Adaptive Membrane Plant Retrofit
Carbonation and Chloride Testing – a client’s approach to Condition Assessment Techniques
Effective Control of Problematic Algae in Sewer Open Channel System
Remote monitoring and IoT in the water industry
Floating Wetlands Pilot Project - A cleaner and greener approach to wastewater
Assessment of the human health risk associated with finding dead animals in treated water storage tanks
Manufactured in Australia:
Dissolved Oxygen Sensors
MLSS Sensors
Hydrostatic Level Sensors
Portable MLSS & Hydrostatic Level Meters
Water Moving Aerators
Online analytical instruments includes measurements for:
Biomass Methane Potential
UV/VIS, BOD, COD, TOC, DOC
UV/VIS Water & Wastewater Fingerprint
BTEX (Oil in Water)
Conductivity / TDS / Salinity
Dissolved Oxygen
Microwave Total Solids Density Meters
E. Coli & Total Coliforms
Free Chlorine, Total Chlorine & Chloramine (Monochloramine)
Greenhouse Gas (N2O) in Bioreactors
Hydrostatic Level Sensors
Rapid Microbial Monitoring in Water & Wastewater
MLSS / TSS / Turbidity
Nitrite, Nitrate, Ammonia, Ortho-phosphate, Manganese, UV254, Total Nitrogen & Total Phosphorous
AdamSimpson, WIOA QLD Committee member & NationalWaterQualitySalesMetasphereAustralia.
Remote monitoring in water operations has been an interesting journey over my 25+ years in the water industry. My first exposure to remote monitoring was in operations in the mid 1990’s. Sydney Water Corporation (SWC) had just awarded General Water Australia (Veolia) operations of the Woronora Water Filtration Plant (WFP), located at Woronora Dam. The Woronora WFP was built to be run as an unmanned plant, with remote dial in for out of hours call ups, and call ins to the Citect SCADA system. At that time the on-call laptop was completely segregated from the internet, so no MSN chats; were going to happen, or posting on bulletin boards.
Fast forward to 2021 and now SCADA systems are sitting in the Cloud (for example, a GeoSCADA Cloud project for a regional Queensland council).
The next phase I witnessed of remote monitoring in water was driven by the millennium drought (2001 to 2009), with a lot of Internet of Things (IoT) technology being developed in the UK and making its way to our shores.
Pressure and flow data loggers were being deployed on scale to try and reduce NRW (Non-Revenue Water)/
leakage. The more advanced batterypowered loggers used the 2G cellular network to call back into servers, with a head end modem running client proprietary software. This cellular-enabled technology gave utilities greater operational oversight of their network pressure and flow sensors without the expensive capex required to install mains powered remote terminal units (RTUs) and radio networks to monitor these sensors, as they had previously done. These data loggers also enabled what is called lift and shift network investigations due to their portability.
Kathy Northcott, Technical SpecialistWater, Veolia ANZ
David Sheehan, Senior Water Quality & Regulatory Advisor, Coliban Water
Adam Simpson, National Water Quality Sales , Metasphere Australia
Matthew Brill, Director, Manager Operations, Fursdon Water Services
Dean Barnett, CEO, WIOA
WaterWorks is the technical publication of the Water Industry Operators Association of Australia (WIOA). It is published twice yearly. WIOA does not assume responsibility for opinions or statements of facts expressed by contributors or advertisers.
WIOA, PO Box 1080 Mountain Gate VIC 3156
Email: info@wioa.org.au
In 2008, I was involved in the deployment of the first Hydraclam in Australia by Central Coast Council, with Engineer Mark Lee and my Siemens Water Technology colleague, Tony Higson. The Hydraclam was a 2G enabled multi parameter water quality monitor that connected to a hydrant fitting and measured turbidity, conductivity and network pressure. The first evolutions of this device were equally ground-breaking and frustrating, to say the least. At the time, a few telemetry suppliers were connecting existing sensors from analytical process instruments to
Web: wioa.org.au
Contributions Wanted
WaterWorks welcomes the submission of articles relating to any operations area associated with the water industry. Articles can include brief accounts of one-off experiences or longer articles describing detailed studies or events. Submissions may be emailed to: info@wioa.org.au
On the cover
Provided by Tamworth Regional Council.
battery powered cellular RTUs. These Frankenstein-style of instruments had limited portability and were power hungry. This narrative continued until about 2013/2014, when cloud computing was really starting to gain traction.
Enter the Cloud… in 2015 I joined Evoqua Water Technologies to develop a market for the Chloroclam (a battery powered chlorine analyser), which was the sister product to the Hydraclam, but a lot of lessons had been learnt, and product development had been applied before the release of the Chloroclam. The first iteration of the Chloroclam was 2G, but it had a Cloud platform for data visualization that was developed by Siemens traffic systems in Poole, UK.
The Chloroclam was deployed with temporary Calcium Hypochlorite dosing system to provide emergency disinfection
In 2015, Cloud computing was used by major financial institutions transacting trillions of dollars But, as we are very risk adverse in the water industry, there was some push back. Yes, utilities would be happy to use the Cloud platform, but if you mentioned SCADA integration via an Application Programming Interface (API) you would have been laughed out of the room, and often still are.
Devices that had trusted protocols like Distributed Network Protocol (DNP) were being connected to SCADA systems as RTUs. It was the convergence of these low powered devices and sensors that moved the needle for remote monitoring applications in the water industry. From measuring water quality to sewer levels via manholes , to flow/pressure and weather stations, just to name a few applications.
But what is the point of all these devices and data?
Better data and the more of it that we have enables us to make more informed operational decisions. More quality data drives insights into future planning. More quality data may also enable utilities to do more with less. For example, less staff (the industry currently struggles to fill vacant positions in regional areas) and a related reduction in operational budgets. Less people in cars driving around networks performing highly manual tasks like meter reads or water sampling (outside of regulatory compliance testing). Better environmental outcomes by more timely monitoring of critical infrastructure.
As the cost of technology decreases, the ability to deploy more sensors will become the norm. The future of IoT in the water industry is here to stay, as we migrate to Narrow Band (NB)-IoT (5G) and other platforms like low-power, wide area networking protocols (LoRaWAN).
I am looking forward to seeing what is being developed next in the IoT space that will help us maintain our critically important role in delivering water and wastewater services.
