Paper Number: 082, Stream Theme WWSP

Wastewater Treatment Pond Systems

An Australian Experience
Mitchell Laginestra, GHD, mitchell_laginestra@ghd.com.au
Robbert van-Oorschot, GHD, robbert_van-oorschot@ghd.com.au

KEYWORDS
Lagoon wastewater treatment, anaerobic pond, facultative pond, aerated pond
ABSTRACT
Wastewater treatment through lagoon based systems to undertake reduction of BOD and
other contaminants essentially encapsulates natural systems yet in a controlled manner.
Although taking a much larger footprint than mechanical / constructed bioreactor systems,
they have specific uses, are considered sustainable, provide reasonable treatment and
are generally prevalent in rural applications. They play a particular role in treatment of
intensive agricultural industry wastewater, but are also used for treatment of municipal
sewage.
Performance of lagoon based systems is varied and is dependent on a range of factors:
Type of pond (anaerobic, facultative, aerobic, aerated, maturation)
Loading and wastewater characteristics
Climate
Arrangement.
In addition, based on loading and general performance, odours can be a significant issue,
and presents a challenge to operators of pond systems, particularly with encroachment of
residential and semi-rural communities (into previously industrial or non-permanent
inhabited areas).
This paper outlines issues, applications and maintenance requirements for ponds, and
makes some suggested design improvements and looks at general design and
operational aspects based on actual pond performance.
INTRODUCTION
Ponds are used to treat municipal and industrial wastewaters in a variety of applications
around Australia. The main advantage of these type of systems is their simplicity to build
and operate, although their non-mechanical aspect means a greater volume (and
subsequently area / footprint) is required to treat wastewater than conventional treatment
systems. Their ability to achieve significant reductions of contaminants is attributed to
their diverse biology and incorporation of aspects of conventional treatment including
biochemical reactions, settlement of solids, and disinfection.
Different types of ponds serve different purposes, and the range of operating parameters
distinguishes the type and performance. Ponds are distinguished largely by the dissolved
oxygen (DO) of the layers within the ponds, which in turn, is dependent on the loading of
the pond system. Pond types include:
Anaerobic ponds, which are designed to cater for high organic loading, and are
typically absent of DO and contain no significant algal population. They typically
involve long detention times and are deeper than other ponds due to the need to
exclude oxygen;
Facultative ponds, which incorporate two different operating modes, aerobic at the
surface and , with the settlement of sludge, anaerobic at the base of the pond.
These ponds are typically shallower than anaerobic ponds.
Aerobic ponds, which are shallow to allow algal development and receive lower
solids / BOD loading.

 Maturation / Oxidation ponds, which essentially are used for polishing of effluent,
and are shallow to allow for ultraviolet light penetration and subsequent
disinfection.
There are also mechanically aerated ponds, which can be deeper than naturally aerobic
ponds, since the aeration will reach the lower layers. Evaporation ponds are also
employed where effluent may be problematic to dispose of, for example with high salinity.
Theses are typically very shallow (less than 1.5 m) with volumetric requirements being
dependent on environmental factors (temperature, humidity and rainfall).
Pond systems typically comprise a treatment train, which involves a series of ponds
anaerobic / facultative, aerobic / maturation - to achieve BOD reduction, (perhaps nutrient
reduction) and pathogen reduction prior to transfer to the environment (irrigation re-use or
disposal to receiving waters).
The appropriate treatment train / series is dependent on loading. In addition, it is possible
to overcome shortcomings of ponds oxidation capacity by installation of mechanical
aeration which helps in DO as well as mixing ability / prevention of short-circuiting.
A key aspect in considering ponds for treatment of wastewater is that, despite the
significant footprint, they are regarded as a sustainable technology. Pond systems offer:
Low energy consumption compared to more conventional systems;
Oxygenation of the upper water layer via movement of air and natural wave action;
Solar / powered aeration via algal respiration;
Natural pH buffering via carbonate / bicarbonate system;
Natural nutrient uptake and reduction
Solar induced disinfection; and
Biogas generation from anaerobic ponds (where they are covered and gas
collected).
The disadvantage of pond systems is the inability to significantly remove nutrients.
However, some reduction over ponds is well documented and is believed to be associated
with volatilisation of ammonia, algal assimilation in biomass, and possibly biological
nitrification / denitrification. Nitrification can occur intermittently and can be unpredictable
for long lengths of time (particularly during cold periods), and is often attributed to variable
oxygen levels, temperature and pH (and likely low numbers of nitrifying bacteria).
However, nitrification / denitrification is thought to be a major N removal path in facultative
ponds during periods of high algae abundance. The high photosynthetic activity probably
raises DO and pH. Denitrification is likely to occur at the lower depths of facultative
ponds. Phosphorus uptake is also reported via algae assimilation and precipitation with
metal salts. Removal efficiencies of up to 30 70 % N and 20 40 % P have been
reported in facultative lagoons, (Shilton, 2005). Lower reduction efficiencies are reported
in maturation ponds..
Release of nutrients from decomposition of accumulated sludge and resolubilisation form
sediments sediment can reduce the overall efficiency of nutrient removal.
FACTORS INFLUENCING PERFORMANCE OF PONDS
Key design criteria for pond based systems typically consists of organic loading rate (areal
and volumetric, dependent on the type of pond) and detention time. There are also a
number of key physical design features, which can affect performance:
Depth (which needs to suit the operating conditions for the pond);
Shape and layout arrangement (length to width and inlet / outlet orientation) which
dictate plug flow treatment to avoid short circuiting)
Wastewater characteristics
Sludge accumulation (period between clean-out) and
Environmental factors (temperature, sunlight, rainfall and wind velocity)
Any design for treatment of wastewater needs to take into account the local site-specific
factors. As with any treatment process system, ponds are affected by changing conditions

