant in addition
to fertilisers, and this practice was continued during the trial. Seasol is a commercial, kelp-based promotant
with similar characteristics to yellow water. Both Seasol and yellow water are organic, where conventional
fertilizers are inorganic, meaning that both Sealsol and yellow water can be absorbed quicker. Green Acres
was interested in whether the use of yellow water would further enhance turf growth, but did not want to
compromise production by stopping Seasol application since the test strips would eventually be harvested
for sale (Figure 10).

Figure 9 – Configuration of Yellow Water Turf Strips
Yellow water was applied using the same method as Seasol application – a tractor-towed spray irrigator.
For the ‘low loading’ test strip, 2,500 L of yellow water was applied over 2 months (5 applications). For the
‘high loading’ strip, 5,000 L was applied in total. Because of the relatively low nutrient content in the yellow
water, high application rates were needed. Since the spray nozzles could only irrigate at a certain rate, the
tractor had to travel at a very slow pace, and multiple passes were required. The power take-off driven
spray equipment available at the turf farm had a relatively low application rate (15 – 20 litres per minute)
and thus required a lot of operator time. It was estimated that to apply the recommended 4,000 litres of
yellow water to the 0.5 hectare trial plot required two hours of operator time per fortnight. This slow
application rate caused concerns for the operator due to the staff time required due to the low nutrient
concentration in the yellow water, which meant that 4,000 litres of yellow water were required to be
applied per hectare each fortnight compared to 5 litres of Seasol. Even given the dilution of Seasol (approx.
13 ml of Seasol to a litre of water), the volume to be applied is an order of magnitude lower (approx. 400
litres).
During application, a strong, unpleasant odour was reported by Green Acres staff. Fortunately, the odour
dissipated quickly and was not registered beyond the property boundary. Staff also noted that the yellow
water was corrosive and over time stripped paint from steelwork. This meant there was a reluctance to use
the yellow water with their sprayers.
Composite soil samples were analysed before and after the application of yellow water.
30 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Figure 10 – Harvested turf strips (left), Test Strip and Irrigation System
3.4.3 TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE AND LEARNINGS
Soil sampling indicated that the application of yellow water did not have a significant impact on soil
chemistry. There were no visible detrimental impacts on plant health, and based on visual inspection the
yellow water was perceived to yield a grass with better visual quality (greener). However, further replicated
trials at different application rates would be needed to confirm this. Applying the yellow water as a
substitute to growth promotants such as Seasol is currently not cost-effective, as illustrated by Table 9. In
addition, salinity impacts would prevent the yellow water from being applied at even higher rates as a
fertiliser substitute.
The time and effort associated with applying yellow water are major deterrents to its use. In order to
improve the viability of yellow water for agriculture, the following would be necessary:
• Improved toilet design and behaviour change amongst UDT users, to reduce the dilution of yellow
water;
• Irrigation equipment that allows greater rates of application; and
• A method of improving the homogeneity of yellow water collected from different sources. This
could take the form of a few large storage tanks rather than small 1kL batches.
An option for larger schemes would be to chemically precipitate the phosphorus as struvite, reducing the
costs associated with transporting and storing large volumes. However, it has been found that currently
struvite production is not financially viable given the current fertiliser prices and the cost of magnesium
sources needed for the struvite precipitation process (Etter et al. 2011).
Table 9 - Cost comparison of yellow water and seasol
Item Yellow Water Seasol
Purchase price - $3.8 / L
Average collection costs $650 / kL -
Transport costs $15 - 35 / kL -
Dilution and pumping costs Included $0.2 / L
Application (labour /equipment) Not included Not included
Unit cost $0.66 / L $4 / L
Volume required per Ha 775 L* 5 L
Cost per Ha per application $510 $20

