Municipality of Dysart et al

Transcription

1 Municipality of Dysart et al P.O. Box 389, 135 Maple Avenue, Haliburton, Ontario K0M 1S0 Murray G. Fearrey Reeve Tamara J. Wilbee C.A.O. The Heart of the Highlands To: From: Reeve Fearrey and Members of Council Brian Nicholson, Director of Public Works Date: September 14, 2015 Re: Septage Feasibility Study Recommendation: Background: For discussion and staff direction. As part of the 2015 budget a request was granted to have a feasibility study conducted by ASI Water, who are the current operators of our sewage system. The study has now been completed giving the Municipality 3 potential options to pursue to allow us to handle hauled septage within the Municipality. Some items to be considered with the options being presented are: 1. Land area required for operation 2. Set back requirements 3. Hydrogeological requirements 4. Disposal of end product 5. Labour to operate 6. Licencing 7. Zoning 8. Does operation require hydro ( how far to hydro) Summary: Therefore, in order for staff to proceed, Council will need to consider which of the three options to handle hauled septage they wish to proceed with. Following that decision, staff will then proceed with finding the appropriate municipal lands and Council will need to include in the 2016 budget the required funds to proceed with the Hydrogeological studies and Environmental approvals. Financial Implications: Unknown Attachments: ASI Water Report Project EH Septage Feasibility Study dated September 1, 2015

2 REPORT Submitted to MUNICIPALITY OF DYSART ET AL HALIBURTON, ONTARIO September 1, 2015 Septage Feasibility Study ASI Water Project EH14-045

3 Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION SEPTAGE INFORMATION Current Status of Septage Disposal SEPTAGE RECEIVING/TREATMENT OPTIONS Septage Receiving at Surrounding Municipalities Septage Receiving at Existing WWTP (Dysart) Loading Options Loading Rate Independent Septage Handling Facility Lime Stabilization Aerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion Composting Dewatering Trenches Geotubes Lagoon Treatment Pre-treatment Chemical Enhanced Separation COST OF INDEPENDENT SEPTAGE TREATMENT DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY REFERENCE...16 List of Figures Figure 1: Dysart Average Annualized Influent Sewage Flows... 7 Figure 2: Rates of Equalized Septage Addition (EPA, 1984)... 8 List of Tables Table 1: Population Data... 2 Table 2: Estimates of Generated Septage Volumes... 2 Table 3: Characteristics of Septage and Domestic Sewage... 3 Table 4: Responses from Municipal Staff Contacted... 4 i

4 Table 5: Estimated Haulage Cost to Orillia... 5 Table 6: Septage Addition to WWTP Options... 6 Table 7: Combined Influent Concentration... 8 Table 8: Order-of-Magnitude Cost Summary...13 Table 9: Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Treatment Processes...14 List of Appendices Appendix 1: JWC Honey Monster ii

5 REPORT MUNICIPALITY OF DYSART ET AL Haliburton, Ontario Septage Feasibility Study ASI Water Project No. EH September 1, BACKGROUND The Municipality of Dysart (Dysart) has retained ASI Water (ASI) to complete a high level feasibility assessment of potential septage receiving and handling options available. Currently, untreated septage is directly applied to agriculture land; however, septage has been identified as a threat of potential concern (2004) by the Technical Expert Committee (reporting to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, MOECC). Under the recent nutrient management initiatives, the government of Ontario is planning to ban land spreading of holding tank and septic tank wastes. As it is a municipality s responsibility to handle and treat wastewater, and septage must be handled via reserve capacity within the municipal wastewater treatment system as a requirement for the approval of development requiring on-site wastewater management, potential options need to be assessed to determine the most feasible and reasonable solution. Please be aware the selection of the preferred solution, and completion of detailed design for the ultimate system, will require Dysart to proceed with a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which is considered separate from the present work; although, the options presented herein will form part of the selection and evaluation of alternatives under the EA approach. This report will identify the following: Collection, storage and pumping capacity in Dysart and nearby municipal systems; Treatment alternatives including available loading of municipal treatment plants, stabilization lagoons, mechanical, biological and chemical treatment plants with alternatives for solids and liquids, and dewatering/stabilization and disposal systems; Collection, transportation and disposal alternatives; Estimated capital and operational cost of the options; and, A preferred solution based on the criteria. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Dysart covers an area of approximately 1,480 square kilometers in Haliburton County, Central Ontario. The municipality is primarily rural with one (1) sewage treatment plant that services the village of Haliburton.