Rick Maffescioni,ManagingDirector,AquaManageGroup
LeighHeath,Service/ProjectManager,AquaManageEnvironmentalPtyLtd
AquaManage Group was established in 2009, specialising in Projects, Service and Technical Support to the Water Industry. With the recent development in adaptive membrane technologies from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM’s) around the world, AquaManage has focused on offering customers options for future membrane replacement and upgrade.
AquaManage has recently completed retrofit projects at both Whyanbeel and Mossman Water Treatment Plants near Port Douglas in North Queensland on behalf of Douglas Shire Council (DSC). These plants were built in the late 1990’s and were fitted with KOCH Targa II 8072-35 (8 inch) membranes that are now discontinued.
Several options were available for retrofit with varying degrees of difficulty. We chose to incorporate the DuPont MEMCOR L40AM Type 2 modules for the following reasons:-
• Australian Made
• Increased Membrane Surface Area per module by 25%
• Dead end, Outside to Inside filtration path
• Improved efficiencies in every respect
Tropical Cyclone (TC) Jasper struck the area in December 2023, midway through our Contract and fortunately, three out of five skids at the Mossman WTP had already been upgraded. However, the WTP in the nearby township of Whyanbeel utilised the same technology albeit only one rack of 36 Targa II membranes that were also near the end of their effective working life. This being the case DSC engaged us to expedite the same upgrade to this plant ahead of the final two racks at the Mossman WTP.
Staged approach
The project was split into three separable phases commencing in 2022
and concluding swiftly in 2024 because of the TC Jasper recovery effort. The Mossman WTP involved the retrofit to five (5) UF racks each fitted with 52 membranes (See Figure 1) and the Whyanbeel WTP was one (1) rack with 36 membranes.
In close consultation with DuPont MEMCOR a design package was developed incorporating our experience from similar projects.
Soon after the submission of the design package a HAZOP and design review meeting was held with DSC projects and operations personnel as well as key sub-contractors and consultants, to ensure that their objectives were being met and water supply was to be maintained during the construction and commissioning activities.
The Contract brief was to utilise as much of the existing infrastructure as
possible. The main challenges were to re-configure the pipework and valve arrangement to change the membrane filtration flow path from inside→outside to outside→inside and to incorporate an air scour feature for the backwash cycle.
Another challenge was the 24 pneumatically actuated valves on each rack to ensure that the timing of the open-close cycles of these and the reliability and performance did not adversely affect the new plant cycles. Therefore, some urgent maintenance was often required and adjustment of position limit switches and speed controllers to ensure the valve position feedback and prevention of water hammer. This was important at the Mossman WTP because the feed pressure into the plant was sometimes greater than 600kPa on a supply line with an acceptable upper limit of 300kPa branching off into the five membrane racks.
We had to reconfigure one of the permeate manifolds to become the new air scour manifold. We only needed to provide pipework and valves to remove the interconnection and distribute the air scour across each rack. The retentate pipework and valving was no longer required and contributed to most
wastewater efficiency improvements. The most effective change was the removal of the recirculation pump from the Filtration cycle and largely from the cleaning cycle. This was the main reason for improved power and waste efficiency.
We utilised much of the coupling connections and complimented this by custom building PVC interconnectors with a small section of clear pipe in the permeate line for visual effect. We found after a few months of operations that proprietary reducing bushes was a weak point in the system, we therefore had to replace these with prefabricated reducing bushes. It was also found that the proprietary membrane housing nuts were sometimes working loose. These too had to be replaced with new nuts under OEM Warranty.
An effort was made to commission all the new plant cycles on the first rack installed. Once all the electro-pneumatic “bugs” were identified, tested and retested we were confident that the same philosophy could be applied to the rest of the plant. Also having six months of operation between phases of the project provided us with reasonable operational data to confidently deploy the same approach going forward.
The aftermath from TC Jasper and further inspection, confirmed the numerous landsides throughout the catchment area adversely affecting the feed water quality, particularly during follow-up rain events. Along with the cleanup effort and numerous mains breaks the demand on the WTP was highly variable. During this time the prefilters had to be bypassed to maintain reasonable throughput adding extra demand on the membrane plant and potentially damaging the fibres.
The response effort from TC Jasper meant we had to arrange for an emergency supply of replacement membranes during Christmas 2023, whereby we manage to arrange delivery within 3 working days from DuPont MEMCOR in Sydney. DCS Operations team nursed the plant through this period to maintain water supply and preserve the membranes. We were engaged by DSC to prioritise the replacement and upgrade of membranes at the Whyanbeel WTP ahead of Phase 3 for Mossman WTP. Given the similarities we managed to completely upgrade the Whyanbeel WTP within a 24 hour period and increase the plant throughput by 60% immediately.
We then moved onto Phase 3 of the Mossman WTP upgrade to conclude the project 6 months ahead of schedule (See Figure 2).
Energy Efficiency
Whilst the 25% increase in membrane surface area meant plant capacity was improved, the main component for improved efficiency relates to power usage and waste volumes (See Figures 3 and 4). Power usage dropped by 72% at Mossman and 28% at Whyanbeel, mostly because the recirculation pump/s is now only used during the new CEB cycle.
Cleaning efficiency
The backwash interval is based on an algorithm dependant on target plant flow. With the 25% increase in membrane surface area we could confidently increase the backwash interval accordingly. The backwash interval will typically be every 120 minutes, therefore increasing the uptime and overall daily throughput. We have however put performance measures in place to trigger an early backwash if the TMP and/or permeability deteriorate too rapidly. Also, the removal of cross-flow or retentate resulting in significant waste volume reduction.
The cleaning cycle of the new system is predominantly performed every 120 minutes with air scour and filtrate backwash (BW) cycle, and a daily Chemically Enhanced Backwash (CEB) cycles with sodium hypochlorite
(Chlorine) solution. The benefit of the new system is that Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic) additive is no longer required. Therefore, the Caustic storage and dosing system has been decommissioned and removed from the WTP. Due to the reduced fluxrate and expected feed water quality the Clean-In-Place (CIP) cycles are expected to be infrequent using Citric Acid and/or Chlorine solution.
