Biowater Wastewater Treatment

Systems for Medium-sized Communities

Using Biolytix Filtration
Chris Hertle1, Jeff Foley1, Dean Cameron2
1GHD, GPO Box 668, Brisbane, 4001
2Biolytix Australasia Pty Ltd, PO Box 820, Maleny 4552
ABSTRACT
In many small to medium-sized communities, conventional on-site septic tank/absorption
trench systems do not provide adequate wastewater treatment and hence cause
significant environmental damage to the local water resources. Consequently, many such
communities look to alternative forms of wastewater collection and treatment. The
Biowater system is a new concept in wastewater treatment and collection for small to
medium-sized communities. Under the Biowater concept, wastewater and putrescible
waste from each household in the community undergoes enhanced primary treatment onsite using a Biolytix Filter. The filtrate can then be reused locally, with the balance
pumped via a small bore communal reticulation network to a central treatment/storage
facility. The use of smaller diameter pipes results in significant cost savings over
conventional anaerobic treatment and collection systems.
The key advantage of the Biowater system over other alternatives, such as Common
Effluent Drainage (CED) and Septic Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP) schemes is the use of
a Biolytix Filter as the household treatment stage. The Biolytix Filter is a passively
aerated, biological humus filter, which also incorporates extensive vermicultural activity to
accelerate the decomposition and stabilisation of biosolids and putrescible organic matter.
This paper will:
Provide a brief description of the Biowater system concept and the Biolytix Filter;

Demonstrate the process, environmental and economic benefits of the Biowater

system over more conventional wastewater treatment and collection systems, such
as conventional gravity systems, CED schemes and STEP schemes.
KEY WORDS
On-site wastewater treatment, Biolytix Filter, Biowater system, Vermiculture, Peat,
Putrescible waste

INTRODUCTION
In many small to medium-sized communities, wastewater treatment requirements are met
by conventional on-site septic tank systems, with effluent being locally disposed to the
groundwater, via a soil absorption trench. In Australia, it is estimated that 10% of
households are serviced by this conventional septic tank/absorption trench system (West,
2001). When properly designed, installed and maintained in appropriate locations, the
septic tank/absorption trench system provides satisfactory wastewater treatment. However
in practice, up to 80% of these systems are reportedly failing (West, 2001; Chaffee, 2000).
Failure of an on-site wastewater treatment system can be defined as the surfacing or
discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater. Failure can also be defined as the
discharge to water resources of effluent high in nitrogen, phosphorus or pathogenic
microorganisms (Chaffee, 2000).
Typical causes of failure for a conventional septic tank/absorption trench system are:
Poor system design, installation and maintenance (Chaffee, 2000);

Unsuitable site characteristics, such as a high water table, shallow rock depth or low

permeability soils (White, 1995; Talbot, 1996; Chaffee, 2000).

The environmental consequences of such high failure rates can be severe, particularly in
a small to medium-sized community where the septic tank/absorption trench systems are
often quite concentrated. Therefore, many of these communities look to alternative
systems to meet their wastewater treatment needs and protect the local environment. The
Biowater wastewater treatment and collection system is a new concept, with the specific
aim of meeting the needs of small to medium-sized communities in environmentallysensitive locations.
CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS FOR
SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES
In areas where conventional septic tank/absorption trench systems are unsuitable, many
small to medium-sized communities implement some form of centralised or decentralised
wastewater treatment and collection. The most common systems are:
Conventional Gravity System (CGS);

Common Effluent Drainage (CED);

Septic Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP).

Conventional Gravity System

A CGS consists of individual dwellings connected to sewers that drain by gravity to a
collection point at a pumping station or a sewage treatment plant. Conventional gravity
systems tend to be conservatively designed to accommodate a high variability of inflow
over time and a wide range of weather conditions. The benefits of installing a conventional
gravity system include:
Proven technologies;

Does not involve pumping from household;

Existing septic tanks are no longer required;

Relatively low operating costs.

Disadvantages of these systems include:

High initial capital costs;

More susceptible to inflow/infiltration;

Makes no use of existing infrastructure at each tenement, which may still be
functional and have significant value;
It is difficult to stage works in an existing development.