6 Residents outside of Haliburton are serviced by private on-site wastewater systems, primarily septic tanks with leaching beds or holding tanks. Table 1 shows published and estimated population data for the Municipality of Dysart et al. Table 1: Population Data 2011 Permanent Population Households Estimated Seasonal + Permanent Population* Estimated Seasonal Population Estimated Seasonal Households Dysart et al 5,966 7,093 17,058 11,092 4,437 *Estimate assumes 2.4 persons per household. - Data was retrieved from Statistics Canada 2011 Census. Dysart has a large seasonal population as evidenced by the large number of households. The exact septage volumes produced annually in the Municipality of Dysart are unknown and have been estimated based on the number of households as seen in Table 2. Table 2: Estimates of Generated Septage Volumes Dysart Households Volume Pumped Out Annual Pick-up Frequency Total # Pump- Outs/year Volume Pumped per Year (l/yr) (gal/yr) (m 3 /yr) permanent 2,656 3, ,390, ,477 2,390 seasonal 4,437 3, ,331, ,639 1,331 Totals per Year 3,721, ,116 3,722 Totals per Day 10,196 2, *Minimum tank volume by OBC is 3600L; this was used as an average tank volume. *Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre recommends pumping a septic tank every 3 to 5 years. *Seasonal households assumed to have pump-outs at 1/3 frequency of permanent residents. The MOECC provided volumetric figures for the total volume hauled or land disposal - approximately 10,000 m 3 /year, which is comparable to the estimated volume presented in Table 2. Discussion with Dysart staff suggest an additional 25% of the MOECC total may be present as unrecorded hauled waste which brings the average volume per year to 12,500 m 3 /year (23.8 l/min as additional Average Daily Flow in a municipal treatment system). 3.0 SEPTAGE INFORMATION Domestic septage is defined as a liquid or solid material removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet or similar system that receives only domestic sewage. Table 3 lists the characteristics of septage from Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal EPA-625/

7 Table 3: Characteristics of Septage and Domestic Sewage Parameter Septage Concentration EPA Mean Value (mg/l)* 3 Typical Untreated Medium Strength Domestic Sewage (mg/l)** TS 38, TSS 13, VSS 8, BOD 5 5, COD 42, TKN NH 3 -N TP Grease 9, ph *EPA-625/ Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal **Metcalf and Eddy (2003) Domestic septage has very high suspended solids and organic and nutrient content, and imposes additional organic and solids loading on municipal wastewater treatment systems. If septage is not handled and disposed of properly, it can degrade the environment and might threaten drinking water resources. 3.1 Current Status of Septage Disposal Historically, wastes from private sewage systems have been managed exclusively by private service providers. These service providers arrange for the pumping out of the tanks, and for the transportation and disposal of the wastewaters and solids. The traditional method of septage disposal practiced by private service providers has been to spread the waste on the surface of the ground directly from the vehicle; however, as part of the nutrient management initiatives, the MOECC is committed to phasing out direct land application of untreated septage (land application of treated, and stabilized solids is permitted). Where there are no capacity restrictions in municipal systems septage is often hauled to sewage treatment plants for co-treatment with domestic sewage. The quantity of septage that may be treated at the sewage plant is normally limited by the available treatment capacity of the receiving plants as a result of the highly concentrated solids and organic material contents in some septage, small volumes can impose a significant shock load on the plant and may result in treatment process upsets. Independent septage treatment plants are designed exclusively for treating septage and have unit processes capable of handling both the liquid and solids portion of septage. Typical facilities

