Townships of North Frontenac & Addington Highlands

SEPTAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY

May 30, 2005

TOWNSHIPS OF NORTH FRONTENAC & ADDINGTON HIGHLANDS

Septage Feasibility Study

May 30, 2005

TOWNSHIPS OF NORTH FRONTENAC & ADDINGTON HIGHLANDS

SEPTAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
____________________________
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1
2.0
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................2
3.0
LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................................................3
3.1
Current Legal Requirements & Guidelines for Septage Handling & Disposal........................... 3
3.2
Potential Changes in Legal Requirements & Guidelines for Septage Handling & Disposal...... 3
3.2.1 Land Application of Septage................................................................................................... 3
3.2.2 Regulation of Private Septic Systems/ Mandatory Pumpouts ................................................ 4
4.0
CONSULTATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES.................................................................................5
4.1
Municipalities with Treatment Facilities- Opportunities for Disposal ....................................... 5
4.2
Municipalities without Treatment Facilities- Opportunities for Collaboration .......................... 8
4.3
Private Sector .............................................................................................................................. 9
5.0
TREATMENT OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................11
5.1
General Comments on Septage Treatment ................................................................................ 11
5.2
Lime Stabilization ..................................................................................................................... 11
5.3
Lagoon Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 12
5.4
Composting................................................................................................................................ 15
5.5
Mechanical Treatment Options ................................................................................................. 16
6.0
FACILITY SITING CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................17
7.0
ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................................................................17
7.1
Do Nothing ................................................................................................................................ 17
7.2
Haul to Outside Municipal Treatment Facilities....................................................................... 17
7.3
Communal Lime Stabilization facility ...................................................................................... 17
7.4
Lime Stabilization in the Pumper Truck ................................................................................... 18
7.5
Stabilization Lagoon.................................................................................................................. 18
7.6
Mechanical Treatment Systems................................................................................................. 18
7.7
Landfilling of Septage ............................................................................................................... 18
7.8
Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 19
8.0
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................21
9.0
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................22

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Potential 60 km Hauling Radius............................................................................................... 10
Figure 5.1: Lime Stabilization (MOE septage website, 2005) ................................................................... 12
Figure 5.2: Facultative Lagoon Schematic (PWGSC-INAC, 2000)........................................................... 13
Figure 5.3: Free Water Surface Wetland Schematic (US-EPA, 2000)....................................................... 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Population Data ........................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2.2: Estimates of Generated Septage Volumes................................................................................... 2
Table 4.1: Survey of Municipal Treatment Facilities................................................................................... 6
Table 4.2: Survey of adjacent municipalities ............................................................................................... 8
Table 4.3: Workload for Private or Municipal Hauler ................................................................................. 9
Table 7.1: Estimated Septage Hauling, Treatment and Disposal Costs ..................................................... 20

Township of Frontenac Islands

Wolfe Island Septage Feasibility Study

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Terms of Reference

E:\PROJECTS\14-11983 Septage Feasibility Study for NF\NF Septage Report.doc

ii

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH FRONTENAC

SEPTAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.0

INTRODUCTION

The Walkerton water tragedy has resulted in numerous changes to Ontarios regulatory landscape. One
of these changes is the Nutrient Management Act, under which legislation has been and is being
developed with respect to municipal biosolids and septage.
In response to these regulatory changes, the Township of North Frontenac and the Township of
Addington Highlands retained TSH in March 2005 to undertake a study of options for septage
management in the Townships. The terms of reference are contained in Appendix A and included
requirements to:

Provide an overview of current legislation with respect to the handling, transport and disposal of
septage
Provide a brief outline of surrounding municipalities septage disposal and future plans where the
municipalities do not have treatment plants
Look at available options and approximate costs for municipal septage storage and treatment
Discuss requirements for siting of a potential treatment plant
Review septage handling capacities of municipal treatment plants within a 100 km radius of the
Townships

This report addresses the above issues, provides recommendations and suggests areas for further
investigation.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

2.0

BACKGROUND

North Frontenac Township is a 1,136 square kilometres parcel located in the County of Frontenac. The
Township of Addington Highlands is directly west of the Township of North Frontenac in the County of
Lennox and Addington and has a total land area of 1,289 square kilometres. Both townships are
primarily rural and neither contains communal sewage treatment facilities. Table 2.1 shows published
and estimated population data for the Township of North Frontenac and the Township of Addington
Highlands.
Table 2.1: Population Data

North Frontenac
Addington Highlands

2000
Estimated
Permanent Households Seasonal +
Population
Permanent
(OPAC)
(OPAC)
Population*
1,659
3,126
7,190
2,112
2,438
5,607

Estimated
Estimated
Seasonal
Seasonal
Population* Households*
5,531
3,495

2,405
1,520

* Estimate assumes 2.3 persons per household.