and success of treatment performance is dependent on enabling development of suitable

biological conditions and contact with the contaminants contained in the wastewater. The
reported main typical issues for ponds include:
Lack of mixing;
Sludge accumulation or sludge rafting;
Advent of dead zones, which can lead to short-circuiting;
Screenings and grease accumulation;
Excessive algae (minimising disinfection ability);
Apparent Increase in solids over ponds either due to significant algal solids or
sludge accumulation and release with changing localised velocities or incorporation of
mechanical aeration;
Construction issues seepage or leakage development if liner is not properly installed
/ compacted or poor choice of materials or rupture.
REVIEW OF POND SYSTEMS
General
Table 2 below presents some operating performance indicators and key criteria for a few
operating ponds - both municipal and industrial applications. However, firstly, we have
considered what expectations there are of pond performance and Table 1 presents a short
review (from Shilton, 2005) of typical design equations for ponds.
For performance of wastewater stabilisation ponds, literature and general experience
indicates:
BOD reduction of 50 up to 90 % for anaerobic ponds is possible (but is dependent
on loading, recirculation, and noting that anaerobic ponds are typically used to
treat high BOD wastes, > 2000 mg/L). Typically no nutrient and limited solids
reduction is expected from anaerobic ponds;
BOD reduction between 70 and 85% across facultative and aerobic ponds may be
achieved (including mechanically aerated ponds);
Effluent suspended solids 40 60 mg/L is achievable from facultative ponds;
BOD reduction between 60 and 80% across aerobic maturation ponds may be
achieved
Effluent suspended solids 10 30 mg/L from aerobic maturation ponds may be
achieved.
Table 1 Pond Design Equations
Loading Equation
Parameters
Anaerobic lagoons
Volumetric
loading
(kg/m3.d),
V = Xi Q / 1000 V

rate Xi = influent BOD, mg/L

Q = influent flow m3/d
V = lagoon volume, m3

facultative lagoons
Surface
loading
rate
(kg/ha.d),
s = 350 (1.107 0.002 T)T-25
maturation ponds
Surface
loading
rate
(kg/ha.d),
s = Xi D / 100

Criteria / Conditions
V = 0.1 (for T < 10),
V = 0.1 (20T-100) (for T=10 20),
V = 0.1(10T+100) (for T=20-25),
V = 0.35 (for T >25)

T = air temperature of S = 80 (for T < 8),

coldest month
S = 350 (T > 25)

D = depth,
= detention time

pond 1 = 3 - 5 (for T > 10) but

typically 10 30 days to achieve
disinfection

Pond Case Studies

A number of random pond systems have been reviewed and are summarised in the table
below.

