Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme

Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme
Options Study
Report Number: WSR 17027

September 2017
For Yass Valley Council
A division of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation

Gundaroo STP: Options Study
Document Control
Approved for Issue

Version Author Reviewer
Name Date
Jose Pante
Draft v2 Brett Douglas Brett Douglas 20/7/2017
Brett Douglas
Jose Pante
Final Draft Brett Douglas Brett Douglas 6/9/2017
Brett Douglas
Jose Pante
Process Engineer, Water & Wastewater Technologies
Level 13 McKell Building
2 24 Rawson Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
T: 02 9372 7963
F: 02 9372 7597
E: jose.pante@finance.nsw.gov.au
W: www.publicworks.nsw.gov.au
Crown in right of NSW through the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation 2017
This publication is copyright and December incorporate moral rights of an individual. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the
conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it December, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, altered,
manipulated, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written consent of the copyright owner or owner of moral rights.
Any inquiries relating to consents and use of this publication, including by NSW Government agencies, must be addressed to NSW
Water Solutions, Public Works Advisory.
While this publication has been formulated with all due care, the State of New South Wales does not warrant or represent that the report
is free from errors or omissions, or that it is exhaustive. The State of NSW disclaims, to the extent permitted by law, all warranties,
representations or endorsements, express or implied, with regard to this publication including but not limited to, all implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The State of NSW further does not warrant or accept any liability in
relation to the quality or accuracy of this publication and no responsibility is accepted by the State of NSW for the accuracy, currency,
reliability and correctness of any information in this publication provided by the client or third parties.
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 i

Foreword
This options study prepared by Public Works Advisory on behalf of Yass Valley Council. It presents
sewage transport and treatment options for Gundaroo. The report details options for reticulation
system and sewage treatment facilities. The report also includes design bases of the proposed
wastewater treatment systems, as well as their overall layout and preliminary construction cost
estimates.
Acknowledgements
The assistance of Yass Valley Council, Austin Goodfellow and Kurt Dahl and Paul Carmody is
greatly appreciated.
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 i

Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ i
Contents ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1
S1 General........................................................................................................................ 1
S2 Collection and Transport System Options ........................................................................... 1
S 2.1 Gravity Sewerage System ................................................................................................... 1
S 2.2 Pressure Sewerage System ................................................................................................ 1
S 2.2 STEP and CED Systems..................................................................................................... 2
S 2.3 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 2
S3 Sewage Treatment and Effluent Management Options ....................................................... 3
S3.1 Option 1: IDEA STP with discharge to Yass River or irrigation of pasture .................... 3
S3.2 Option 2: Oxidation Pond STP with evaporation or irrigation of pasture ....................... 4
S3.3 Option 3: Proprietary AdvanTex STP and Subsurface Irrigation................................... 4
S3.4 Recommendation......................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 General........................................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Study Objectives .......................................................................................................... 6
2 Population and Load Projections .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 7
3 Sewage Collection System....................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Conventional Gravity System ....................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Gravity Sewerage System Description ......................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Reticulation System ...................................................................................................... 8
3.1.3 System Maintenance and Operation ............................................................................ 9
3.1.4 Transfer Sewage Pumping Stations ........................................................................... 11
3.1.11 Emergency Storage Requirements............................................................................. 12
3.2 Pressure Sewer System ............................................................................................ 13
3.2.1 Pressure Sewerage System Description .................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Reticulation System .................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3 System Maintenance and Operation .......................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Residents Operational Costs ...................................................................................... 18
3.2.5 Transfer Rising Main ................................................................................................... 21
3.2.6 Rising Main Septicity and Odour Control .................................................................... 21
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 ii

3.3 Common Effluent Drainage (CED) and Septic Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP)
Systems ................................................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Connection of Development Areas............................................................................. 24
3.5 Collection System Proposals from Developers .......................................................... 24
4 Sewage Treatment Design Considerations ............................................................................ 25
4.1 Design Loads............................................................................................................. 25
4.2 Design Influent Quality ............................................................................................... 25
4.3 Relevant Regulatory Bodies and Authorities .............................................................. 25
4.4 NSW EPA Requirements ........................................................................................... 26
4.4.1 Approval and Licensing .............................................................................................. 26
4.5 Site Considerations.................................................................................................... 26
4.6 Responsibility ............................................................................................................ 26
5 Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Management.................................................................. 28
5.1 Wastewater Treatment............................................................................................... 28
5.1.2 Primary Treatment ...................................................................................................... 28
5.1.3 Secondary Treatment ................................................................................................. 28
5.1.4 Phosphorus (P) Removal ............................................................................................ 28
5.1.5 pH Correction .............................................................................................................. 28
5.1.6 Tertiary Treatment ...................................................................................................... 28
5.1.7 Bio-solids handling ...................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Effluent Management Options and Quality Requirements ......................................... 31
5.2.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 31
5.2.2 River Discharge .......................................................................................................... 31
5.2.3 Effluent Reuse ............................................................................................................ 31
5.2.4 Effluent Evaporation ................................................................................................... 33
5.2.5 Summary..................................................................................................................... 33
6 Options for Provision of a Sewerage Treatment Plant ............................................................ 34
6.1 General Description ................................................................................................... 34
6.2 Option 1 New IDEA Based STP .............................................................................. 34
6.2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 34
6.2.2 IDEA Reactor and STP Design................................................................................... 36
6.3 Option 2: Oxidation Pond Based STP ........................................................................ 41
6.3 Option 3: STEP System with Centralised Orenco AdvanTex Treatment and Effluent
Management System ............................................................................................................. 45
6.4 Developer Proposals ................................................................................................. 46
6.4.1 Kyeema ....................................................................................................................... 46
6.4.2 Coolawin .................................................................................................................... 46
6.4.3 Faithfull ....................................................................................................................... 47
6.5 Effluent Management ................................................................................................. 48
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 iii

6.6 STP Sites................................................................................................................... 48

6.7 Comparison of Options .............................................................................................. 50
7 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 52
7.1 Collection and Transport Systems ............................................................................. 52
7.2 STP and Effluent Management .................................................................................. 53
7.2.1 Estimated capital costs ...................................................................................................... 53
7.3 Rate Impacts ............................................................................................................. 53
7. References............................................................................................................................. 55
Appendix A Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix B Financial Analysis ..................................................................................................... 57
Figures
Figure 3.1 Installation of Gravity Pipeline in a Back Yard ............................................................ 9
Figure 3.2 Gravity Layout ......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.3 Typical SPS Installation Murrumbateman SPS ..................................................... 12
Figure 3.4 Typical Domestic Installation for Pressure Sewer .................................................... 13
Figure 3.5 Typical Domestic Design Layout for Pressure Sewer ............................................... 14
Figure 3.6 Typical Installed Pressure Unit................................................................................. 15
Figure 3.8 Installation of a Pressure Unit .................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.9 Completion of Pipe Connections .............................................................................. 16
Figure 3.10 Directional Drilling Equipment for Pressure Sewers. ................................... 17
Photo 3.11 Pipelaying in Progress via Directional Drilling .......................................................... 18
Figure 3.12 Reticulation Layout ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.13 Orenco Interceptor Tank ............................................................................. 23
Figure 6.2 IDEA system general arrangement. ......................................................................... 36
Figure 6.3 Taralga STP Aerial View .......................................................................................... 37
Figure 6.4 Taralga STP Modular IDEA system ......................................................................... 37
Figure 6.5 Option 1 Process Flow Schematic. .......................................................................... 40
Figure 6.6 Bourke STP Oxidation Pond and Maturation Pond Layout ....................................... 42
Figure 6.7 Murrumbateman STP Oxidation Pond 2 (filling stage).............................................. 42
Figure 6.8 Murrumbateman STP Oxidation Pond and Effluent Irrigation Area .......................... 43
Figure 6.9 Option 2 Process Flow Schematic. .......................................................................... 44
Figure 6.10 Option 3 Orenco AdvanTex STP ................................................................. 45
Figure 6.10 Potential STP Sites. .................................................................................... 49
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 iv

Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate
cfu colony forming units
COD chemical oxygen demand
DFSI Department of Finance, Services and Innovation
dia Diameter
DO dissolved oxygen
ep equivalent persons or equivalent population
EPL Environment Protection Licence
ET Equivalent tenements
fcu faecal coliform units
g Gram
IDEA Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration
kL Kilolitre
L Litre
LGA Local Government Area
mg Milligram
ML Megalitre
N Nitrogen
NH3-N ammonia nitrogen
NOx-N oxidised nitrogen
NSW New South Wales
PWA Public Works Advisory
P Phosphorus
POEO Protection of the Environment Operations (Act)
PWWF peak wet weather flow
STEP Septic tank effluent pumped
STP sewage treatment plant
TSS total suspended solids
WAS waste activated sludge
yr Year
YVC Yass Valley Council
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 v

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 vi

Executive Summary
S1 General
The village of Gundaroo, NSW, is located in the Southern Tablelands region of NSW,
approximately 220km south west of Sydney. The village currently has around 175 tenements and
lies within the Yass Valley Councils (YVC) Local Government Area (LGA). There are three
development areas proposed that will ultimately increase the number of tenements to around 370
ET (maximum 400 ET).
Gundaroo does not currently have a centralised sewage treatment system. Sewage and treated
effluent is currently managed by on-site treatment systems. These systems require residents to
operate and maintain them. According to the last audit 12% require minor upgrade works and 15%
require major upgrade works or replacement. Recent tests of water bores show possible e. coli
contamination. The bore water is a non-potable supply. Potable water is sourced from tanks
connected to roof drainage system.
Two of the three potential developers have proposed various small individual schemes for their
developments. Council is investigating the provision of a reticulated sewerage scheme and
centralised sewage treatment system.
Smaller individual schemes which do not allow expansion and connection of others may quarantine
development or make other areas uneconomical to develop.
Council would prefer a whole village solution rather than piecemeal standalone systems for the
new development areas and the retention of an onsite system for the existing village, which will
come online at some point in the future. The aim of this options study is to assess the options for a
total village sewerage scheme.
S2 Collection and Transport System Options

The options investigated for the provision of a reticulation system are:
A gravity based sewerage collection system.
A pressure based sewerage collection system.
A septic tank effluent pumping system (STEP) or common effluent drainage (CED) system.
S 2.1 Gravity Sewerage System
The collection system consists of gravity reticulation, pumping stations and rising mains. Sewage
from individual lots flows through gravity mains to a downstream pumping station. It is then lifted
through a pressurised rising main to another gravity main, transfer pumping station or sewage
treatment plant.
Gravity sewers need sufficient flow velocity to keep pipes clean by preventing deposition of solids.
Self-cleansing is achieved by provision of minimum pipe diameters and minimum grades.
This system has been the preferred system for NSW villages as it is reliable and has low
operational costs. The system is suited to Gundaroo as it has a sloping topography which allows
sewers to be fairly shallow with only two SPS required.
Development areas can be readily connected with this system.
S 2.2 Pressure Sewerage System
A pressure system has a grinder pump located inside a holding tank (pump/tank unit) and a
boundary box located at every property. Each residence would have its own pump/tank unit. The
pump unit would typically be located between the house and the existing septic tank and would
intercept the existing household sewer line. At a pre-set level in the tank the pump activates and
any solids are ground and then pumped to the pressure sewerage reticulation system. The sewer
Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 1

pressure mains would be located in the street and a small diameter pipeline would connect the
pump/tank unit on each property to it.
This system is relatively new to NSW but has been used in a number of small villages. The system
is most advantageous when the topography is difficult, either flat, flood prone or has a high
proportion of rock, or other measures that would see a gravity system being expensive to install.
The installation of the system will have less disruption to residents and the village as a whole
compared to the gravity system. The main disadvantage is in the level of maintenance required for
Council and residents to operate and the potential capital and operating costs either for Council or
residents. Council would undertake the maintenance of the pumping system for the existing village
(175 ET) and new development areas.
Development areas can be readily connected with this system as long as they are pumped
systems and the pressure system is designed with sufficient capacity.
S 2.2 STEP and CED Systems
These systems entail the retention or a new septic tank for pre-treatment and provision of either a
gravity based reticulation system or a small diameter pressure system with the provision of a pump
at each property for the transport of effluent to a STP for treatment. This system is proposed for the
Kyeema development area.
The advantages of CED and STEP systems are potential savings in capital costs, through the
provision of a smaller reticulation system which can be laid at flatter grades and fewer blockages
as effluent is transferred rather than sewage and less treatment as some onsite treatment occurs.
However, there are disadvantages with these systems as compared to gravity and pressure sewer
systems. The disadvantages are that residents are still responsible for the septic tank and the
issues associated with these. This includes the need to pumpout the septic, the need to maintain
the tank and if required, the pump. Residents will still have a septic tank or new 4 kL tank if the
Kyeema system is utilised in their yards. Council will also need to inspect these onsite partial
treatment systems as well as operate and maintain the sewerage scheme if it was adopted across
the village.
S 2.3 Recommendation
It is recommended that a gravity based system be installed. A pressure system is an alternative
with a similar capital cost, lower construction impacts but higher annual operational costs. Both
systems will provide a suitable level of service. Developers may prefer the pressure sewer system
as this can be implemented as lot sales are achieved. A STEP system could be used, however,
the ongoing need for a septic tank or similar in residents yards and the ongoing higher operational
costs, as compared to the other two options, present disadvantages for this option. The cost
estimates for each collection system are shown in Table E.1.
Table E.1: Collection and Transport Cost Summary