8 for septage treatment are stabilization lagoon, anaerobic and aerobic digester, composting, and biological and chemical treatment. 4.0 SEPTAGE RECEIVING/TREATMENT OPTIONS 4.1 Septage Receiving at Surrounding Municipalities Many small plants are not designed to handle septage, which is higher strength and nutrient loadings (section 3.0). Septage receiving and blending equipment are normally designed specifically for treatment plants based on the volumes of material expected and frequency of delivery. Septage handling facilities are often the source of nuisance odours, often cited as a primary reason for not accepting septage. Three (3) nearby municipalities were contacted and questioned regarding their septage management strategies. The responses received are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Responses from Municipal Staff Contacted Willing to Municipality Accept Outside Comments Septage? Muskoka No The municipality of Muskoka has nine (9) septage receiving facilities to handle septage generated in their municipal boundaries. The current Certificate of Approval does not allow them to receive septage from outside the municipality. Orillia Yes Orillia has a septage receiving facility capable of receiving 90 m 3 /hr. They are currently not running at 100% capacity and have the ability to receive additional septage. It is located a significant distance from the municipality and haulage costs, as well as long term sustainability, will be key factors along with the disposal fees. Madawaska Valley No, plant is currently not operational They have built a septage treatment plant, but it is currently not in use. From discussions with Brent Burgin, Superintendent of Pollution Control, the Wastewater Treatment Plant in Orillia is operating at approximately 55% of their design capacity (27,300 m 3 /day at 55% ~ 15,015 m 3 /day) and less than 1% of the treatment capacity is dedicated to hauled septage (approximately 273 m 3 /day or ~ 190 l/min). The septage receiving facility has the capability to receive up to 90 m 3 /hr at present and based on this estimate is only receiving 13% of the capacity. With the addition of Dysart s hauled septage (34.25 m 3 /day) the septage receiving facility would be operating at 51% capacity. 4

9 Therefore, Orillia would be able to handle all of the septage from Dysart provided their wastewater treatment plant can handle the additional nutrient loading. Table 5 outlines the estimated cost to haul septage to Orillia. Table 5: Estimated Haulage Cost to Orillia Item Value Unit Annual Septage Number of Truck Loads (est. 30 m 3 /truck 12,500 m 3 /year 404 per year Tipping Fee $ per cubic meter (m 3 ) Haulage Fee $ per truck Total Cost for Tipping Total Cost for Haulage TOTAL $ 375, per year $ 303, per year $ 678, per year 4.2 Septage Receiving at Existing WWTP (Dysart) The MOECC Sewage Plant Design Guidelines (2008) discusses co-treatment of septage with municipal sanitary wastewater in Chapter 19. Comparable design considerations, influent characteristics and treatment options are outlined when looking at US EPA documents and manuals. Receipt and treatment of septage directly at a WWTP will require capital upgrades for the construction of a dedicated septage receiving station that shall include, among other features: Hard surfaced truck unloading area, with spill containment and sump with drain; Flexible connection to permit various truck styles to unload; Solids screening and grit removal (if fed after primary treatment); Metering and billing station; Odour control equipment; Truck wash down area; and, Variable rate pumping to permit metered feeding of septage based on strength and plant process robustness at time of receipt Loading Options There are three (3) typical ways septage can be added to an existing WWTP as outlined in Table 6. 5

10 Table 6: Septage Addition to WWTP Options Advantages Addition to an upstream Provides dilution before sewer manhole entering the treatment plant Economical due to a very simple receiving station design Addition to plant headworks Relatively simple receiving station design Allows the wastewater treatment plant operators to control the discharge into the plant Addition to sludge handling process Reduces loading to the headworks Eliminates the potential to affect effluent quality Disadvantages Only feasible with large sewers and treatment plants Grit and debris can accumulate in the sewer Can cause odours near the receiving manhole May require upgrades to the solids handling system at the WWTP May require upgrades to plant feeding system at the WWTP Can adversely affect the sludge treatment processes May cause clogging of the pipes and increase wear on the pumps if the septage is not screened and de-gritted before addition Loading Rate The Municipality of Dysart has a WWTP operated under Certificate of Approval (CofA) No EENZ5 with a rated capacity of an average day flow of 1,575 m 3 /day. Reviewing operational data from the past four (4) years, the treatment plant currently operates at approximately 56% of the overall design capacity (Figure 1: Dysart Average Annualized Influent Sewage Flows Figure 1). 6

11 Average Flow (m 3 /day) Dysart Average Annualized Flows Year Average Flow Design Flow Figure 1: Dysart Average Annualized Influent Sewage Flows Due to the high strength of septage, the EPA s Septage Treatment and Disposal Handbook (1984) developed a relationship between plant capacity and rates of septage addition. From Figure 2, at 56% plant capacity, the amount of septage that can be added with minimal impact on the treatment plant is approximately 0.55% of the overall plant design, or 8.66 m 3 /day (6.01 L/min). 7