* OPAC data taken from Municipal Directory

Both North Frontenac and Addington Highlands have large seasonal populations, as evidenced by their
large numbers of households. In census data, seasonal residences are included in the count of
households, but seasonal residents are not included in population figures.
Septage Volumes are estimated in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Estimates of Generated Septage Volumes

Households
North
Frontenac
Addington
Highlands

permanent
seasonal
permanent
seasonal

721
2,405
918
1,520

Annual
Volume
Total #
Pumped Out Pick-up Pumpouts
/year
(1/2 Tank) Frequency
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800

0.25
180.3
0.083
200.4
0.25
229.6
0.083
126.6
Totals per Year:
Totals per Day:

Volume Pumped per Year

(L/yr)

(gal/yr)

324,587
85,747
360,704
95,288
413,217 109,160
227,961
60,221
1,098,509 290,195
3,010

795

(m3/yr)
325
361
413
228
1,099
3.01

* Minimum tank volume by OBC is 3600L; this was used as average tank volume.
* Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre recommends pumping a septic tank every 3 to 5 years.
* Seasonal households assumed to have pumpouts at 1/3 frequency of permanent residents

In terms of volumes, the total septic pumpout from both Townships combined is comparable to the
volume of domestic sewage produced by only three households in an urban community. However, in
terms of quality, the strength of septage is much more than that of raw sewage.
A discussion of septage quality is beyond the scope of this report. The treatment alternatives which are
discussed in this report are all treatments that are generally considered acceptable for septic tank waste
by the Ministry of the Environment and should be able to handle the required nutrient loadings.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

3.0

LEGISLATION

Septage classifies all matter (liquids and solids) that is pumped out of septic tanks and holding tanks.
Septage is raw and essentially untreated. Septage should not be confused with biosolids, which are solids
coming out of municipal sewage treatment processes.
3.1

Current Legal Requirements & Guidelines for Septage Handling & Disposal

Land application of untreated septage is permitted under current regulations. Land application of
untreated septage is still fairly common practice in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment estimates
that 60% of Ontarios septage is land applied.
Septage haulers require a Certificate of Approval for hauling and land applying. A schedule to the
Certificate includes details on individual sites where septage is applied.
Sewage or septage lagoon operators require a Certificate of Approval; those who also haul septage
require two separate Certificates. Construction of a new sewage treatment system generally requires an
environmental assessment.
Construction and inspection of private septic systems falls under the Building Code Act. This is further
discussed below.
3.2

Potential Changes in Legal Requirements & Guidelines for Septage Handling & Disposal

The Walkerton water tragedy has triggered a host of new legislation in Ontario including two which
affect septage, the Nutrient Management Act (passed in 2002) and Drinking Water Source Protection Act
(still under development). The Nutrient Management Act affects land application of septage; the
Drinking Water Source Protection Act is expected to address government powers relating to private
septic systems.
3.2.1

Land Application of Septage

Ontario Regulation 267 under the Nutrient Management Act was passed in 2003. Reg. 267 changes
requirements for land application of municipal biosolids.
Stage 2 of regulations to be developed under the NMA was to include a regulation dealing with septage.
The government made a number of commitments to ban the land application of untreated septage over a
five-year period. The draft regulation included the following components (copied from the EBR registry
at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/019446er.htm) :

An immediate ban on the land application of portable toilet waste.

A five-year phase out of the issuing of Certificates of Approval for the land application of
untreated septage.
Extension of the winter spreading restrictions and land application standards included in the
proposed Stage 2 Regulatory requirements under the Nutrient Management Act.
Requirement that municipalities prepare a strategy on how they will manage untreated septage
produced within their area.

This draft regulation was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry on December 2,
2002 and the Ministry embarked on a series of public and stakeholder consultations. These consultations

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

have caused the Ministry to reconsider their position, or at least the timing of these regulatory changes.
For now, septage is absent in the new regulation and guidelines which have stemmed from the Nutrient
Management Act. The MOEs website does state that the MOE is committed to a phase-out of land
application of all untreated septage.
MOE was contacted for this study in order to determine their current position on land application of
septage. The Ministry clarified that O. Reg. 267, the new regulation under Ontarios Nutrient
Management Act, does not apply to septage. Reg. 267 lays out new requirements for spreading of
biosolids (e.g. sampling, separation distances and application rates). Although the Ministry emphasized
that they are still committed to ending land application of untreated septage, they acknowledge that
implementing this requirement immediately is impractical. Reasons for the delay were cited as not
enough capacity at municipal treatment plants to meet demand, and lack of information about suitable
treatment technologies for septage.
A team of technical staff from MOE and the ministry of Agriculture and Food are currently studying
treatment technologies in other jurisdictions with a view to developing a workable regulation leading to
beneficial reuse (land application) of septage in Ontario. Outcomes of the study are expected to include
standards for treated septage, and acceptable methods of septage treatment. The Ministry indicated that
they are concentrating on three methods of septage treatment in this study: lagoon stabilization, lime
stabilization, and composting. Although the MOE did not say this, it is assumed that these three
technologies were chosen for study because they are all fairly economical, are generally suitable for use
in rural areas, and do not require high levels of operator expertise. The MOE is also carrying out pilot
projects for these technologies.
It seems that the requirement for municipalities to deal with septage produced within their boundaries
will remain.
3.2.2