Conventional Septic Tank
Pressure Sewer
Item Gravity Sewer Effluent Pumping
System
System System
Construction Cost $2,932,400 $2,876,612 $8,769,950
Capital Cost $3,958,740 $4,027,257 $9,646,945
Annual Cost $33,050 $18,132 $39,170
NPV $4,761,768 $4,467,812 $10,588,773

S3 Sewage Treatment and Effluent Management Options

The three effluent management options considered were:
Direct or partial discharge into Yass River. This requires a high degree of treatment
which can potentially be provided by the IDEA activated sludge type sewage treatment
system (Option 1).
Effluent evaporation (ie. no environmental discharge). A significant evaporation area of
approximately 12 ha will be required. The evaporation area will have to be fully lined.
Effluent irrigation of pasture. An estimated 122 ML winter storage pond is required and
30 ha of irrigation area. This option will require further investigations to determine if this is
a viable option due to the potential risk of contaminating the existing water bores in the
village.
Three options for a centralised sewage treatment to treat sewage from the village and proposed
developments have been assessed.
S3.1 Option 1: IDEA STP with discharge to Yass River or irrigation of pasture
The IDEA (intermittently decanted extended aeration) reactor system is the most commonly used
secondary biological treatment process in NSW. IDEA is a modified form of the activated sludge
treatment process. The process has been developed by Public Works and is utilised at about 130
plants in NSW. It has the primary advantage of allowing conveyance of a significant portion of wet
weather flows through the main biological reactor.
The combined footprint for the modular IDEA reactor/sludge stabilisation/effluent balance tank will
be less than 1,000m2. Additional area will be required for roadworks and additional structures such
as inlet channel, amenities building, switchroom, UV disinfection building and sludge dewatering
facilities. Buffer distance will also be required from nearby properties due to odour and noise
issues. The process units are vertical walled, aboveground structures.
The developers for Coolawin are proposing to include centralised sewage treatment systems for
their development/s and the village. This plant would be similar to Option 1 with irrigation of
pasture envisaged. The Coolawin developer has proposed a variation to this option. A modular
sequence batch reactor (SBR) type STP, based on the same activated sludge process, would be
utilised. Stage 1 would be built for the Coolawin development of proposed 23 lots plus 60 lots from
the Kyeema development area and an expanded Stage 2 plant for the village would be built.
Irrigation would occur on Coolawin land. Only a preliminary design has been undertaken at this
stage. The location, within the Coolawin development area would only be suitable for the Stage 1
plant due to a lack of buffer and being within the flood zone.
Both treatment processes are capable of BOD and nitrogen removal with subsequent disinfection
of the secondary treated effluent.
Effluent disposal proposed is via above ground irrigation of pasture. The risks with this are the
same as the centralised STP with irrigation of pasture. Investigations would need to be undertaken
to determine if this is a viable option due to the potential risk of contaminating the existing water
bores in the village.
The advantages of these off the shelf systems are capital costs savings.
The disadvantages are:
Generally a lack of design input. The system is already designed and is an off the shelf
package.
Process control is often lacking as compared to a fully designed municipal plant.
Life of the plant generally < 20 years as to save costs materials such as steel are used
instead of concrete for the treatment units. An IDEA would be expected to last 50 + years.
STP sited within the flood zone and close to neighbours in Stage 1 servicing 23 lots of
Coolawin development.

High recurrent costs every 20 years.

Council to operate two STPs. This would not be economical to operate and maintain a short
life Stage 1 plant of Coolawin development which serves only 83 lots (if Kyeema area
included) and a second Stage 2 plant.
S3.2 Option 2: Oxidation Pond STP with evaporation or irrigation of pasture

Oxidation pond based STPs are a simple, generally lower capital and maintenance cost form of
secondary treatment compared to the IDEA process. The achievable quality of effluent with respect
to BOD, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) is generally poor compared to the IDEA process but
suitable for evaporation and irrigation of pasture.
An area of approximately 1.5 hectares will be required for the oxidation ponds. An additonal 12
ha is required for evaporation ponds or if irrigation is proposed then an additoinal 30 ha.
These are in-ground process units that have to located a bit further away from the village to ensure
an adequate buffer. This would be very similar to the new STP at Murrumbateman.
S3.3 Option 3: Proprietary AdvanTex STP and Subsurface Irrigation

This option is a scaled up version of the scheme proposed for the Kyeema development. The
sewage system proposed for Kyeema comprises of a STEP system and subsequent treatment via
the proprietary AdvantexTM treatment process by Orenco Systems. This system has been used
successfully in New Zealand and for smaller development within Australia. This system could be
adopted across the village, however, a village of the size of Gundaroo, hasnt been sewered in this
fashion within Australia. This would add risk to Council as compared to convention style schemes
options.
It consists of below ground treatment modules. It is therefore visually unobtrusive and odour free
according to the manufacturer. The STP would likely be operated under contract rather than
directly by Council.
The estimated costs for the village sized scheme would be higher than the oxidation pond option
and lower than a traditional IDEA.
S3.4 Recommendation
The village is suited to a gravity collection system. This system has a higher capital costs but a
lower ongoing maintenance cost. A pressure sewer system could also be used however ongoing
costs are higher. It has the advantage of having lower impacts during construction and may be
more suited to the developers who can stage implementation as development occurs.
The provision of an oxidation pond STP and subsequent effluent irrigation or evaporation (Option
2) is recommended as this is the lowest cost, provided Council can secure the land required.
This option has the lowest capital cost and operating cost as there is negligible mechanical
equipment associated and power supply requirements. Operator input for monitoring and
maintenance will also be negligible and be limited to cleaning of manual (bar) screening system,
routine maintenance of the grounds, oxidation pond banks, and the evaporation/irrigation areas.
Oxidation pond desludging will not be required for at least 15 years. A ground water investigation is
required before irrigation be considered. Evaporation is an alternative.
If affordable Option 1, a modern STP, could be considered. The constructed plant would provide
longevity whereas the modular plant would provide short term savings only. Both STPs would
produce a higher quality of effluent which would be some advantage for the irrigation scheme.
The STEP system and a proprietary AdvanTexTM treatment process, both by Orenco Systems,
could be utilised for the village. It presents an alternative option to the conventional scheme
alternatives. There are advantages with this system, however, given that there is land available in
Gundaroo for a low cost system and there are risks associated with the approval and operation of

alternative treatment systems, there doesnt seem to be justification for recommending this system
at Gundaroo for the village.
The cost estimates for each treatment system and the scheme as a whole are shown in Table E.2.
Table E.2: Estimated Capital and Operational Costs for STP Options and Scheme Costs
Option 1 Option 2 Option 2 Option 3
IDEA Based Oxidation Pond Oxidation Pond Orenco STP
Item
STP and Based STP and Based STP and and
Discharge Evaporation Irrigation Irrigation
Construction Cost $4,330,000 $2,600,000 $2,990,000 $3,960,639

Total Capital Cost $6,495,000 $3,900,000 $4,485,000 $5,544,895
Annual Costs $85,000 $16,000 $25,000 $50,000
Total Scheme Costs with a
$10,453,740 $7,858,740 $8,443,740 $15,191,840
Pressure Sewer Collection
System and STP
Total Scheme Costs with a
$10,522,257 $7,927,257 $8,512,257
Gravity Collection System
and STP

1 Introduction
1.1 General
The village of Gundaroo, NSW, is located in the Southern Tablelands region of NSW,
approximately 220km south west of Sydney. The village lies within the Yass Valley Councils (YVC)
Local Government Area. The village had a population of about 400 people, with 175 dwellings
within the proposed sewerage reticulation area, based on ABS 2011 census data.
The villages water supply is sourced from bore water and rainwater tanks. The village relies on-
site sewage management systems which carries the risk of contaminating the drinking (bore) water
supply of the village. Four out of nine bore water samples collected during April 2015 yielded e. coli
levels higher than the recommended levels in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The
provision of a sewerage scheme with a centralised STP should reduce the risk of bore water
contamination.
1.2 Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are to:
review the developers proposed sewage treatment proposals
investigate options for the provision of a centralised sewage treatment system
investigate options for the for the provision of a village wide sewage collection and transport
system;
present details of sizing, design criteria and layout of proposed works; and
provide a preliminary estimate of capital costs of the works.

2 Population and Load Projections

2.1 General
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data (2011) for Gundaroo indicated a population of
402 people occupying 175 dwellings within the proposed sewerage reticulation area. The village
also has a small school, pub and cafe.
The growth rate has been high in the past, average 7% over the past 2001-2006, and 5% over
2006-2011, as shown below by the Census results:
Census 2001 Population 234
Council has received three developer submissions to provide additional residential lots of up to
5,000m2 in Gundaroo, The three properties for which development proposals have been submitted
are Kyeema, Coolawin and Faithful. The number of lots proposed for the Kyeema, Coolawin
and Faithfull developments are 60, 23 and 60 lots, respectively. The locations of the proposed
developments are illustrated by Figure 1 in Appendix A.
Therefore the design population is as follows:
Current dwellings 175 dwellings within the proposed sewerage reticulation area
46 vacant or potential lots
Future possible lots from Crown Land 6 lots
Developer Growth 120 Kyeema and Faithful
Developer Growth - 23 lots Coolawin (subject to Councils planning approval)
Design ~ maximum 400 ET (370 ET expected at this stage)
The STP will be sized for a design of 400ET. The number of tenements is equivalent to an EP
load of 1,320 people using the current occupancy ratio of 3.3.
The Gundaroo Music Festival attracts a crowd of around 3,000 people.
This peak load is collected with onsite facilities then transferred to a STP for treatment. This
transfer would need to be managed so as to not overload the STP. Pond based STP systems and
larger STP, such as Yass Sewage Treatment Plant (with septage receival facility), are likely to be
able to better handle this load.
The following assumptions were made for the projected ET (dwelling);
Every lot shall have a single dwelling only
No allowance has been made for duplex housing
An allowance of 30 ET has been included for non-residential demand such as restaurants,
Motel/Hotel, caravan park etc.
The scheme has been proposed for 400 ET. Any demand beyond 400 ET would require
the scheme to be expanded.

3 Sewage Collection System

Options for the provision of a reticulation system are:
A gravity based sewerage collection system.
A pressure based sewerage collection system.
A septic tank effluent pumping system (STEP) or common effluent drainage (CED) system will
be briefly examined.
It has been assumed that the new development areas will drain to the lowest point and be
connected to the village system.
3.1 Conventional Gravity System

3.1.1 Gravity Sewerage System Description
The collection system consists of gravity reticulation, pumping stations and rising mains. Sewage
from individual lots flows through gravity mains to a downstream pumping station. It is then lifted
through a pressurised rising main to either another gravity main, transfer pumping station or sewage
treatment plant. Ultimately it will reach a treatment plant via pressure or gravity main/s.
Gravity sewers need sufficient flow velocity to keep pipes clean by preventing deposition of solids.
Self-cleansing is achieved by provision of minimum pipe diameters and minimum grades. These
criteria may lead to deep excavation and/or the need to use of pumping stations in flat, upward
sloping or undulating topography. In these circumstances, both excessive excavation and a high
number of pumping stations may lead to significant costs especially where groundwater and/or rock
is present.
3.1.2 Reticulation System
The use of uPVC pipe is assumed and manholes would be located at the junction of lines, changes
in direction, grade and pipe size in accordance with the Sewer Design Manual (Reference 2).
The proposed gravity system would comprise:
Two (2) catchments of sewer mains with nominal a diameter of 150 mm used for sewer
reticulation and 100 mm diameter for internal property connections. Sewer depths to 6m.
Two (2) small sewage pumping stations and associated rising mains.
Associated sidelines for connection to residences and non-domestic properties.
Manholes at various depths located along the sewer mains at a spacing of 120m.
The preliminary sewer layout for the gravity system is shown in Figure 3.2. The layout proposed
predominantly makes use of the laneways for the provision of the gravity reticulation mains.
The advantages of gravity sewerage systems include:
Operation and maintenance are the responsibility of Council and not householders;
High reliability;
Well established design standards.
The main disadvantage with this system is cost when multiple catchments and deep sewers are
required. Here however only two catchment are required and sewers are relatively shallow as the
village is sited with fall towards the river. Areas with a high water table may also present
difficulties/issues. Another potential significant disadvantage is the level of disruption to the area
during construction. Sewer construction in properties, likely to be required due to the need to
intercept existing household plumbing, or where there are large obstacles such as sheds and large

trees add to the cost and disruption. However, Council recently installed a gravity sewer system for
Murrumbateman village without to many difficulties.
Council provided a rebate to residents who connected to the sewer system within 18 months from
commissioning of the scheme.
Figure 3.1 shows examples of a gravity system being installed.
Figure 3.1 Installation of Gravity Pipeline in a Back Yard

3.1.3 System Maintenance and Operation
System maintenance would be limited to regular inspection of the pumping station, scheduled
servicing and responding to breakdowns and alarms.
Wet well pumping stations would be provided with duty and standby pumps, and provide some
emergency storage capacity. The system can be monitored remotely through a telemetry system.
This provides a high level of reliability and environmental performance.