Conclusion
Retrofitting membrane plants is being considered more often now that technology has evolved. Whilst the idea of converting the flow path of an ultrafiltration process in an existing system may be daunting, the staged approach made this process much easier and proved a more efficient outcome. Staging the project such that the concept design could be tested on one rack first, meant that an extensive effort and time could be applied to optimising the installation methodology, serviceability and fine-tuning the control system before rolling it out to the other racks. A few lessons-learnt during the early part of the project were easily applied throughout.
TC Jasper caused extensive damage to the environment, catchment area and infrastructure in North Queensland coastal region. DSC were presented with many challenges in the aftermath and fortunately most of the Mossman WTP UF racks had been upgraded prior, improving water production security during the cleanup effort. It did however
bring forward Phase 3 of the project and expedite the upgrade of the Whyanbeel WTP. With extensive planning, prefabricating and adopting lessons learnt we managed to completely upgrade this sole UF rack within a 24 hour shutdown period; much to the amazement of many, even ourselves.
With a staggering 72% reduction in power usage, 93% product recovery rate and improved fluxrate, the overall operational cost as well as reliability and water security will benefit DSC budget and the community.
Having the options and ability to consider alternative solutions for future hollow fibre membrane replacement without completely replacing the entire hardware provides an excellent opportunity for Councils, Water Authorities and other Asset owners to seek operational efficiencies and reliability.
A huge thank you to the staff of AquaManage Group, DuPont MEMCOR, Welcon Technologies (now SAFEgroup Automation), RAM Metalworks, Bellero Electrical, Kelly Cranes, The Operations, Projects and Engineering staff from Douglas Shire Council.
David Barry,AquaSafeSkills
Introduction
It has often been suggested that owning a ‘Crystal Ball’ would be a useful thing to have for predicting asset management problems that may arise in projects before they occur.
Many treated water storage tanks in Australia are made from steel reinforced concrete, and several factors, both structural and environmental, come into play when determining the actual design life of these tanks (60 to 80 years), as opposed to the estimated design life (100 years plus). Two such factors are:
The steel reinforcement fabric does not have sufficient concrete coverage to avoid corrosion from occurring due to the surrounding environment - Carbonation.
The concrete itself has ‘inbuilt chemical components’ that cause the steel fabric to corrode – the presence of Chloride.
Luckily, there are several procedures available that can be used to predict whether carbonation may occur and whether chloride is present.
This paper details how Aqualift worked with a client, SA Water, to identify the signs of carbonation and the presence of chloride.
Assessing carbonation
Carbonation is a common problem in concrete structures exposed to the natural, external environment; it is less of a problem in concrete which is ‘climate controlled’, such as the inside areas of buildings or surfaces submerged in water. Carbonation slowly reduces the alkalinity of concrete, and it is the alkalinity factor which slows down the corrosion process of the reinforcing fabric within the concrete.
Carbonation happens naturally and leads to an exponential deterioration process related to the age of the concrete; in most cases the older the concrete, the more the carbonation depth increases.
This is why a minimum steel cover of between 60 to 80mm is specified when building with reinforced concrete; this should ensure that the predicted design life is achieved, without the threat of premature failure.
Carbonation testing is generally carried out on two separate areas of a tank, to ensure that weathering factors are considered. The sides of the tanks that face east and west should be the main focus for initial carbonation testing, as they are more exposed to the sun, unless trees or other shade factors are present.
If results indicate a high carbonation percentage, then additional tests in other representative areas around the tank should be done whilst onsite. The military-based ‘clock face’ positions of 3, 6, 9, and 12 O’clock can be used on the documentation to record the test results, with 6 O’clock being located at the main entry hatch area.
The testing involves two separate procedures: steel cover depth assessment (Figure 1) and a carbonation deterioration depth (Figure 2).
For the steel cover depth assessment, a re-bar detector is run vertically in a side-toside pattern down the test area and readings of steel depths (4 to 6 readings is an ideal number) are taken and the results recorded on the test result sheet.
These readings are then averaged out, with the shallowest reading recorded as a ‘wild card’ factor.
A 5mm impact drill bit is then used to check carbonation deterioration depth.
An indicator solution of 50% distilled water, 50% methylated spirits, mixed with half a teaspoon of phenolphthalein powder per litre of solution, is sprayed onto the drill tailings to show when good alkaline concrete is reached – the tailings turn purple when alkaline concrete has been detected (Figure 3).
Again, 4 to 6 readings should be taken, with the results recorded on the test result sheet, averaged out and the deepest reading being recorded as a ‘wild card’ result.
A carbonation factor percentage is calculated by placing the carbonation depth over the steel cover depth. An example calculation would be: a carbonation depth of 25mm, with a steel cover average of 50mm, would give a carbonation factor of 50% (25/50 = 0.5, or 50%).
If the tank being assessed is between 40 and 60 years old, this would be an acceptable percentage, as carbonation occurs in concrete at an exponential rate.
If the carbonation factor percentage is higher (that is, >50%), particularly in newer structures, then remedial actions (such as a waterproof external coating) will need to be considered to achieve the expected design life target.
Chloride attacking the steel fabric of concrete tanks is another source of deterioration that can affect the life of the tank. If the concrete structure has the added pressure of stored water behind it, then the consequence of failure (COF) can be significant.
The chloride found within concrete is commonly present because it occurs naturally in the raw materials used in the concrete batching process – that is, by being present in the gravels and sands that have been extracted from salty rivers and quarries, or from the water used in the mixing process; they can all contribute to a sort of ‘inbuilt failure mode’ of the finished concrete structure.
To test for the presence of chloride, concrete dust samples are collected in sterile jars and sent to a laboratory for analysis (Figure 4).
This test is generally conducted in one location and consists of drilling a series of 6 holes over a 300mm x 300mm sample area, using a 12mm impact bit. The drill is initially ‘spudded’ in to around 5mm in depth to remove any surface contaminants, and then the holes are drilled into a depth of 25mm, with the dust being directed through a SS drilling tube, which in turn is connected to the sample jar.
Once the 25mm samples are collected and the jars labelled, the drilling tube is ‘blown’ clean and the same holes are redrilled to a depth of 50mm, with the same dust collection method being employed.
The holes are then filled and repaired using a good quality mastic material and the collected samples are sent off a laboratory for analysis.
