BIOSOLIDS TASK GROUP
STRATEGIC PLAN
July 2013
BACKGROUND
In early 2008 a small group of enthusiastic industry representatives, led by Allen Gale as the
inaugural Chair, formed the Biosolids Task Group. The Group hit the ground running, taking
up and progressing a range of priority issues in the first 12 months of operation.
Achievements included establishing a Victorian industry network, producing the first survey
of biosolids production and establishing a knowledge hub of related research. Most
importantly, the Group influenced the National biosolids agenda and the formation of the
Australian Biosolids Partnership; later to become the ANZBP.
Towards the end of the first 12 months of operation the Task Group established a “Five Key
Issues” priority list and set about addressing them. Many industry representatives will be
currently appreciating the benefits of these efforts today, which relate to:

Adopting the WERF sustainability template

Rationalising regulations and reporting

Raising the profile of biosolids management with Government

Addressing the risk management aspects of biosolids

Developing communications guidelines and toolkits to assist in consistent
engagement with stakeholders and the community.
In addition to addressing these priorities one of the most important roles of the Task Group
is to provide strategic advice and facilitate knowledge sharing throughout the water
industry. Just to name a few achievements, the Group has been instrumental in promoting
the 2009 community attitudinal survey, assisting to address spontaneous combustion of
stockpiles, advocating at National forums and providing a number of useful planning and
management resources. More recently the Group has influenced the revision of the
Essential Services Commission biosolids management performance measure. Where
previously water businesses were required to report both dry biosolids and wet sludge, the
performance measure has been rationalised to reporting dried biosolids in stockpile. This is
a significant improvement, particularly for businesses with lagoon based systems.
Commencing in July 2012, the Biosolids Task Group embarked on a strategic planning
exercise to refresh the direction of the Group. This Strategic Plan represents the
culmination of those efforts and aims to address the priority biosolids management issues
identified by the Victorian water industry over the coming years.
VISION AND MISSION
As part of the preparation of the Strategy, the Biosolids Task Group reviewed the Vision and
Mission, aligning them to the overarching Vicwater Vision and Mission. The following
statements have been adopted:
Vision:
“To support the Victorian Water Industry in becoming the champion of innovative and
sustainable biosolids management”
Mission:
“To support the sustainable and innovative use of biosolids throughout the Victorian Water
Industry by providing policy advice and facilitating industry collaboration, information
sharing and research”
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
In order to collate the priority biosolids management issues for the water industry, all
Victorian water corporations were invited to submit their “Top Five” priorities. Fifteen of
the seventeen businesses responded with a wide range of issues. Common issues were
grouped into 14 common themes and are detailed in Appendix 1.
The water corporations were then invited to rank the 14 themes through an on-line voting
process. Again 15 of the 17 corporations participated in the voting process and the results
are detailed in Appendix 2.
The Biosolids Task Group reviewed the voting results and resolved to target the top seven
issues for action, having regard to resource availability and competing commitments. The
remaining seven issues have been parked for the medium term and will be considered as
part of a future strategic plan review.
The following detailed scoping plans have been prepared for the seven targeted actions.
ACTION PLAN
Project One:
Project:
Person Responsible:
Optimising cost of biosolids management
Aravind Surapaneni
Project Description:
Biosolids production is unavoidable. Australia produces approximately 300,000 dry tonnes of biosolids annually Victoria produces around 93,000 dry tonnes annually (AWA Position Paper, July 2012). Costs associated with biosolids
management can be separated into two main categories – (i) treatment costs (to produce biosolids), and (ii) beneficial
use costs (to use biosolids).
Treatment costs can be further broken down into (i) dewatering, (ii) stabilisation, and (iii) storage costs. The most
common end use of biosolids in Australia is application to agricultural land, followed by landscaping and soil
amendment after biosolids are composted. Costs associated with beneficial use in agriculture can be broken down into
(i) transport, (ii) spreading and incorporation, (iii) storage, and (iv) sampling and monitoring.
Recently, Darvodelsky (2012) reported (see tables below) the treatment and beneficial use costs of Australian biosolids
based on an industry survey conducted in 2010.