Figure 3.2 Gravity Layout

3.1.4 Transfer Sewage Pumping Stations

A transfer sewage pumping station (SPS) is required to transfer collected sewage from the
southern catchment to the northern catchment and from the northern catchment to the STP for
treatment. The SPS would be located on vacant land off Sutton Road opposite Faithful Street and
within the Council showground
The following works will be required for each SPS:
Catchment 1 155 ET, Catchment 2 384 ET ( 179 ET +155 ET (SPS 1)).
a 1.8m dia. in-ground circular concrete wet well with incoming pipework and isolating valve;
a 3m and 5m deep wet well (depth to suit incoming pipework levels and selected SPS site);
the wet well is to include requisite metalwork comprising safety mesh/handrails-McBerns
type covers for the access opening, step-irons, ladders;
two pumps suitable for the system head requirements, with 8 L/s capacity and 16 L/s for
catchments 1 and 2 respectively, operating on a duty/standby basis;
the inlet isolation valve (knife gate valve) and a stilling/ drop tube installed on the discharge
end of the inlet pipes;
switchgear and control gear assembly (SCA) housed within an outdoor switchboard
enclosure, as required, and located 0.5m above the 100 year ARI flood level;
a valve pit containing reflux valves, stop valve and a flow meter, covers and safety mesh;
well cleaning system;
emergency storage (8 hours ADWF within wet well SPS 1 10 kL tank SPS 2);
a canister vent carbon filter system;
a flow relief pipeline and chamber;
site access for operation and maintenance vehicles;
chemical dosing at SPS 2 (transfer station) for septicity control; and
restoration and landscaping consistent with the surrounding environment.
3.1.5 Electrical Switchboard
It is proposed to provide an outdoor, free-standing, form 3 type SCA to be sited adjacent to the
SPS. The SCA will be to Councils specification and would incorporate metering, general and
generator power supply protection/isolation, two (2) off soft starters, auto common control and
telemetry sections. A three phase, 5 pin generator power outlet connection will be installed on the
external skin of the SCA. The approximate size of the SCA will be 2400 mm (W) x 2000 (H) x 400
(D). The SCA will be installed on a concrete plinth or suitable platform that is a minimum of 0.5
mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level for the site. The automatic operation of the pumps will be
carried out by a programmable logic controller. A typical installation is shown in Figure 5.2.
3.1.6 Power Supply
Power for the SPS will be obtained from a nearby 11 kV line. A pole mounted transformer will be
located adjacent to the pumping station to service the site power requirements. At this stage there
has been no consultation with the energy supplier. As such, the upgrade requirements for the
existing system, if any, are yet to be determined.
3.1.7 Instrumentation and Control
The primary level control system will be an ultrasonic or multitrode system with a back-up system
of float type level regulators.

Figure 3.3 Typical SPS Installation Murrumbateman SPS

3.1.8 Switchboards
To maintain the integrity of the pump station and provide operators with a safe working
environment in which to control the pump station operation, Form 3b type switchgear to AS 3439.1
will generally be used or will be to Councils requirements.
3.1.9 Motor Starters
It is proposed to install all motor starters in a separate compartment.
3.1.10 Control System and Monitoring
The pump station control system will operate through a PLC or a RTU/PLC to control all devices on
the site. Any faults detected will be transmitted to a telemetry system.
In addition to automatic PLC control, each drive will have on/shutdown/off/shutdown/auto selection,
on the SCA, to allow operation of the drive in the event of a PLC failure.
3.1.11 Emergency Storage Requirements
NSW EPA requires the scheme to provide a high level of environmental performance. This may
include the provision of appropriate system storage taking into account system reliability and
sensitivity of the receiving environment.
At the SPS sufficient storage can be provided to prevent overflows should a local power failure
occur or some other issue at the SPS.
The 1.8 m diameter wet well will have around 10kL of storage. This equates to 8 hours ADWF @
210 L/ET.day for SPS 1. A 10 kL dedicated emergency storage tank would be provided to provide
8 hours ADWF storage for SPS 2.
The SPS would have a telemetry system for notification of Council staff.

3.2 Pressure Sewer System

This section discusses the works required for the provision of a reticulated sewerage system for
Gundaroo. The components of the system including pumping stations, pressure reticulation and
rising mains are discussed.
3.2.1 Pressure Sewerage System Description
A pressure system has a grinder pump located inside a holding tank (pump/tank unit) and a
boundary box located at every property. The dwellings are connected to the tank inlets via
conventional house drains. Each residence would have its own pump/tank unit. The pump unit
would typically be located between the house and the existing septic tank and would intercept the
existing household sewer line.
At a pre-set level in the tank the pump activates and any solids are ground and then pumped to the
pressure sewerage reticulation system. The sewer pressure mains would be located in the street
and a small diameter pipeline would connect the pump/tank unit on each property to it. A typical
pressure sewer installation for a single dwelling is shown in Figure 3.4 and 3.5.
Figure 3.4 Typical Domestic Installation for Pressure Sewer

Figure 3.5 Typical Domestic Design Layout for Pressure Sewer
Each time the grinder pump is activated, the majority of the contents of the holding tank are
removed. In a completely pressurised collection system, all the piping downstream from the grinder
pump (including laterals and mains) will be under pressure (45m or less).
Each grinder pump station includes a control panel suitable for wall or pole mounting in an obvious
location such as adjacent to a building switch board. An audio and/or visual alarm beacon is
included to warn of failure. The pump units are wired into household switchboard. Upgrading of the
existing household switchboard may be required.
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 shows a typical installed unit and power installation.

Figure 3.6 Typical Installed Pressure Unit Figure 3.7 Typical Power Installation
Flooding is an issue in parts of Gundaroo. Typically for flood prone sites the following would be
undertaken:
Pump unit, 2010iP, with a sealed lid with venting and power taken out the side of the tank
with the cables to the building, and the venting pipe to under the eaves of the house.
The alarm panel is mounted at a suitable height above the flood level.
The tanks with the pumps are installed with ballasting at the base to eliminate any chance of
floatation.
The system would consist of the following as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Pressure Sewer Details
Lot Type Number Equipment
Village
1xEOne 2010iP collection well with 1xEone Extreme
Residential
187 Grinder Pump
Caf 1 1 x Quad Unit with duty and standby pumps
Gundaroo Hotel 1 1 x Quad Unit with duty and standby pumps
2 x Quad Units with duty and standby pumps or 4 x
Gundaroo Public School
1 Double Units
Total 190 1 x Quad Unit with duty and standby pumps
Vacant
51 Grinder Pump
Outside village
10 Grinder Pump
The main construction impact to residents will be the excavation for the installation of the
pump/tank units. Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show photos of typical construction of a pressure system.

Figure 3.8 Installation of a Pressure Unit
Figure 3.9 Completion of Pipe Connections

3.2.2 Reticulation System

Pressure sewerage systems can be cost effective because pipes are laid in shallow narrow
trenches. This is especially the case when the ground is rocky, the water table is high or the land is
flat. In addition, since the grinder pumps can lift in excess of 45m, lift pumping stations and transfer
pumping stations can usually be eliminated with significant savings of cost. Pipelines would be laid
within road reserves with one pipeline laid on one side of each street. Individual connection would
be made from both sides of the street to the reticulation network. Approximately 3.77 km of
pipelines would be required to collect the village and transfer to the showground transfer pumping
station.
Reticulation mains are generally 50-110 mm diameter and will be smaller than the equivalent
gravity pipeline throughout the system. All pipes are arranged as branch networks without loops.
The maximum pump operating pressure is around 60m. The pipework would be minimum PE100
PN 16 pressure HDPE pipelines. Air release points with odour control are located at high points
within the system for operational purposes. These points would need to be above the flood level.
The system is watertight as it uses pressure pipes rather than gravity pipes and therefore
infiltration from groundwater and stormwater in the system itself is eliminated. This reduces the
flow capacity required for downstream infrastructure. This in turn reduces the sizes of pipes
needed, and size of the main pump station. However, inflow can still occur through yard gullies.
This may require the installation of gullies with non-return valves.
There are also advantages of less disruption during construction. The installation of small diameter
pressure mains at minimal depth is a lot easier than larger diameter gravity mains which may be at
quite deep depths.
The construction of the reticulation system would be undertaken by typically via directional drilling
or by open cut construction should this be appropriate. The majority of the mains are within the
laneways so open cut may be preferable. A shallow trench would be constructed if by open cut.
Road crossings or the entire system could be undertaken via directional drilling. This will minimise
the impact to residents for the installation of the reticulation system. Figures 3.10 and 3.11 shows
photos of directional drilling for installation of a pressure system pipeline under a road and a creek
crossing.
Figure 3.10 Directional Drilling Equipment for Pressure Sewers.

Photo 3.11 Pipelaying in Progress via Directional Drilling

3.2.3 System Maintenance and Operation
The main disadvantage with a pressure system is the need to maintain a large number of pumps
throughout the system. Council generally take the responsibility for the maintenance of the system
either directly or through a service agreement with the pump unit supplier. The role of residents is
to advise Council if there is a problem. However the systems have the capability to be remotely
(centralised) monitored if desired. Breakdown maintenance only is required. This means that
pumps are replaced if they malfunction and taken away for repair. Typically 5% of pumps would
need to be replaced/serviced each year.
System failures can take two forms. Failures of an individual pump or pipeline for an individual
property and failure of a common pipeline can occur. If the failure occurs at the grinder pump or
before the connection to the reticulation system, the problem is localised and can be identified
before an overflow occurs. Any sewer overflow would be restricted to flow from that household and
therefore impact is minimised. It is expected that owners would take quick action to stop inflows to
the system from the house, minimising the impact. The pump tank would be sized for two days of
inflows above the normal system operating levels.
Failures in the reticulation system could allow releases of sewage from a large area or number of
pump units. This would be limited by the appropriate location of isolation valves in the system and
appropriate storage within pump wells. The location of these valves will be determined during the
design of the system. This type of failure would not cause the failure of the system as a whole but
could result in overflows. Failures would generally be caused due to external damage. Pipes would
be installed with a tracer wire in a plastic marking tape above the pipe. The tracer wire will allow
the pipe to be located prior to excavation, and the tape will be exposed upon excavation. The pipes
are small and shallow and would be easily repaired once a break has been found.
3.2.4 Residents Operational Costs
The connection costs for residents are usually less than for other collection options as the PS unit
can be placed close to the existing septic tank thus minimising the amount of work required for
connection to the new system. Residents will have to pay any costs to upgrade their household

drainage up to the connection point and if their existing switchboard is unsafe for connection. A
property with a switchboard that does not meet current standards would be required by the
electricity supplier to be upgraded whenever any work is undertaken on it.
Residents will also have to pay for the power costs for the pump which are around $25 per year.
Residents sewer rates may be reduced by $25 as compensation for this cost which is not charged
by residents with a gravity connection.

Figure 3.12 Reticulation Layout

3.2.5 Transfer Rising Main

A 180 mm HDPE PN16 rising main from the SPS to the STP will be required for the gravity option
based on a transfer rate of 18 L/s.
A 110 mm HDPE PN16 rising main to the STP will be required for the pressure options based on a
transfer rate of 3 L/s.
3.2.6 Rising Main Septicity and Odour Control
The detention time within the rising main is 6 hours under average flow with longer times expected
overnight with the gravity system. The long detention times within the rising main will result in
anaerobic conditions. The pressure system will also cause septicity issues as sewage will sit in the
pump well as well as in the transfer main. This will lead to the sewage becoming septic and
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) being released at the inlet works upon discharge with both systems.
Corrosion of concrete surfaces such as in wet wells and discharge manholes is brought about by
sulphuric acid, which is generated by oxidation of H2S by Thiobacillis bacteria.
H2S + 2O2 (bacteria) H2SO4 corrosion
This reaction is controlled by temperature with increased production with hotter temperatures,
availability of nutrients, pH and moisture. Thus inhibiting H2S, especially in high temperatures
(summer), will stop acid formation.
Options for treatment or preventing septicity are as follows:
oxygen injection;
chlorine injection (gas and liquid);
hydrogen peroxide injection;
air injection;
ferric or ferrous chloride dosing;
pH correction - lime and MHS dosing; and
nitrate dosing.
The strategies that are appropriate for this particular application and conditions are ferric or ferrous
chloride dosing.
Ferric chloride and ferrous chloride are iron salts that react with dissolved sulphides to form
metallic sulphide precipitates, thus preventing H2S release to the atmosphere. The resulting
metallic sulphide must be insoluble and stable in anoxic and anaerobic conditions for the system to
work efficiently. Ferric chloride and ferrous chloride are supplied as bulk liquids.
The ferrous ion reaction with sulfide as shown below.
HS- / S2- (aq) + Fe3+ / Fe2+ (aq) Fe2S3 (s) / FeS (s) + H+ (aq)
Ferric chloride dosing can be undertaken by the installation of a proprietary chemical dosing facility
(dosing pumps and 5 kL chemical container with integrated bund) at SPS 2 (transfer SPS) for the
gravity system and a dosing facility into the rising main with the pressure system. Dosing will be
directly into the wet well of the pump station and rising main respectively. Typically the system
would necessitate refilling monthly depending on the actual dose rate employed. Dosage rates
can be timed to diurnal patterns. The unit would be sited above ground within the fenced SPS
compound or as a separate facility. Safety handling facilities for this chemical, which is classed as
a Hazardous Substance (Corrosive 8) and Poison S5, should be as per the Material Safety Data
Sheet provide by the chemical supplier. In summary, the provision of a safety shower and loading
and unloading concrete pad would be required as is appropriate worker protection and training for
handling the material at each location where filling is conducted.