The results were compared against the following criteria for the risk of chlorideinduced corrosion of steel reinforcement:
• Less than 0.4% chloride: Corrosion unlikely
• 0.4% - 1.0% chloride: Corrosion probable
• 1.0% and greater chloride: Significant corrosion probable
SA Water, a significant water industry client, believes in a long-term approach to the management of their tank assets, and has developed testing procedures to detect both carbonation and the presence of chloride that results in deterioration of concrete. They use these procedures to assess the state of the concrete within their 488 plus rural storage tanks (Figure 5) that are spread across a wide and diverse geographical area.
There are many different types of tanks within this number, in all shapes and sizes, some made from steel, but with the majority constructed from concrete, like the one shown in Figure 5.
SA Water had limited ‘in-house’ resources to regularly assess all of these tanks, so it was decided to train a suitable contractor in the testing procedures and let them conduct a ‘wide ranging’ condition assessment program, over a three-year period.
Aqualift had been cleaning and inspecting some of these tanks over previous years, so we were asked to carry out the task. It involved spending a week at SA Water’s Adelaide technical services section to learn about the procedures and also to spend days out in the field with their personnel, putting the new skills into practise.
The next phase was to enter all the tanks into our Aqualift System Asset Management (ASAM) software system and to give each tank a standardised name and a unique, but simple, Water Storage (WS) number, beginning with WS 001. This included a lot of static data from their existing spreadsheets, including locations, age, dimensions and construction materials (Table 1).
The ASAM software was also updated to include the Carbonation Factor percentages and the chloride percentages for samples collected at depths of 25mm and 50mm. The inspection information and images were loaded at the end of each day, allowing the clients based back in Adelaide to follow the progress and use the program’s search functionality to track important issues as they were uncovered.
At the time of the project, there were five regional management areas, and each one had a slightly different way of doing things, depending on logistics and funding. Our job was to carry out a consistent ‘fresh eyes’ approach, so that all tanks could be graded to the same standard, so that funds could be allocated where most required.
Seeing as all the tank sites were to be visited, it was necessary to fully document, GPS locate and photograph each asset as part of our ASAM Level 1 inspection process. This concentrated on Security,
Safety, Contamination and Structural issues. A ‘Drop camera’ was also used to gain limited internal images of the sediment, ladder condition and any pipework that lay close to the entry hatch area. It can be likened to a ‘Zen approach’, whereby no one issue was focussed upon, but rather everything was looked at whilst onsite and compared to all the other tanks. As the inspection process developed, some earlier information was adjusted to define the best- and worst-case scenarios.
We developed our own testing equipment and documentation (based on similar projects) to speed things up and then proceeded to travel around the different regions in turn. The local area management would assign an operator to take us around to their sites and make sure we did not become lost, an easy thing to do in some of the remote areas. We also learned a lot of useful local knowledge, such as the best bakeries to visit in each town.
A lot of interesting facts emerged from the project, which allowed ‘the crystal ball approach’ to be quantified and used with confidence.
Tanks in certain areas had higher chloride levels, possibly due to the local building materials that were used in their construction. The surrounding ground also determined the chloride uptake of the concrete tank structure, particularly where the tanks were either inground or semi inground.
The oldest tanks, when compared to newer tanks, had less carbonation present, as a higher cement ratio was used and less performance additives were available for inclusion in the concrete mix. Design specifications were also more conservative pre-1970’s, when a majority of the tanks were constructed and a lot of experience was obviously lost in the later years.
Certain years produced better (or worse) building results, possibly due to weather conditions and the availability of both contractors and an experienced labour force. Boom years always deplete available
Date:
experienced personnel and tanks built in those years were generally of poorer quality. Where two or more tanks were built on the same site, it was easy to pick the order in which they were constructed. The first tank would have minor defects, but, presumably as the building crews ‘came together’ and bonded, the last tank to be built would be close to perfect, if such a thing is possible when working with concrete, in remote areas, out in the elements and with changes in staff along the way.
The asset management group we worked with estimated that most of their tanks had been built within a 40-to-50-year period, and that they could all fail within a similar time period, unless repairs were undertaken early enough to be both effective and cost efficient. Fortunately, concrete structures can be ‘saved’ and their original design life maintained and often exceeded if some of the main problems are identified
within a suitable time period. This enables rehabilitation procedures to be carried out before too much damage occurs. A renovation solution can be as simple as installing a protective coating to reduce any further exposure to the external weather or backfill soil elements.
Unfortunately, some of the tanks inspected were found to be ‘too far gone’ to be rehabilitated, so these would be allowed to continue operating for a more limited period of time and then be removed from service.
One other important issue was discovered. Tanks that had already been taken out of service and abandoned were often left unsecured. This would allow travellers to access the sites, maybe climb up onto the tank for a photographic opportunity and then become injured by either falling in or off the structure.
SA Water, being the owner of the site and the tank, would face potential legal compensation issues by allowing persons to access an unsafe structure; the same as leaving an open hole in the ground during a project, that someone may fall into and injure themselves.
Most of these structures were not allowed to be climbed by staff, but being rope access technicians, as well as divers, we cautiously went where others dared not to, and assessed each situation accordingly.
Our recommendations in these cases were to either better secure the site and conduct regular visits, or to remove the abandoned structure completely.
The Kelair-Blivet is a stand-alone packaged sewage treatment plant, designed to accept raw (unsettled) sewage and produce a high quality final effluent without the need for ancillary tankage or equipment.
Compact, flexible, modular system suitable for:
- Environmentally sensitive sites
- Townships and villages
- Construction and remote sites
- Areas not connected to mains
We know the importance of choosing the right equipment to match your process. With our extensive range of pumps, first class customer service and ongoing comprehensive support, Kelair Pumps are second to none when it comes to your pumping requirements.
James Pither,SeniorEngineerBulkWaste(MajorSystems),GippslandWater
Joe Chiocci,BusinessManager,AzelisAustralia
Introduction
Gippsland Water operates the Regional Outfall System (ROS) Channel which transports treated domestic and industrial wastewater to its Dutson Downs treatment facility and ocean outfall. The system transports approximately 30 ML of treated class C quality water per day, including 12 ML/day of residential effluent from surrounding towns and 15 to 18 ML/day of industrial effluent from Opal Australian Paper (Integrated Pulp and Paper Mill, located in Morwell).
Prior to the commissioning of the Gippsland Water Factory (GWF) in 2010, the Regional Outfall System received raw effluent, which contained high solids load of paper pulp. The quality of this effluent and presence of paper pulp prevented weed and algae formation. The removal of solids in the wastewater and improvement in water quality since GWF became operational has dramatically changed the operating conditions of the channel.