Common Effluent Drainage System

Common Effluent Drainage (CED) systems collect and transport effluent from septic tanks
installed at each dwelling.
The advantages of a CED scheme are:
Gross, settleable solids and grit are retained in the septic tank;

Only liquid septic effluent requires transportation via the reticulation network;

Pipes can be laid at flatter grades in smaller diameters because of the flow

equalisation effect of each tank and the relatively low solids content;
Septic tanks provide a degree of treatment by anaerobic digestion - Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Suspended Solids (SS) loads are reduced in the
effluent and solids are reasonably well digested during their period of detention;
Capital costs are reduced by virtue of shallower, flatter, smaller diameter pipes;

Existing assets (septic tanks) are retained and utilised.

The disadvantages of a CED scheme are:

Septic tanks must be maintained and regularly desludged;

The sludge must be further treated to render it safe for disposal and/or reuse;

Potential odour risk;

Difficult to remove nutrients at the central treatment facility because of low COD

content;
All new houses in the community need to install a septic tank (or similar).

STEP System
A STEP system involves pumping effluent from individual septic tanks to a pressurised
collection main. Typically, macerator pumps are used to transport the sewage. These
types of systems are commonly used in Europe and North America where septic tanks are
located in basements.
STEP systems offer the following advantages:
Smaller reticulation pipes than CGS or CED schemes, which are laid in shallow

trenches, thus reducing disruption and minimising construction costs;

Considerable flexibility in handling difficult terrain conditions;

Requires fewer local pumping stations;

Low susceptibility to infiltration and inflow as the reticulation system is pressurised;

Peak flows are lower due to buffering provided by septic tanks and pump sumps.

The disadvantages associated with STEP systems include:

All new houses will need to install a septic tank and household pump station;

Septic tanks and pump wells must be maintained and regularly desludged;

More infrastructure at the household increases the O&M requirements;

Pumping primary treated sewage results in increased sulphide generation and

associated odour and corrosion problems;

If the reticulation experiences a failure or rupture, poor quality septic effluent will be

discharged to the environment;

Failure of pump may result in sewage overflows at the household;

Operation of the system can be impacted by power failures.

THE Biowater CONCEPT

The Biowater system is a new wastewater treatment and collection concept currently
being developed by Biolytix Technologies Pty Ltd. In overall structure, it is very similar to
the STEP scheme discussed above. However, the key difference in the Biowater
concept is the use of a single tank, aerobic Biolytix Filter as the enhanced primary
treatment unit in the system. Effluent quality from the BF3 is significantly better than that
obtained from septic tanks, and this provides the opportunity for local effluent reuse by the
householder and improved effluent transportation characteristics.
The key elements in a Biowater system are:
Local Treatment Unit - wastewater and putrescible waste from a single household

undergoes treatment on-site using a Biolytix Filter (known as a BF3);

Local Reuse - effluent from the BF3 can be reused locally by the householders, via a

sub-surface drip irrigation network;

Reticulation Network - effluent not reused locally, is collected via a small bore,

pressurised reticulation network and transported to a central treatment facility;

Central Treatment Facility - collected BF3 effluent may be further treated and

disinfected at a central treatment facility, depending on the ultimate destination of the

effluent.
Community Reuse/disposal - ultimate disposal of central treatment facility effluent

can be via community-based reuse schemes or by outfall to a local water body.

Local Treatment Unit - Biolytix Filter
Shown below in Figure 1 is a typical configuration of the Biolytix Filter at each property
connected to a Biowater scheme.

Figure 1
Schematic configuration of household treatment stage

The key components of this local treatment unit are:

Biolytix Filter (BF3) maximum effluent volume = 2,500 L, incorporating 750 L

operational storage volume. This can be installed in a new tank or retrofitted to

existing septic tanks;
Positive displacement pump, capable of discharging up to 11 L/min at 30 m head
provides considerable flexibility to accommodate a wide range of topographic
conditions and reticulation layouts;
Internal recirculation system to maintain moist conditions in BF3 and increase

hydraulic residence time of wastewater;

Effluent filter for protection of drip irrigation system (for local effluent reuse).