3.3 Common Effluent Drainage (CED) and Septic Tank Effluent

Pumping (STEP) Systems
These systems entail the retention of the septic tank for pre-treatment, or the Orenco system as
proposed by Kyeema which has new sealed tanks (4 kL tanks), and provision of either a gravity
based reticulation system or a small diameter pressure system with the provision of a pump at
each property for the transport of effluent to a STP for treatment.
The advantages of CED and STEP systems are potential savings in capital costs, through the
provision of smaller reticulation system which can be laid a flatter grades and fewer blockages as
effluent is transferred rather than sewage. Pre-treatment occurs onsite within the septic tank. The
pump systems can be remotely (centralised) monitored.
The disadvantages of the systems are as follows:
Retention or provision of a new septic tank. The 4 kL Orenco tank is substantial but is all
underground.
Residents are still responsible for the septic tank or new tank including regular pump outs.
The frequency of pumpouts is as per the existing arrangement, every 2-3 years for a
normal septic and 8-12 years for the larger Orenco tank.
Council may still be required to inspect the septic tanks.
Odour may be an issue onsite with old septics, if retained, and at the STP as sewage will
be septic going into the transport system. New sealed tanks wouldnt smell.
Minor septic tank upgrade works would be required for 12% of existing properties with replacement
required for 12% of properties according to Councils latest onsite inspection results for the 161
properties inspected. However, with the Orenco style scheme, all properties would get a new 4 kL
interceptor tank. The tank would be buried and has a pumping module integrated. This has been
assumed for Gundaroo.
A small diameter pressure system is used as per the pressure system.
A 110 mm HDPE PN16 rising main from to the STP will be required for this option based on a
transfer rate of 3 L/s.
As per the pressure system, rising main septicity will be an issue and will require ferric chloride
dosing into the rising main.
The capital costs are higher for each tenement as a large tanks and a pump station is required. A
cost of $12,500 per lot has been quoted for the Kyeema development. This has been adopted
across the village.
The ongoing costs for residents are power costs for pumping, expected to be the same as the
pressure option, which is $25/year, and periodic desludging of the tanks. Ongoing inspection costs
for Council are likely to be required with this system.
Overall costs are higher with STEP systems as a septic tank/interceptor tank and a pump station is
required at each property. Some savings in treatment costs can be made through the elimination of
screening systems but this is a small component of the overall STP, less than 5%. Sludge
treatment would and septage receival facilities would be required to treat the accumulated sludge
from the village interception tanks.
This system is an alternative system that could be considered.

Figure 3.13 Orenco Interceptor Tank

3.4 Connection of Development Areas

In general new development areas would set up their own collection and transport systems to get
sewage to the site boundary suitable for integration into the village system. The development
areas would be connected to the overall scheme as follows:
Table 3.2: Servicing Development Areas

Development Gravity Sewer Pressure Sewer
Direction of sewer from
the corner of the Kyeema The developer would
development area, at provide a PSS system or
Kyeema = 60 ET Gundaroo Road near a SPS that would connect
Rosamel Street to the village system for
intersection, into a gravity transfer to the STP.
main then to SPS 2.
The developer would
provide a PSS system or
provide a SPS at the
the corner of the Faithful
corner of the Faithful
development area, at
development area, at
Faithfull Street = 60 ET Faithful Street and Sutton
Faithful Street and Sutton
Road intersection, into a
Road intersection. This
gravity main then to the
SPS would connect to the
SPS 1.
main at the lower side of
the village.
The developer would
the corner of the Coolawin
Coolawin = 23 ET (subject provide a PSS system or
development area, at the
to Councils planning a small SPS to connect to
bottom of Rosamel Street
approval) the pressure main in
into a gravity main to SPS
Rosamel Street.
2.
3.5 Collection System Proposals from Developers
The following has been proposed by the developers in relation to the sewering of their
development. It is noted that the developers may have a preference for a PSS system as this
allows a staged provision of services.
Table 3.3: Dvelopment Area Sytems

Development Sewer System Proposed
STEP system proposed with CED used where
Kyeema = 60
available. Orenco treatment system.
Faithfull street = 60 Not stated.
Reticulated sewerage network - gravity sewer or
Coolawin = 23
pressure sewer proposed.

4 Sewage Treatment Design Considerations

Relevant design criteria and considerations in the development of options for new sewage
treatment facilities are discussed in this section. Design considerations will be based on meeting
statutory requirements and policy guidelines, as well as providing information pertinent to STP
development.
4.1 Design Loads

The new STP is to be sized based on an ultimate design load of 400ET. This is equivalent to a
population load on 1,320 people based on an occupation rate of 3.3 (2011 Census).
The villages water supply is sourced from bore water and rain water tanks. Hence the hydraulic
allowance can be expected to be less than the traditional 240L/EP/day. A lower hydraulic
allowance of 200 L/EP/d has been adopted and provides an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of
227 kL/day or 2.6 L/s at ultimate design load.
4.2 Design Influent Quality

Preliminary sizing of the reactors will be based on a hydraulic load of 200L/EP/day and typical
Public Works design criteria of rural NSW domestic sewage namely:
BOD load : 70g/EP/day
Ammonia N load : 12g/EP/day
Total Phosphorus (TP) : 3g/EP/day
4.3 Relevant Regulatory Bodies and Authorities

The following stakeholders have been identified as having direct interest in the planning and
development of the scheme for Gundaroo STP. They will need to be consulted throughout all
stages of the augmentation.
Yass Valley Council (YVC), which is the project proponent, local Consent Authority and
owner/developer of the Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme
DPI Water, which undertakes administration of government financial assistance to Local
Government for the provision of water and sewerage services in NSW country. This
Office has an approval role in the construction of sewerage works and advisory role in
sewerage operations under the Local Government Act, including trade waste.
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which has an approval role prior to
commencement of construction and licensing role before commissioning and in operation
of the wastewater treatment plant, treated effluent and waste sludge management
systems.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), which has a regulatory role in relation
to biodiversity, Aboriginal cultural heritage, waters and rivers, wildlife management and
native vegetation.
NSW Planning and Environment, which has an approval role with regard to
environmental planning of the augmentation.
Safe Work NSW, which has the statutory responsibility to enforce the Work Health and
Safety (WHS) Act and WHS Regulations.

4.4 NSW EPA Requirements

4.4.1 Approval and Licensing
It is a requirement under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (POEO)
1997, that treatment plants, pumping stations, overflow structures and reticulation systems within a
sewerage scheme that has a capacity that exceeds 750kL/day, equivalent to approximately 2,500
EP load, involving the discharge or likely discharge of wastes or by-products to land or waters, are
subject to licencing by the NSW EPA. The expected sewage production is 227kL/day thus the STP
will not need an operating Licence.
4.5 Site Considerations

A geotechnical investigation, site topographical survey and environmental assessments will be
required to confirm the feasibility of the options during concept design phase.
The potential sites for the new STP were selected based on:
Susceptibility to flooding - Gundaroo is located along the Yass River. The sites are to be
outside the flood modelled zone.
Distance from the village centre. A minimum of 500 metres buffer is required (1,000 metres
preferred).
Area availability The required STP area for oxidation ponds is around 1.5 ha. Effluent
management area required is 12 ha for evaporation or 30 ha for irrigation.
Groundwater Parts of the village source bore water for non-potable uses through bores.
As such, the potential for contamination through the treatment of sewage and effluent
management will need to be minimised. .
The site would need to be purchased by Council.
4.6 Responsibility
The Legislative Context
Council
Provides sewerage services and schemes under provisions in the Local Government Act
1993 (LGA, s.56 s.66) or in some cases the Water Management Act. Council are subject
to all the approvals (like s.60) and inspections that entails.
Councils are regulated by the EPA under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1997 for environmental performance of their systems. It should be noted the scheduled
threshold for sewage treatment systems is 2,500EP. Anything below 2,500EP does not
strictly require a licence but most do as they can require precautionary discharge at some
stage. Generally plants are operated to comply with the Licence (EPL) or the EPA effluent
irrigation guidelines.
Private
For Privately owned systems these are approved under s.68 of the LGA (operate a system
of sewage management). This is typically used for approvals for on-site sewage
management systems for single households (septics and AWTS systems) less than 10EP.
It does also pick up larger onsite systems such as a pub in a village with no sewerage,
caravan parks, camping areas etc.
Under the POEO Act Council are the Appropriate Regulatory Authority and have the
delegation for regulating non-scheduled activities (sewage treatment <2,500EP) so EPA
tend not to get involved. Generally the larger private systems installed are operated like a

big on-site system and compliance is measured against the Local Government regulations
for onsite systems.
Another requirement may be the application of the Water Industry Competition Act (WIC) to
private operators. This requires a licence to be obtained for provision of competitive
sewerage services to Council. This is a complicated process. It does have implications for
Council as they may need to pick up operation/ownership if the system falls over. Googong
(Queanbeyan Shire) was going under the WIC Act, but the developers arranged for Council
to take it over.

5 Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Management

5.1 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment can be categorised into three broad levels, namely:
Primary treatment
Secondary treatment
Tertiary treatment.
These are preceded by preliminary treatment which is essentially physical processes such as
screening, grit removal and flow balancing.
5.1.2 Primary Treatment
Primary treatment is the process of separating and treating the settleable solids from the liquid
component of the raw sewage. This process involves screening and grit removal processes.
5.1.3 Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment is focused on the removal of BOD, nitrogen, dissolved and suspended solids.
Nitrogen (N) is generally removed by the process of nitrification and denitrification. Ammonia
nitrogen in sewage is oxidised initially to nitrites and then to nitrates under a two-stage conversion
process (nitrification). Nitrates will subsequently be converted to nitrogen gas (denitrified) under
anoxic conditions. The reactions are given below.
Nitrification Reactions:
Stage 1: NH3 (ammonia) + O2 NO2- (nitrites) + H2O
Stage 2: NO2 (nitrites) + 1/2O2 NO3- (nitrates)
Denitrification Reaction:
NO3 (nitrates) + substrate N2 (gas) + CO2 + H2O + OH- + cells
Activated sludge based processes will reduce BOD and ammonia and total nitrogen. Ammonia
conversion will vary depending on the temperature and time of year.
5.1.4 Phosphorus (P) Removal
Total phosphorus (TP) consists of insoluble and soluble phosphorus components. Removal of
phosphorus (P) to low levels is generally achieved by chemical precipitation through the addition of
chemicals such as liquid alum, ferric chloride, and ferrous chloride and sodium aluminate.
Dosing with alum will lower the pH of the sewage. An assessment (characterisation) of the
incoming sewage will be required to determine if pH correction is required.
5.1.5 pH Correction
A net removal in alkalinity occurs during the nitrification/denitrification. Chemical dosing to remove
phosphorus can also reduce alkalinity and pH. A minimum process alkalinity of 50mg as CaCO3/L
is required to maintain process pH between 6.5 and 8.5.
5.1.6 Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary treatment has a range of meanings and generally involves the further improvement of
secondary treated effluent with filtration to remove residual solids and/or disinfection to remove
viruses and pathogens. Tertiary treatment can also be used to describe nutrient reduction process
as described above.
Typical methods for disinfection include ponding, chlorination and UV disinfection.