Over the last nine years Gippsland Water has seen an increased presence of algal growth and weed along all sections of the ROS channel, predominantly during springtime each year. A combined effort between the Gippsland Water’s environment team and operational teams has resulted in the successful identification of two aquatic weed species in the channel: Ruppia Megacarpa (a perennial aquatic herb found in shallow brackish waters) and Potamgeon Crispus (a submerged aquatic perennial curly leaf pondweed with stems up to 120cm long).
Microscopic analysis1 of algal mats present in the channel identified a mixture of filamentous types of green algae from the genus Sirogonium, Ulothrix and Mougeotia, with the Sirogonium type as dominant. An example of the algae that can form in the channel is shown below from Spring 2021 at Peg 166 and Peg 54.
The presence of algal blooms combined with the two weed species has created
significant operational issues, as the biomass material clusters often weigh more than 30kgs, restrict flow capacity and create OHSE risks.
The channel has the capacity to adequately manage an average flow of approximately 30-34 ML/day, but the restrictions caused by weed and algae has seen reduced flow capacities of between 21-24ML/day.
Discussion
The ROS channel is a relatively unique system as open channel sewer systems are no longer common in modern Australian wastewater networks. Gippsland Water’s initial focus was to treat aquatic weed and algae via herbicidal treatments, with a backup option of mechanically removing of large mats of biomass with an excavator using a screening bucket.
As weed and algae continued to become an issue, several conventional methods were deployed to attempt to manage the problem.
These early weed/algae management techniques included:
• Completion of channel shuts to drain the channel to expose weed/algae to temperature extremes and;
• Chemically treat with Round Up or;
• Chemically treat with GenFarm Diquatt 200 Herbicide
These techniques were not very successful, with poor kill rates, particularly in areas were some standing waters remained (dilution of herbicides). The switch to a Diquatt herbicide resulted in increased kill rates of the aquatic weed, however dilution of chemical in the channel base still resulted in a low kill rate in this key area, and subsequently a fast return of overall biomass.
As both weed and algae problems continued to worsen, it became clear that the methods employed were not effective or sustainable.
During the 2021/22 summer period Gippsland Water began experiencing severe algal blooms in the ROS Channel at volumes that had not been experienced in the system before. Additionally, the presence of two different species of aquatic weed species in the system were compounding the issue, resulting in increased channel levels, leaks and increased staff health and safety risks.
Gippsland Water commenced market research into algal management options in late 2021, receiving a proposal from Chemiplas (now known as Azelis) for a novel algaecide treatment EarthTec®. This product is a patented, highly dispersible, low pH algaecide designed for use in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, sedimentation basins, irrigation canals, treatment lagoons and other water systems. The active ingredient is a highly biological active form of cupric ion (Cu++).
During the first season of application a temporary dosing setup was established at the Peg 29 open channel site with dosing commencing on December 4, 2021, with an initial dose of 2ppm, increasing to 3ppm on December 5, 2021, and then reduced back down to 2ppm as algal presence reduced.
The initial dosing trial ran to January 12, 2022, and continued at a reduced (<1ppm) rate in the form of a preventative dose until early February with algal presence having been removed. The measure of success being visual reduction in the presence of algal blooms, enhanced channel operating levels, operator feedback and downstream copper residuals.
Outlined above in Figure 8 is an overview of residual soluble copper measured at various points across the channels 41.5km length. The results show that as the treatment continued, there was a steady reduction of copper residual along the channel indicating uptake from algal, grass and biofilm.
Figure 7 outlines a graphical representation of soluble copper consumption across the channel’s length. The results show a consumption of about 50 -60 % of input soluble copper of EarthTec® from Peg 29 –Peg 166. Additionally, it shows that on 11 January 2022 sampled soluble copper dropped to only 22% soluble copper consumption indicating less uptake from remaining algae and biofilm due to the elimination of the biomass in the channel.
While the sampling results show a positive and successful initial trial, the
visual reduction in algal blooms, reduction in channel levels and resounding positive feedback from operators who maintain the channel grills were the true indicators of success.
The 2021/22 initial trial showed strong positive results regarding managing algae this is despite commencing the treatments in a reactive setting, i.e., once algae had bloomed and was causing significant operational issues. Regarding the management of aquatic weed, the treatment was found not have a significant impact to weed levels, and
other measures are required to manage this aspect. However, bio film breakdown by the treatment is likely to have had a positive impact in easier removal of weed that was anchored within this biofilm as opposed to the earthen base.
Figure 9 shows the extent of the weed and algal issue in November 2021 prior to the EarthTec® application. This clearly shows the extent of heavy algal mat and illustrates the high channel level due to the damming effects caused by the visible blockage on the screens. Figure 10 shows the same location after 12 days from product application with significantly reduced algae. This reduced damming effect, lowering overall channel height and mitigating OHS risk due to the reduced biomass load on the screens.
Since the initial 2021/22 season application Gippsland Water have continued to use this product as part of an integrated weed and algal control strategy. In Season 2022/23 a change in treatment application was instigated where EarthTec® was dosed to a pipe section via injection quill at Rosedale storage approximately 3km prior to the open channel section.
With improved channel monitoring the dose employed in the 2022/23 season was lower than the initial season. A 1.5ppm dose was employed over the first three weeks to account for bio film within the pipe section up taking the product which accounted for some of the consumption prior to the start of the open channel section (Peg 13). After this the treatment dose was reduced with algal growth under control. Figures 11 & 12 demonstrate the soluble copper and copper consumption for this season including a breakdown of consumption within the pipe and open channel sections.
Further refinements of the algal control strategy have continued into the current season where EarthTec® application was commenced prior to the normal algal season in a preventative mode. This ensures a small residual copper amount is present to prevent algae from propagating in the first instance. This strategy is currently using a dose of 0.7-1.0ppm and algal presence has been close to zero.
Through the addition of an inline dosed novel algaecide to control the algae and bio film presence, Gippsland Water has been able greatly reduce algal presence and improve operational conditions of the Regional Outfall System. The results of the project show that through a process of trial and error, and collaboration with other water authorities, solutions to complex operational problems can be identified and implemented.