Regulation of Private Septic Systems/ Mandatory Pumpouts

Historically, septic systems were governed under the Environmental Protection Act. However, in 1998,
Ontario transferred the regulation of most septic systems (all systems under 10,000 L/day) to the
Building Code Act. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is now responsible for administering
septic system approvals. The ministry in turn delegated responsibility for approving new permits and
enforcing the regulations to the municipalities. In the case of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands,
the approval authority has been transferred to Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington Health Unit by
agreement.
The scope of septic re-inspection programs is limited by the wording, definitions and regulations of the
Building Code. The Building Code enables a municipality to pass by-laws, to appoint building inspectors
and to issue building permits. It allows municipalities jurisdiction over the inspection of "unsafe
buildings". This general term includes examination of septic systems. An inspector may enter upon the
land or into buildings at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of inspecting a building to
determine whether the building is unsafe, and specifies that a sewage system is unsafe if it is not
maintained or operated in accordance with the building code.
The Walkerton Report addressed private septic systems and their potential to contaminate groundwater.
Justice OConnors Recommendation 9 was Septic Systems should be re-inspected as a condition for the
transfer of the deed.
Justice OConnor noted that the Sewell Commission on Planning Reform in Ontario recommended that
MOE require that regular inspections be carried out at the expense of septic tank owners. He suggested

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

that municipalities might wish to require these as a condition of issuing building permits. He noted
however that mandating inspections of all septic systems would be an enormously expensive undertaking,
and recommended that this be addressed on a local basis as part of source protection planning (i.e. a
proactive septic reinspection program could be implemented but only in areas of concern such as areas of
high drinking water source vulnerability).
MOEs website indicates that Recommendation 9 is currently being addressed as part of the source
protection planning process. Source protection planning will be administered by conservation
authorities. Leona Dombrowsky (speech to O.A.S.I.S. at Ambassador Hotel in Kingston, November 20,
2004) said We are taking the time to co-ordinate a number of initiatives that will provide Ontarians the
assurances they need to have full confidence that their water is protected and is safe to drink... As part of
this initiative, we are integrating our approaching to septage management within a comprehensive source
protection strategy.
Some groups (City of Ottawa, Commission on Planning and Development Reform) have suggested that
the Government of Ontario should mandate some basic operational activities for private septic systems,
such as mandate pumping, a mandatory system inspection and the documentation of pumping. However,
these have not been explicitly legislated.
Some municipalities have expressed a concern that under the Building Code Act, they could be held
liable for damages arising from the improper operation and maintenance of a private septic system. For
the present, septic reinspection programs and mandatory pumping remain non-compulsory potential
initiatives for municipalities to consider.

4.0

CONSULTATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES

4.1

Municipalities with Treatment Facilities- Opportunities for Disposal

Eleven nearby municipalities were contacted and questioned regarding their policies on septage
management and their ability and/or willingness to accept septage from outside their municipal
boundaries. Eight of these municipalities replied within the available timeframe. Responses were
varied; some municipalities are choosing to avoid taking any responsibility for septage until such
responsibility is legislated. Other municipalities were accepting septage but were unwilling to accept
anything from outside their municipal boundaries. Still others (e.g. Kingston) currently impose no limits
on septage receiving.
Many small plants are not designed to handle septage, which is higher strength and has higher nutrient
loadings. In general, larger plants are more willing to accept additional quantities of septage. Septage
handling facilities are often the source of nuisance odours; this is often cited as a reason for not accepting
septage.
Table 4.1 summarizes responses from municipal staff who were contacted. Attempts at contact with
Bancroft, Perth and Pembroke were not successful.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

Table 4.1: Survey of Municipal Treatment Facilities

Municipality

Willing to
Accept Outside
Septage?

Belleville

Probably not

Kingston

Yes, for now

Madoc

Probably Not

Napanee

No

Kemptville
(North
Grenville)

Maybe in the
future

Smiths Falls

No

Tweed
Stirling

No
No

Comments

The municipal official in Belleville was wary of accepting septage

from unknown sources and indicated that Belleville has no
intention of accepting septage from outside municipal boundaries.
The operator of Bellevilles plant however indicated that a 6-month
testing period has just begun for a pilot septage receiving facility at
the plant.
Kingston has tertiary treatment at its Kingston West plant and will
soon have tertiary treatment at Ravensview plant. They only
receive septage at Kingston West; extra organic loading has not
been a problem. Current dumping charge is on a per volume basis
(about $50 per truck) but they plan to soon increase this charge to
get cost-recovery for the septage facilities. Major upgrades are
currently underway at Ravensview plant; a decision was made not
to include a $2M septage receiving facility but provisions in the
design allow it to be added on later if desired.
Madoc has a seasonal discharge, facultative lagoon. Their current
policy is not to accept any septage from outside their municipal
boundaries. They are potentially interested in collaborating for
solutions.
Napanee has made a decision not to accept any septage from
outside municipal boundaries due to concerns about safeguarding
capacity for future needs of their own residents. Napanee is
considering mandating septic pumpouts, due to concerns that they
could be held liable under the Building Code for problems arising
from septic failures. They are concerned about a potential surge in
septage quantities if mandatory pumpouts are implemented.
North Grenville is planning to undertake their own septage study in
the near future. They are looking at adding a septage receiving
facility to Kemptvilles sewage plant, and will look at the viability
of receiving septage from outside their boundaries, on a costrecovery basis. Kemptville has a Class 4 tertiary treatment facility,
commissioned in 1994-95. Currently, many rural residents
septage is hauled to Ottawa; costs have doubled in recent years.
North Grenville has many rural residents and wants to be proactive
with respect to septage management.
Smiths Falls is wary of accepting any septage from outside of their
municipal boundaries. They will look into facilities for receiving
septage from their own rural residents if/when this is mandated by
the government.
Tweed has a facultative lagoon with phosphorus removal. They do
not accept outside septage.
Stirling has a facultative lagoon with phosphorus removal. They
do not accept outside septage.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