* To apply an approximately equivalent amount of K as Seasol
3.5 Sewer collection system
Each property at Kinglake West has a septic tank which collects blackwater from toilets and excess
greywater. The blackwater undergoes primary treatment, before being pumped via a pressurised sewer to
the STP site. This type of system is also known as a common effluent sewer, or septic tank effluent
pumped/gravity (STEP/STEG – though in this case all connections are pumped).
The alternatives to a STEP system were gravity sewers leading to a sewage pumping station, or a pressure
sewer system with on-property grinder pumps. STEP offered a number of benefits compared to these
alternatives. Some benefits were general, whilst others were specific to a post-bushfire zone where
residents were gradually returning (some rebuilding quickly; others selling their land and moving
elsewhere). Benefits of STEP included:
• Capital and operating cost savings:
Particularly when compared to deep gravity sewers and a pumping station that would have been
required for the location, given the steep and difficult terrain;
• An interim sewerage solution for households:
Due to the lead time required to construct the sewerage reticulation, an interim measure was
required for properties that rebuilt soon after the fires. The STEP tanks could function as septic
tanks with effluent being dispersed onsite until a sewerage connection was available.
• Low odour risk:
It was expected that connections to the sewerage system would be gradual, and that the system’s
design capacity would not be fully utilised for many years. This meant potentially long detention
times in the system, which in the case of a grinder pump system could give rise to septicity and
odour. A STEP system reduces odour risks since most of the anaerobic breakdown occurs in the
septic tank. STEP effluent typically has a quarter of the BOD content of grinder pump sewage
(Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).)
• Smaller STP:
The STP influent would be lower in BOD and nutrients. This meant that the STP could be designed
with lower organic and hydraulic capacity. A simple, low maintenance plant was highly desirable as
the location is relatively remote for YVW.
The sewerage reticulation was completed in July 2011. As the STP has not been constructed (due mid-
2013), effluent is currently being educted to the nearest STP in Whittlesea.
3.5.1 SELECTION AND INSTALLATION
The Orenco package (supplied locally by Innoflow) was selected via a tender process for the STEP tanks.
Amongst other benefits, the lightweight fibreglass tanks are easy to manoeuvre, which was particularly
advantageous in the difficult terrain of Pine Ridge Road. An empty tank weighs approximately 177 kg which
is considerably lighter than a concrete septic tank. Two sizes are available (3,785 L and 5,678 L) to cater for
different household sizes. The STEP pump used was an Orenco 0.37kW pump with a design flow of 0.6L/s,
and capable of pumping up to 45m.
One drawback of the STEP tank compared to a grinder pump well was the amount of excavation required.
Whilst a pump well can be excavated using an auger, the STEP tank required a hole at least 4.3 x 3.1 x 2.9m
(L x W x H) to allow for compaction of backfill.
Due to presence of groundwater in the area, tanks were installed with a concrete collar as a buoyancy
countermeasure (Figure 11).
32 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Figure 11 – Installation of STEP tank
Table 10 shows the cost per property of STEP tanks vs grinder pumps. These include the tank/pump
equipment, installation and materials (project management is excluded). The grinder pump costs are
sourced from YVW’s supply contracts and relate to installation at greenfield sites. In both cases, equipment
purchase contributes to less than 40% of the cost. While STEP is slightly more expensive than grinder pump,
it should be noted that the costs are influenced by the difficult terrain at Kinglake West, with steep slopes,
limited accessibility and groundwater present. Moreover, there are economies of scale in grinder pump
installation – YVW currently has over 600 units. Conversely, Australian contractors have had little
experience in installing fibreglass tanks, which have different requirements to concrete tanks.
Table 10 - Cost of STEP tank vs grinder pump installation
Item STEP tank Grinder Pump
Purchase and installation costs (per unit) $15,543 $14,613
The effluent sewer comprises 3.3km of DN50/DN63 pressure sewer, which was installed by directional
drilling. The reticulation construction cost (inclusive of pipes and fittings, service laterals, installation and
project management) equated to approximately $220/m. This is on par with costs for other recent YVW
pressure sewer projects, which are about $210/m for DN 63. 6
The STEP and pressurised sewer collection to be implemented at Kinglake West represent the improved
design of effluent sewer systems over the last 50 years (Gross and Denn, 2011). The use of household
septic tanks effluent pump (STEP) systems was found to have a number of benefits. In particular, this allows
a staged approach to providing wastewater services to a new development. This can assist in transitioning
from household scale septics, which can then be connected to a sewer collection system and STP at a later
date. In the United States one in four households uses septic tanks for wastewater treatment, with 99% of
these septic systems using onsite septic treatment and disposal systems (Saunders et al. 2010). Saunders et
al. (2010) argued that the use of septic tanks in combination with STEP or STEG systems offers a range of
benefits. The benefits cited by the authors included: the septic tanks provide primary treatment at a low
6
This rate excludes the construction of service laterals.

cost, with minimal energy and relatively low maintenance requirements. Also, the effluent from a septic is
of consistent strength and the biosolids are substantially reduced through anaerobic treatment. STEPs offer
a number of advantages for decentralised wastewater systems relative to other configurations. They
reduce the land footprint required relative to septic tanks that use drainfields, while reducing public health
and environmental risks. Also, when compared to conveying all wastewater directly to a STP the use of
STEPs can provide direct benefits in reduced capital and operating costs for the sewer collection and STP
(Saunders et al. 2010).
34 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

3.6 Sewerage Treatment Plant
The Kinglake West STP is due for completion in mid-2013 and will utilise recirculating trickling filter
technology. The Class B effluent will be stored in a recycled water storage at the STP site, and used for
irrigation of property.
While construction of the STP is yet to be finished, many lessons were learnt during its design. These relate
to both the technical design of the STP and storage, as well as the work associated with assessing and
purchasing the STP site.
3.6.1 OBTAINING THE STP SITE
Prior to purchasing a site for the STP, a number of preliminary assessments had to be carried out to ensure
there were no obstacles to construction. Background work included flora and fauna survey, cultural
heritage assessment, planning permits and an EPA Works Approval. This was further complicated by the
initial preferred site not being the one ultimately purchased (an agreement could not be reached with the
first landowner). Some of the assessments needed to be repeated for a second site, adding to costs.
The cost of these background assessments was not insignificant, as shown in Table 11 (costs exclude YVW
project management).
Table 11 - Costs associated with STP land investigations
Item Original Site Final Site Cost
Initial property investigation Y $5 K
Valuation & legal costs Y Y $25 K
Cultural Heritage Assessment* Y Y $40 K
Irrigation management plan^ Y Y $30 K
EPA Works Approval submission Y $10 K
Flora and fauna, planning permit Y Y $10 K
TOTAL
*Includes preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan
^Includes associated field work, e.g. soil testing
$120 K
3.6.2 DESIGN OF STP AND RECYCLED WATER STORAGE
STP Design
The STP will have a capacity of 37 kL/day to cater for flows from 83 properties at ultimate development
(flow calculations assume no greywater systems in operation). The plant will be staged, with an initial
capacity of 11 kL/day (28 properties). The package treatment plant will be supplied by Aquatec Fluid
Systems, using Quanics Aerocell technology. The technology is well-suited to a remote location, being
relatively low-maintenance and having low power requirements. It also allows for easy staging of plant
capacity.
The treatment process is as follows:
1. Incoming flows are stored in a buffer tank where some degree of anaerobic treatment occurs;
2. Effluent is then pumped to a treatment module containing foam blocks that provide the media for
aerobic treatment. The effluent is sprayed over the blocks, collected at the bottom of the tank, and
a proportion of this recirculated through the treatment module;
3. Effluent is disinfected by UV before being transferred to the recycled water storage.