The BF3 is a passively aerated, biological peat filter, which also incorporates extensive
vermicultural activity to accelerate the decomposition of biosolids and putrescible organic
matter. The system is designed to treat an average wastewater flowrate of 1200 L/day and
up to 1 kg/day (wet weight) of putrescible organic waste.
Biolytix Technologies is currently undertaking an extensive research and development
program, with the primary objective of developing an accredited and warrantable on-site
Biolytix wastewater treatment system. Since June 2001, GHD have been providing
significant engineering input to the Biolytix development program and the establishment
of a testing program. This major test program (which incorporates 16 full-size trial units)
will provide Biolytix with firm, defensible data on the treatment performance of the
Biolytix Filter.
Detailed results and analyses from the Biolytix testing program are not yet available.
However, preliminary trial results and experience from units already installed in
Queensland, New South Wales and New Zealand, suggest that effluent quality from the
BF3 will generally be in the range of 10 - 40 mg/L BOD and 10 - 50 mg/L suspended
solids. There are insufficient data at this point to estimate the pathogen and nutrient
removal performance of the Biolytix Filter.
The Biolytix Filtration process is fully aerobic and consequently avoids many of the odour
and corrosion problems associated with the anaerobic treatment systems in conventional
wastewater collection schemes. Furthermore, the superior effluent quality from the BF3
allows the use of common effluent pumping technology, rather than the expensive and
often very maintenance-intensive macerator pumps, that are typically employed in STEP
schemes.
Biosolids in the BF3 undergo enhanced decomposition due to the action of earthworms,
living within the humus/peat-based filtration matrix. It is expected that a small amount of
biosolids will need to be removed annually. Removed humus can be used to seed new
BF3 units, or appropriately recovered in line with conventional guidelines.
Local Reuse
One of the key benefits afforded by the use of a Biolytix Filter in the Biowater system is
the opportunity for residents to reuse treated effluent locally. This is not possible with
septic effluent in conventional wastewater treatment schemes. The expected effluent
quality from the BF3 allows it to be reliably distributed via a sub-surface drip irrigation
system. Depending on lot size, soil type, terrain and householder requirements, it is
possible that much of the BF3 effluent can be locally reused on the householders
property.
Reticulation Network
The purpose of the reticulation network is to transport effluent from the individual BF3
units to a central facility. As with the STEP schemes discussed above, the size of the
reticulation mains will be much smaller than gravity systems and can thus be laid in
shallow trenches to provide excellent flexibility in handling difficult terrains. Furthermore,
the pressurised system will minimise the possibility of infiltration and inflow.
The actual size of the reticulation mains will depend on the number of households
connected to the Biowater scheme and the expected flow rate per household. In order to

determine appropriate reticulation pipe sizes, a network model was established to simulate
the performance of a typical network with a diurnal flow pattern. The results from these
simulations are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of reticulation modelling
Main Reticulation Pipe
Diameter (mm)

Maximum No. of Equivalent

Tenements Served

50

70

63

110

75

160

100

330

150

730

200

1,300

Notes:

Average dry weather flow (ADWF) = 600 L/Equivalent Tenement/day

Extra allowance for wet weather flows = 1 ADWF (pressurised network should have minimal
infiltration/inflow)

Source:

Biowater System: Cost Curve Development, GHD, August 2001.

According to this model, a cluster of up to 70 tenements can be serviced by a 50mm main

reticulation line. This size pipe can be still be easily laid with standard trench-digging
equipment, which minimises installation costs. The 50mm lines from each cluster can then
be joined to larger diameter pipes, which transport the effluent to the central
treatment/storage facility.
This cluster configuration makes the Biowater scheme ideal for small to medium-sized
communities. As can be seen in the table above, a 200mm reticulation pipeline is capable
of servicing up to 1,300 tenements, which is equivalent to approximately 3,400 EP
(equivalent persons).
Central Treatment Facility
The central treatment facility for the Biowater scheme could employ any number of
conventional and proven treatment techniques. Selection of the appropriate technology
will depend upon several factors including wastewater quality, effluent requirements, and
cost. Some conventional treatment technologies that could be considered are:
Lagoon Storage and Irrigation;

Constructed wetlands;

Sand filtration;

Conventional activated sludge or nutrient removal plant;

Microfiltration.