The City of Ottawa, which is beyond the 100 km radius contacted for this report, also accepts septage
from outlying municipalities. Several municipal staff and haulers contacted were aware of local septage
being hauled to Ottawa.
In general, municipalities were not enthusiastic about accepting septage from outside their boundaries.
The concern seems to be not so much about plant capacities, but rather a fear of the unknown and their
ability to handle their own municipalitys septage when new regulations are put in place. The two largest
cities, Ottawa and Kingston, seem at present to have the largest capacities for handling outside septage.
Hauling to municipal treatment plants remains an option. Agreements should be negotiated which will
give this method some certainty for future use and do not require reliance on the long term goodwill of
another municipality. This will allow both municipalities to plan ahead, to receive septage and to arrange
payment for septage disposal. Kemptville, for example, could be contacted at this stage to express
interest in using septage receiving capacity. Increased hauling costs are a disadvantage of this option
when compared to treatment options within the Townships boundaries.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

4.2

Municipalities without Treatment Facilities- Opportunities for Collaboration

A survey was undertaken of adjacent municipalities. Municipal staff was asked about current septage
disposal methods in their municipality, plans for the future, and potential open-ness to collaboration with
other municipalities. Responses were obtained from five municipalities; Central Frontenac, Greater
Madawaska and Tay Valley were not able to respond within the available time. The results of the survey
are tabulated below.
Table 4.2: Survey of adjacent municipalities

Plans for Future/ Comments

Open to
Collaboration

Municipality

Current Septage
Disposal

Brudenell,
Lyndoch &
Raglan
County of
Renfrew

All private septics

County of Renfrew is doing a study; they are

awaiting results before taking action

Yes.

Mix of different
treatment &
lagoon but mostly
land application

Maybe.

Lanark
Highlands

All individual
septics- septage to
Ottawa & land
applied
Stabilization
Lagoon

County of Renfrew is currently doing their own

septage management study. The County has
several municipal treatment facilities; they are
looking at upgrading to receive septage as well
as other options. Probably looking at lime
stabilization as the most economically viable
option.
Some municipalities starting to do their own
hauling, to have more control.
Municipal Policy Statement-came out March
2005- municipality must have a septage strategy
or else no growth permitted.
Looking at options for communal treatment for
Lanark Village.
They will be including capacity to treat septage
but only from within municipal boundaries
Private hauler & lagoon operator is treating
most septage in the municipality (and also from
outside). Lagoon is meeting MOE standards.

Stone Mills

Tweed

lagoon

Lagoon is nearing capacity. They havent really

addressed this issue yet.

Maybe

Yes- may be
able to offer
lagoon
capacity
Yes.

The Grey County Septage Management Study considered but screened out a large treatment facility
serving areas outside the County in addition to residents of Grey County. That study considered and
rejected a large private owned and operated Treatment Facility with Capability to cover a larger
geographic area than Grey County. A commitment from neighbours is required. Although one (1)
facility to service several townships may be more cost effective, the cost for hauling may increase
greatly, which may be more costly than having smaller systems with significantly less distance for the
hauler to travel. There is also the public concern that hauling septage more than 60 kilometres causes an

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

increased volume of truck traffic on the roads and socially may be unacceptable, particularly if the
haulage distances are high and larger trucks are required.
However, sharing the costs of constructing, getting approvals for and running a municipal facility, would
reduce the load on each municipality. A significant part of a haulers time is spent pumping out the
residential tank and dumping at the treatment facility; haulage of less than one hour does not significantly
lengthen the pumpout task. This is evidenced by the distance private haulers currently travel to do a
pumpout. Greg Storring, one of the main haulers operating in North Frontenac, hauls to his own
treatment lagoon near Tamworth, in Stone Mills Township and still charges a reasonable fee
($120/pumpout). It stands to reason that the reverse trip could also be economically feasible. Figure 4.1
on the following page shows a 60 km hauling radius from a central location in the Townships.
One consideration for either a private or a municipal septage hauler will be the workload associated with
serving multiple townships. For private haulers this may be more of a limiting factor than hauling
distance, as shown in the table below. Table 4.3 calculates days of employment per year based on the
estimated septage volumes. Equivalent households is the total number of households in the
municipality adjusted for reduced occupancy in seasonal dwellings. It is estimated that a hauler would
have work for 246 days a year (out of 260 total weekdays) serving only North Frontenac and Addington
Highlands. If another township is added, more than one full time job has been created.
Table 4.3: Workload for Private or Municipal Hauler

Municipality
North Frontenac
Addington Highlands
Greater Madawaska
Central Frontenac
etc.

Equivalent
Households

Total
Pumpouts
per Year

PumpoutsCumulative

Total
Pumpouts
per Day

Days of
Work/Yr
(cumulative)

1,523
1,425
1,427
2,394

381
356
357
598

381
737
1094
1692

3
3
2
2

127
246
547
846

Notes:
* There are approximately 260 regular work days (weekdays) in a year.
* Assumed hauler can do three pumpouts per day within North Frontenac/Addington and
two per day outside these municipal boundaries.
* Other townships' names are used for illustrative purposes only; their use does not indicate that they have
expressed interest in participating in a joint scheme.