Joe Chiocci – Business Manager – Azelis, watersolutions@azelis.com (0418 208 713)
Shaun Ratten,SeniorMaintenanceOfficer,WesternportWater(WPW)1
Introduction
For Westernport Water (WPW), reducing our environmental impact and adapting to climate change, while keeping our services affordable and sustainable, are key customer commitments and regulatory requirements.
Treatment of wastewater is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas in the Victorian public sector. During the financial year (2022/23), Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants was 78% of WPW’s emission profile.
This pilot project involved installation of a floating wetlands system on a Class C wastewater lagoon at Cowes Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWWTP) on Millowl (Phillip Island). The project is a collaborative effort led by Westernport Water alongside Deakin University’s, Clarity Aquatic, Covey Associates and CSIRO.
The pilot project examines the effectiveness of constructed floating wetlands in removing nutrients and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from treated wastewater (See Figure 1). The removal of emerging contaminants to the plant tissue is also being investigated.
The concept idea of a floating wetland formed a video submission to the Intelligent Water Networks (IWN) Hydrovation challenge in 2022. The concept won the challenge, which funded a feasibility assessment to be undertaken in collaboration with Deakin University to ‘Assess the Teal Carbon Storage Opportunities in a Restored Wetland Filled with Recycled Water’ at King Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (KRWWTP).
Following the feasibility study, a concept design for the wetland system was developed
by partners of Deakin University and the University of NSW. The Pilot design for CWWTP was developed as part of Water Services Association Australia (WSAA) W-Lab trials and selected for the trial due to its scale which is more suited for experimental design. Results will inform the detailed design of the wetland system proposed for KRWWTP and potential opportunities for future wetland establishment on Phillip Island.
The pilot project received funding of $200,000 from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) as part of the Integrated Water Management Grant Program. The funding provided by DEECA supports the research components of the project, while WPW will cover the capital costs associated with the infrastructure of the project. Total funding support for the project is $250,000 with additional support from IWN and Yarra Valley Water over the two-year project life.
The installation began in late March 2023 with the fitting of the baffle curtains (used to divide flows into test and control zones). This was done by using a 40m long vinyl with sleeves at the top and bottom. The top was filled with 90mm stormwater pipe and fitted with pool noodles to keep it afloat. The bottom was filled with heavy chains to keep the curtain open.
The wetland was tensioned at both sides of the lagoon to keep zones separate. Once completed a splitter box was installed at the inlet works to then separate flows. 64 pods weighing 250kgs each when full were then planted out. With scaffolding at the sides, coverage was approximately 7% of the total lagoon surface. The lagoon is 4500sqm, the wetland has approximately 331 sqm cover.
Treated wastewater makes its way to the lagoon where the floating wetlands are installed. Inflows at this point are separated into half control zone (no wetland) and half test zone, which makes up 7% of the lagoons total area.
The floating wetland is made up of 1,800 native wetland plants. Like a hydroponic system, the roots of native plants grow into the water under modules that float on the surface of the water. Plant roots provide habitat for microorganisms that assist with the removal of wastewater pollutants and capture floating particles in the water.
Installation was achieved via a ramp consisting of carpet and two lengths of timber (keeping pods off lining to prevent tearing). The pods are connected via a block system with joining pieces screwed into place at 6 points on each pod.
The team faced many hurdles during installation while working over an operational treatment lagoon. Vaccinations and PPE were a must, (including a life jacket) and while no incidents occurred during installation, difficulties arose in the floating of the pods that were planted out due to the weight of a loaded pod. This was overcome by tying ropes to the finished rows in the lagoon and safely exiting staff from pods over the course of the day. The labour was intense, and fatigue was closely monitored with scheduled break periods.
Craning in the platforms and walkway into place without damaging the liner presented challenges. However, once we had installed the four rows of 15 pods the process of installing the net and replacing plants that had floated loose was very easy. The whole installation process took the team of 12, (with various contractors at certain stages) about a week to complete this, including
everything from assembling the scaffold, adding the rock and plants and tying off the bird netting. Now that the project is installed the bird netting will remain for about 1 year to allow plants to grow, (as Phillip Island has an abundant population of ducks and swamp hens.
Installation lessons learned
With the installation complete and operational, we found the splitter box was not big enough for the inflows causing overflow at the sides. Whilst still operable, an area of improvement would be more precise calculations during the development of the design.
The handrail/scaffolding had two types of bolts for each setup meaning having more tools on hand. We also found the predrilled holes for bolts were in the wrong place, meaning we had to drill out every
handrail piece to make them fit. The pods needed a lifting mould at the base as it was very difficult pushing 250kg of a pallet down a ramp (this is being addressed by the manufacturer for future installations). The planting and gravel filling of 1,800 pod boxes is very labour intensive and ideally would use lighter materials, for example coco fibre (if research shows its effectiveness).
The floating wetlands is located on top of the 14ML storage lagoon with levels fluctuating approximately 2m, in particularly, during intense rainfall.
Protection of the rubber lining is critical and most vulnerable area is the position of stairwell on the liner, which requires monitoring in times of lagoon level decreases.
A more ergonomic loading system could reduce manual handling and strain on back.
During the project the team planted 1,800 plants that consisted of:
• 900 Phragmites australis (Common Reed)
• 900 Baumea articulata (Jointed Twig Rush)
Phragmites australis (Common Reed)
Native to all areas in Australia, it was traditionally used by Indigenous Australians for several applications including rope and the roots were used as food.
First used in floating wetlands in the UK in the 1990’s in treatment of stormwater, Phragmites australis has a high ability to accumulate various nutrients and heavy metals. Because of this, Phragmites australis is the most used plant in constructed wetlands across the world.
Baumea articulata (Jointed Twig Rush)
Baumea articulata is a native Australian perennial plant that has long slender stems and tall flowers. It is used heavily in landscaping for erosion control and can grow up to 2.5m tall.
Baumea has been traditionally used by Indigenous Australians to find water sources and to make baskets.
Operational monitoring and maintenance
The wetlands are monitored via several floating greenhouse gas sensors. The plants are checked monthly by a team of researchers where root and plant samples are analysed for nutrient uptake. Maintenance of the wetlands is undertaken by WPW after visual inspection by Plant Operators.
Within the first year, we have noted the following results:
The installation of the floating wetland contributed to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, namely a 27% reduction in
carbon dioxide, 19% reduction in nitrous oxide, and 58% reduction in methane.