COMPARISON OF THE Biowater SYSTEM WITH CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER

TREATMENT AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS

The Biowater system is very similar in structure to the STEP scheme described above.
Therefore, it also possesses many of the same advantages and disadvantages. In
addition to these, other advantages of the Biowater system are:
The reticulation system handles treated effluent and hence is less susceptible to the

sulphide generation problems associated with schemes pumping raw sewage;

If there is a break in the reticulation system, the discharge is high quality treated

effluent rather than septic effluent;

Avoids the use of expensive and maintenance-intensive macerator pumps;

Provides an opportunity to locally reuse some of the effluent at the household, thus

reducing potable water demand;

Reduces solid waste as the BF3 is also able to accept household putrescible waste;

Can be expanded without a cost penalty and may use existing septic tank

infrastructure.
The main disadvantages of the Biowater system are:
It is an emerging technology with limited long term performance data;

It introduces increased maintenance responsibilities at the household associated

with the pumping and control system. This could be overcome with appropriate
service contracts;
High operation and maintenance costs, at the household, compared with CGS and

CED schemes.
Whilst the process and environmental advantages of the Biowater system alone make it
an attractive alternative to conventional systems, the critical advantage is in the reduced
capital expenditure necessary to establish a new scheme. In order to gain an
understanding of the economic benefits of a Biowater scheme, GHD conducted a case
study for a small community, located in a coastal region of Queensland. The community
consisted of approximately 260 tenements, with an average water usage of 600 L/ET.day.
A summary of the design parameters adopted are shown in Table 2.
The capital and operating expenses and net present values associated with each option in
this case study are summarised in Table 3 below. In order to conduct the NPV, it is
assumed that an activated sludge plant will be constructed as the central treatment facility.
The details of the central facility are beyond the scope of this paper and are not discussed
here.
Table 2
Summary of design parameters for case study
Design
Parameter

CGS

CED

STEP

Peak Wet
Weather Flow

5 x ADWF

4 x ADWF

3 x ADWF

2.5 x ADWF

Min. Pipe Dia.

N/A

N/A

75 mm

50 mm

Pump Station
Capacities

5 x ADWF

4 x ADWF

3 x ADWF

Notes:

CGS option:
CED option:
STEP option:

Biowater

N/A
(pump in BF3)

Existing septic tanks decommissioned

Existing septic tanks retained
Rigorous testing of sewers and house service lines
Existing septic tanks retained
Effluent holding tank provided at each house
Submersible cutter or helical rotor pump on holding tank with level control

Rigorous testing of pressure pipelines

Existing septic tanks retained (if in good condition)
Positive displacement pump with level control in BF3
Assumed management contract for BF3 servicing
Rigorous testing of pressure pipelines

Biowater:

Table 3
Summary of estimated capital costs, O&M costs and NPVs
Scheme

Capital Cost per

Connection1

O&M Costs per

Connection1

NPV2,3

$19,400

$180

$7.7 M

$15,200

$205

$6.5 M

$13,300

$305

$6.2 M

$10,000

$335

$4.6 M

Conventional Gravity
1

CED

STEP

Biowater

Notes: 1. This does not include cost of central treatment facility

2. NPV conducted at 6% discount rate to the year 2020
3. Includes cost of central treatment facility

CONCLUSION
Biowater technology offers an environmentally and economically attractive option for
wastewater and putrescible waste treatment, collection and disposal for small to mediumsized communities. High quality wastewater treatment by the Biolytix Filter at the source
provides the householder with the opportunity for local reuse and also allows the use of
small diameter reticulation pipelines and conventional effluent pumping technology. The
case study presented above demonstrated that these process and environmental benefits
will also translate into significant cost savings over the conventional alternatives.
Although Biolytix Technologies is still developing the Biolytix Filter technology and the
Biowater concept, preliminary results and past experience suggest there are significant
benefits to be realised.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Biolytix group of companies, the
Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Queensland and GHD,
consultants in management, engineering and environment.
REFERENCES
Chaffee, K. (2000). A Cost-effective Modular Recirculating Filter for On-site Wastewater
Systems, Environmental Health, November, p.24-30.
Talbot, P., Belanger, G., Pelletier, M., Laliberte, G., Arcand, Y. (1996). Development of a
Biofilter using an Organic Medium for On-site Wastewater Treatment, Water Science and
Technology, 34(3-4), p.435-441.

West, S. (2001). Centralised Management: The Key to Successful On-site Sewerage

Service, On-site 01 Advancing On-site Wastewater Systems: Design and Maintenance,
Armidale, New South Wales.
White, K., Byrd, L., Robertson, S., ODriscoll, J., King, T. (1995). Evaluation of Peat
Biofilters for On-site Sewage Management, Journal of Environmental Health, 58(4), p.11.

CONTACTS
Contact Name:
Organisation:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:

Mr Chris Hertle
Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey
+61 7 3258 3577
+61 7 3832 4592
chris_hertle@ghd.com.au