Recycled Water Storage and Irrigation Scheme
The recycled water storage will be 6.5ML incorporating a detention volume for helminth removal. The
storage was sized using a nutrient and water balance model called “Model for Effluent Disposal using Land
Irrigation” (MEDLI). This model is considered current best practice and was accepted by EPA as an
alternative to the monthly water balance method in Publication 168 (1991). MEDLI differs from the
monthly method by utilising a daily time step and long term climate data, and by modelling plant growth
and nutrient/salt impacts. In this way, the storage size could be drastically reduced (from 11 ML according
to the monthly method) by capturing opportunities to irrigate during dry periods in winter months.
In addition, an alternative solution was proposed to EPA’s requirement for containment of flows in at least
a 90 th percentile rainfall year. EPA’s requirement is based on total annual rainfall, which is not necessarily a
measure of overflow or pollutant discharge, since it does not account for frequency or intensity of rainfall
events (Asquith, 2011). YVW’s approach was based on actual wastewater overflow volumes and nutrient
loads as calculated by the MEDLI modelling. This showed that a 6.5ML storage would be able to contain
97% of wastewater flows, 99% nitrogen and 98% phosphorus loads.
Although this approach does not fit the 90 th percentile requirement, it is expected to deliver an equivalent
level of protection for the environment. Moreover, it is significantly more cost-effective and avoids the risks
associated with an excessively sized storage (cracking of banks, hypersalinity due to evaporation).
An irrigation management plan was developed for reuse of the class B effluent. Effluent will be used to
irrigate the land surrounding the STP, of which 6.2 Ha has been assessed as suitable.
3.6.3 STP ESTIMATED COSTS
The delay to STP construction was partly due to the unexpectedly high capital costs. The design was
reviewed and re-tendered with the aim of finding cost savings. The actual package plant itself makes up
only 12% of the costs, with the majority of the cost coming from the recycled water storage and civil works
(Table 12). Due to YVW’s rigorous OH&S and staff facility requirements, the STP building has ended up
considerably larger than originally envisaged (it will house a workspace, equipment storage as well as the
STP controls). Another unforeseen high cost was the extension of grid electricity to the site, although this
was assessed as being more cost-effective than solar power.
Table 12 – STP costs
Item
STP package plant
Civil works, facilities, recycled water storage
Land purchase*^
Irrigation scheme
Extension of grid power supply
TOTAL^
Costs
$351 K
$1,914 K
$855 K
$200 K
$83 K
$3,403 K
*Includes cost of background investigations.
^Not all of the land purchased is required for the STP. At the time of purchase, it was estimated that excess land could
be subdivided and resold for $500K, effectively making the total STP cost $2,903K.
36 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

4 Evaluation against predicted benefits
The purpose of this section is to review the performance of the Kinglake West sewerage system against
benefits postulated in the business case. The preferred sewerage servicing option was estimated to deliver
the following benefits:
• Economic savings of up to 20%
• Increased reliability in water supply from 90% to 100%
• Reduce wastewater discharges by up to 50%
• Reduce nitrogen loads to the STP by up to 80%
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%
In assessing the performance of the Kinglake West sewerage system against predicted benefits, some of
the differences between pre-development expectations and assumptions need to be considered. In
particular, the devastating 2009 bushfires in the area meant that the development was no longer a retrofit
to existing homes but was essentially a Greenfield development. Other changes, specific to the
achievement of the performance objectives are discussed below.
4.1 Economic savings of up to 20%
The goal to provide economic savings of 20% was in relation to base case of servicing the area as part of
YVW’s backlog program. The works were scheduled to commence in 2021/22.
The economic comparison of the base case against the preferred serving option included not only direct
financial costs to YVW but also included the total ‘community’ capital and operating costs of each option,
and the externalities of water saved, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, and decrease in nutrients
discharged. The analysis found that in community terms, much of the additional costs for the alternative
options was the bringing forward of the investment from 2021/22 to 2008. When the ‘bring forward’ costs
were discounted the preferred option, which undertook an approach in line with the principles of
integrated urban water management, was around $1 million more expensive than the base case. However,
it was also found that the base case was not able to meet the triple bottom line sustainability objectives of
the project, which were costed as externalities. The externalities were valued at about $1 million in the
NPV analysis. It is with from this perspective that the preferred servicing option was seen to deliver the
best community outcome and consequently, the preferred solution.
This comparison begins by looking at the realised capital costs in relation to estimated costs, and some of
the major factors that influenced the difference. Comparing capital costs for the major items, Figure 13, it is
seen that the actual costs were 64% higher than the original estimated costs.
To compare the actual figures to the original economic estimate requires the operating costs, ‘bring
forwards’ costs, and the externalities to be considered in an NPV analysis. This has however not been done
as we do not have all the operating costs yet, and extrapolating them was not seen to materially change
the conclusions. Either way, this project did not meet the financial estimate, nor realise the economic
estimate of a 20% saving. Even at a rough estimate, the actual economic evaluation did not break even, and
is estimated to be closer to being 40% more costly.
In assessing the realised costs, it is worth noting a few of the factors that caused substantial difference
between the estimated and the actual costs. In particular, the STP requirements for the wet weather
storage made the construction costs much higher than expected. Table 13 compares the estimated costs of
the preferred servicing option and the actual realised costs. Furthermore, installation costs were higher
than expected for the STEP and greywater system. Land purchase for the STP also ended up higher when
negotiations failed to proceed with the first preferred site. The new site had a higher purchase price,
although some of these costs are expected to be offset with the selling of surplus land. Moving to another
site also required many site evaluation functions to be repeated which incurred additional costs as well.