Treatment step
Cost per tonne processed (dry)
National annual cost
Dewatering
$100-300
$50 million
Stabilisation
$300-1000
$150 million
Storage
$20-50
$15 million
Total treatment costs
$400-1500
$215 million
Beneficial use
Cost per tonne used (dry)
National annual cost
Transport
$100-300
$60 million
Spreading and incorporation
$40-150
$30 million
Storage
$20-30
$8 million
Sampling and monitoring
$10
$3 million
Total beneficial use
$150-500
$100 million
Based on this data, Darvodelsky (2012) noted that the average cost of treatment and beneficial use in Australia is
around $700 and $300 per tonne of dry biosolids, respectively. The actual costs of biosolids management across water
businesses, however, will depend on the type of sewage treatment process and the type of the end use. Tracking
biosolids management costs helps to identify areas of improving efficiencies and maximum cost savings.
1.
2.
3.
develop a logical framework for performing a full cost analysis of biosolids management programs across
water utilities in Victoria.
benchmark the costs associated with managing biosolids across water utilities in Victoria.
develop a tool to determine the full costs of biosolids management programs.
Proposed Project Deliverables:
A web based tool for determining true biosolids management costs in order to provide a logical
framework for performing a full cost analysis of biosolids management programs – from point of
production.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
TBA
Proposed Project Timelines:
TBA
References:
AWA Position Paper (2012) The management of biosolids in Australia, July 2012.
Darvodelsky P (2012) Biosolids Snapshot – a report to the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, June 2012.
Project Two:
The accumulation and beneficial reuse options of alum
sludge from water and wastewater plants.
Project:
Person Responsible:
Peter Tolsher
Project Description:
Alum sludge is a by-product produced from water treatment plants as well as some waste water
treatment plants. Some treatment plants direct backwash water straight to the sewer network
where the alum sludge is diluted and treated at the waste water plant. In some towns this is not
feasible and a stock pile is created at the site, with ultimate disposal being to landfill. As a
relatively inert solid, neither option is particularly sustainable. With recently and proposed
legislative requirements to have lower limits for NTU the volume of sludge produced has risen
drastically in the past two years and has increased the problem.
This project is to find options for the beneficial reuse of the Alum sludge and to work with EPA
to clarify its classification and, if necessary influence its reclassification to facilitate its
sustainable reuse.
Proposed Project Deliverables:
To produce a reference document/compendium detailing the classification of alum sludge and
sustainable options for its reuse. The related deliverables include:




Conduct a literature search to identify potential reuse options and environmental risks
associated with alum sludge (have any businesses already conducted this work?)
Canvas the water industry to identify other options for alum sludge reuse and any
related research
Working with EPA to ensure alum sludge is appropriately classified to protect
environmental values and facilitate highest value and sustainable re-use
Identify potential trials and environmental evaluations that could be considered in
future to close knowledge gaps (a future project, if warranted)
Discussion paper: What is the issue? What has been done to date? - research, projects etc.
What are the potential reuse options?
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
North East Water in trialling methods/options for reuse.
Victorian water industry (and beyond) – literature search of environmental risks, options for
reuse and other related science
ANZBP – engage to inform of project and seek input, if any
EPA – to influence categorisation and endorsement for proposed
Proposed Project Timelines:
Conduct literature search and canvas industry for research and reports that they can share – Nov 13
Evaluate current waste category and investigate other potential categorisations. Short list preferred
options and summarise evidence to support categorisation – Feb 14
Consult EPA and, if appropriate seek to influence re-categorisation – May 14
Develop draft reference compendium – Aug 14
Peer review – Oct 14
Publish final compendium – Dec 14
Project Three:
Project:
Optimising EIP approvals
Person Responsible:
Jason McGregor
Project Description:
Response time for the EPA to approve EIP applications over recent times has been lengthy, with
some businesses reporting timeframes of around six months. These delays represent
inefficiencies for the wider industry when implementing biosolids reuse opportunities.
The influences that are resulting in the lengthy approval timeframes are unclear. It is proposed
to work with the EPA to evaluate the related administrative process in detail and produce a
consolidated guidance document to streamline the approval process.
Proposed activities include:


Confirmation of EIP content/requirements and form of application.Working with EPA to
establish expectations, internal/external processing and approval steps.
Provide simple guidance/clarity to the water industry to facilitate effective and efficient
engagement with EPA when seeking EIP approvals.
Proposed Project Deliverables:

Provision of guidance material suitable for distribution to biosolids managers and
practitioners that clearly describes EPA requirements and processes for accepting,
assessing and responding to biosolids EIPs submissions, including advice on how to
minimise EIP application costs and time.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):




Jason McGregor, information gathering and review
EPA, clarification of requirements and internal approval timelines & processes
BTG for draft document peer review
Shauna McDonald, coordination of comms/brochure dissemination.