There is evidence that the floating wetland is removing synthetic materials from wastewater.
The plant tissue is showing evidence of uptake of emerging contaminants, firstly via roots and transferred into shoots, where it can be removed through harvesting of the plants.
The plant species, Common Reed, has grown better than Jointed Twig Rush and will be able to achieve a higher rate of nutrient removal due to superior growth. An additional species, March Club-rush, was planted earlier this year and has adapted well with substantial growth.
Conclusion
The Floating Wetland Pilot is an exciting and innovative project, contributing to the state of knowledge for the water sector in utilising nature-based solutions to support wastewater management and emissions reduction. It also provides valuable insights for managing emerging contaminants.
Early trends of reduced greenhouse gas emissions because of the floating wetland function are positive findings and warrant further investigation as we progress into the second year of the project.
Learnings are continually captured from the trial from an operational perspective of the treatment and management of the plant. Information on the placement of the wetlands on the lagoon and associated impacts on business as usual is also being captured.
Conclusive results will be released when the project finishes in mid-2025.
David Sheehan,SeniorWaterQualityandRegulatoryAdvisor,ColibanWater
Professor Una Ryan,CentreforBiosecurityandOneHealth,HarryButlerInstitute,MurdochUniversity,WesternAustralia
Over the past couple of years, during routine inspection or cleaning, several Victorian water corporations have found dead animals in some of their treated water storage tanks. When found, these dead animals have been various states of decomposition, meaning that any faecal material present within them has ended up in the drinking water supply.
At the time, there was not a lot of detailed information available on the human health risks associated with dead animals in treated water storage tanks, and in the absence of information, this has resulted in water corporations taking a very cautious approach, and either issuing a boil water advisory for the customers supplied by the affected tank, or writing to them to advise them of a potential health risk that may have been several weeks old, depending on how long the dead animal had been in the tank.
To try and address this uncertainty, and get better understand the human health risk, Victoria’s urban water corporations, along with Water Corporation, in Western Australian, jointly funded a Water Research Australia (WaterRA) project, Project 1156 - Pathogen risks associated with dead animals in treated water assets/storage tanks. The project was undertaken by Professor Una Ryan, from the Centre for Biosecurity and One Health, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
This paper summarises the outcomes of Project 1156 from an operator perspective.
Many different types of animals may be found dead in treated water storage tanks. Through discussions with the water corporations involved in the project, a list of the most likely animals to be found in tanks was compiled, the list being:
• Bats
• Birds
• Cats and dogs
• Frogs and reptiles (that is, lizards and snakes)
• Possums and other marsupials
• Rabbits
• Rodents (that is, rats and mice)
These groups of animals were then assessed for the likelihood they are likely to carry pathogens that can cause illness in humans.
The health risks associated with the presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses
With respect to the public health risks associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses that may be present in the faeces of dead animals, nearly all drinking water supplies in Australia are either disinfected with chlorine or chloramine, with the aim being to maintain a free (in the case of chlorination) or total (in the case of chloramination) chlorine residual across the distribution system.
The vast majority of bacteria and viruses that are of public health significance are inactivated, or killed, at the residual concentrations that are usually set as targets for distribution systems (0.2 mg/L of free chlorine for chlorinated supplies, or a total chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L for chloraminated supplies). It is important to note that the
primary purpose of maintaining disinfectant residual in the distribution system is to manage the risk of recontamination between the point of primary disinfection and customer taps.
Table 1, which is adapted from a table produced by the US Centres for Disease Control (US CDC) summaries the effectiveness of chlorine against common waterborne bacteria, viruses and protozoa, noting that chlorine is ineffective against protozoa.
Table 1. Effectiveness of chlorine against disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (taken from US CDC, 2014).
PROTOZOA
*Assuming low water turbidity (<1 NTU) and appropriate temperature and pH.
In the event that a dead animal is found in a tank with a residual below the targets listed above, spot dosing the tank with chlorine will, in most cases, be sufficient to manage any public health risk associated with possible presence of disease-causing (i.e. pathogenic) bacteria and viruses.
Therefore, in most circumstances, the public health risks associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses that may be present in the faeces of dead animals can be easily managed, either by the existing chlorine residual, or by increasing the chlorine residual. The health risks associated with the presence of pathogenic protozoa
If the public health risks associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses that may be present in the faeces of dead animals can be adequately managed by maintaining a disinfection residual in distribution systems, the same cannot be said for pathogenic protozoa (i.e. Cryptosporidium and Giardia), as is shown in Table 1.
In the natural environment, Cryptosporidium and Giardia protozoa live within egg-like structures, known as oocysts, in the case Cryptosporidium, or cysts, in the case of Giardia (which is often written as oo/cysts when referring to both), which are highly resistant to chlorine at the concentrations typically used to disinfect drinking water. In addition, both Cryptosporidium and Giardia have a wide host range and their oo/ cysts are shed immediately infectious in faeces. Therefore, the primary focus of the project was to look at the risks posed by human infectious Cryptosporidium and Giardia
A simplified overview of the ecology of Cryptosporidium and Giardia
Currently, there are approximately 49 known species of Cryptosporidium and greater than 120 genotypes have been described (genotypes are basically yet to be formally described as new species). Of these, 23 species and 2 genotypes of Cryptosporidium have been found in human faeces.
However, two species Cryptosporidium hominis (C. hominis) and Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum) account for approximately 95% of human infections, and are also responsible for almost all waterborne outbreaks, where genetic investigations have been conducted to confirm the cause of the outbreak.
Therefore, C. hominis and C. parvum are the two species of most importance when considering whether the faeces of a dead animal poses a public health risk.
The only human-infectious species of Giardia is G. duodenalis and it is a species that is very complex, consisting of what are known as assemblages named A to H, with different host specificities. Assemblages A and B are responsible for greater than 95% of infections in humans and can also infect animals, therefore, they are the assemblages of most importance when considering whether the faeces of a dead animal that is positive for the presence of Giardia poses a public health risk.
Different animals carry different types of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, either mechanically (i.e. passive, nonreplicative, ingestion and carriage of Cryptosporidium or Giardia oo/cysts from the environment), or if they themselves become infected with Cryptosporidium and Giardia.