Table 13 - Comparison between estimated and realised costs
Capital cost item Estimated cost of
preferred servicing
approach (Sept 2009)
Actual Cost (Feb 2012)
Difference (percentage)
Purchase and install urine
separation systems
Purchase and install Greywater
treatment units
Sewerage Treatment Plant (incl.
land purchase and civil works)
STEP and Pressure Sewer
System
Community engagement and
evaluation
$182,850 $322,858 77%
$414,000 $666,942 61%
$1,482,458 $2,924,575 7 97%
$1,169,064 $1,947,067 67%
$760,000 $306,530 -60%
Design $290,837 $880,899 203%
Total $4.3 million $7 million 64%
4.2 Increased reliability in water supply from 90% to 100%
The Kinglake West area does not have reticulated mains water supply, so houses rely on rainwater tanks
and groundwater. It was found that during low rainfall periods many houses had to tanker in water.
Therefore, a major objective for the project was to implement measures that would improve water
efficiency (such as low flush toilets) and also augment the primary supply from rainwater tanks (greywater
recycling). The CSIRO study by Sharma et al. (2006) found that the preferred option should increase
residents’ volumetric reliability of water supply to 100 per cent, compared to 90.4 for options without
onsite initiatives. The performance measure has been achieved for the project with no reports of residents
having to truck water in. However, an extended dry period with little or no rainfall may mean in some years
there is the need for top-up supply. However, meeting this objective was influenced by the post-bushfire
rebuilding where much larger rainwater tanks were installed. The assumed tank volume for estimating
reliability was 25 kL, while a survey of rebuilt houses found an average of 45 kL, with many having much
larger rainwater storages. Around 10 kL of the storage is quarantined for fire flighting, but this still has
influenced the achievement of this objective.
4.3 Reduce wastewater discharges by up to 50%
The use of greywater systems, UDT toilets, and low flush toilets was estimated to reduce the volume of
wastewater generated at Kinglake West. The capacity of the greywater systems to deliver the benefits
intended was impeded by the performance and reliability of these systems in the Kinglake West setting.
Monitoring of wastewater volumes generated at Kinglake West showed that wastewater volumes being
generated of around 11.4 kL a day for the 32 households connected. This equates to around 130 kL of
wastewater for each household per year. This is a 28% reduction on the YVW average sewage collected per
property of 187 kL/year (2009/10 value) 8 .
7
This includes estimated costs for STP and wet weather storage as not yet constructed
8
National Water Commission (2011) National Performance Report 2009-10 - urban water utilities, Available at:
http://archive.nwc.gov.au/library/topic/npr/npr-2009-10-urban, Accessed; MARCH 2013.
38 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

4.4 Reduce nitrogen loads to the STP by up to 80%
The analysis of blackwater demonstrated that the source separation of wastewater using urine separating
toilets at the household level will reduce the nitrogen loads that will be delivered to the STP, when it is
constructed. It was found that the blackwater concentration and load of nitrogen and phosphorus in
Kinglake West influent was substantially less than typical composition of blackwater, based on values in
Metcalf and Eddy (2003). The reduction in total nitrogen loads was estimated at 56% compared to a base
case, which meant the original target was not achieved.
4.5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%
The target for greenhouse gas reduction was related to those emissions associated with power generation
and supply. This performance objective for the Kinglake West scheme is unable to be evaluated at present
as the STP is yet to be constructed. The assumptions for the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in
comparison to the base case included the impact of the UDT on reducing the nitrogen loads to the STP.
However, as discussed in the preceding section the treatment process selected does not include
nitrification, so it is not expected that even if the UDT were operational that diverting the urine (and the
majority of nitrogen loads) from the wastewater influent would substantially reduce energy demand, and
associated greenhouse gas emissions. The monitoring of the greywater system trial, which has now been
discontinued, did show that energy demand for these systems was much higher than manufacturer’s
specifications. So although the STP is yet to be completed, it is anticipated that greenhouse gas emission
reductions will not be achieved as predicted.

5 Discussion and Conclusions
The Kinglake West Sustainable Sewerage Project had the multiple objectives of: 1) enhancing the
environmental, public health and waterway health through innovative wastewater management, 2)
identifying a lower community cost solution, and 3) to demonstrate a sustainable alternative wastewater
servicing configuration for small communities. Yarra Valley Water set out to achieve these objectives
through commissioning applied research to explore innovative options, and the implications for triple
bottom line objectives. The preferred servicing configuration was selected with the aid of multi-criteria
assessment. The innovative approaches implemented at Kinglake West included a trial of source separation
of wastewater at the household scale with urine diverting toilets and greywater recycling, while
wastewater was discharged to household septic tank prior to being pumped via a pressurised sewer to the
Sewage Treatment Plant site. There was also an agronomic trial of yellow water collected from Urine
Diversion Toilets for turf production.
Yarra Valley Water’s approach to the project has ensured that there has been organisational learning
through post-implementation monitoring and assessment. This experiential approach is important to
ensure that lessons learnt and insights from the Project will have broader value in improved outcomes for
future servicing of small communities and backlog areas. The Kinglake West project has helped to identify
some of the knowledge gaps for the adoption of source separation technologies for providing wastewater
services in small communities.
The economic costs of the Kinglake West project ended up being 60% greater than original estimates. This
increase may have been due to optimism bias in the estimates of costs and benefits. Flyvbjerg (2008)
revealed that, based on a comprehensive public infrastructure projects, there is systematic
underestimation of costs, completion times and risks. In the projects at risk of cost overruns the impact can
be compounded by overstatement of benefits. Some of the characteristics of projects susceptible to cost
overruns are: technology is not standard, decision-making and planning are multi-actor processes with
conflicting interests, project scope may significantly change over time, long planning horizons, and lack of
budget contingencies to deal with unplanned events. Flyvbjerg (2007) put forward three main reasons for
costs overruns:
• Technical reasons in terms of imperfect forecasting, lack of data, honest mistakes, and the inherent
difficulty in predicting the future.
• Optimism bias, where planners and project promoters make decisions based on optimism rather
than a rational consideration of project gains, losses and probabilities. This can lead to
overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs. Optimism bias can be a result of cognitive
biases to the way people process information. This can be addressed by ensuring simple reality
checks of estimates during the planning stage.
• The final reason is for political or strategic advantage where there is purposeful misrepresentation
of project costs and benefits to gain advantage, such as when there is competition for scarce funds.
The trial of technologies for recovery of recycled water and nutrients at Kinglake West may have been
subject to some inadvertent optimism bias, which in part was due to the enthusiasm to investigate more
sustainable and innovative configurations for expanding reticulated wastewater services. In hindsight this
might have been addressed through more careful consideration of uncertainty and the use of sensitivity
analysis in considering the implications of changes to assumptions used to forecast project costs and
benefits.
In comparing the costs of providing services to Kinglake West it must be considered relative to a do nothing
base case option, which was to leave failing septic tanks in place until the area was serviced under the Yarra
Valley Water backlog program. The assessment of septic tanks found that they were not able to contain
wastewater flows during wet weather leading to discharge to the environment. Therefore, bringing forward
investment in the Kinglake West reticulated wastewater services is likely to have delivered significant
environmental benefits to waterways, as Kinglake West was originally scheduled for servicing in 2021/22.
40 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