Effluent disposal from each of the pond systems is via a range of avenues, including
surface waters, general re-use, sewer discharge and agricultural application.
Table 2 Pond Performance Review
WWTP

Climate

Type
pond

Municipal WWTPs
Alice Springs Arid
(different
pond sets)

Berrimah

of

Facultative

Current
loading

HRT,
days

Performance
BOD / TN /
TP
%
reduction

SS
in
effluent /
algae
induced
or not

Pond No. and

suggested
loading
based
on
Temp

137 kg/ha.d
39 kg/ha.d

36

63, 0, 33

97, no

23

40, 20, 35

85, yes

36
days

44, 0, 0

108, no

14, 26, 3

73 mg/L
yes

Multiple
(150 kg/ha.d)
Multiple
(30 kg/ha.d)
Single
(150 kg/ha.d)
Two
(30 kg/ha.d)

86, 64, 65

238 (no)

53, 50, 30

77 (yes)
mg/L
97 mg/L
(no)
122 (yes)
mg/L
88 mg/L
(yes)

Maturation

Tropical

Facultative

87 kg/ha.d

Maturation

36 kg/ha.d

Facultative

122 kg/ha.d
12 kg/ha.d

Maturation
Katherine

Hot

Facultative

235 kg/ha.d
68 kg/ha.d

Maturation
Mount Barker
(prior
to
upgrade)

Mild

Namatjira

Warm,
dry
Tropical

Palmerston

Penola

Mild

Industrial WWTPs
Poultry
Hot
humid
Winery
Mild
during
vintage

Meat
processing

Mild
/
temperate

Facultative,
with
supplemental
aeration
Facultative

200 kg/ha.d

Facultative

79, 40, 14
0, 30, 17
79, 30, 70

Single
(300 kg/ha.d)
Two
(30 kg/ha.d)
Multiple
(350 kg/ha.d)
Two
(30 kg/ha.d)
Single
(but
baffled)
(200 kg/ha.d)

93, 70, 55

150, yes

99 kg/ha.d

110
days
38,

65, 60, 15

150, no

Maturation

86 kg/ha.d

13

27, 0, 2

120, yes

Facultative

16 kg/ha.d

90
days

88, 39, 9

50, yes

20 d

79, 25, 5

65 d

90, 75, 50

450
mg/L, no
100 mg/L

85 d

50 , 10, 50

100 mg/L
yes

Single
(0.05 kg/m3.d)
Single
(0.1 kg/m3.d)
Single
(200 kg/ha.d)

24
days
7
days

64, 3, 5

840
mg/L, no
500
mg/L, yes

Two
(0.05 kg/m3.d))
Single
(0.1 kg/m3.d)

Anaerobic
(covered)
Aerated
Maturation
(supplementary
aeration)
Anaerobic
(uncovered)
Aerated

16 kg/ha.d

36
days
35
days,
55
days
21
days,
18
days
20
days

0.06
kg/m 3.d
0.09
kg
BOD/m 3.d)
260
kg
BOD/ha.d
vintage
0.15
kg
BOD/m 3.d
0.19
kg
BOD/m 3.d)

79, 4, 7

Single
(45 kg/ha.d)
Two
(300 kg/ha.d)
Multiple
(30 kg/ha.d)
Single
(20 kg/ha.d)

Review
In reviewing the performance of the above ponds, the following observations are made:
Facultative and Maturation ponds are all 2 2.5 m deep,
Anaerobic ponds were 3 5 m deep,
Mechanically aerated ponds were typically 3 m deep,
The municipal plants all less than 50,000 equivalent population loading,
Areal organic loading, while obviously a good indicator, does not necessarily
provide good indication of performance in general without considering the other
factors such as arrangement,
Multiple ponds seemingly provide enhanced performance