4.3

Private Sector

Historically, the private sector has had significant involvement with the collection and disposal of
septage in Eastern Ontario. The most significant concerns, going forward, are the lack of private
facilities for treatment and the lack of capacity for the additional quantities that can be expected when the
new regulations take effect. Consideration should be given to working with the private sector for
development of treatment and disposal facilities. Private sector firms may be prepared to offer treatment
services, and additional capacity, as an enhancement of their existing services. Alternatively, they may
require assurance of the receiving stream through municipal bylaws or agreement. A request for
expressions of interest in a public private partnership might generate provide North Frontenac and
Addington Highlands with a workable solution.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

Figure 4.1: Potential 60 km Hauling Radius

10

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

5.0

TREATMENT OPTIONS

5.1

General Comments on Septage Treatment

11

The two methods for disposal of septage in common practice in Ontario today are:
1. Land application of untreated septage, and
2. Disposal at a municipal Sewage Treatment Facility
Land application of untreated septage typically involves collection and haulage to a central storage
facility (holding lagoon) and subsequent land application. Holding lagoons are used because specialized
equipment is required for disposal on agricultural lands, and because land application is subject to
constraints due to time of year and weather conditions.
MOE estimates that 40% of Ontarios rural septage goes to municipal sewage treatment plants or
stabilization lagoons. Typically, the septage waste stream is very small in comparison to the raw sewage
stream, and is not disruptive to the treatment process. While the Ministry of the Environment is moving
toward requiring treatment for septage prior to land application, there is not an abundance of technical
data available on treatment of septage (except when mixed with large quantities of raw sewage) simply
because this has not been a common practice.
In Northern Ontario, dewatering trenches are the primary means of septage disposal, often on crown land.
Although the MOE has not indicated this method will be approved in southern Ontario, a municipal
official phoned as part of this study indicated that a dewatering trench has recently been approved in
Peterborough.
5.2

Lime Stabilization

Description
In lime stabilization, also known as alkaline stabilization, lime is added to septage in order to increase
its pH to greater than 12 for a period of time, typically hour to two hours. This kills off pathogens and
decreases the attraction for vectors. Alkaline stabilization can be achieved in three ways (adapted from
MOE septage website):
1. Addition of lime slurry or dry lime to septage at a separate mixing facility
2. Addition of lime directly into the pumper truck via ports in the truck
3. Bleeding lime slurry into the vacuum draw line a the same time domestic septage is being
pumped into the truck
Figure 5.1 shows a potential lime stabilization scenario.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

12

Figure 5.1: Lime Stabilization (MOE septage website, 2005)

The first of these alternatives requires a separate treatment facility; the second and third would require
supply of lime and modifications to pumping trucks and to pumping procedures.
As previously mentioned, the Ministry of the Environment is currently developing technical guidelines
on acceptable methods of septage treatment. It is unclear at this time whether in-truck mixing will be
deemed an acceptable treatment method. The in truck methods would still involve haulage to a central
lagoon for later land application.
Lime stabilization has been used fairly extensively in American jurisdictions, but has not seen much use
in Ontario. Lime stabilization is used in Ontario for municipal biosolids treatment.
Lime stabilization has several advantages. If it can be carried out in the pumper truck then it will not
require construction of new mixing facility, which allows this process to make optimal use of existing
infrastructure. The main disadvantage is the lack of Ontario experience and the absence, at this time, of
applicable MOE standards.
The cost of a municipal lime stabilization plant cannot be determined without applicable guidelines.
However, a plant would require mechanical mixing facilities, significant holding capacity (i.e. equivalent
to 180 days production) and would have significant operator, chemical and monitoring costs.
5.3

Lagoon Treatment

This type of sewage treatment is typically in one of three types of lagoon systems: an aerated lagoon, an
anaerobic lagoon, or a facultative lagoon. All three types are described below. However, a facultative
lagoon is the least expensive option and is typical for many small treatment systems.
Lagoons may also be exfiltration (where there is discharge through walls of the lagoon, with more
monitoring required by MOE and corresponding higher monitoring costs) or be lined (with discharge to
surface water or land application, and fewer monitoring costs). Unlined lagoons are usually only
permitted where the local soil has low permeability and there is a low threat of seepage from the lagoon
into local groundwater. For this study it was assumed that a lined lagoon with land application of
effluent would be required.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

13

Aerated, partial mix lagoons are commonly used to treat municipal and industrial wastewaters of low to
medium strength. They are aerated to maintain aerobic reactions. Aeration is provided by either
mechanical surface aerators or submerged diffused aeration systems. Land requirements are less than for
facultative lagoons, but aerated lagoons can be less effective than facultative lagoons in removing
ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus. They also have power requirements for operation of the aeration
systems. For these reasons they are not practical for this small application.
Anaerobic lagoons are deep impoundments that promote anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions. Typical
depths are about 2.4 m and are not aerated, heated or mixed. Anaerobic lagoons are typically used for
either pre-treatment of high strength industrial wastewaters or pre-treatment of municipal wastewater to
allow sedimentation of suspended solids. They tend to produce more odours than other types of lagoons,
and tend not to work effectively in cold climates. An aerobic lagoon is not practical for this application.
Facultative lagoons are usually 1.2 to 2.4 m in depth and are not mechanically mixed or aerated.
Aerobic and facultative organisms are supported in the top layer of the lagoon, and anaerobic organisms
are supported in the sludge at the bottom of the lagoon. The middle layer or facultative zone ranges
from aerobic at the top to anaerobic at the bottom. Figure 3.1 shows a schematic of this treatment.