The trial of the greywater systems found that the need for augmentation of the water supply was reduced
due to larger rainwater tanks installed following the bushfires. In designing a wastewater servicing
configuration that includes recycling there is the need to consider potential competition between water
sources, and also a preference hierarchy for alternative water sources. If there is likely to be redundancy
due to insufficient demand for the potential water supplied then the water sources should be preferred in
consideration of the following: cost effectiveness over the life cycle, levels of community acceptance, ease
of O&M, avoidance of environmental impact, and reliability. Given the costs and energy associated with the
greywater systems at Kinglake West, and the lack of demand, it would not be possible to justify the
installation and operation on the basis of reduced wastewater flows to the STP as the costs are likely to
outweigh the benefits.
Greywater systems where there is treatment and reuse may be best suited as an alternative water source
in medium to high density developments. These developments are likely to have less available roof area per
capita for harvesting rainwater. Also, in many cases high and medium density developments are managed
under a strata or community title, which makes it more feasible to manage and operate communal
greywater recycling systems. The use of communal systems means a skilled operator can be employed to
manage the system that avoids the need for behavioural adaption of households required to ensue
appropriate operation and maintenance of the system. At Kinglake West it was found that a reason for the
high energy demand was in part due to the system almost requiring as much energy in stand-by mode as
when operational. Using a communal greywater system with more households connected would mean that
there would be more consistent flows that is likely to result in more efficient treatment. Also, it is possible
that the capital costs of purchasing and installing greywater systems will have some economies of scale.
There is the need for further investigation of the implication of operating greywater recycling at the cluster
scale, and the net benefits relative to household scale schemes.
Another issue with on-site wastewater systems, such as the greywater systems, is that their impact on
reducing capacity requirements for centralised infrastructure can be over-emphasised. At Kinglake West,
and in many other cases, a justification for the adoption of greywater system is that it can reduce
wastewater flows and loads (Marleni et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2010), which then may mean that
wastewater collection pipes and treatment plants can be downsized. However, often the centralised
wastewater systems are designed and operated as the service provider of last resort. This means that the
infrastructure is still sized on the assumption that the household scale systems will fail. This was the case at
Kinglake West where the capacity of the pressure sewer system and STP were designed on the assumption
that household greywater systems were not operating. The reliability of decentralised options, particularly
systems where households have responsibility to maintain and operate is likely to be less than systems
managed centrally. Moglia et al. (2012) found that the management of household water systems presents a
dilemma as they are private property but they contribute to public good outcomes so increased failure due
to inadequate maintenance can reduce the value to the community. However, the authors found that the
involvement of an organisation to assist by understanding regular inspections and maintenance is not
always viewed favourably by households, due to perceptions of interference.
The Kinglake West trial of UDT and greywater recycling demonstrated that untried technology has inherent
risks that it will not perform as expected. Makropoulos and Butler (2010) highlighted that this lack of
understanding of likely performance for community level infrastructure is mostly due to the lack of real
world applications of the technologies. Case studies of novel approaches to wastewater services is needed
for a range of development settings to work towards a better understanding of actual performance and
operating costs likely to be achieved in a particular development, as opposed to generic manufacturers’
specifications. The greywater system installed at Kinglake West was influenced by a lack of choice in EPA
approved systems. While the trial of UDTs required an exemption from the Plumbing Industry Commission
due to there being no standard for UDTs in Australia. The problems faced with the greywater systems (poor
performance in cold climate) and the UDTs (high flush volumes, and initial problems with odour and
blockages) could be addressed through improvements to design, installation and maintenance practices.
Realising these improvements would be more likely if the technologies and practices achieved greater
mainstream uptake, but even given more reliable performance, there would need to be consideration of
the net benefits in the development context before proceeding with these approaches.