12 Figure 2: Rates of Equalized Septage Addition (EPA, 1984) Using these flow rates, an adjusted influent concentration could be calculated to determine the increased nutrient loading that the plant could experience from septage addition. Table 7: Combined Influent Concentration Parameter 2014 Average Average Septage Combined Influent Concentration (mg/l) Concentration (mg/l) Concentration (mg/l) CBOD , TSS , TAN TKN TP In 2014, the WWTP did not experience any exceedances in the average annual loading. There were nine (9) instances where phosphorus concentrations exceeded the effluent objectives as outlined in their C of A #8325-6EENZ5; however, the discharge did not exceed annual loading limits. The addition of septage to the WWTP will increase phosphorus in the influent, resulting in a higher chemical usage to remove phosphorus from the effluent and a likely increase in the likelihood of an effluent phosphorus exceedance. During periods with high hydraulic load on the plant (rainfall/infiltration) septage should not be added because it may cause a hydraulic or organic overload of the WWTP. 8

13 Adding septage to the existing WWTP may not be the most desirable option - the WWTP at present flows can only handle approximately 25% of the total septage produced in the municipality, thus still requiring an alternative method for treatment of the residual septage volume. 4.3 Independent Septage Handling Facility Establishing an independent septage handling facility will have high initial capital costs for land acquisition, receiving station and treatment system development, however, it will have a shorter payback period and will become more economically viable over time because it can operate throughout the winter months. Several different options for receiving and treating septage should be considered, as discussed in the following sections. Practical limitations, capital equipment procurement and long-term operations and maintenance obligations render impractical several technologies, including thermal digesters, dedicated stand-alone aerobic or anaerobic digesters and packaged mechanical treatment plants. Lower capital and operating cost, proven technologies considered in this preliminary review include stabilization lagoons, dewatering trenches and geotube dewatering systems. The septage may also be dewatered, with the centrate or supernate returned to the WWTP for treatment, and the solids processed separately. The residual solids produced from dewatering of septage are characterized by total solids content of 5 to 7 %, and may be stabilized by alkali (lime stabilization), aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion or composting. After stabilization, the residuals can be applied to land as a soil amendment Lime Stabilization Lime or other alkaline material is added to the sludge that is from septage solids separation to raise the ph of the sludge to 12 or higher, and without the addition of more alkali, the ph shall remain at 12 or higher for 30 minutes. The treated septage sludge can be applied to agriculture land with the restrictions outlined in the Regulations. Another lime stabilization process is called high temperature alkaline stabilization (N-Viro Process or similar). The ph of the septage sludge is raised to above 12 and remains there for 72 hours; the temperature of the treated septage sludge is also raised above 52 degrees Celsius for 12 hours or longer during the period that the ph is above 12. At the end of the 72 hours period the stabilized sludge is air dried to achieve a percent solids in the septage sludge greater than 50 percent. Usually, the treated septage sludge has a market value and can be sold in bags or bulk, and can be applied to land as soil amendments Aerobic Digestion Septage sludge is placed in an open tank and agitated with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions for a specific mean cell residence time at a specific temperature. Values for the mean cell residence time and temperature shall be between 40 days at 20 degrees Celsius and 60 days at 15 degrees Celsius. The aerobic digested septage sludge can be applied to agriculture land with the restrictions outlined in the Regulations. 9