5.1.7 Bio-solids handling
Sewage treatment is essentially a solids separation process. Suspended and dissolved solids are
removed from the raw sewage in the form of waste activated sludge. The following definitions are
taken from the publication Environmental Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products,
NSW EPA 1997, are useful in the context of this options paper.
Sludge (sewage sludge): Solid, semi solid or liquid residue generated during the
treatment of sewage in a treatment plant.
Biosolids: Primarily an organic solid product produced by the municipal sewage treatment
process, previously referred to as sewage sludge. Solids become biosolids when they
come out of a digester or other treatment process and can be beneficially used.
Sludge produced by the secondary treatment process will consist of biological material and inert
chemical sludge (where chemical dosing is employed for phosphorus removal or settlement).
Sludge processing and biosolids management will typically consist of:
Stabilisation & Treatment Reduce the organic (volatile) content of the sludge wasted
from the sewage treatment process.
Dewatering Removing residual water from the treated sludge (biosolids) and reducing
volume and mass for transportation off-site.
Use or Disposal This may involve land application of biosolids (beneficial reuse) or
disposal at a landfill site.
Environmental Protection Licence conditions generally require that biosolids are stored, treated,
processed, classified, transported and disposed in accordance with the Biosolids Guidelines, or as
otherwise approved in writing by the EPA. The EPA guidelines focus on two criteria, the
Stabilisation Grade and Contaminant Grade of the final product.
Contaminant Grade A category used to describe the quality of a biosolids product based on the
concentration of its constituent contaminants.
There are 5 contaminant grades, A to E with A being the best quality. Grading will be a function of
the raw sewage, industry and trade waste contributions in the catchment. Improvements in
contaminant grading are often difficult to achieve through treatment and are best addressed
through trade waste agreements and regulation. Historical testing for contaminants indicates
biosolids are suitable for the Restricted Use 2 classification (SKM, 2012).
Council should be aware that due to the "soft" water there will be concentrations of copper in the
sludge that will impact on the contaminant grade
Stabilisation Grade - A category used to describe the quality of a biosolids product based on its
level of pathogen reduction, vector attraction reduction and odour reduction.
There are three (3) stabilisation grades, namely, Grades A, B and C (A is the most stabilised).
The objective for Council is to meet Stabilisation Grade B. This target has been included in licence
conditions for Councils sewage treatment plants. Biosolids meeting this grade should not exhibit
offensive odours and are suitable (subject to contaminant grade) for reuse. Bio-solids
classification is presentedTable 5.1.

Table 5.1: Bio-solids Classification (NSW EPA, 1997).
From the above table, the Allowable Land Application Use for bio-solids from Councils STPs
include:
Agriculture
Forestry
Soil and site rehabilitation
Landfill disposal
Surface land disposal (within the STP site)
This paper will examine options for the first 2 stages of sludge processing and bio-solids
management, sludge stabilisation (to Grade B) and dewatering for reuse and disposal.

5.2 Effluent Management Options and Quality Requirements

5.2.1 General
The available effluent management options for the scheme are shown below. The quality of the
treated effluent quality will depend on the effluent management strategy.
River discharge - Direct discharge into the Yass River
Effluent reuse
Effluent evaporation
Effluent quality requirements will generally require confirmation from the NSW EPA and
Department of Primary Industries (DPI) however the following effluent quality requirements should
be applicable.
5.2.2 River Discharge

Direct discharge into receiving waters, the Yass River downstream of Gundaroo, will generally be
expected to have an effluent quality that is suitable for discharge into Sensitive Waters which is to
EPAs Accepted Modern Technology quality requirement . Typical effluent quality requirement for
direct discharge into receiving waters is presented as Table 5.2. An activated sludge system will
generally be able to provide the desired technology, process control and flexibility that is required
to produce the desired effluent quality stated in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Typical Target Effluent Quality for Discharge into Receiving Waters.
Contaminant 90 Percentile 100 Percentile
BOD5 (mg/L) 10 15
Suspended Solids
15 30
(mg/L)
Ammonia (mg/L) 2 5
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 10 15
Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.5 1
pH 6.5 8.5 6.5 8.5
Oil and Grease (mg/L) 5 10
Faecal coliform
<200 <600
(fcu/100mL)
River discharge will require the highest quality of effluent produced and an activated sludge STP
with primary, secondary and tertiary treatment facilities.
5.2.3 Effluent Reuse

Irrigation of pasture is an option for Gunderoo. As per the system at Murrumbateman an effluent
storage pond and an above ground irrigation system is required. Effluent is used to irrigate pasture
and is stored when irrigation is not required, that is, when it is raining or in winter when the
irrigation potential is less than the STP outflow.
The ability to and type of treated effluent reusability will be generally be dependent on the STPs
capability to meet Log Removal Values (LRV) for Protozoa (P), Viruses (V) and Bacteria (B) based
on the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) guidance document for Recycled Water
Management Systems (RWMS).

Table 5.3 provides indicative target LRVs for common effluent reuse applications. Expected LRV
for various STP process units are presented by Table 5.4.
Table 5.3 Target LRVs*.

End Use Target LRV1
Protozoa Virus Bacteria
Municipal use eg. open spaces, sports 3.7 5.2 4.0
grounds, public garden, dust suppression,
unrestricted access and application.
Commercial food crops 4.8 6.1 5.0
Non-food crops (eg. trees, woodlots, flowers, 3.7 5.2 4.0
pasture)
* DPI, 2015
Table 5.4 Potential LRV Capabilities*.
Potential LRV*
Treatment Stage Protozoa Viruses Bacteria
Primary screening 0 0.5 0 - 0.1 0 0.5
Secondary treatment (IDEA) 0.5 - 2.0 0.5 - 2.0 1.0 - 3.0
Lagoon storage 1.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 1.0 5.0
Wetland (surface flow) 0.5- 1.0 n/a 1.0
Tertiary filtration (dual media 1.4 4.0 1.2 4.0 1.0 3.4
filtration)
Membrane filtration 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
Chlorination 0 0.5 1.0 4.0 2.0 4.0
UV light 3.0 4.0 Adenovirus 1.0 4.0 2- .0 4.0
Other 3.0 4.0
Examples of Non-Treatment
Barriers
Buffer zones (neighbours, passing 1 1 1
public)
Cooking or processing of produce 4 4 4
Withhoding periods for irrigation of 1 1 1
parks/sports grounds
Drip irrigation of crops 2 2 2
*DPI, 2015. Capabiiities to be negotiated on a case by case basis with DPI.
Overall LRV ratings will be subject to negotiation with DPI and will also depend on the operation
and risk management, process validation, verification, monitoring and equipment maintenance
plans that are in place. Non-treatment barriers such as buffer zones and access to irrigation area
(i.e. withholding periods) can also provide additional LRV credits.

An oxidation pond STP with additional non-treatment barriers such as excluding the public is an
option for Gundaroo. This scheme would be the same as the Murrumbateman STP.
However, reuse of treated effluent will need to be assessed against the risk of contamination of
groundwater. There is an extensive use by Gundaroo residents of bore water for non-potable
uses. As such irrigation presents a risk of contamination to this resource. Any irrigation site would
need to be located away from the villages aquifer and be supported by a groundwater study to
determine the extent and depth of the villages aquifer to provide separation and potential for
ingress of effluent to th9is aquifer.
5.2.4 Effluent Evaporation
Treated effluent can be disposed of via evaporation.
Evaporation ponds are provided to store effluent from which evaporation occurs. The ponds are
shallow and are lined with either a clay liner, stabilised soil or a geosythetic clay liner (GCL)
depending on the insitu material. Evaporation systems rely on the prevailing climactic conditions so
must be sized for a 1 in 10 year overflow frequency. Historical rainfall and evaporation data from
the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is utilised for process unit sizing.
The evaporation pond will have to be located above the predicted flood level and clear of overland
flows.
Salt accumulation within the ponds is an issue. Salt concentrations will increase each year as salt
is not evaporated. Therefore the concentration will get to a point where evaporation slows
substantially. This is likely after around 20 years. At this point new ponds would be required or the
salt removed.
An oxidation pond treatment plant is suitable for effluent evaporation.
5.2.5 Summary
Reuse of effluent by irrigation may present a risk of contamination to the water bores in the village
which would need to be investigated further.
Direct discharge of effluent into the Yass River will require a relatively high level of treatment
through the provision of a full activated sludge STP, similar to that of Yass STP.
Evaporation of effluent is a low cost solution whereby an oxidation pond based STP can be used.

6 Options for Provision of a Sewerage Treatment

Plant
6.1 General Description
The viable sewage treatment plant (STP) options for Gundaroo will be based on the following
secondary treatment systems
Option 1: Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration (IDEA) activated sludge system STP for
discharge or irrigation.
Option 2: Oxidation pond based STP for evaporation or irrigation.
The above systems will be able to treat raw the raw sewage generated by the village if existing on-
site treatment systems are decommissioned or alternatively treat the effluent from these on-site
treatment systems. The latter will have smaller process units due to the partially treated
wastewater.
Option 3: Propriety Orenco STP (coupled with STEP)
Developer (Kyeema) options include modified smaller versions of the Option1 - IDEA and alternate
biological Orenco STP and STEP collection system and discharge of effluent via a subsurface
irrigation system.
6.2 Option 1 New IDEA Based STP

6.2.1 Overview
The IDEA (intermittently decanted extended aeration) reactor system is the most commonly used
secondary biological treatment process in NSW. IDEA is a modified form of the activated sludge
treatment process. The process has been developed by Public Works Advisory and is utilised at
about 130 plants in NSW. It has the primary advantage of allowing conveyance of a significant
portion of wet weather flows through the main biological reactor. This process configuration
incorporates continuous feed and intermittent aeration, settling and subsequent decant for
clarification of effluent that allows the principal treatment process to take place in a single reactor,
thus reducing capital costs and simplifying process operation and control.
An IDEA based process provides both the functions of a traditional activated sludge treatment
process with aeration and secondary settling within the same tank. These two functions are
separated by means of timed process cycles controlled by a PLC (programmable logic controller).
This process configuration is cost effective, as primary and secondary treatment can be achieved
within a single structure, in comparison to conventional activated sludge treatment where two or
more units (i.e. at least a biological reactor and separate clarifier) are required. In an IDEA reactor,
a constant volume is maintained below bottom water level (BWL). Sewage inflow is split into two
equal streams that are continuously fed to the reactor through an inlet diffuser manifold at either
end of the reactor.
Activated sludge is composed of micro-organisms referred to as mixed liquor suspended solids
(MLSS), which, under aerobic conditions, oxidise organic material and ammonia (NH4+) present in
sewage, and reduce the nitrates (NO3-) and nitrites (NO2-) produced to gaseous nitrogen under
anoxic conditions.
Aeration can be provided either by means of surface or diffused aeration. A cycle typically begins
with the water level at BWL when the aerators are turned on. The action of the aeration system
mixes the entire contents of the reactor and provides oxygen to the MLSS for stabilisation. BOD
removal and nitrification take place during this (aeration) phase.
After aeration has been completed, the aerators are switched off and the MLSS, which had
previously been in suspension throughout the reactor, begins to settle. The settlement phase

leaves a clear supernatant layer above the sludge blanket, which forms during settlement. After a
fixed settling phase period, the decanting phase commences in which a centrally located decanting
mechanism that spans across the width of the reactor is lowered, decanting the supernatant above
BWL.
Denitrification takes place under anoxic conditions during the settling and decanting phases of a
cycle in the absence of aeration. Balancing both nitrogen removal and oxidation processes
requires careful design of the process cycle into the aeration and non-aeration periods (settling and
decant phases).
Sewage will be delivered to the inlet works through the incoming rising main. Preliminary treatment
is to be provided for the automatic removal and handling of gross solids, grit and rags. Preliminary
treatment will allow for:
reception/balancing of influent sewage;
screening of influent;
measurement of influent flows;
grit removal facilities;
division of flows to downstream secondary units;
automatic bagging of gross solids, grit and rags; and
emergency bypass.
The secondary treatment process proposed is intermittent decanted extended aeration (IDEA).
Secondary treatment facilities are provided for the following purposes:
biological oxidation of carbonaceous material;
nitrification (biological conversion of ammonia to nitrites then to nitrates);
denitrification (biological conversion of nitrates to gaseous nitrogen);
stabilisation of MLSS.
Phosphorus removal may be achieved by either chemical or biological means. A chemical dosing
system is proposed and has been widely used for the removal of phosphorus due to its increased
reliability and applicability.
Ultraviolet irradiation is an effective disinfection method for secondary effluent of low colour,
turbidity (< 5 NTU) and suspended solids. This can be provided by maturation ponds or by an
artificial UV system. These are well proven and have been used extensively in STPs across NSW.
The system would be designed to reliably meet the required disinfection target of 200 FC/100 mL.
On-site biosolids treatment and management requirements are highly dependent on the final use
or disposal of the dewatered sludge. Grade B stabilised sludge in accordance with DECCWs
biosolids guidelines (Reference 11) is required for most reuse applications and this is the standard
to be adopted for biosolids produced at the STP. This grade of biosolids will provide a very stable
and odour/vector free product. The proposed biosolids processing system is based on stabilisation
within sludge lagoons, to achieve Grade B classification, followed by dewatering within a mobile
dewatering facility, drying beds or a volute dehydrator.

As such an Option 1 IDEA based STP will consist of:

Option 1 will consist of:
Inlet works
Single 1,150EP IDEA reactor
effluent balance tank
UV disinfection system
2 sludge lagoons and sludge drying beds
Chemical dosing systems for phosphorus removal and pH control (for discharge)
6.2.2 IDEA Reactor and STP Design
Typically IDEA reactors are available in two configurations. Namely:
Bathurst Box (vertical walled reactors) type
Port Macquarie Tank (in-ground with sloping sides)
The tank system is generally an in-ground structure with sloping sides. The Box system is
configured as a vertical walled reactor and can be installed wholly or partly above ground.
The Bathurst Box reactor is best suited for Gundaroo STP due to the ability to site the STP
above the flood level and the construction is modular in that the other treatment units can be
incorporated in a shared structure. The IDEA, effluent balance tanks and sludge storage tanks
are incorporated as illustrated by Figures 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 This arrangement requires a smaller
foot print and is potentially more economical to construct than an in-ground system. This
arrangement has been used successfully for several small villages in NSW such as at Taralga and
Wyangala.
Figure 6.2 IDEA system general arrangement.

