Water Quality Offsets

Queensland Urban Utilities is seeking to have its Environmental Protection Act licence for the Beaudesert STP varied to increase its annual nitrogen discharge limit by 7 tonnes per year.

The national Coastal Catchments Initiative by the Australian and Queensland Governments may enable nutrient trading options between sources in Moreton Bay catchments to obtain water quality targets cost-effectively. 

Queensland Urban Utilities has commenced a water quality offsets program help reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients entering one of South East Queensland’s most impacted rivers.

I am wondering if the same logic and economics could be used to separate sources of nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at their source of generation through urine separation toilet technologies.

A report in November 2007, proposed a methodology for developing environmental equivalency for water quality offsets through an application in the Logan/Albert River catchments.

Queensland Urban Utilities is spending ~$1 million in a pilot water quality offsets scheme to repair approximately 500 metres of severely eroded riparian corridor near the Beaudesert Sewage Treatment Plant in the Logan River catchment.  This ‘green infrastructure’ project was chosen over a traditional sewage treatment plant upgrade which would have cost $8.0m and focused only on reducing nitrogen emissions.Other benefits for the Logan River will include reduced local turbidity, reduced total phosphorus mass load transfer and establishment of permanent native vegetation to improve biodiversity.  

Healthy Waterways, through its ongoing Report Card, will monitor the improvements in waterway health resulting from this vital program as Queensland Urban Utilities manage the amount of sediment and nutrients entering the Logan River.

The  Healthy Waterways 2013 Ecosystem Health Report Card provides an insight into the health of South East Queensland’s waterways and Moreton Bay.

The 2013 Report Card results show the mud and nutrients deposited into Moreton Bay during the 2011 and 2013 floods continues to reduce water clarity and stimulate the growth of algae.

There was a slight overall decline in Moreton Bay (B- to C), with Central Bay (A- to C+) showing the greatest decline. Last year, the health of seagrass beds and corals appeared to improve slightly. However, this year corals and seagrasses are showing signs of ongoing stress and decline due to the large amount of mud and nutrients deposited into Moreton Bay during the 2011 and 2013 floods.

On a positive note, most of Moreton Bay showed an improvement in the sewage indicator, which led to improvements in Broadwater (C- to B-) and Pumicestone Passage (C- to C+).

I give a shit! Do you?

The WTD is a day to raise awareness of how much there still is to do to ensure that billions of people around the globe have access to good sanitation. 

However, World Toilet Day is also a day to celebrate the good work that is being done and what has been achieved already. One way to contribute with the World Toilet Day is to share your experiences from the last year.

So the question is: Since the last World Toilet Day in 2011, what experience, activity or event that you were part of, etc that signals that progress is happening stands out for you?

If you have something to share, please send up to 250 words to P.Bongartz@ids.ac.uk and, if possible, a photo (separately in a jpg file) to go along with what you have written about. 

The responses will be compiled and posted them on the website on World Toilet Day.

Deadline: Tuesday, 13th November

Check out the World Toilet Day Website

Toilet 2.0 - the next Generation

In recent years we have seen a transition from analogue radio and television to digital services.

Smarter telephone technologies including video and net based applications are complementing the traditional voice down a copper wire.

Automotive companies are starting to roll out electric vehicles to replace internal combustion engine technologies.

These processes are transitional.

Prototypes were developed.  They begin as pilot projects, to prove the concept.

This is exactly what is proposed for developing Toilet 2.0 technologies.



The rationale for source segregation is to encourage nutrient recovery and reduce to costs and environmental impacts of the tradition method of aggregating urine and feaces with vast quantities of flush water, grey water and trade waste.

We need to identify pilot projects, to demonstrate the concepts of source separation of urine and feaces.

We need to develop the supporting processes, the institutional arrangements and encourage the social acceptance of the paradigm shift.

We need to develop trade waste policies and charges that incentivate and support source segregation.

Using traditional toilet technologies, there is a peak load of nitrogen, phosphorus that coincides with a hydraulic peak load, every morning and evening.

We need business models and a business case that demonstrates the value of source segregation.  There is a potential for delaying large capital investment for infrastructure upgrades by reducing the peak loads.  There are opportunities to reduce or avoid the operational costs at sewage treatment plants by reducing the need for energy intensive, biological and chemical processes for removing nitrogen and phosphorus.

The Toilet2.0 technologies provide an opportunity to lower the costs of delivery of sewage treatment services and increase the opportunities for resources recovery, energy efficiency, water efficiency and better environmental outcomes.