The lack of information on the performance of alternative wastewater servicing approaches can create a
reinforcing feedback loop that deters mainstream adoption. The value of a project such as Kinglake West is
that has provided both Yarra Valley Water and the broader urban water sector with an understanding of
some of the knowledge gaps that still exist for the practical application of source separating wastewater
technologies in peri-urban developments. Improved knowledge of these approaches is needed to guide
appropriate technology selection, inform installation requirements, and strategies to ensure adequate
operation and maintenance practices by both the households and utility.
Customer requirements and feedback was found to be important at Kinglake West in assessing the system
performance, and that projects that include household scale infrastructure should be able to use early
feedback in improving subsequent installations. Mitchell et al. (2011) found that in the case of Kinglake
West that the inclusion of householders’ knowledge would have improved the UDT trial outcomes for both
YVW and the households. This would have allowed for the earlier action in addressing some of the
operational problems with the UDTs such as odour, blockages, cleaning requirements and high flushing
volumes. The authors also highlight the installation of systems on the household scale requires a different
approach to the standard management of installation of wastewater services. In particular, there needs to
be clear roles and responsibilities defined among the households, contractors and the utility. This approach
include aspects to improve UDT practice such as a process for checking contractors’ work, mediation by
project manager with tradespeople to resolve complaints and operational issues, and establishing a clear
process for resolving household complaints. Willets et al. (2007) presented a framework to manage
household wastewater systems and the associated risks. This framework puts the focus on people involved
and promoting cooperation and partnership. The authors argued that considering the management of
household wastewater systems from the different perspectives involved is important to ensure equitable
sharing of costs, maintenance tasks and risks. A review of the acceptance of UDTs in European countries by
Lienert and Larsen (2009) found that was a positive correlation between more information being provided
to households and acceptance.
The Kinglake West trial of UDT and yellow water for turf production has revealed a number of important
lessons. The very low concentration of nutrients and the difficulty in ensuring consistent nutrient properties
means that yellow water cannot be considered as a substitute for commercially available fertilisers, such as
those derived from phosphate rock. Furthermore, the very low nutrient concentration in yellow water from
the Kinglake West trial and the lack of an overflow device meant that the transport costs were relatively
high. Furthermore, an analysis of STP processes planned for Kinglake West indicated the UDT will have a
negligible impact on treatment efficiency and energy. The agronomic trial showed that the impact of
yellow water on soil productivity and associated plant growth was not significant, and that there is the
need for further trials to work out better application rates.
YVW investigated options to make UDT toilets potentially feasible for nutrient recovery, specifically: less
dilution of urine through better toilet design and improved homogeneity of yellow water. There are also
processes to recover the nutrients from urine, such as struvite precipitation, which reduces the volume and
concentrates the nutrients (Fewless et al., 2011). A review by Le Corree et al. (2009) showed that the
struvite process cannot be made economically feasible due current cost of phosphate rock fertiliser and the
costs of magnesium needed for the process. Etter et al. (2011) also showed that it was not possible to make
struvite precipitation financially viable even if transport costs are kept low. The justification for UDT and
nutrient recovery is likely to be on the basis of reducing the impact of nutrients on wastewater treatment
processes, such as reduced energy and reduced struvite precipitation. Struvite precipitation can reduce the
efficiency of treatment processes and result in maintenance problems due to scaling (Le Coree et al., 2009).
The financial assessment of options by YVW to reduce yellow water dilution or add a process for struvite
precipitation still found it to be unviable due to high costs for yellow water collection and additional
treatment processes. Also, the recovered product is likely to be uncompetitive with conventional fertilisers.
Key lessons
• STEP tanks offer a good approach to extending wastewater services to small communities. They
enable a staged approach to providing services, while also reducing capital and operating costs for
42 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

collection systems and STP. The connection of septic tanks to a collection network and treatment
plant reduces the likelihood of discharge of wastewater contaminants to the environment.
• The project has provided empirical based evidence for the benefits and difficulties of implementing
source separation of wastewater to improve sustainability outcomes in servicing backlog areas. In
particular this project has quantified the costs, operational issues and feasibility of concepts such as
nutrient recovery from urine in a small community for agronomic production.
• There is a need to consider the feasibility of alternative water sources on a site specific basis. If
there is insufficient demand for the alternative water source it is unlikely that the costs and
management complexity can be justified on other grounds, such as reduced wastewater volumes.
• Technology selection and installation should be staged. Novel approaches such as urine diversion
and greywater recycling are immature technologies so there is uncertainty in their performance,
maintenance requirements and operating costs. This can be addressed by an initial small-scale pilot
that validates their performance in the particular development setting, and includes addressing
feedback from customers on any operating issues.
• Streamlined approach by having a single party responsible for the installation, supply and
maintenance of household systems, such as greywater recycling units. This would clarify
responsibilities for addressing any problems with the systems, be easier to manage for YVW, and
provide better customer service.
• Where possible the technologies associated with source separation of wastewater should be
designed and configured to minimise the behavioural change required by households.
• The high establishment costs of household greywater recycling systems, and the complexity of
devolving some management and O&M responsibilities to householders means that these systems
may be better suited to higher or medium density developments. In this setting a cluster scale
approach could be implemented where a single system serves a number of households.
• The innovative wastewater services approaches trialled at Kinglake West are likely to have a
financial premium when compared to servicing with a conventional gravity sewer system.
• UDT would be better suited to particular contexts where there is less likely to be dilution of yellow
water, possibly using waterless urinals in commercial or public buildings. However, the financial
feasibility recovering costs by using yellow water for crop production was found to be limited by:
heterogeneity of yellow water, current costs of commercial fertiliser, and costs of collecting and
transporting yellow water. Investigations into alternative configurations of using yellow water as a
crop fertiliser supplement showed that it was not financially feasible even if the yellow water was
more concentrated.
• The project has demonstrated that it’s possible to undertake applied research in the community
with the cooperation and development of partnerships. This project developed strong partnerships
amongst the involved parties which included: YVW, households, local government, regulatory
authorities, turf farmer and research organisations.
• In exploring innovative approaches to wastewater servicing there is the need for post
implementation assessment and monitoring, such as occurred in this project. This ensures that
lessons can be used for refining the approach for future YVW projects, while also providing the
broader urban waster sector with important knowledge that can help facilitate increased adoption
of more sustainable approaches.