14 Anaerobic Digestion Septage sludge is treated in an enclosed vessel in the absence of air for a specific mean cell residence time at a specific temperature. Values for the mean cell residence time and temperature shall be between 15 days at 35 to 55 degrees Celsius and 60 days at 20 degrees Celsius. The anaerobic digested septage sludge can be applied to agriculture land with the restrictions outlined in the Regulations Composting Sludge from septage separation is mixed with a bulking agent (e.g. wood chips, sawdust) and aerated mechanically or by turning. Biological activity generates temperatures that are sufficiently high to destroy pathogens. The composting process converts septage into a stable, humus material that can be used as a soil amendment. Depended on the temperature of the sludge inside the compost vessel, pile or windrow, the final soil amendment can be land applied in accordance with the Regulations Dewatering Trenches Dewatering trenches are long, narrow trenches that are excavated in permeable soils for the purpose of dewatering septage before final disposal. Dewatering trenches allow liquid-solids separation by controlled percolation or absorption into the surrounding soil, reducing the volume of septage before final disposal. Pre-screening of the septage is required before placing in the trench to ensure any nonbiodegradable objects are removed for the trench to operate properly. The dewatered septage that settles in the trenches should be removed on a regular basis and disposed of at an approved waste disposal site or post-processed for land application as outlined above. The open trench surface can lead to odour complaints, and attract pests and vermin. Designs must include measures to address these concerns going forward. Dewatering trenches normally require a provisional ECA for a waste disposal site, opposed to lagoons which are regulated under the OWRA (s.53 Sewage Works). Note under pending waste management regulations, there is a directive to reduce (or eliminate) the disposal of waste organic material in landfills. It may become a requirement in future to provide additional conditioning and/or blending/composting of settled solids for land application Geotubes A comparable approach to dewatering trenches is the use of geotubes for the stabilization and dewatering of septage solids. Geotubes are fabricated from permeable, or semi-permeable geotextiles, with the septage blended with polymers or other stabilizing agents to improve dewatering, and pumped into the tubes for treatment. 10

15 Geotube installations may be subject to EPA s.27 (waste disposal) ECA, and may require an s.53 OWRA approval for handling the filtrate if directed to adjacent, new treatment facilities. The tubes are arranged on a dewatering pad, with filtrate effluent collected and conveyed for further treatment. The solids remain in the tubes, typically for eight (8) months or longer, and preferably over winter (the freeze/thaw cycle aids in improving liquid-solids separation) after which the tubes are cut open and the residual solids disposed of, typically as a soil amendment under the Regulations. Pilot testing of the technology was carried out in the town of Eganville, Ontario from , with the results clearly demonstrating the successful treatment and use of the residual solids as a soil amendment. The technology was also put forth as an option to be considered by council in the municipality of North Grenville in 2013/14 for the long term management of municipal septage. The filtrate may present odour concerns, and designs must consider odour mitigation measures going forward Lagoon Treatment Stabilization lagoons are widely used in North America to treat septage waste. They usually consist of a series of different types of lagoons. Treatment starts with an anaerobic lagoon as pre-treatment followed by a facultative lagoon to further reduce the organic contents (BOD and ammonia). A second aerobic lagoon may be required to polish the effluent to meet discharge limits. Alum or ferric chloride are often used to reduce the phosphorus content in the effluent, and disinfection facilities may be required to inactivate pathogens. Lagoons will require an ECA under s.5 of the OWRA (municipal sewage works). The sludge that settles in the lagoons especially in the anaerobic and facultative lagoons needs periodic removal, as well as surface scum, oil and grease. These residuals can either be disposed into a landfill or be land applied after further treatment as outlined above (or with postprocessing in geotubes). The open lagoon surfaces can lead to odour complaints, and attract pests and vermin. Designs must include measures to address these concerns going forward. 4.4 Pre-treatment A pre-treatment system will be required for both the dewatering trench and lagoon systems, including a receiving station design that would allow septage from a hauler to be gravity fed into the station where the pre-treatment facilities are located. Pre-treatment systems typically consist of a packaged septage receiving station with screening, screen washing, dewatering, aeration, grit removal, washing, dewatering and scum, oil and grease removal. Appendix 1 shows a JWC Honey Monster packaged pre-treatment system for septage receiving. 11