Figure 5.2: Facultative Lagoon Schematic (PWGSC-INAC, 2000)

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

14

Inversions of the various layers can occur in the spring and fall due to temperature fluctuations. During
unstable periods there can be increased turbidity and odours. Another challenge in colder climates like
ours is maintaining effluent quality in the winter, when oxygenation and fermentation processes are
significantly reduced. The facultative lagoon process is land intensive but offers a reliable and easy-tooperate process with a relatively low capital cost. The land requirement may be reduced by the addition
of a treatment wetland following the lagoon. Typical detention times are 20 to 180 days.
For this application the suggested lagoon type would be a lined facultative lagoon.
A facultative lagoon would have no electrical costs as the lagoon operates by gravity. Settled sludge and
inert material may require periodic removal. Increased microbial activity decreases the accumulation of
sludge.
Earthen berms used as impoundments must be inspected periodically (approximately 4 times per year)
for rodent damage. Effluent would either be discharged seasonally to a watercourse, or pumped out and
land applied.
Fees for a Certificate of Approval are approximately $5,200 for a lagoon. Fields must also be approved
for land application. A Class Environmental Assessment is required.
Typical design guidelines require 90 to 180 days of storage in the lagoon (with the longer times allowing
for storage). Cell depth would be approximately 1.2 m. In the Townships, the volume of septage
currently produced has been estimated at 3,010 L/day. To provide a retention time of 180 days, the size
of the lagoon would be approximately 452 m2. Depending on local hydrogeology, an impermeable liner
would likely be required for the lagoon to prevent seepage into the groundwater.
Lagoon/Wetland Combination
Constructed wetlands are an emerging technology in wastewater treatment. The observation of water
quality improvement in natural wetlands led to the development of constructed wetlands as an attempt to
replicate these benefits. A wetland would likely not be suitable for treating septage on its own; however,
as a polishing treatment step following a sewage lagoon, a wetland would improve effluent quality and
would reduce or eliminate effluent from the system. The most common type of constructed wetland in is
a Free Water Surface (FWS) wetland.
In a Free Water Surface (FWS) wetland, the water surface is exposed to the atmosphere. Most natural
wetlands are free surface, including bogs, swamps and marshes. The majority of constructed FWS
wetlands are marshes. In a FWS wetland, influent flows over a vegetated soil surface from an inlet point
to an outlet point. Part of the moisture in the influent is lost to evapo-transpiration and seepage within
the wetland. Generally, a FWS wetland consists of one or more shallow channels with a barrier to
prevent seepage to groundwater and a submerged soil layer to support roots of the selected vegetation.
The use of constructed FWS wetlands has increased significantly since the 1980s and they are widely
distributed in the United States. Operational FWS wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment in the
States have capacities ranging from 3,785 L/day (1,000 gal/day) to 75,708 m3/day (20 million gal/day).

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

15

Figure 5.3: Free Water Surface Wetland Schematic (US-EPA, 2000)

Like lagoons, constructed wetlands generally require no power and require little maintenance. Operation
may include waste depth control, inlet-outlet structure cleaning, grass mowing on earth berms, inspection
of berm integrity, wetland vegetation management and routine monitoring. Harvesting of vegetation is
generally not required.
Fees for a Certificate of Approval are approximately $5,200 for a lagoon/wetland. A Class
Environmental Assessment is also required for this option. For this alternative, haulage to land
application would be reduced to infrequent clean-outs of accumulated sludge.
One Certificate of Approval would be sought for the lagoon/wetland combination, with the wetland
treated as a polishing step after lagoon treatment. Because there are fewer existing examples in Ontario
of wetland treatment than lagoon-only treatment, it is possible that in initial stages, MOE would require
more monitoring through the C of A. However, improved effluent quality resulting from wetland
polishing could result in reduced monitoring requirements in the long term.
Wetlands are effective in the removal of phosphorus, one of the only elements which are not removed
very effectively in facultative lagoon treatment. This makes a lagoon and wetland combination a good
choice for a comprehensive treatment process. Other options do exist for phosphorus removal, but
require chemical addition.
5.4

Composting

Communal composting is another option for septage treatment. Septage is dewatered and then a bulking
agent is added. A mechanical system is required for aerating the material. The liquid runoff from the
dewatering would require treatment at a sewage treatment plant.
The composting option would be of interest to a municipality that is currently composting, or planning to
compost a significant portion of its solid waste stream. This is not the case in North Frontenac and
Addington Highlands. An advantage of composting is that concerns with liquid runoff from land
application would be reduced. Disadvantages are that a composting system requires a high level of
operator attention and capital cost compared to a lagoon. Also, dependence on a municipal treatment
plant is still required for treatment of the liquid runoff. Odours from a composting operation tend to be
more than for conventional treatment because of the heating that is involved, but could be mitigated with
air scrubbers more readily than for a lagoon.
Composting was chosen as the preferred alternative in the Grey County Septage Management Study (by
Henderson Paddon & Associates Limited, March 2004), one of the first studies of its kind in Ontario.
However, it should be noted that private composting facilities already exist in Grey County and the only
new process to be introduced would have been septage dewatering. Also municipal sewage treatment
plants exist in Grey County to treat liquid effluent from the dewatering process. Neither of these
processes is readily available in the Townships, making composting a less desirable option.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