Proposed Project Timelines:
Liaison with EPA to resolve agreed process, EIP content and application inclusions and reasonable
timelines – Oct 2013
Preparation of draft process flow diagram and guidance document – Dec 2013
Peer review by BTG – Feb 14
EPA endorsement – Apr 14
Publish VicWater website with notification to BTG network – May 14
Project Four:
Project:
Person Responsible:
Review of the EPA Biosolids Management Guidelines
TBC
Project Description:
-
-
Through the strategic review process, the VicWater Biosolids Network identified updating
the EPA biosolids guidelines as the no. 1 key issue for Industry.
The EPA has also identified it as a key piece of work that requires progress.
Following discussions with the EPA, it is proposed that the work associated with reviewing
the guidelines can be worked through by the EPA Water Industry Working Group and the
VicWater BTG.
Previous discussions on this matter with Industry have also indicated that there was a
desire from Industry to move to a national code of practice (discussion paper on this from
ANZBP due ~ August 2013). This could be progressed following review of guidelines at the
state level – VicWater BTG could lobby AWA to then progress at national level based on
Vic’s progress with State guidelines.
o Regulators have noted that a National level Guideline would be appropriate,
but a State level Regulation would need to be enacted to enforce the use of
that Guideline.
Issues raised through the BTG included:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Work with EPA to review EPA guidance to keep pace with the industry
Uncertainty as to the direction of regulatory change in the next few years. Will the
guidelines change? Will there be a Australian guideline? An International Guideline?
The potential for uncertainty regarding future regulatory requirements with respect to
land application and transportation from a public health perspective (ie need to
ensure that all significant capital investment is forward-thinking)
The EPA biosolids guideline for land application does not recognise lagoon based
treatment followed by desludging and solar/air stabilisation as a type of treatment
Accept air drying as an approved process if test results indicate a T1 product.
Biosolids lose nutrient and calorific value over time. Investigating whether the 3 year
holding period for stockpiles is conservative and can be reduced would be of value
Acceptance of alternative treatment methods by EPA to achieve T1 if validated by
extensive testing programs
Managing stockpiles & minimising double handling of biosolids (on treatment plant
sites) that has to be stored for 3 years to achieve T1.
Classification or recognition of lagoon sludge or biosolids that has been in the
process for an extended time (10 years plus).
When completing application calculations (ie CLAR) some of the contaminant limits
outlined in the EPA biosolids guidelines are what trigger your lowest application rate
even when results received for that parameter are actually below the limit of
detection. Review contaminant limits as they could be too conservative in some
instances
Update/ amendment of state EPA guidelines to meet Australian standards for
biosolids- provide more flexibility for third party application (i.e. conservative CLAR
values-etc)
Change the guidelines to allow capital applications of P and dilution for heavy metals
Simplify management requirements for third party use through use of a risk based
approach to management controls (eliminate unnecessary controls)
Regulator should only require analysis of biosolids leaving site. Blending of different
quality biosolids to produce a better quality product should be an option
Develop a best practice guideline for biosolids management
Should there be a review of the guidelines in relation to sampling and testing of
organic chemicals. Should this be risk based, with a lower number of samples
required or should the level of sampling be the same as the level of sampling for
metals?
The sampling requirements for pesticides and other trace elements needs reviewing.
I think there is already some preliminary investigations underway on this issue
Proposed Project Deliverables:
-
-
Engage with Industry to identify:
o benefits and barriers in current regulations
o opportunities to improve Guidelines
Engage with EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise the guidelines.
-
Consider the merits of developing a “how-to manual” of best practice / industry code of
practice, possibly inconjunction with the ANZBP
-
In future work with EPA, ANZBP and other interstate stakeholders to establish National
guidelines leveraging from the (revised) Victorian guidelines
-
Canvas opinions of water industry – what do you like about the guidelines, what do you
believe needs to be changed? What is the science that supports proposed changes?
Encourage industry to talk to beneficial reuse providers.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
-
EPA
EPA Water Industry Working Group
BTG
ANZBP (for information)
VicWater
Proposed Project Timelines:
- EPA has indicated that they would be available to work with the industry on this matter in 2014.