44 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Appendix A – Available information on Kinglake
West Sewerage Project
Date Report title Notes
April 2007
May 2007
June 2006
Sharma, A., Grant A., Tjandraatmadja G., Gray S. (2006) Sustainability
of Alternative Sewerage Servicing Options – Yarra Valley Water.
Stage 2 – Backlog Areas. CSIRO
Grant T., Opray L. Sustainability of Alternative Water and Sewerage
Servicing Options. Life Cycle Assessment. Stage 2 – Pheasant Creek.
(Kinglake West). RMIT University. Centre for Design.
Victorian Water Trust “Registration of Interest” – Demonstration of
More Sustainable Sewerage Servicing for Small Communities
Theoretical study identifying that
more sustainable solutions exist
Registration of interest seeking
funding support
20 June 2007 Sustainable Sewerage Servicing for Small Communities – Pheasant
Creek. Yarra Valley Water response to Victorian Water Trust (VWT)
question (29 May 2007)
Clarifying commitment to VWT of
what we will do
30 April 2007 Sustainable Sewerage Servicing for Small Communities. Pheasant Creek Submitted business case (pp111)
27 April 2007 Haeusler E., Pamminger F. (2007) Improving the Delivery of Our Backlog
Program. - An innovative way to deliver more sustainable sewerage
options to small communities. Yarra Valley Water’s business case
‘Plain English’ version of business
case seeking funding support
October 2009
February 2010
March 2010
May 2010
May 2011
September 2011
Nov 2011
January 2012
October 2012
The State Government of Victoria through the Department of
Sustainability and Environment (2009). Sustainable Sewerage Servicing
for Small Communities (Pheasant Creek Project). Funding Agreement
Asquith, B. (2010) Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Technical Peer
Review. By BMT WBM for YVW
GHD (2010) Yarra Valley Water. Report for Kinglake West Sewerage.
Preliminary Design Report.
Wrigley R., J., & H., J. (2010) Kinglake West Sewerage Project.
Research Project Design for Agricultural Trial Yellow Water as a
Plant Nutrient Source
Asquith, B. (2011) Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Irrigation
Management Plan. By BMT WBM for YVW
Institute for Sustainable Futures (2011). Mutual Learning for Social
Change. Using social research to support the introduction of urine
diverting toilets in the Kinglake West Sewerage Project.
Appendices (pp142)
GHD (2011) Yarra Valley Water. Specification for Kinglake West
Sewerage Project. WWTP and storage lagoon.
Water and Energy Savers (2012) Monitoring of Sewerage System
Energy Consumption.
Wrigley, R. and Bannan, C. (2012) Yellow Water as a Supplement for
Growing Turf at Kinglake West – Final Report
Project brief in contract
Technical review of sewerage
reticulation design
Preliminary design report for STP
Design of agronomic trial
Irrigation Management Plan for
Kinglake West STP
Social research
Specifications for STP
Energy consumption
Assessment of agronomic trial

References
AdeOluwa, O.O. and Cofie, O. (2006) Urine as an alternative fertilizer in agriculture: Effects in amaranths
(Amaranthus caudatus) production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, January: 1-8.
Byrne, J. (2011) The Grove – ESD Fact Sheet 6: Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, March 2011,
http://www.watercorporation.com.au/_files/waterwise/The_Grove_Wastewater_Reuse_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Cook, S. Hall. M. and 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.
Cordell, D., Drangert, J., and White, S. (2009) The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for
thought, Global Environmental Change, 19: 292-305.
Crites, R. and Tchobanoglous, G. (1998) Small and Decentralised Wastewater Management Systems,
McGraw Hill
Crockett, J., Oliver, S., Millar, C., Burrows, B., Jefferson, M., Jaques, K. (2003) Composting Toilet
Demonstration – Volume 1, Report for Smart Water Fund (DSE Victoria)
CSIRO, (2005) Sustainability of Alternative Water and Sewerage Servicing Options – YVW; Kalkallo and Box
Hill PAC Development.
De Buers, M. and Fahrner, S. (2010) Yarra Valley Water’s Nitrogen Management Strategy, 73 rd Annual
Water Industry Engineers and Operators Conference, Bendigo Exhibition Centre, 31 August to 2 September,
2010.
EPA Victoria (1991) Publication 168 – Guidelines for wastewater irrigation
Etter, B., Tilley, E., Khadka, R., and Uder, K.M (2011) Low-cost struvite production using source-separated
urine in Nepal, Water Research 45, 852 – 862.
Fewless, K., Sharvelle, S., and Roesner, L. A. (2011) Source separation and treatment of anthropogenic
urine, Water Environment Research Foundation.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2007) Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,34: 578 -597.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008): Curbing Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation in Planning: Reference Class
Forecasting in Practice, European Planning Studies, 16:1(): 3-21.
Grant. T., Opray. L., (2005) LCA Report for Sustainability of Alternative Water and Sewerage Servicing
Options, RMIT University.
Grant , T. And Opray, L. (2007) Sustainability of alternative water and sewerage servicing options: Life cycle
assessment Stage 2 – Pheasant Creek (Kinglake West), RMIT University.
Gross, M. A. and Denn, G. (2011) The evolution of effluent sewers, Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation, Session 41 through Session 50: 2381 – 2411.
Long-Term Trends and Opportunities for Managing Regional Water Supply and Wastewater Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Hall, M., West, J., Sherman, B., Lane, J. and de Haas, D. (2011) Long-Term Trends and Opportunities for
Managing Regional Water Supply and Wastewater Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Environmental Science &
Technology 2011 45 (12), 5434-5440
Hood B., Gardner, T., Beal, C. (2009). Domestic urine separation captures plant macronutrients. Water.
February 2009.
Johansson, M. et al. (2000) Urine separation: Closing the nutrient cycle. Prepared for the Stockholm Water
Company, Sweden.
46 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