Figure 6.3 Taralga STP Aerial View
Figure 6.4 Taralga STP Modular IDEA system

Public Works Advisory has developed a rational model for sizing IDEA systems. This model takes
into account behaviour of the sludge blanket, process requirements and hydraulics of the system.
The design parameters adopted are stated in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: IDEA Reactor Design Parameters.

Parameters Units Value
Design sludge age Days 25
Design load EP 1,320
Average Dry Weather Flow kL/day 227
(ADWF)
Sewage unit load

Hydraulic load L/ep/day 200
BOD load g/ep/day 70*
TKN load g/ep/day 12.5
ADWF/PDWF - 4.5
PWWF/ADWF - 7
Operational MLSS mg/L 3500
The preliminary sizing of the main process structures for the STP is presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Indicative Process Unit Sizing.
Parameters Units Value
IDEA reactor
Length (at base) m 24
Width (at base) m 8
Slope (H:V) - 0
BWL (depth above floor) m 3.0
TWL (depth above floor) m 3.7
Freeboard m 0.5
3
Sludge lagoons m 2 x 700m3
Sludge drying beds m2 500
Effluent balancing m3 400

Waste activated sludge (WAS) will be produced by the IDEA process, Maintenance of the design
sludge age will require that 4% of the reactor volume be wasted as MLSS per day to achieve a 25
day sludge age. Wastage will be undertaken throughout the day during each aeration phase of the
process operating cycle. The WAS produce will have to be stabilised and dewatered.
Bio-solids management will be based on the production of Stabilisation Grade B sludge. The most
economical management option is to provide the following combination for stabilisation and
dewatering:
Stabilisation: 2 x 700m3 sludge lagoons
Dewatering: Sludge drying beds with a minimum total area of 400m2.
The Option 1 IDEA based STP process flow is schematically illustrated by Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5 Option 1 Process Flow Schematic.

6.3 Option 2: Oxidation Pond Based STP

Oxidation pond based STPs are a simple, generally lower capital and maintenance cost form of
secondary treatment compared to the IDEA process. The achievable quality of effluent with respect
to BOD, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) is generally poor compared to the IDEA process but
suitable for irrigation of pasture and effluent evaporation . Sizing of the oxidation pond is based on
the paper by Bliss (1976) who presented a method for sizing oxidation ponds based on Australian
climactic conditions. The surface area of the oxidation is calculated based on the following
equation:
A = (1/ke) YQ
where:
A = pond area (m2)
1/ke = 10, (ke = reaction rate constant based on climate)
Y = pond area factor 2.5 (Y is dependent on BOD and effective pond depth assumed to be
300mg/L and 1.5m, respectively)
Q = average daily inflow (assumed 227kL/day)
Based on the above method, the minimum effective pond area required to treat 1,136EP will be
approximately 9,000m2. A three pond system connected in series with a total area of 13,500m2 will
be required. Each pond will have a minimum area of 4,500m2. This will allow for one pond to be
taken off-line for maintenance while still providing the minimum pond hydraulic retention time
(HRT) requirements. Note preliminary sizing is based on typical raw sewage data.
An example of an oxidation pond layout arrangement is Bourke STP (5,000EP capacity) and
Deepwater STP (500EP capacity) which are illustrated by Figures 6.6 and 6.7, respectively. Both
plants/photos include maturation ponds to disinfect the oxidation pond effluent.
The Murrumbateman STP (1,100 EP) consists of the following :
An inlet works incorporating facilities for flow reception and manual screening
Oxidation ponds for stabilising sewage with the biological oxidation processes of bacteria
(2 ponds, 32.5 days each)
A Maturation Pond (25 Days)
An Effluent Storage Pond (223 Days 122 ML)
Manproof fencing of the plant
An effluent pumping station to transfer effluent from the effluent storage pond to the triticale
paddock on the property of Hillview for irrigation of pasture (30 ha initially then 40 ha).
The following infrastructure is to provide recycled water to the irrigation area:
A new rising main from the effluent pumping station to the irrigation area
Irrigation system distributing to the pastures.
The irrigation system will be designed using a low to moderate pressure spray system with an
upstream inline filter.

Figure 6.6 Bourke STP Oxidation Pond and Maturation Pond Layout.
Figure 6.7 Murrumbateman STP Oxidation Pond 2 (filling stage)

Figure 6.8 Murrumbateman STP Oxidation Pond and Effluent Irrigation Area
The Option 2 process flow is schematically illustrated by Figure 6.9. The oxidations ponds and the
evaporation beds (if provided) will have to be located above the expected flood levels. Substantial
land area and acquisition will therefore be required by Council.
Figure 6.9 Option 2 Process Flow Schematic.

6.3 Option 3: STEP System with Centralised Orenco AdvanTex

Treatment and Effluent Management System
Septic tank effluent is transported to a centralised treatment system by pumping though a pressure
system. Orenco's AdvanTex treatment system uses an engineered textile media to treat
wastewater to provide biological treatment in a similar fashion to what a trickling filter STP would
do. Trickling filters based STP have been used in country NSW for the last 50 years. The system
would comprise of:
Sewage collection tank within each property for primary settlement
Proprietary centralised secondary and tertiary treatment facility for the septic effluent based
on textile media The AdvanTex treatment system biologically treats and filters the
wastewater. The process units (filters and storage units) are located underground.
Disinfection via an artificial UV system.
Disinfected effluent is disposed via subsurface irrigation. A treated effluent storage tank is
provided for the development scale to store excess effluent however a storage dam would
be required for a village sized plant.
The process is American owned. The systems have been installed and are operating successfully
in Queensland (Currumbin) and New Zealand, usually for small developments. The system has a
small footprint and is visually unobtrusive. This means that less buffer is required for siting the
STP.
The system could be suitable for the village however the potential issues with this STP are:
Operated by Orenco or an authorised subconsultant. Lack of control by Council.
Long term viability/reliability of the subsurface irrigation system.
Life of the plant and components is unknown, typically small package type plants have a life
of less than 20 years.
The risk of ground water and bore water contamination will be present, as with all effluent
irrigation, but especially if the plant is located close to the village (Kyeema land for
example). A groundwater study would be required.
The quality of the treated effluent not be suitable for direct discharge into receiving waters.
Resident onsite systems to operate as well as the STP.
Costing for a village sized plant has been obtained from the supplier. As such, an assumption has
been made, regarding the likely costs. The 65 ET development costs is $680k ($10,500/ET) and
using this rate give a village cost of $4.2M. It is assuming that savings could be achieved for the
larger plant which would reduce this cost.
Figure 6.10 Option 3 Orenco AdvanTex STP

6.4 Developer Proposals

6.4.1 Kyeema
The Kyeema development is approximately 40 hectares and is located on the northern side of
Gundaroo. Sixty (60) new lots are proposed for Kyeema. The developer is proposing to utilise the
proprietary AdvanTex wastewater treatment system by Orenco Systems.
The system proposed by the developer consists of:

4kL underground interceptor tank for each lot which provided primary treatment of the raw
sewage. The primary treated wastewater will then gravitate or is pumped to a centralised
advanced treatment system (ie. the Orenco Advantex Treatment System)
Advantex Treatment System the treatment system biologically treats and filters the
wastewater. The process units (filters and storage units) are located under ground
Filtered effluent is disinfected via an artificial UV system.
Disinfected effluent is disposed via subsurface irrigation. A treated effluent storage tank will
be provided to store excess effluent.
The STP and irrigation area would be located within the development property.
Ownership and operational responsibility would be determined by the developer who is looking at
either a resident owned scheme (ie. though body corporate style) or a Build Own Operate Transfer
(BOOT) whereby the developer initially operate and maintains the scheme with future transfer to
Council or the residents.
The system seems suitable for the development size and has a successful track record in New
Zealand for this type/size application.
6.4.2 Coolawin
The Coolawin development is approximately 19 hectares and is located on the northern side
Gundaroo, adjacent to the Yass River, west of the proposed Kyeema development. Twenty three
(23) lots ranging from 1500m2 to 5000m2 are proposed however, this development is subject to
Councils planning approval. The proposal includes the provision of a modular, sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) based activated sludge type sewage treatment system to treat sewage for:
Stage 1 - the Coolawin development (23 ET) and possibly the adjoining Kyeema
development (60 ET) although the Kyeema development is proposing the Orenco system.
Stage 2 the whole village.
The Stage 1 STP would be located within Coolawin then moved further north of the village as
shown in Figure 6.10 to supplement the whole village STP. The relocation will incur additional
costs.
The process flow schematic for the proposed STP is located in Appendix A and includes the
following process units:
Screening and grit removal
Influent flow balance tank
Sequencing batch reactor(s) (SBR)
Waste sludge dewatering
Allowance for tertiary treatment (ie. filtration and disinfection) of the secondary treated
(SBR) effluent
Irrigation storage dam owned by Coolwin
Subsurface and above ground irrigation system owned and operated by Coolawin.
The proposed STP is only preliminary at this stage and would be need to be designed
appropriately. An appropriately designed modular STP could be similar to the Public Works

Advisory IDEA equivalent in process and effluent quality. However, to make this STP modular
would mean that the construction material would likely be steel and is a containerised plant. PWA
has experience with this type of plant through our operation of the John Morony STP. A full village
plant would typically be built in concrete and designed to last 50+ years. A containerised plant
would have a 20 year life.
The quality of the treated effluent would be suitable for irrigation and likely direct discharge into
receiving waters with some additions such as chemical dosing or filtration.
The plant in either location would need to be built above the flood level on a raised pad.
Odour would need to be controlled at the Coolawin site through the provision of covers and odour
treatment equipment. This may lead to a shorter life span for the container.
The supply of effluent for use on the Coolawin property for irrigation of effluent is seen as positive
as long as it is managed appropriately and agreements are in place between Council and
Coolawin. The infrastructure, dams and irrigation equipment, are in place already which is a
significant cost saving for Council.
The potential issues with this Stage 1 STP are:
Located within flood zone (can be overcome by raising the STP on a pad)
Lack of buffer to residents odour considerations (can be overcome by covers)
Life of the plant <20 years depending on materials chosen.
There is a risk that there is low initial uptake of lots especially if Kyeema doesnt connect.
This will affect the performance of the STP.
Blockage of the subsurface irrigation system (if used small portion only).
The risk of ground water and bore water contamination will be present (close to village
bores). Groundwater study required. However downstream of the village.
The operational input required for small modular plants is often higher than for a single unit
plant as there are more components and of a less robust nature.
6.4.3 Faithfull
The Faithfull development is approximately 37 hectares and is located on the southern side
Gundaroo. Sixty (60) lots ranging from 1,500m2 to 5,000m2 are proposed. The application does not
include a provision for a sewage treatment system.

6.5 Effluent Management

The effluent management options are :
Direct discharge into the Yass River. A large number of IDEA based, PWA designed STPs,
currently discharge directly into receiving waters.
Reuse. Based on the Murrumbateman Scheme full reuse of the effluent is possible but
would require 30 ha of pasture and 120 ML of storage.
Evaporation. - A lined evaporation of pond of approximately 12 ha will be required based
on historical rainfall and evaporation data (Table 6.3). The evaporation pond will have to be
located above the flood level.
Table 6.3: Historical Pan Evaporation and Rainfall Data*.
Month Pan evaporation (mm) Rainfall (mm)
January 175 46.5
February 175 50.6
March 150 48.9
April 100 33.3
May 60 37.1
June 40 55.7
July 40 56.1
August 60 49
September 80 54.1
October 125 49.3
November 200 76.6
December 250 59.2
*BOM. Rainfall data collected from Gundaroo Store.
6.6 STP Sites

The potential village STP sites are to be investigated north of the village boundary ashown in
Figure 6.10. The sites selected should have sufficient buffer to the village (greater then 500m), are
outside the flood zone and should have sufficient area for the irrigation of pasture or evaporation.
Discharge to the Yass River would also be possible should the IDEA based STP be utilised.
The Coolawin proposed site for 83 lots is shown in Figure 6.10. The initial site, Stage 1 STP, is
within the village. As discussed in Section 6.4.2, there are several issues that have been identified
that would need to be addressed. The location would still pose potential risks.

Location of potential STP

sites to be investigated
Village boundary
Coolawin proposed STP site
for up to 83 lots (flood zone)
Figure 6.10 Potential STP Sites.