- Some initial scoping work with the EPA Industry Working Group and BTG can be completed late2013
Project Five:
Project:
Combined Biosolids and Organic Waste Management
Person Responsible:
Muriel Lepesteur-Thompson and Luke Wilson
Project Description:
There is an increased level of interest from water authorities to receive Industrial Organic
Wastes (IOW) to increase biogas production potential at wastewater treatment plants. IOW
may include meat processing wastes, brewery wastes, food production wastes, fats, oils and
grease, all of which can have a higher biogas yield than sewage sludge. These wastes are
generally classified as prescribed wastes which are currently either sent to licensed waste
contractors for further treatment or to landfill.
The water industry is uniquely placed to play a part in the solution to manage organic wastes as
the infrastructure required to appropriately process organic wastes, recover valuable materials
and process them into downstream valuable products exists or is familiar to water corporations.
Similarly, the required skills to build and operate these types of facilities are already present
within the water industry.
The term biosolids is defined by the EPA as “organic solids derived from sewage treatment
processes”. If prescribed wastes are received directly at wastewater treatment plants, this may
change the risk profile of biosolids management. A purpose built resource recovery facility may
have a low percentage of solids derived from the sewerage system, when compared to those
from other IOW inputs.
Management of solids remains one of the greatest risks to the viability of any of these types of
facilities. Without a marketable product, stockpiling of the biosolids produced could make the
plant unviable (Fawcett, 2013). Other related issues identified through a survey of the Victorian
water industry by the BTG include:
 The challenges associated with liaising with local government and 3rd parties to
centralise bio-waste processing
 How to consider biosolids holistically as part of an overall resource recovery strategy,
which considers optimal points in the whole system to recover resources and considers
any enhanced benefits of combined waste streams
 Identifying viable ways to recover costs from biosolids processing (ie through industrial
crops or green power).
In order to ensure that a competitive market can be established for the reuse of stabilised solids
from combined facilities, it should be determined in conjunction with the Victorian EPA:
 how stabilised solids from co-digestion processes will be classified
 which regulations will govern its beneficial reuse
 the role of the water industry in the management of prescribed organic wastes.
It is recognised that waste streams and processes will vary for individual treatment and waste
management operation. Consequently categorisation of end products may require a case by
case approval process. This in turn may drive either revised guidelines or stand alone new
guidelines depending on the complexity of the issues.
The outcome of this project will either confirm the applicability of the Publication 943 to
combined wastes, or will specify the additional governing regulations to be followed to enable
the recovery of resources through sustainable beneficial reuse and support the sustainable and
innovative use of biosolids throughout the Victorian Water Industry.
Drivers
Water corporations’ trade waste requirements contribute to the load of organic waste requiring
management. When the price of the landfill disposal route escalates due to market forces and
regulatory controls, such as the EPA Landfill Levy, generators of trade waste may divert organic
wastes to sewer to take advantage of the relatively cheaper trade waste charges.
The Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy April 2013, ‘Getting Full Value’, states that
strong demand for recovered materials is fundamental to the successful recovery of materials.
It states that Victoria’s waste management and resource recovery system will promote forms of
waste management and resource recovery which will have the least impact on the natural
environment.
It is the aim of the Biosolids Task Group to promote biosolids as a resource, provide advice on
proposed initiatives and to develop strategic advice on biosolids management for the Victorian
Water Industry. The purpose of the BTG is to serve as a steering committee on biosolids related
issues, including (but not limited to):




Promoting biosolids as a resource and its beneficial uses
Working with government on the development and implementation of biosolids related
management frameworks
Providing advice to industry on current practices and proposed initiatives
Coordinating comments from the water industry and being a conduit to represent and
progress Victorian biosolids management issues at National forums
Proposed Project Deliverables:
In order to ensure the water industry can deliver optimal outcomes through combined biosolids
and organic waste management it is proposed that the BTG develop a Position Paper to identify:
 What does it mean for biosolids if we go down this path?
 If wastes from industries other than Trade Waste sources are treated by water
authorities, how will stabilised sludges be regulated?
 How does acceptance of other wastes change the risk profile of biosolids management?
 The role of the water industry with regard to organic waste management.
To achieve these deliverables the BTG should establish:
 What is currently happening within water authorities with regard to combined waste
management?
 How do the initiatives of the water authorities align with the objectives of other
government departments such as: DEPI, MWMG, DSDB, etc?
 What is the position of the EPA with regard to the management of combined waste
sludges?
 What are the additional wastes/feedstocks being considered and what legislation applies
to these?
 How do the new feedstocks sit within the biosolids guidelines?
