Water Journal : Water Journal June 2015
water June 2015 44 Ozwater report The food was excellent, particularly for a mass event of this nature and, of course, local wines and beer featured strongly. A final bouquet to the Events team to acknowledge the fact that the music was not so loud as to hamper conversation! ClosinG Ceremony The closing plenary session took place on the Thursday afternoon. Outgoing Australian Water Association President Graham Dooley thanked Board members who had served during his term and introduced new President Peter Moore, handing over the ceremonial gavel. Ozwater’16 will take place in Melbourne from 10–12 May, led by Professor John Thwaites as Chair. teChniCal stream reports Unfortunately there is not enough space here to do justice to all 153 oral presentations, so this report serves more to identify some key themes and trends. As always, wastewater treatment was fertile ground. Topics ranged from relative newcomers like aerobic granular sludge, which (after decades on the bench) is now establishing a toe-hold in the market; through the now ubiquitous MBR (membrane bioreactor) and attendant practical issues; to nutrient removal in all its guises. It was clear that the importance of energy efficiency is now being recognised, especially in aeration systems. It seems Australia’s efficiency record does not match that of overseas peers. Increasing interest in energy self-sufficiency was evident in papers about anaerobic digestion to produce power, in some cases relying on the addition of other waste streams to maximise generation. After an era where anaerobic processes lost favour, energy issues are driving practice back again. A related interest, of course, is that of managing biosolids (sludge), especially thickening and drying – the buzzword being recuperative thickening (RT), which is, in effect, an anaerobic version of activated sludge. Water reuse remains an area that attracts great interest, especially in respect to pathogen and contaminant removals and monitoring. The context ranged from oxidation ponds through to ceramic membranes. Alllinson et al. assessed the performance of treatment barriers in an Advanced Water Treatment Plant in removing trace organic chemicals, and the quality of the waste stream, using simplified but extensive multi-residue GC-MS and LC-MS methods capable of determining more than 1,200 chemicals. Few chemicals pass through the barriers to the final product water and there were few chemicals in the waste stream, which was further assessed by bioassays. These results suggest that almost all the trace organic chemicals of concern are removed by the treatment train. A number of papers addressed aspects of sewerage: sewers; rising mains; pumping; and odours. A quirky but eminently sensible approach was adopted by Yarra Valley Water: ice-pigging of water mains (a pig is a plug sent down a pipe to scour the walls with slush ice, normally needing special facilities to retrieve the pig). Asset management attracted many papers; evidently the scope of the topic is broad and eclectic. Cultural factors vied for space alongside plant optimisation and various analytical and modelling techniques. Charakos et al. summarised a WSAA project to assess the efficiency of sewage pump stations and found a wide range of performance, from best practice to poor. Siow described the use of Reliability Block Diagrams (RBDs) to model expected performance, a generic tool applied in this case to the Mt Martha sewage treatment plant. Peter Griffiths from pH Water Consultants speaks on biological phosphorus removal in Australia.
Water Journal May 2015
Water Journal August 2015