If Toilet2.0 technologies can be developed and demonstrated in my community, there is a huge market potential to meet the needs of 2.6 billion people who lack access to any form of toilet.

Toilet 2.0

Today I had the pleasure of talking about the exciting potential for the next generation of Toilet technologies, to my colleagues at work.  I work for a water and sewage treatment utility.


Our current Toilets are connected to a grid in a way that is analogous to a landline telephone connected to copper wires, telephone exchanges and data centres.  The toilets in my community, are dependent on a reliable water supply, sewer pumping stations and sewage treatment plants.  The floods in Brisbane in January 2011 and the subsequent earthquake in Christchurch and the Tsunami in Japan, demonstrated the vulnerability of these systems.

My ambition (which is shared by many others) is to see the development of the next generation of toilet which are "off the grid".


The imperative is providing services for 2.6 billion people in developing communities, who lack a sustainable place to poo, wee and/or change sanitary pads.


In the developed world, the cost of living pressures, the cost of water, electricity and the cost of running sewer networks and sewage treatment treatment plants are all on the radar.


The regulating authorities in the Qld State Government have capped the price one can charge for water and sewage treatment.  The price of raw water is under review.  All indications are, that Water Authorities are going to be under significant political pressure to reduce the cost of delivery of services.


Climate change, peak oil, peak phosphorus are all driving the need for change, to reduce the energy intensity of water and sewage treatment services and recover energy, nutrients and/or water from the process.


There arises a need for a next generation of toilets.  Yet the toilet is really just a user interface.  We need a whole new "back end" to the process.  


The first distinction between 1.0 series toilets and the 2.0 series is the separation of one's Number Ones from one's Number twos.

Our Number One's a choc full of nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium....


One person's urine contains enough nutrients to grow enough cereal to feed one person.


In my community, our number twos are not nearly as interesting (or valuable).  We tend to eat too much processed food.  However, the poo from a Vegetarian could be highly valuable. The dry solids can be combusted, digested or under go pyrolysis to generate electricity, heat, light, gas or compost.


The process engineering aspects of Toilet 2.0 are really very straight forward.


The complexity lies in the social engineering.  Some of the greatest resistance to change comes from within the water/sewage treatment industry.  Today I had the opportunity to make a case for change.


I was hoping someone would say: "It cannot be done!".  I was hoping someone might say: " You're crazy!"


However, the questions and discussions were actually intelligent and provocative.  There maybe some who want to work on intermediate technologies.  Perhaps there is still a need for Toilet 1.1.   


My ambitions are still quite modest.  Toilet 2.0 is not a silver bullet.  Toilet 2.0 is the next generation of toilets.  It is time to get Toilet 2.0 out of the laboratories and into your lavatories.

What is Sustainable Sanitation?

In light of the earthquakes in Christchurch, floods in Brisbane & elsewhere.....it is apparent that modern centralised sewerage & sewage treatment systems are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes & floods.

I seriously believe we need to re-think the strategy of mixing our poo with our wee & diluting it with vast quantities of 'food-grade' water, then transporting the slurry over vast distances, only to have to separate the poo, wee & water at the other end of the pipe with energy intensive processes.

The following article is reposted from the SuSana website.....

The main objective of a sanitation system is to protect and promote human health by providing a clean environment and breaking the cycle of disease. In order to be sustainable, a sanitation system has to be not only economically viable, socially acceptable, and technically and institutionally appropriate, it should also protect the environment and the natural resources.

When improving an existing and/or designing a new sanitation system, sustainability criteria related to the following aspects should be considered:

1. Health and hygiene: includes the risk of exposure to pathogens and hazardous substances that could affect public health at all points of the sanitation system from the toilet via the collection and treatment system to the point of reuse or disposal and downstream populations. This topic also covers aspects such as hygiene, nutrition and improvement of livelihood achieved by the application of a certain sanitation system, as well as downstream effects.
2. Environment and natural resources: involves the required energy, water and other natural resources for construction, operation and maintenance of the system, as well as the potential emissions to the environment resulting from its use. It also includes the degree of recycling and reuse practiced and the effects of these (e.g. reusing wastewater; returning nutrients and organic material to agriculture), and the protection of other non-renewable resources, e.g. through the production of renewable energies (such as biogas).
3. Technology and operation: incorporates the functionality and the ease with which the entire system including the collection, transport, treatment and reuse and/or final disposal can be constructed, operated and monitored by the local community and/or the technical teams of the local utilities. Furthermore, the robustness of the system, its vulnerability towards power cuts, water shortages, floods, earthquakes etc. and the flexibility and adaptability of its technical elements to the existing infrastructure and to demographic and socio-economic developments are important aspects.
4. Financial and economic issues: relate to the capacity of households and communities to pay for sanitation, including the construction, operation, maintenance and necessary reinvestments in the system. Besides the evaluation of these direct costs also direct benefits e.g. from recycled products (soil conditioner, fertiliser, energy and reclaimed water) and external costs and benefits have to be taken into account. Such external costs are e.g. environmental pollution and health hazards, while benefits include increased agricultural productivity and subsistence economy, employment creation, improved health and reduced environmental risks.
5. Socio-cultural and institutional aspects: the criteria in this category refer to the socio-cultural acceptance and appropriateness of the system, convenience, system perceptions, gender issues and impacts on human dignity, the contribution to food security, compliance with the legal framework and stable and efficient institutional settings.