There are numerous studies in peerreviewed journals where researchers have collected faeces from a variety of animals, screened the faeces for the presence Cryptosporidium and Giardia and typed the positives using DNAbased typing methods. Based on the knowledge of whether a particular type of animal has human infectious Cryptosporidium and Giardia, such as C. hominis, C. parvum or G. duodenalis assemblages A and B, present in their faeces, or whether a non-human infectious, host-specific species is more likely to be present, then an assessment of the potential risk they pose to humans can be made, if these animals turn up dead in water storage tanks.
As noted above, various animals may carry various types of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, either mechanically, or via actual infections in these hosts. Whilst mechanical infections do occur, the viability of oo/cysts that are mechanically transmitted is greatly reduced and the project confined itself to assessing where the animals of interest are likely to actually be infected with human-infectious Cryptosporidium and Giardia, otherwise all types of dead animal would end up being a high risk.
Table 2 summarises the risks associated with each group of animals that were reviewed by the project.
Summary
Cryptosporidium and Giardia are important protozoan parasites that infect a wide range of hosts and are resistant to chlorine residuals typically used to disinfect drinking water from recontamination in storage water tanks.
Currently, the public health implications of finding dead animals in treated water storage tanks are not clearly understood. This review that was undertaken, collates and summarises all available information on what is known about the prevalence of humaninfectious Cryptosporidium and Giardia species in bats, birds, cats, dogs, frogs, reptiles, marsupials, rabbits and rodents.
Noting that there are knowledge gaps that need to be filled with respect to pathogen risk posed by each of these animal groups being found dead in treated water storage, overall, the risk has been assessed as either low or very low for all animal groups.
Far more detailed information can be found in the final report and fact sheets produced by the project. For those water utilities that are members of WaterRA, you can access all these resources on the WaterRA website.
Fact sheets available to WaterRA members:
• PRFactS 1: Pathogen risk associated with dead animals in treated water assets/storage tanks
• PRFactS 2: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in bats
• PRFactS 3: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in birds
• PRFactS 4: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in cats and dogs
• PRFactS 5: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in frogs and reptiles
• PRFactS 6: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in marsupials
• PRFactS 7: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in rabbits
• PRFactS 8: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in rodents
Table 2 - Human health risk from the known/expected Cryptosporidium and Giardia species linked with the identification of different animals in that are likely to be found in treated water storages.
Animal type Level of human health risk in the Australian context, based on available evidence
Bats Very low
• Non-zoonotic* Cryptosporidium species dominate in bats. Only two reports of zoonotic Cryptosporidium species in bats to date, and these were likely due to mechanical carriage^ as no oocysts identified in bat faeces.
Zoonotic risk for Giardia is unknown, as no typing has been conducted on Giardia from bats.
Additional screening of wild flying foxes for Cryptosporidium is required as C. hominis detected in Australian bats. Screening and typing of Giardia found in bats is essential to inform risk.
Birds Low (for wild birds)
Cats & Dogs Likely Low
• Non-zoonotic avian-adapted Cryptosporidium and Giardia species dominate in wild migratory birds.
Zoonotic Cryptosporidium and Giardia in wild birds likely due to mechanical carriage/spill-back#
Low shedding rates of oocysts and cysts.
• C. felis and C. canis are the dominant Cryptosporidium species in cats and dogs.
Largely host-specific, as prevalence in humans in high-income countries is low.
Host-adapted Giardia assemblage F dominates in cats, and assemblages C & D dominate in dogs.
• Zoonotic Cryptosporidium and Giardia in cats and dogs may be due to them eating contaminated faeces (coprophagy), or spill-back.
• Low shedding rates of oocysts and cysts.
Frogs & Reptiles Very low No reports of zoonotic Cryptosporidium or Giardia species in frogs.
• Reptiles predominantly infected with host-specific Cryptosporidium and Giardia
• Prevalence of zoonotic Cryptosporidium and Giardia in reptiles is low and likely due to mechanical carriage
Risk profile for wild migratory birds requires further work, as few studies have been conducted to date.
Recently developed assemblagespecific genetic tools need to be applied to determine the zoonotic significance of Giardia assemblages A & B in cats and dogs.
Based on relatively few studies.
Possums and small marsupials
Low
Rabbits Low
Rodents (rats & mice) Very low
Host-specific C. fayeri & C. macropodum, are the dominant Cryptosporidium species in marsupials.
Host-specific Cryptosporidium possum genotype dominates in possums.
• Both host-specific & zoonotic Giardia species identified in marsupials
• Dominance of zoonotic Giardia assemblages A & B in marsupials, which may be due in part to spillback from livestock and humans.
• C. cuniculus responsible for most infections in rabbits, which is only species of Cryptosporidium, other than C. hominis and C. parvum to have caused a waterborne outbreak.
C. cuniculus, however, appears to be largely host specific, as few reports in humans, despite the abundance of rabbits.
With respect to Giardia, few studies but assemblage B dominates.
• Low shedding rates of oocysts and cysts.
• Urban-adapted rodents are predominantly infected with host-specific Cryptosporidium and Giardia.
• Low prevalence of zoonotic Cryptosporidium and Giardia in urban-adapted rodents and may be mechanical carriage. Low shedding rates of oocysts and cysts.
* Zoonotic refers to an infection or disease that can be transferred from animals to humans.
More research is needed to understand the prevalence and significance of zoonotic Cryptosporidium and Giardia in small marsupials.
Recently developed genetic tools need to be applied to determine the zoonotic significance of Giardia assemblages A & B in marsupials.
Recently developed genetic tools need to be applied to determine the zoonotic significance of Giardia assemblage B (and assemblage A) in rabbits.
More research on urban-adapted and native rats in Australia is required.
^ mechanical carriage refers to the passive, non-replicative, ingestion and carriage of Cryptosporidium oocysts or Giardia cysts by animal from the environment (e.g. coming in contact with pastures or water contaminated by Cryptosporidium or Giardia-infected faeces shed by livestock or other animals) or via direct ingestion of infected faeces from another animal.
# Spill-back: where transmission of ‘human’ parasites occurs from humans to uninfected animals
Industry professionals delivering industry-based training services
RTO: 46056
Register for Certificates II, III and IV in Water Industry Operations using code WIOA_2024 to receive access to bonus online courses.
E: training@trility.com.au W: trility.axcelerate.com.au