16

Compost would have to meet Ontarios new compost guidelines. An Environmental Assessment would
be required for a new composting facility. A Certificate of Approval would also be required. Further
study would have to be carried out in order to provide a cost estimate for construction and operation of
the composting facility. Because of the required level of technical expertise, the Townships may prefer
to pursue a public/private sector agreement for this option.
5.5

Mechanical Treatment Options

Mechanical options for treating only septage are untested (as are the other options), have high capital
costs and high operational costs. Advantages are a decreased land requirement, a reduction in the
potential for odours, and a potential to treat septage from a wider area with a corresponding increased
revenue stream. Given that the Townships have low population density and much undeveloped land, the
land requirement is not a substantial benefit. Trucking costs to create a larger service area would also
detract from the cost/benefit of this option. Mechanical treatment options therefore have not been
examined in detail for this report. They may however be worthy of consideration in the future.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

6.0

17

FACILITY SITING CONSIDERATIONS

There are numerous factors that the Townships should consider if they decide to construct a municipal
facility. These will depend to a large extent on the type of facility. Generally, a more central location
will reduce hauling costs.
A lagoon should be well screened and should be sited so as to minimize odour complaints. A 150 m
buffer is required between the lagoon and existing residential properties. Soil conditions are also
important; a hydrogeological study should be undertaken prior to lagoon construction. A clay soil is
preferable because it will minimize seepage from the lagoon into groundwater and may take away the
necessity for a plastic lagoon liner, thus reducing construction costs.
Mechanical treatment, composting or lime mixing facilities should have a 100 m buffer distance from
residences and should have opportunities for screening.

7.0

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives include technical alternatives (treatment), septage delivery methods (public/private) and
alternative relating to service area. These are further described below.
7.1

Do Nothing

The do nothing alternative is always useful for consideration, if only to provide justification for doing
something. A review of current legislation does not indicate a clear responsibility for municipalities to
deal with private septage at this time. However, it is also clear that in the not distant future there will be
regulatory changes which will affect municipalities. By undertaking this study, the Townships of North
Frontenac and Addington Highlands are being proactive in looking at options for future septage
management. While doing nothing may not be a viable option at present, having a plan in place for when
regulations are implemented is a wise choice.
It should be noted that part of the Townships septage is being brought to a private Ministry approved
treatment lagoon. This should also be considered acceptable treatment under the new regulation when it
comes out. If and when the municipality is required to take more responsibility for septage management,
this arrangement could become more formalized as a public/private sector agreement.
7.2

Haul to Outside Municipal Treatment Facilities

At this time, Kingston and Ottawa are the only municipalities willing to accept septage from outside their
municipal boundaries. Agreements could be sought with these municipalities to receive septage from the
Townships for a given price and length of time. This alternative has not been recommended because of
long-term higher costs than a local solution, and uncertainties regarding Kingston or Ottawas
willingness to enter into a long term commitment.
7.3

Communal Lime Stabilization facility

At a communal lime stabilization facility, haulers would deposit septage and it would be thoroughly
mixed with lime to reach a pH of 12. The septage would be maintained at this pH for at least 30 minutes
to kill off pathogens, then transferred to a holding facility. Treated septage would then be removed and
land applied. The facility could be operated with private haulers doing pumpouts and land application, or

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

18

the Township could take over these responsibilities as well. Advantages of this alternative would be
municipal control over the degree of septage treatment and a reduction in pathogens. Disadvantages
would be requirement to construct a municipal facility with associated approvals, and the requirement for
some degree of skilled operation. If lime stabilization is the preferred choice for treatment, lime slurry
could also be added to pumper trucks for a much lower cost. More information is required to estimate
costs for this option.
7.4

Lime Stabilization in the Pumper Truck

On the surface, this is the most simple and cost effective method. A lime slurry is added to septage in the
pumper truck via truck ports, or is bled in during the pumpout. The mixture is held at pH 12 for at
least 30 minutes; then it can be land applied. Time will tell whether this method will be considered
acceptable by the Ministry of the Environment. If the municipality is made to take greater responsibility
for septage, they may prefer to oversee hauling operations and lime stabilization.
7.5

Stabilization Lagoon

Stabilization lagoons are the most proven non-mechanical septage treatment system in Ontario. They do
have a significant land requirement because of associated buffer zones, but lagoons treat wastewater very
effectively with no chemical addition, no power requirements and little operator attention. Options for
release of lagoon content include continuous discharge, seasonal discharge and pumpout for land
application.
Adding a wetland as a polishing step following lagoon treatment can reduce odours and improve effluent
quality. A wetland component should be considered if the lagoon alternative is chosen.
The Tamworth hauler expressed an interest in selling his site to the municipalities. He maintained that
his site has an excellent natural liner, it has room for additional cells or wetland, and he has never
received an odour complaint. If the advantages of this existing site have been accurately represented and
difficulties are encountered finding a suitable site in the Townships, haulage to Tamworth could be
considered.
7.6