6.7 Comparison of Options

Option 1 IDEA Based STP
Advantages:
Proven robust technology, with improved process control resulting in improved effluent
quality. This will be compatible with future effluent reuse and environmental discharge.
Less odorous than oxidation system.
Smaller overall footprint for the new works compared to Option 2. Option 2 has significant
land acquisition requirements.
Plant is designed to produce a stabilised bio-solids product consistent with EPA guidelines
(Grade B).
Greater operation flexibility.
Disadvantages
Higher capital costs due to greater number of process units, mechanical and transport
equipment and more complicate construction and significant power supply upgrade.
Much higher operating costs due to power consumption from aeration system,
miscellaneous mechanical equipment and plant maintenance costs. Greater operator input
will be required to monitor the treatment process and to maintain associated equipment.
Option 2 Oxidation Pond Based STP
Advantages:
Lower capital cost
Lower operating costs and maintenance (operator input) requirements.
Disadvantages
Limited control of treatment process and for effective nutrient removal. Effluent quality is
unlikely to meet sensitive water requirements for environmental discharge or more stringent
effluent reuse requirements.
Significant land acquisition (approximately 13.5 ha for the STP and evaporation ponds)
Ponds have been designed for 15 years of sludge accumulation before desludging.
Desludging requires the primary pond to be isolated and dewatered. This would be a
significant exercise for a large pond based plant.
Option 3 STEP followed by AdvanTex STP
Advantages:
Modular compared to Options 1 and 2. New units can be installed in stages, as required
Lower operating costs and maintenance (operator input) requirements compared to Option
1.
Pre-treatment provided in septic tanks.
Operated by a contractor.
Small footprint. Lower buffer required.
Disadvantages
Relies on STEP system being provided.

The system has a track record for small to medium developments only.
Cost is higher than an oxidation pond but less than an IDEA
Reliant on a Contractor to operate.

7 Cost Estimates
7.1 Collection and Transport Systems
Strategy level cost estimates have been undertaken and are summarised in Table 7.1 for the
pressure sewer system, conventional gravity system and the STEP system respectively for the
existing village. Connection of future development areas has been allowed for in this system
design and costing.
A 25% allowance for contingency has been used. The SID and PM allowance for the pressure
system is 10% and 15% for the gravity system reflecting the complexity of the gravity system as
compared to the pressure system.
Table 7.1: Collection and Transport Cost Summary
Conventional Septic Tank
Pressure Sewer
Item Gravity Sewer Effluent Pumping
System
System System
Pressure Units $6,943,450
- Standard $700,000 $74,000
- Quad Units $56,000
Installation $714,000
Reticulation $565,500 $1,497,709 $1,826,500
Vacant Lots $259,000
SPS/Transport System $637,900 $1,304,904
Contingency 25% $733,100 $719,153
Survey investigation and
design and project $293,240 $431,492 $876,995
management 10/15%
Capital Cost $3,958,740 $4,027,257 $9,646,945
Annual Cost $33,050 $18,132 $39,170
NPV $4,761,768 $4,467,812 $10,588,773
Connection costs are included in the pressure option. The connection costs for the gravity system
can be high, up to $1,500 for a normal connection. These costs are resident costs so are not
included in the gravity system costs shown in Table 7.1. Council could consider a rebate payment
for early connection, similar to the way connections were handled with the Murrumbateman village
scheme implementation.

7.2 STP and Effluent Management

7.2.1 Estimated capital costs
Strategy level STP and effluent management cost estimates have been undertaken and are
summarised in Table 7.2.
A 30% allowance for contingency has been used as there is more uncertainty with the STP over
the reticulation. The SID and PM allowance for the STP are 20% in total.
Operating costs are as follows:
Typical operating cost for IDEA based treatment system is approximately $85 k/annum.
Operating costs for the oxidation pond and evaporation pond would consist of inspection
only for an operator, day per week.
Operating costs for the oxidation pond and irrigation system would consist of inspection
only for an operator, day per week plus $9k for the irrigation system.
Operating costs for the Orenco system is unknown however an allowance has been made
consistent with the complexity of the system and assumption that a maintenance contract
with the supplier would be entered into.
7.3 Rate Impacts

The impact on sewer rates should the scheme progress has been examined under various project
capital funding scenarios. Based on a lowest cost option, which is Option 2 - a gravity collection
system and oxidation ponds and evaporation receiving 50% grant, the impact for the overall Yass
Valley Council customers including Gundaroo in terms of sewer rate would be $670 per year. This
means a slight increase of $10 from the current annual charge of $660 to $670. The full analysis is
included in Appendix B.

Table 7.2: Estimated Capital and Operational Costs for STP Options.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 2 Option 3
Item IDEA Based Oxidation Pond Oxidation Pond Orenco STP
Item
No. STP and Based STP and Based STP and and
Discharge Evaporation Irrigation Irrigation
1 Site establishment and land
$120,000 $600,000 $600,000 $500,000
acquisition
2 Earthworks $50,000 $550,000 $550,000
3 Roadworks and site
$140,000 $20,000 $20,000
drainage
4 Wastewater return PS $140,000
5 Inlet works $210,000 $20,000 $20,000
6 IDEA/effluent/sludge tanks $1,400,000
7 Oxidation and evaporation
ponds or Oxidation ponds $900,000 $900,000
and irrigation
8 UV disinfection $100,000 n/a n/a
9 Chemical storage and
$220,000 n/a n/a
dosing facilities
10 On-site effluent reuse $50,000 n/a $200,000
11 Switchroom and amenities
$250,000 $100,000 $100,000
building5
12
Electrical works $1,050,000 $100,000 $200,000
13
Pipework and valving $300,000 $50,000 $100,000
14 Telemetry $30,000 $0 $30,000
15
Testing and commissioning $150,000 $20,000 $30,000
16 Miscellaneous $120,000 $240,000 $240,000
17 Orenco (supplier quote) $3,460,639
Sub-total $4,330,000 $2,600,000 $2,990,000 $3,960,639
Contingency (30%) $1,299,000 $780,000 $897,000 $1,188,192
Survey and Investigation
$433,000 $260,000 $299,000
(10%
Construction Management
$433,000 $260,000 $299,000 $396,064
(10%)
Total $6,495,000 $3,900,000 $4,485,000 $5,544,895
Annual Costs $85,000 $16,000 $25,000 $50,000
Total Scheme Costs PSS
$10,453,740 $7,858,740 $8,443,740 $15,191,840
Collection System and
STP
Total Scheme Costs
$10,522,257 $7,927,257 $8,512,257
Gravity Collection System
and STP

7. References
1. DPI, Recycled Water Management Systems, 2015.
2. NSW EPA, Environmental Guidelines Use & Disposal of Bio-solids Products, 1997.
3. PHL Surveyors, :Planning Proposal Rezoning part Coolawin Gundaroo, NSW for
A&T Goodfellow. June 2016.
4. Whitehead and Associates, Wastewater Options for the Kyeema Subdivision at North
Gundaroo NSW, January 2016.

Appendix A Cost Estimates
Public Works Advisory 56

Summary of Gundaroo Collection and Trasnport System Options
Item STEP Pressure Sewer System Conventional Gravity

Pressure Units $6,943,450
Standard $3,500 $700,000 74,000
Quad Units $14,000 $56,000
Installation $3,500 $714,000
Reticulation $150/m $1,826,500 $565,500 $1,497,709
Vacant lots $7,000 $259,000
Transport (SPS and RM - Gravity, RM -
$637,900 $1,304,904
Pressure)
Contingency 25% $733,100 $719,153
Survey investigation and design and project
$876,995 $293,240 $431,492
management 10-15%
Capital Cost $9,646,945 $3,958,740 $4,027,257
Per tenement cost (241 connections) $40,029 $16,426 $16,711
Annual Costs
Power
Residents $5,100 $5,100
Council $1,532
Pump Replacement/Service $22,950 $22,950 $1,200
SPS - Inspection $10,400
Chemical Dosing $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Pumpout $6,120
Total Annual Costs $39,170 $33,050 $18,132
NPV $10,588,773 $4,761,768 $4,467,812
GUNDAROO SGE
COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT SYSTEM
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
GRAVITY COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT SYSTEM
ITEM UNIT RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT
NO. $/unit $
1.0 All work not included elsewhere Allowance 30,000
2.0 Clear the line in other than rock and excavate for all gravity
sewers and manholes, including disposal of excess excavated
material, trench support and dewatering
a. Average trench depth 0 - 1.5m
ii) Nominal dia. 150mm m 40 6,038 241,500
v) Sidelines and Risers m 40 604 24,150
b. Average trench depth 1.5 - 3.0m
ii) Nominal dia. 150mm m 50 1,610 80,500
c. Average trench depth 3.0 - 6 m
ii) Nominal dia. 150mm m 75 403 30,188
3.0 Supply, lay, joint and initially test pipes and fittings for gravity sewers
including provision for compaction bedding and select backfill around
and up to 300 mm above the top of the pipe
a. Sidelines and Risers m 30 805 24,150
e. Nominal dia. 150mm m 70 8,050 563,500
4.0 Supply materials for and construct manholes complete or supply and install plastic
maintenance shafts, light duty concrete covers and surrounds 49
a. Depth of manhole
i) 0.0 - 1.5m each 1,600 5 7,840
ii) 1.5 - 2.0m each 1,650 10 16,170
iii) 2.0 - 2.5m each 1,700 10 16,660
iv) 2.5 - 3.0m each 1,800 10 17,640
v) 3.0 - 3.5m each 2,000 5 9,800
vi) 3.5 - 4.0m each 2,200 5 10,780
vii) 4.0 - 4.5m each 2,400 2 5,880
viii) 4.5 - 5.0m each 2,700 2 6,615
ix) 5.0 - 5.5m each 3,000 0
x) 5.5-6.0m each 3,400 0
b. Extra over for heavy type concrete covers each 120 10 1,200
c. Extra over for gatic type covers each 500 15 7,500
5.0 Construct manhole vent stacks or deodorisation beds each 3,000 1 3,000
6.0 Extra over for items 2.0, for excavating in rock m 500 250 125,000
7.0 Supply and place imported selected backfill

a. Non-cohesive m 25 725 18,113
b. Other m 20 28 564
8.0 Additional compaction by mechanical means m 10 1,393 13,927
9.0 Railway crossings 2 35,000 70,000
10.0 Dewatering m 1,000 100 100,000
11.0 Restoration of surfaces

a. Lawns m 10 2,013 20,125
b. Bitumen pavement m 120 322 38,640
c. Gravel pavement m 40 805 32,200
d. Concrete kerb and gutter m 0 322 0
12.0 Acceptance testing and commisioning Item 25,000
13.0 Work as Executed Product Package Item 20,000
$1,571,709
NO. $/unit $
1.0 RISING MAINS AND PUMPING STATIONS

1.1 All work not included elsewhere Allowance
1.2 Clear the line, excavate and backfill, supply pipe and initially test
for all rising mains including disposal of excess excavated
material, trench support, dewatering and restoration of surfaces
i) Rising main 180mm PE m 180 2,750 495,000
2 Pumping Station No. 1 and 2

2.1 Civil works
i) Excavation $500 66 $33,056
ii) Walls $2,500 27 $68,389
iii) Floor $2,500 4 $10,603
iv) Roof $3,000 6 $16,965
v) Plug $600 5 $2,714
vi) Blinding $500 0 $177
vii) Valve pit Allowance $16,000
viii) Pipework including valves Allowance $80,000
ix) Covers Allowance $20,000
xii) Epoxy painting $5,000
2.2 Pumps
i) - Supply of submersible pumpsets $6,000 4 $24,000
ii) - Delivery & installation of pumping machinery $5,000 4 $20,000
iii) - Witness testing $2,000 4 $8,000
iv) - Testing and commissioning Allowance $15,000
v) -Valves and fittings Allowance $5,000
2.3 Electrical
i) - Supply and installation of SCA $150,000
ii) - Power supply 15,000
iii) Generator Connection Box $4,000
vi) Consumers Mains $20,000
3.0 LOW PRESSURE PUMP STATIONS 10 7,400 Item 74,000
4.0 MISCELLANEOUS
4.1 Supply & install manproof fencing & gates for pumping stations Lump Sum 2,000
4.2 Provide sealed pavements & drainage works for pumping stations Lump Sum 15,000
4.3 Landscaping of pumping stations Lump Sum 1,000
4.4 Supply & install water supply for pumping stations Lump Sum 5,000
4.5 Telemetry Allowance 15,000
50,000
5.0 WORK AS EXECUTED PRODUCT PACKAGE

5.1 Rising Mains m 4,000 4,000
5.2 Pumping Station Item 5,000 5,000
$1,304,904
$2,876,612
431,491.85
517,790.22
$3,825,894
PRESSURE SEWER TRANSPORT SYSTEM
NO. $/unit $
1.0 RISING MAINS AND PUMPING STATIONS

1.1 All work not included elsewhere Allowance
1.2 Clear the line, excavate and backfill, supply pipe and initially test
for all rising mains including disposal of excess excavated
material, trench support, dewatering and restoration of surfaces
i) Rising main 110mm PE m 140 2,750 385,000
2.3 Electrical
ii) - Power supply 7,500
vi) Consumers Mains $10,000

vii) Installation Main SCA $20,000
4.0 MISCELLANEOUS
4.1 Supply & install manproof fencing & gates for pumping stations Lump Sum 2,000
4.2 Provide sealed pavements & drainage works for pumping stations Lump Sum 15,000
4.3 Landscaping of pumping stations Lump Sum 1,000
4.4 Supply & install water supply for pumping stations Lump Sum 5,000
4.5 Telemetry Allowance 15,000
4.6 Chemical doisng facility Lump Sum 50,000
5.0 WORK AS EXECUTED PRODUCT PACKAGE