 Sludge accumulation and localised velocities (as well as mechanical aeration) can
result in high solids throughput to other lagoons,
Some nutrient reduction is possible with lagoons, although this is considered to be
not consistent,
Of the industrial treatment ponds anaerobic treatment can provide good reduction
provided sufficient detention is integrated into the design,
Mechanical aeration is appropriate to reduce BOD and area (i.e., can enable
greater areal loading),
Nearly all lagoons involve very little operation / maintenance (and some seemingly
suffer from that including infrequent desludging),
Some ponds exhibit no reduction in some contaminants (an increase is occasionally
indicated), which may be due to sampling inconsistencies, but more likely to be
associated with sludge accumulation and washout as well as algal solids. The
latter is particularly the case with municipal ponds (high availability of nutrients)
and algae in the final pond is considered to be a significant issue.
POND OPERATION
Ponds do require some operational control, and monitoring is needed to assess
performance, which helps to indicate, in conjunction with visual observations, when
cleaning is required. Sludge accumulation / rafting can lead to odour generation, and this
is common with ponds from time to time. Remoteness from residential receptors is no
guarantee of odour free operation. High loading can accelerate a pond to this condition,
and holiday peak loading or operation during high production for industrial facilities are
common issues, which an operator must deal with. Vigilance in seepage or overflows (as
a result of pipe blockages) must also be checked on a regular basis.
DESIGN OF PONDS
Design Criteria
In reviewing the performance of ponds in general, provided loading is not excessive, BOD
reduction is considered reasonable. Nutrient reduction is also possible, but is generally
regarded to be inconsistent.
The SS from the pond effluent is highly variable, and generally impacted by algal solids or
sporadic release of accumulated solids (which demonstrates that, despite general
operator perceptions, ponds do need regular desludging). Some possible loading criteria
based on this review are outlined below.
Table 3 - Suggested Loading Criteria for Municipal Ponds
Environmental
Surface loading
Detention time (days)
conditions
(kg BOD /ha/d)
Facultative ponds
Cold seasonal climate
10 - 50
100 150
Temperate to warm
50 - 150
40 100
Hot / Tropical
150 - 350
20 - 40
Maturation ponds
Cold seasonal climate
10 - 20
20 - 30
Temperate to warm
20 - 30
10 - 20
Hot / Tropical
30 - 45
5 - 10
Table 4 - Suggested Loading Criteria for Industrial Ponds
Environmental
Organic Loading
Detention time (days)
3
conditions
(kg BOD / m . d)
Anaerobic Ponds
Cold seasonal climate
0.04 0.06
30 - 50
Temperate to warm
0.05 0.08
20 40

Environmental
conditions
Aerated ponds
Cold seasonal climate
Temperate to warm

Organic Loading
(kg BOD / m3. d)

Detention time (days)

0.06 0.1
0.1 0.15

8 - 12
4-8

As noted above, meeting the above loading does not necessarily guarantee a success in
performance. Rather the loading in conjunction with arrangement and condition of the
pond will provide an indicator of expectation for effluent quality. General design features
and suggested arrangements gleaned from existing installations and sourced from the
references listed at the end of this paper are summarised in the section below.
Key design features
The final arrangement of ponds in treating wastewater, will, to a large extent, be site
specific.
This is particularly relevant for environmental factors and wastewater
characterisation, but also relates to soil type (which impacts on liner design, and suitability
of irrigation), and arrangement of pond layout.
There are, however, basic design aspects, which should be take into account to maximise
performance. Some of these features may be retrofitted to existing lagoons, but in the
main, it is important to integrate good design at the start.
Key design features include:
length to breadth ratio (usually a minimum of 2 :1, but can incorporate baffles for
facultative / aerobic to have greater ratios: 3 - 5 :1).
Enhanced inlet / outlet arrangements (inlet diffuser or horizontal pipe) located outlet
out of zone that is main flow path or incorporating baffles / flow deflectors
slope of embankments (3:1 internal; and 2:1 external - dependent on soil)
Minimum of 500 mm freeboard.
Depths: Anaerobic ponds min depth = 3 - > 5 m
Aerated ponds min depth = 3 m
Maturation ponds depth = 1 - 2 m.
liner material is always required, either but compacted clay of minimum depth 0.3 m
or polyethylene / geotextile with properly prepared underlay.
multiple ponds are likely to provide improved effluent quality through minimising
short-circuiting.
Covering of anaerobic ponds not only provides opportunity for odour control and
gas collection (with subsequent use of biogas) but also improves operating by
reducing air impact.
Need for Preliminary Treatment
Hardly any pond systems in Australia incorporate preliminary treatment, apart from the
septic effluent collection / drainage schemes, which rely on the septic tank installation at
individual houses to remove screenings and grit. Of the ponds reviewed in Table 2, only 2
of the industrial applications incorporated screening.
The lack of preliminary treatment has resulted in a number of issues at pond systems
notably the appearance of screenings in accumulated sludge mats, and discharge of
offensive material to the environment. Figure 1 illustrates some of the issues associated
with lack of screening, and the need for regular cleanout of lagoons.
Dependent on location (and catchment area) grit can be an issue accumulating adjacent
to inlet points and reducing detention time.