 Do these feedstocks change the risk profile for biosolids including but not limited to
pathogen vectors and odour production?
 Are there any shortcomings of 943 with regard to combined sludges?
The outcome of this project will either confirm the applicability of Publication 943 to combined
wastes, or will specify the additional governing regulations to be followed to ensure the long
term beneficial reuse of stabilised sludges from combined facilities.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
BTG Project leader – Jeremy Guneratne
Broader Victorian industry – determine activities within the field
EPA – to consider policy position and beneficial reuse opportunities and controls as part of an overall
evaluation of the applicability of Publication 943 DEPI??
Proposed Project Timelines:
Literature search & consultation with industry to evaluate activities in the field – Dec 13
Work with EPA – initially could canvas policy position independently of biosolids guidelines review and
ultimately tie into Project Four - Review of the EPA Biosolids Management Guidelines
Disseminate project deliverables via BTG network and publish on Vicwater website - TBA
Project Six:
Project:
Optimising multiple land applications
& contaminant loading
Person Responsible:
Doug Gardner
Project Description:
1. Collect existing data on changes in the soil from past applications of biosolids. This will require the
cooperation of corporations that have existing data as well as any international material that may
be available and appropriate.
2. Examine current soil sampling techniques to ensure they are adequate for the low concentrations
involved in this process.
3. Look at the current testing methods and protocols as well as see that they are at a cost effective
levels of detection. This should ensure any decision is based on usable and repeatable data.
4. Establish a benchmark peak loading for the major toxic elements found in biosolids. This will be the
point at which the land can no longer be used for application but before there is an impact on
produce from the land or the MRL (maximum residue limit) of its produce.
5. Establish a degradation /adsorption rate for each major toxic element. This is the point at which it
may change to a point where it is unavailable to plants. i.e. As and Cr. This is important as some
elements may be measured in a soil without impeding production or product in their current from.
Proposed Project Deliverables:
1. A table of toxic elements common in biosolids in Victoria. I would be inclined to exclude micro
nutrients from this list as they are less emotive and still essential for plant growth. i.e. Cu, Zn, Mg.
2. Supply a researched or best guess safe total soil limit for each element/soil type combination.
3. A maximum annual loading limit for each element/soil combination. This should account for any
binding effect in soil that locks it up in either the clay matrix or in the organic carbon.
4. Leave the macro nutrients that include N,P,K,Ca,S etc. to be assessed as they are currently under
NLAR (nutrient limiting application rates) in the guidelines with the proviso that as long as the
application meet plant requirements or capital application and any buffering capacity that may
reduce their availability in the soil or be required for latter use. This can be the case of the P buffer
effect on limiting available P from the biosolids and also the delayed N response seen from total N
to available N.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
Coordination: Biosolids Task Group
Desktop Research: ANZPB
Gap analysis: Vic Water may indicate a research project on a specific element soil type relationship that has
limited or no current data. An example could be Mo in duplex basalt clays.
Publication: EPA Vic as part of or an addendum to the guidelines for reuse.
Proposed Project Timelines:
Research: TBA
Project Work: TBA
References:
1. Phosphorus Sorption, Desorption, and Buffering Capacity in a Biosolids-Amended Mollisol
Yaobing Sui and Michael L. Thompson
2. Toxicity of heavy metals to microorganisms and microbial processes in agricultural soils
Ken E Giller, Ernst Witter, Steve P Mcgrath
3. The Real Dirt on Sewage Sludge - Wendy Priesnitz, editor Natural Life Magazine
4. Effect of long-term irrigation with untreated sewage effluents on soil properties and heavy
metal adsorption of leptosols and vertisols in Central Mexico - Christina Siebe, Walter R. Fischer
5. Possible chemical forms of cadmium and varietal differences in cadmium concentrations in
the phloem sap of rice plants (Oryza sativa L.) - Mariyo Kato et al
6. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 1.4.2 - Maximum Residue Limits
(Australia Only)
Project Seven:
Project:
Person Responsible:
Community Engagement for Wider Acceptance of
Biosolids as a Beneficial Resource
Carly Robertson
Project Description:
When faced with community concern re the use of biosolids in farming, Victorian water
authorities have often pointed to the high degree of EPA regulation in Victoria (i.e. the
Guidelines) to support their argument that any potential risks are being appropriately managed.