Karack, T. and Bhattacharyya, P. (2011) Human urine as a source of alternative natural fertilizer in
agriculture: A flight of fancy or an achievable reality, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55: 400-408.
Karlsson, I. (1996). "Environmental and energy efficiency of different sewage treatment processes." Water
Science and Technology 34(3-4): 203-211.
Larsen, T. A., Alder, A. C., Eggen, R. I., Maurer, M. and Lienert, J. (2009) Source separation: will we see a
paradigm shift in wastewater handling Environmental Science and Technology, 43 (16): 6121-6125.
Le Corre, K. S., Valsami-Jones, E., Hobbs P. & Parsons, S. A. (2009): Phosphorus Recovery from
Wastewater by Struvite Crystallization: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology, 39:6, 433-477
Lienert, J. and Larsen, T. A. (2009) High acceptance of urine source separation in seven European countries:
A review, Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 556-566.
Makropoulos, C. K. and Butler, D. (2010) Distributed water infrastructure for sustainable communities,
Water Resources Management, 24:2795-2816.
Mankad, A. and Tapsuwan, S. (2011) Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and
adoption of decentralised water systems, Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (3): 380-391.
Marleni, N; Gray, S; Sharma, A; Burn, S and Muttil, N. (2011) The Impact of Residential Source Management
Practices (SMPs) on Sewer Pipe : A Review [online]. In: Valentine, EM (Editor); Apelt, CJ (Editor); Ball, J
(Editor); Chanson, H (Editor); Cox, R (Editor); Ettema, R (Editor); Kuczera, G (Editor); Lambert, M (Editor);
Melville, BW (Editor); Sargison, JE (Editor). Proceedings of the 34th World Congress of the International
Association for Hydro- Environment Research and Engineering: 33rd Hydrology and Water Resources
Symposium and 10th Conference on Hydraulics in Water Engineering. Barton, A.C.T.: Engineers Australia,
2011: 2679-2686.
Metcalf & Eddy Inc., Tchobanoglous, G. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, McGraw Hill
Mitchell, C., Fam, D., and Abeysuriya, K. (2011) Mutual learning for social change: using social research to
support the introduction of urine diverting toilets in the Kinglake West Sewerage Project. Prepared for
Yarra Valley Water by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney.
Moglia, M., Tjandraatmadja, G., Walton, A., Sharma, A., Umapathi, S. and Gardner, J. (2012) Proposed
Strategy Portfolio for the Management of Rainwater Tanks: the South East Queensland Case. Urban Water
Security Research Alliance Technical Report No. 75.
Nolde, E. (2005) Greywater recycling systems in Germany--results, experiences and guidelines. Water
Science and Technology, 51(10): 203-210.
Randall, C. W. (2003) Changing needs for appropriate excreta disposal and small wastewater treatment
methodologies or The future of small wastewater treatment systems, Water Science and Technology, 48
(11): 1-6.
Saunders, M.,Denn, G. Axnd Molatore, T. (2010) Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP)and Gravity (STEG)
collection systems: Myth busting the value of using septic tanks as a part of a wastewater collection system,
Proceeding of the Water Environment Federation 2010, Session 91 through Session 100: 7020-7027.
Schlunke, A., Lewis, J. and Fane, S. (2008) Analysis of Australian Opportunities for More Water-Efficient
Toilets, Report for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Institute for Sustainable Futures at University of Technology, Sydney
Soon Kuk Kwun, Chun G. Yoon & Batu Kimn (2000): Performance of a small on-site wastewater treatment
system using absorbent biofilter for Korean rural community, Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 35:9, 1701-1717
Stintzing, A., Jönsson, H., Schönning, C., Hinkkanen, K., Kvarnström, E., Ganrot, Z., Samwel, M., Gabizon, S.,
Mohr, A. (2007) Urine Diverting Toilets in Climates with Cold Winters, Women in Europe for a Common
Future, Munich

Tonkovic, Z. (2012) Kinglake West Sewerage Scheme – Assessment of Urine Separation on Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse, Report for YVW
Water and Energy Savers (2012) Monitoring of Sewerage System Energy Consumption. Kinglake West
Whitehead and Associates (2006) Concept Designs for an Innovative Wastewater Management System:
Pheasant Creek
Willets, J., Fane, S. and Mitchell, C. (2007) Making decentralised systems viable: A guide to managing
decentralised assets and risks, Presented at International Water Association Advanced Sanitation
Conference, March 12 th to 13 th , Aachen, Germany.
Wilsenach, J.A. and Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. (2004). Effects of Separate Urine Collection on Advanced
Nutrient Removal Processes. Environmental Science & Technology. Vol 38 (4) pp 1208-1215
Zhang, Y., Grant, A., Sharma, A., Chen, D., and Chen, L. (2010) Alternative Water Resources for Rural
Residential Development in Western Australia, Water Resources Management, 24 (1); 25-36.
48 Kinglake West Sewerage Project: Post-implementation sustainability assessment

CONTACT US
t 1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
e enquiries@csiro.au
w www.csiro.au
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CSIRO Land and Water
Stephen Cook
t +61 3 9252 6603
e stephen.cook@csiro.au
YOUR CSIRO
Australia is founding its future on
science and innovation. Its national
science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse
of ideas, technologies and skills for
building prosperity, growth, health and
sustainability. It serves governments,
industries, business and communities
across the nation.