Most sanitation systems have been designed with these aspects in mind, but in practice they fail far too often because some of the criteria are not met. In fact, there is probably no system which is absolutely sustainable. The concept of sustainability is more of a direction rather than a stage to reach. Nevertheless, it is crucial, that sanitation systems are evaluated carefully with regard to all dimensions of sustainability. Since there is no one-for-all sanitation solution which fulfils the sustainability criteria in different circumstances to the same extent, this system evaluation will depend on the local framework and has to take into consideration existing environmental, technical, socio-cultural and economic conditions. Taking into consideration the entire range of sustainability criteria, it is important to observe some basic principles when planning and implementing a sanitation system. These were already developed some years ago by a group of experts and were endorsed by the members of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council as the "Bellagio Principles for Sustainable Sanitation" during its 5th Global Forum in November 2000:

1. Human dignity, quality of life and environmental security at household level should be at the centre of any sanitation approach.
2. In line with good governance principles, decision making should involve participation of all stakeholders, especially the consumers and providers of services.
3. Waste should be considered a resource, and its management should be holistic and form part of integrated water resources, nutrient flow and waste management processes.
4. The domain in which environmental sanitation problems are resolved should be kept to the minimum practicable size (household, neighbourhood, community, town, district, catchment, city).

http://www.susana.org/lang-en/intro/156-intro/53-what-is-sustainable-sanitation

it is high time to re-think water & sanitation in developed, Industrialised communities

The more I consider current practice in water and sanitation (particularly in my own city - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) the more ludicrous it becomes...

Most of our potable water is sourced from dams in the hinterland. There are plans to build another dam over a hundred kilometres North of Brisbane. Yet the storm water that falls on the city of Brisbane (mostly on impervious, paved surfaces is channelled to the Brisbane River, mixes with the estuarine, brackish water and flows out to sea.

A de-salination plant 100 kilometres South, draws saline water from the ocean and uses electricity to purify the sea water and pump it into the so-called "water grid".

Taking a relatively solid reside, which contains some of the most harmful bacteria known to humanity and making a 1-2% slurry, solution, pumped hundreds of kilometres to centralised sewage treatment plants is a very inefficient use of electicity and potable water.

In Brisbane, we currently purify the sewage treatment plant effluent with an energy intensive process called Continuous Mirofiltration, followed by reverse osmosis. The lunacy continues with the purified water being pumped over 70 kilometres to be used to cool the exhaust from the steam turbines of a coal fired power station.

My background is in industrial water treatment (steam generation, heat rejection, process water, corrosion mitigation, anti-scalants, emulsion breaking etc). When I apply the principles of "cleaner production" to domestic sewage treatment, the first thing that needs to be done is separation of waste streams.

In other words, no.1's need to be kept separate from no.2's.

Adding a concentrated source of Nitogen, Phosphorus and trace quantities of endrocrine disruptors to this mix is sheer stupidity, considering the difficulty ond expense of removing the N.P and endrocrine disruptors from the dilute stream.

So what is the alternative?

I understand that Urine-separating toilets have been used as an effective source control measure in many parts of Europe for years. The No.1's can be collected and used beneficially as fertiliser and are a precursor to many industrial chemicals including ammonia, pool chlorine and/or bleach.

The No.2's contain many pathogens, which can be disinfected through dessication and/or heat. Once treated, this residue is a useful soil conditioner and source of organic material. It could even be digested and the biogases could be used to generate electricity.

There is billions of dollars tied up in the infrastructure that perpetuates this system. There is inertia and resistance to change. So just because this is the way it is always been done, does not mean we have to keep doing it this way.

Subvert the dominant paradigm. Lobby your local Authorities and install a urine separation toilet.