Figure 1 Screenings accumulation in sludge mat in a facultative pond

It is considered that as a minimum, screening should be implemented prior to treatment by
pond systems.
Uprating of Pond Capacity by Implementation of Changes
Upgrading of existing ponds is often not easy (unless they are extended) and
implementation of baffling or inlet / outlet modifications can involve complete emptying.
Improvements (if deemed required) such as baffling, recirculation, screening and
programmed desludging would not be regarded as providing increased capacity for ponds
in terms of capacity, but would rather be expected to marginally improve contaminant
reduction performance.
Desludging is required to remove accumulated solids, while this may not extend the
theoretical organic loading capacity, it will potentially increase hydraulic capacity by
enabling a greater actual detention time (more volume is available which will theoretically
allow greater storage and treatment of the sewage). However, short-circuiting can impact
on this, and it may mean that desludging will have a lesser effect than theoretical.
Aerobic ponds will, however, benefit from having mechanical aeration. So, any shortfall in
detention or organic treatment capability may be overcome through providing increased
oxygenation capacity. This may be readily accessible, since an aspirator system can be
readily installed on floating pontoons and tied via cables and anchored. The are however
tow considerations which need to be taken into account with this:
Embankment walls of ponds may require stabilisation (rocks, tyres may be used),
air stream should be angled to avoid impingement of the base of shallow pondage.
In calculating the required aeration for aerobic ponds, the oxygen requirements from the
BOD loading needs to be taken into account, but there also needs to be an assessment
of the ability of pond to provide oxygenation via natural processes (this will involve a
review of the extent of loading). For complete mix aerated ponds, the BOD will dictate the
actual oxygenation required.
Other upgrading of pond systems may involve post treatment, for example, Mount Barker
ponds are followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) and microfiltration systems, prior to
discharge to wetlands to produce Class A effluent for re-use. Also, Alice Springs has
recently installed a DAF system to upgrade effluent quality from the ponds.
In considering major upgrades, Western Treatment Plant in Werribee Melbourne is
probably the ultimate. The issue here was inconsistent nitrogen reduction. Part of one of
the lagoons was converted to provide a more conventional approach to wastewater
treatment via an activated sludge plant (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger) to remove nitrogen.
However, the process involves discharge back to the lagoons to utilise their assimilative
capacity, and trials have also been undertaken on introducing an internal pond recycle

with the mechanical plant (known as the PETRO process). This reportedly promotes
conditions for micro flocculating algae to form, which are removed in the clarifier tanks.
CONCLUSIONS
Pond systems are widely used in a number of applications.
Where there is land
available, they are an appropriate technology, approaching sustainable operation (and are
regarded as a controlled encapsulation of the natural environment). Their low cost and
simple operation make them a very attractive option for treatment of a wide variety of
wastewaters.
There are, however, a number of criteria and design aspects, which must be adhered to
maximise performance. BOD is typically removed to a significant extent (over 80 % in
some cases). Nutrients can also be removed but this is largely inconsistent, particularly
during winter. In addition, despite widely held perceptions, operational control (including
monitoring) and regular desludging is needed, although there are significantly less
requirements than conventional systems. Addition of mechanical aeration provides
greater control with lower footprint there is a trade off.
The cumulative treatment effect of multiple ponds in series helps to achieve significant
BOD reduction, but does not necessarily improve SS reduction for pond systems, which
are impacted by algal solids.
In areas that utilise pond effluent for irrigation of agricultural application, without the need
for stringent disinfection criteria or nutrient reduction, then ponds are considered to be an
ideal approach for wastewater treatment. If circumstances dictate, pond effluent can be
upgraded via implementation of downstream processes to remove residual / algal solids
and contaminants to achieve a high effluent quality.
Key opportunities for upgrading and operational improvements for existing pond systems
are regarded as:
Inclusion of screening to prevent downstream issues;
Implementation of a regular desludging program to minimise accumulation of solids;
Reconfiguration of inlet / outlet or installation of baffles to prevent short circuiting
and reduce occurrence of dead zones
Installation of mechanical aeration to improve oxygen transfer, pond mixing and
reduce BOD concentrations.
REFERENCES
EPA (1997), South Australia Pond Guidelines
EPA (1996) Design and Management of Tasmanian Sewage Lagoon Systems
Laginestra, M & Berzins, A (2006) Mt Barker Wastewater Treatment Lagoon Upgrade
Achieving Suitable Effluent Quality For Re-Use. Enviro 2006 (Melbourne).
Power and Water Corporation (2006) Annual Report Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and
Discharge
Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, Third Edition,
1991
Shilton, A (ed.) (2005), Pond Treatment technology. Integrated Environmental technology
Series, IWA
Waste Stabilization Ponds, Earnest F. Gloyna, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1971.