5.1 Rising Mains m 4.00 2,400
$637,900
PRESENT
Item No. Item Capital WORTH Year
Discount Factor
4% 7% 10% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Gravity Based
Construction Costs
Capital Cost 4027257 4,027,257 4,027,257 4,027,257 4,027,257 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annual costs (Transfer) 440,555 440,555 440,555 18,132 18,494 18,864 19,242 19,626 20,019 20,419 20,828 21,244 21,669 22,103 22,545 22,996 23,455 23,925 24,403 24,891 25,389 25,897 26,415
Total NPV 4,467,812 4,467,812 4,467,812
PRESENT
Discount Factor
4% 7% 10% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Pressure
Construction Costs
Capital Cost 3958740 3,958,740 3,958,740 3,958,740 3,958,740 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annual costs 803,028 803,028 803,028 33,050 33,711 34,385 35,073 35,774 36,490 37,220 37,964 38,723 39,498 40,288 41,094 41,915 42,754 43,609 44,481 45,371 46,278 47,204 48,148
Total NPV 4,761,768 4,761,768 4,761,768
PRESENT
Discount Factor
4% 7% 10% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
STEP
Construction Costs
Capital Cost 9637045 9,637,045 9,637,045 9,637,045 9,637,045 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annual costs 951,728 951,728 951,728 39,170 39,953 40,752 41,568 42,399 43,247 44,112 44,994 45,894 46,812 47,748 48,703 49,677 50,671 51,684 52,718 53,772 54,847 55,944 57,063
Total NPV 10,588,773 10,588,773 10,588,773
Appendix B Financial Analysis
Public Works Advisory 57

McKell Building, 2-24 Rawson Place, Sydney NSW 2000
Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
ABN 81 913 830 179 | www.finance.nsw.gov.au
Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme Financial Analysis
1. Background
Yass Valley Council is currently investigating the feasibility of provision of reticulated sewerage
services to the Gundaroo village. Council engaged Public Works Advisory (PWA) to study the
possible sewage transport and treatment options for Gundaroo. The Options Study Report
prepared by PWA evaluated the following options for this purpose:
Sewage collection and transport:

Conventional gravity sewerage
Pressure sewerage
Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP)/ Common effluent drainage
Sewage treatment and effluent management:
Intermittently decanted extended aeration (IDEA) system with river discharge or
irrigation of pasture
Oxidation pond system with effluent evaporation or irrigation of pasture
AdvanTex STP (a proprietary sewerage of Orenco Pty Ltd) with subsurface irrigation
In consideration of the recommendations of the Options Study, Council has sought to examine
the financial implications of a sewerage scheme comprising conventional gravity sewage
collection followed by oxidation pond system treatment with effluent discharge through
evaporation on the current and future Gundaroo sewerage service customers. This report
presents the outcomes of a long-term (30-year) financial analysis considering the life-cycle costs
of operating the sewerage scheme and the financial impacts under various capital cost funding
scenarios for the scheme.
2. Scheme Capital and Operation, Maintenance and Administration (OMA) Costs

The estimated capital costs (in 2017/18 $) of the components of the 400 ET design capacity
Gundaroo sewerage scheme considered for financial analysis have been adopted from the
Options Study Report and are shown below.
Capital cost - Gravity Sewer $ 4,027,000

Capital cost - Oxidation & Evaporation Ponds $ 3,900,000
Total Estimated Scheme Cost $7,927,000
Renewal of mechanical & electrical $ 725,000
components (25th year 2042/43)
Estimated annual O&M Cost, $/year $ 34,132
Design Capacity, ET 400
Service Capacity, ET 360
3. Inputs/ Parameters used for the financial analysis

A Gundaroo sewer fund financial model using the latest version of the FinMod financial
modelling software developed by DPI Water was set up for the purpose of the financial analysis.
Input data/ parameters to the financial model are presented in the Table next page.
Public Works Advisory Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme 1

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Parameter Details
Year of scheme The sewerage scheme is assumed to be constructed and
completion commissioned by end of current financial year (June 2018).
Start of OMA costs Operation, maintenance & administration costs are assumed to start
from the start of 2018/19 financial year (from July 2018).
Start of Annual Annual sewerage charge for Gundaroo customers is assumed to start
Sewerage Charges for from the beginning of current financial year (2017/18).
Gundaroo customers
Projection period A 30-year projection period has been considered. This is consistent
with the long-term financial planning under DPI Waters Best Practice
Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines.
(A 50-year projection period indicated no difference to the financial
model forecasts).
Assessment growth The Equivalent Tenements (ET) growth forecast used for the design of
rate the STP (Refer to Table 1) has been adopted as the basis for growth
forecast.
Existing no. of ETs in Gundaroo : 175
No. of new ETs: 7 per year
Average ET growth rate: 2.5% p.a.
No. of ETs serviced (after 30-years): 360
Average ET growth rate for Council: 1.2% p.a.
Operation, Gundaroo sewerage scheme O&M costs have been estimated by PWA
Maintenance and based on established engineering practices and experience based on
Administration (OMA) feedbacks from STP operators across regional NSW.
costs Estimated O&M cost: $ 34,132/ year
For financial analysis, an additional scheme administration and
management cost of $12,000/year has been included.
Developer charges The 2017/18 sewerage developer charge (s64 charge) for the
Gundaroo sewerage scheme has been calculated in accordance with
the 2016 NSW Developer Charges Guidelines. This will be the amount
to be levied on all new developments in Gundaroo.
Calculated capital charge: $ 28,915 per ET
Reduction amount: $5,706 per ET
Sec. 64 Developer charge: $ 23,209 per ET
Annual sewerage The annual sewerage charge for the Yass and Murrumbateman
charge scheme customers for 2017/18 is $660 p.a.
Interest rate New Loans: 5.0% p.a. (Loan term 20 years)
Investments: 3.5% p.a.

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
4. Financial analysis scenarios

Following modelling scenarios have been analysed:
1. Scenario 1 (S1): No government grant available for the scheme capital works and
upfront payment of the calculated Sec.64 developer charge in full by the existing
customers. Annual sewerage bill paid by Gundaroo sewerage customers only.
2. Scenario 1a (S1a): No government grant available for the scheme capital works and Nil
customers. Annual sewerage bill paid by ALL Council sewerage customers.
3. Scenario 2 (S2): 30% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and the
existing Gundaroo customers contribute $10,500 upfront; only new customers will
contribute the calculated Sec.64 developer charge in full. Annual sewerage bill paid by
Gundaroo sewerage customers only.
4. Scenario 2a (S2a): 30% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and
Nil upfront payment by the existing Gundaroo customers; only new customers will
ALL Council sewerage customers only.
5. Scenario 3 (S3): 50% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and the
existing Gundaroo customers contribute $2,800 upfront; only new customers will
Gundaroo sewerage customers only.
6. Scenario 3a (S3a): 50% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and
Nil upfront payment by the existing Gundaroo customers; only new customers will
ALL Council sewerage customers only.
7. Scenario 4 (S4): 50% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and
Nil upfront contribution by the existing customers; new customers will contribute the
calculated Sec.64 developer charge in full. Annual sewerage bill paid by Gundaroo
sewerage customers only.
8. Scenario 5 (S5): 56% government grant is available for the scheme capital works and
Nil upfront contribution by the existing customers; new customers will contribute the
calculated Sec.64 developer charge in full. Annual sewerage bill paid by Gundaroo
sewerage customers only.
9. Scenario 6 (S6): No government grant available for the scheme capital works and Nil
customers. Annual sewerage bill paid by Gundaroo sewerage customers only.
5. Financial analysis outcomes

Based on the input parameters discussed in section 3 above, the outcomes of financial analysis
for the modelling scenarios are presented in the table and the graphs below.

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Summary of Financial Analysis Outcomes:
Scenario Grant Up-front Sec.64 Required Annual Bill Required Required Comment
payment Payment by Borrowing @ paid by Annual Bill Annual Bill
by existing New 5% p.a. (2017/18$) p.a. (2017/18$) p.a.
customers, (Future) interest rate (for 30 years) (for 20 years)
per ET customers,
per ET
Scenario 1 No Grant $23,209 $23,209 $5.5 Million Gundaroo $710 $710 Existing customers also pay the calculated
customers developer charge. Gundaroo scheme
only customers will be required to pay an
additional $50 to the annual sewerage charge
(currently $660 p.a.)
Scenario 1a No Grant $0 $23,209 $10.43 Million All Council $764 $782 No upfront payment for existing customers.
sewerage All of the Council's sewerage customers
customers (including Yass and Murrumbateman) will be
including required to pay an additional $104 to the
Gundaroo annual sewerage charge for 30 years.
Scenario 2 30% $10,500 $23,209 $5.0 Million Gundaroo $660 $660 Existing customers pay $10,500 upfront.
Grant customers Gundaroo sewerage scheme customers pay
($2.378 only the same annual sewerage charge as the rest
Million) of the Council customers
Scenario 2a 30% $0 $23,209 $6.84 Million All Council $692 $699 No upfront payment for existing customers.
Grant sewerage All of the Council's sewerage customers
($2.378 customers (including Yass and Murrumbateman) will be
Million) including required to pay an additional $32 to the

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Scenario Grant Up-front Sec.64 Required Annual Bill Required Required Comment
payment Payment by Borrowing @ paid by Annual Bill Annual Bill
by existing New 5% p.a. (2017/18$) p.a. (2017/18$) p.a.
customers, (Future) interest rate (for 30 years) (for 20 years)
per ET customers,
per ET
Scenario 3 50% $2,800 $23,209 $3.964 Million Gundaroo $660 $660 Existing customers pay $2,800
Grant customers upfront.Gundaroo sewerage scheme
($3.963 only customers pay the same annual sewerage
Million) charge as the rest of the Council customers
Scenario 3a 50% $0 $23,209 $4.453 Million All Council $670 $672 No upfront payment for existing customers.
Grant sewerage All of the Council's sewerage customers
($3.963 customers (including Yass and Murrumbateman) will be
Million) including required to pay an additional $10 to the
Scenario 4 50% $0 $23,209 $4.453 Million Gundaroo $845 $845 No upfront payment for existing customers.
Grant customers Gundaroo scheme customers will be required
($3.963 only to pay an additional $185 to the annual
Million) sewerage charge of $660 p.a.
Scenario 5 56% $0 $23,209 $3.98 Million Gundaroo $660 $660 56% subsidy required if the existing
Grant customers customers are to pay no up-front lumpsum
($4.439 only payment and the annual sewerage charge is
Million) to be the same as other Council customers
Scenario 6 No Grant $0 $23,209 $11.00 Million Gundaroo $1,890 $1,890 No upfront payment for existing customers.
customers Gundaroo scheme customers will be required
only to pay an additional $1,230 to the annual
sewerage charge of $660 p.a.
Note: All the forecast values are in 2017/18 $

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Annual sewerage bills for Scenarios

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Loan requirements for Scenarios

Tel 02 9372 8877 | TTY 1300 301 181
Public Works Advisory

Level 13 McKell Building

2-24 Rawson Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
www.publicworks.nsw.gov.au
Public Works Advisory

Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme - Draft Options Study - September 2017

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Gundaroo Sewerage Scheme - Draft Options Study - September 2017

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Report Number: WSR 17027

For Yass Valley Council

A division of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation

Approved for Issue

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 i

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 i

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 ii

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 iii

6.6 STP Sites................................................................................................................... 48

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 iv

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 v

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 vi

S2 Collection and Transport System Options

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 1

Table E.1: Collection and Transport Cost Summary

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 2

S3 Sewage Treatment and Effluent Management Options

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 3

High recurrent costs every 20 years.

S3.2 Option 2: Oxidation Pond STP with evaporation or irrigation of pasture

S3.3 Option 3: Proprietary AdvanTex STP and Subsurface Irrigation

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 4

Construction Cost $4,330,000 $2,600,000 $2,990,000 $3,960,639

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 5

1.2 Study Objectives

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 6

2 Population and Load Projections

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 7

3 Sewage Collection System

3.1 Conventional Gravity System

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 8

Figure 3.1 Installation of Gravity Pipeline in a Back Yard

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 9

Figure 3.2 Gravity Layout

3.1.4 Transfer Sewage Pumping Stations

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 11

Figure 3.3 Typical SPS Installation Murrumbateman SPS

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 12

3.2 Pressure Sewer System

Figure 3.4 Typical Domestic Installation for Pressure Sewer

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 13

Figure 3.5 Typical Domestic Design Layout for Pressure Sewer

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 14

The system would consist of the following as shown in Table 3.1.

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 15

Figure 3.8 Installation of a Pressure Unit

Figure 3.9 Completion of Pipe Connections

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 16

3.2.2 Reticulation System

Figure 3.10 Directional Drilling Equipment for Pressure Sewers.

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 17

Photo 3.11 Pipelaying in Progress via Directional Drilling

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 18

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 19

Figure 3.12 Reticulation Layout

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 20

3.2.5 Transfer Rising Main

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 21

3.3 Common Effluent Drainage (CED) and Septic Tank Effluent

A small diameter pressure system is used as per the pressure system.

This system is an alternative system that could be considered.

Public Works Advisory Report No. WSR 17027 22

Figure 3.13 Orenco Interceptor Tank