Mechanical Treatment Systems

Mechanical systems have the advantages of lower land requirements and reduced odours compared to
lagoons, but are more expensive to build and operate. This option does not appear feasible for a small
operation such as would be required for North Frontenac and Addington Highlands Townships. The
treatment would be similar to that provided in Kingston and Ottawa.
7.7

Landfilling of Septage

Liquid septage must be dewatered before it can be disposed of in landfill. Under some circumstances, it
may be possible to obtain approval to landfill raw (not dewatered) septage, but if this is done, the septage
is not a cover material and actually necessitates greater use of periodic cover. We have considered the
dewatering followed by mixing with landfill cover option.
Numerous methods exist for dewatering, including methods which allow infiltration into the ground and
those that dont. Dewatering with infiltration would likely require licensing of the infiltration area as a
waste disposal area, reducing the space available for landfilling of domestic waste. More detailed
hydrogeological reviews, engineering fees and correspondence with the Ministry of the Environment
would also be required. An alternative which does not allow infiltration will be less costly. For costing

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

19

purposes, we have assumed construction of concrete pad which will allow spreading of a six-inch layer
of septage. We have allowed enough surface area to store a years worth of septage, to allow some
winter storage and flexibility to accommodate wet weather periods.
An amendment to the landfill sites Certificate of Approval would be required to allow disposal of
dewatered septage. Ministry of the Environment amendment costs vary based on the size of the site (as
defined by the sites ultimate capacity. It is not known at this time which site would be selected for this
use; however, seven of the Township of North Frontenacs eight waste disposal sites have capacities
under 40,000 m3. We have assumed for the estimation of approval costs that a site with capacity under
40,000 m3 would be the site used for septage dewatering and disposal.
A hydrogeological review is also required for submission of an application for amendment to a
Certificate of Approval. The cost of a one-time hydrogeological assessment has been included in the
costing for this alternative, but it should be noted that once a new Certificate of Approval is issued,
ongoing hydrogeological monitoring is likely to be included as a condition on it. This will incur an
annual expense to the Townships. This cost may have been incurred anyway, as part of waste disposal
site management. A site should be chosen where there is intent to implement a hydrogeological
assessment program.
If the Townships wished to use more than one site for disposal, an amendment would be required to each
sites Certificate of Approval to allow this use.
In summary, advantages of this alternative include:
Potentially low cost
Fewer public concerns with respect to spreading on agricultural land
Disadvantages of septage landfilling are:
Loss of nutrients in septage which could be beneficially reused
Dewatering can be problematic in cold climate & wet weather
Land requirement
Odours
7.8

Cost Estimates

Table 7.1 on the following page shows approximate estimated costs for four of the study alternatives.
Alternatives deemed unfeasible were not costed.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

Table 7.1: Estimated Septage Hauling, Treatment and Disposal Costs

20

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

8.0

21

RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS

The Townships are faced with numerous options for septage management, and currently there is a lack of
direction from the Ministry of the Environment when it comes to level of municipal responsibility,
timelines and treatment. The survey of adjacent municipalities shows a range of attitudes toward septage
management issues, from municipalities who are proactively constructing septage receiving facilities, to
municipalities who are carrying out their own septage management studies, to municipalities who are
waiting for more direction from government before taking any action. A combination of wait-and see
and action will produce a balance between preparedness and economy. The Townships should
investigate potential sites for a stabilization lagoon or lime facility while waiting for regulations to be put
in place.
Alternatives that we would recommend for further consideration include:

Lime Stabilization in the Pumper Truck (if acceptable to MOE)

Communal Lime Stabilization facility
Stabilization Lagoon System
Drying followed by mixing with landfill cover

With respect to collaboration, it makes economic sense to enter into agreements with other municipalities
within a 60 km radius, providing that there is capability to provide the treatment capacity. In the case of
a lagoon, this mean ensuring that enough land area is available for the full treatment capacity.
Several other municipalities are currently undertaking septage management studies; where possible, these
should be reviewed when they are complete. Keeping abreast of regulatory changes and general
developments in septage management will ensure that the Townships are prepared to react quickly to
changes.

Septage Feasibility Study

Townships of North Frontenac and Addington Highlands

9.0

22

REFERENCES
1.

MOE septage website

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/septage/septage.htm

2.

Canadian Environmental Law Association website

http://www.cela.ca/faq/cltn_detail.shtml?x=1501#1606

3.

Community Wastewater Systems, PWGSC INAC, October 2000

http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/si/inac/content/docs_technical-e.html

4.

Free Water Surface Wetlands Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, US-EPA, September
2000

5.

Wetlands: Subsurface Flow Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, US-EPA, September 2000

6.

Facultative Lagoons Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, US-EPA, September 2000

7.

Grey County Septage Management Study, Henderson Paddon & Associates Limited, March
2004
http://www.hp.on.ca/whatsnew/Septage%20Rept_%20Final.pdf

E:\PROJECTS\14-11983 Septage Feasibility Study for NF\NF Septage Report.doc

APPENDIX A
TERMS OF REFERENCE

APPENDIX B
MOE Application for Approval of
Hauled Sewage (septage), Sewage Biosolids
and Other Wastes (EPA s.27)