However I don’t think the cause and effect link has been appropriately explained to the
community. For example what aspects of the regulation control what risks? Are some risks
controlled outside of EPA regulation? This all needs to be explained in a clear and direct way,
which is easy for community members to understand despite not having previous involvement
with biosolids.
Proposed Project Deliverables:
Discussion paper:
 Identify specific community concerns (risks) applicable to the Victorian industry –
through literature or anecdotal evidence.
 Show how these risks are mitigated through the application of the EPA Guidelines, or by
other controls outside of the Guidelines.
 If the above process highlights community concerns that are currently being managed
outside of the Guidelines, develop best practice methodologies which can be used by
Industry to specifically control those risks. These methodologies can then be pointed to
when members are defending or attempting to further the use of their biosolids
product in agriculture.
 Potentially provide case-studies that highlight how risks are controlled – would require
BTG members to put forward examples.
Background work: what has been done in the past re community engagement/surveys.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities (stakeholders involved and associated tasks):
Proposed Project Timelines:
Appendix 1
Issues Raised by Victorian Water Industry
1
Issue
Community Engagement for Wider Acceptance of Biosolids as a Beneficial Resource
 engagement of the farming community as a means of increasing wider community
acceptance of biosolids use
 Work to increase community acceptance/support for land application of biosolids
 Lack of engagement with the potential end users in the agricultural community
 Work to increase community acceptance/support for land application of biosolids
 Breaking barriers - The stigma attached to the use of biosolids in food production in
horticulture industry continue to be the main barrier to the beneficial use of biosolids.
Many consumers are still likely to reject direct edible produce
 Knowledge around reliable, robust markets for products
 Risks posed by media misrepresentation and community backlash which may be
detrimental to a Reuse Scheme operated by the Water Authority
 Public perceptions issues around the safety of using biosolids
 Change public perception for third party use of biosolids- shift from opinion of Water
Corp’s needing to “get rid of biosolids” to providing a product with commercial value
 Suitable information to sell the organic benefits of biosolids beyond the NPKS story
 Transport and application service for third party use for farmers with limited knowledge of
product and the correct application procedures. How much assistance should a Corp
provide and at what cost to ensure biosolids are applied and stored correctly?
2
Optimising multiple land applications & contaminant loading
 Future land availability (when taking into account required resting periods) for ongoing
spreading and storage of processed biosolids
 What is the potential for build-up of chemicals from biosolids in the long term. The long
term effects of using biosolids in land application needs to be investigated with respect to
the accumulation of products in biosolids building up in agricultural use
 Is C1 achievable with Zinc and Copper coming from domestic sources? If not, what can
we do to create a driver to improve biosolids quality in relation to other parameters, given
that the biosolids will be classed as C2?
 Produce quality – e.g. Feed test (forage quality) on biosolids application sites. What is the
effect of using biosolids on land and plants? Will biosolids application lead to
contaminated produce? There may be a need for an ongoing monitoring project
3
Optimising cost of biosolids management
 High capital & operating costs of biosolids production – continuous lagoon desludging,
third party desludging providers & in-house operations
 Cost effective options for insitu desludging of lagoons
 Demonstrating value for money to a produce a high quality product

Managing maintenance cost of dewatering equipment
4
Working to maintain a competitive market place
 Reliance on a single service provider for biosolids collection and treatment
 Promote biosolids opportunities to increase the number and diversity of service providers
5
Synergies of combined biosolids and organic waste management
 The challenges associated with liaising with local government and 3 rd parties to centralise
bio-waste processing
 How to consider biosolids holistically as part of an overall resource recovery strategy,
which considers optimal points in the whole system to recover resources and considers
any enhanced benefits of combined waste streams
 Identifying viable ways to recover costs from biosolids processing (ie through industrial
crops or green power).
6
Issue
Identify funding opportunities to develop new initiatives
7
Improved measures for KPI reporting
 KPI’s to reflect periodic bulk desludging and biosolids applications
8
Optimising EIP approvals
 The response time for submitting an Environment Improvement plan (EIP) for EPA
approval for our last 2 applications took 6 months. This process needs speeding up
 The time frame for the approval process through the regulator should be quicker
9
Carbon sequestration opportunities
 Carbon sequestration and the role of biosolids is not well understood. Land application of
biosolids may provide an opportunity to sequester carbon but there is a need to
understand the value and establish the influence of biosolids on carbon uptake in plants.
10
Control of odour in raw sludge
11
Review of the EPA Biosolids Management Guidelines
 Work with EPA to review EPA guidance to keep pace with the industry
 Uncertainty as to the direction of regulatory change in the next few years. Will the
guidelines change? Will there be a Australian guideline? An International Guideline?
 The potential for uncertainty regarding future regulatory requirements with respect to land
application and transportation from a public health perspective (ie need to ensure that all
significant capital investment is forward-thinking)
 The EPA biosolids guideline for land application does not recognise lagoon based
treatment followed by desludging and solar/air stabilisation as a type of treatment
 Accept air drying as an approved process if test results indicate a T1 product.
 Biosolids lose nutrient and calorific value over time. Investigating whether the 3 year
holding period for stockpiles is conservative and can be reduced would be of value
 Acceptance of alternative treatment methods by EPA to achieve T1 if validated by
extensive testing programs
 Managing stockpiles & minimising double handling of biosolids (on treatment plant sites)
that has to be stored for 3 years to achieve T1.
 Classification or recognition of lagoon sludge or biosolids that has been in the process for
an extended time (10 years plus).
 When completing application calculations (ie CLAR) some of the contaminant limits
outlined in the EPA biosolids guidelines are what trigger your lowest application rate even
when results received for that parameter are actually below the limit of detection. Review
contaminant limits as they could be too conservative in some instances
 Update/ amendment of state EPA guidelines to meet Australian standards for biosolidsprovide more flexibility for third party application (i.e. conservative CLAR values-etc)
 Change the guidelines to allow capital applications of P and dilution for heavy metals
 Simplify management requirements for third party use through use of a risk based
approach to management controls (eliminate unnecessary controls)
 Regulator should only require analysis of biosolids leaving site. Blending of different
quality biosolids to produce a better quality product should be an option
 Develop a best practice guideline for biosolids management
 Should there be a review of the guidelines in relation to sampling and testing of organic
chemicals. Should this be risk based, with a lower number of samples required or should
the level of sampling be the same as the level of sampling for metals?
 The sampling requirements for pesticides and other trace elements needs reviewing. I
think there is already some preliminary investigations underway on this issue
12
Improved Source Control
 Develop an appropriate risk matrix for industrial contaminants
 Challenges in encouraging upstream source control
13
The accumulation and beneficial reuse options of alum sludge from water and wastewater plants
14
Contamination of biosolids stockpiles
Appendix 2
Prioritised Issues
Item
11
1
2
3
8
13
5
12
6
10
4
9
7
14
Issue/Strategy Action Option
BW
CHW
CWW
CW
EGW
Review of the EPA Biosolids
Management Guidelines
Community Engagement for
Wider Acceptance of Biosolids
as a Beneficial Resource
Optimising multiple land
applications & contaminant
loading
Optimising cost of biosolids
management
Optimising EIP approvals
The accumulation and
beneficial reuse options of
alum sludge from water and
wastewater plants
Synergies of combined
biosolids and organic waste
management
Improved Source Control
Identify funding opportunities
to develop new initiatives
Control of odour in raw sludge
Working to maintain a
competitive market place
Carbon sequestration
opportunities
Improved measures for KPI
reporting
Contamination of biosolids
stockpiles
TOTAL VOTES
Total possible votes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GW
GVW
GWMW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MW
1
1
1
LMW
1
1
1
1
NEW
SEW
SGW
WW
WPW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Shortlisted/targeted actions
9
47
9
47
1
6
6
31
31
1
5
26
4
3
21
16
3
2
15
11
2
10
2
10
0
0
1
1
1
1
5
5
52
1
1
5
5
10
1
1
1
74
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
Total
Votes
14
1
1
1
YVW
1
1
1
Wannon
Water
1
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
1
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
75
85
%
Appendix 3
Task Group Leader for Action Scoping
Task Group Member
Assigned Issue
Aravind Surapaneni, South East Water
Optimising cost of biosolids management (42%) – this is BAU for SE Water,
continuously looking for operational savings
Carly Robertson, Barwon Water
Community Engagement for Wider Acceptance of Biosolids as a Beneficial Resource
Doug Gardner, Wannon Water
Optimising multiple land applications & contaminant loading
Shauna McDonald, VicWater
Review of the EPA Biosolids Management Guidelines
Jason McGregor, Central Highlands
Water
Optimising EIP approvals
Jeremy Guneratne, City West Water
Synergies of combined biosolids and organic waste management
Peter Tolsher, North East Water
The accumulation and beneficial reuse options of alum sludge from water and
wastewater plants