16 Geotube systems are typically provided with comparable pre-treatment by the system provider in a pre-engineered package format Chemical Enhanced Separation Chemical enhanced separation can be provided after the screening system, and comes standard with a geotube system. These systems normally comprise a chemical mixing tank, a flocculation tank and a clarifier combination with chemical storage and feeding system. 5.0 COST OF INDEPENDENT SEPTAGE TREATMENT Independent septage treatment plants should be designed to treat a maximum of 50 to 60 m 3 /d and operate year round. The lowest capital cost options are those which do not required substantial new investment in equipment and/or facilities to provide the required treatment. Dewatering trenches and/or geotube installations require comparably smaller land area than stabilization lagoons. The geotube installation will require additional filtrate collection and treatment, while the dewatering trenches do not. The geotube solids do not require additional solids treatment prior to use as a soil amendment, where the dewatered solids in the trenches may require additional digestion, composting or stabilization. Lagoons require larger land area than either trenches or geotubes, and will require an ECA for discharge of treated effluent. The solids may require additional stabilization or post-processing prior to use as a soil amendment or disposal in a landfill. Approval costs will be comparable for all three (3) options; however, design effort for lagoons-inseries will be higher than for trenches or geotube sites. Operating costs will be higher for aerated lagoons than the passive treatment provided by trenches and geotubes. The MOECC Draft Guide to Disposal of Septage in Dewatering Trenches (2008) suggests that trenches be no longer than 75 m, no wider than 3 m and no deeper than 1 m. Design storage shall be for no less than 6 months. Trenches constructed in well-drained soils (percolation rate of 1 to 10 min/cm) shall be able to handle a maximum weekly volume of 14,340 L (14.34 m) at maximum dimensions, with a maximum annual loading of 884 m 3. The total annual septage volume estimated for Dysart is 10,000 to 12,500 m 3, and will require a total of 12 to 15 individual trenches IF constructed in well-drained soil (more if percolation times are greater than 10 min/cm). 12

17 Trenches must not be used in consecutive seasons, and require a minimum of 12 months recovery between applications. This restriction indicates a minimum of two (2) and preferably three (3) sets of trenches should be provided to meet the municipal requirements. The site must meet all applicable set back restrictions (groundwater table and property boundaries), and comply with odour restrictions. Geotube arrangements normally require a compacted, level area with sloped drainage and a sump to capture and convey the effluent for further treatment; however, they are not subjected to the same recuperation time as disposal trenches. Geotube costing, including polymer addition system, pumping and the geotubes is approximately $60 to $75 per m 3 sludge at 3 5wt% solids. The tubes are not reusable and once cut may be disposed of or used for alternate purposes (geotextile underlay for roads/paths, etc.). The work is most often contracted out to an independent firm or licensed on an annual basis to the municipality. There is insufficient technical information available to complete a detailed, accurate cost comparison of the three (3) top options (lagoons, dewatering trenches and geotubes); however, general estimated range and order-of-magnitude costs are provided below for consideration. Table 8: Order-of-Magnitude Cost Summary Item Dewatering Geotube Trenches Dewatering Lagoon Treatment Pre-treatment $ 200,000 $200,000 $ 200,000 Enhanced Separation $ 250, Disposables 1 2 $600,000/yr 1 Trench/Lagoon Construction3 $ 500,000 $250,000 $ 750,000 Contingency (10%) $190,000 $220,000 Engineering (12%) $228,000 4 $175,000 $264,000 Total Cost $2,318,000 $2,684,000 1 Annual solids removal and disposal costs 2 Annual geotube estimated costs, exclusive of filtrate treatment 3 Excludes cost of land acquisition, environmental approvals and additional studies 4 Costs for design of laydown area, filtrate collection and pumping. 13

18 6.0 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Several different options for septage treatment reviewed to manage the septage produced in the Municipality of Dysart. This review constitutes a preliminary/ high level overview, and identified a smaller number of options that should be investigated in more detail in the context of a Municipal Class EA to identify and secure the preferred path forward for Dysart. The option to send the septage to Orillia would be very costly to either the residents or municipality dependent on who will be covering the cost of this option. This option may also not be acceptable under the Provincial planning guidelines which require a municipality to account for residential septage management in uncommitted WWTP capacity or local alternative. The addition of septage to the Haliburton Wastewater Treatment Plant is also not a preferable option due to its ability to accept and treat only 25% of the septage generated in the municipality. The option for an independent septage treatment facility is the more preferable option utilizing either dewatering trenches, geotubes or stabilization lagoon treatment. Table 9 compares the advantages and disadvantages of the three (3) treatment processes considered. Table 9: Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Treatment Processes Treatment Process Advantages Disadvantages Dewatering Trenches Easy to install, operate Soils may not be suitable. and maintain Low capital and operating costs Needs hydrogeological or geotechnical investigation and design Accepted and proven More likely to infiltrate technology commonly in groundwater use in northern Provides little treatment; is communities mainly volume reduction Requires Waste Disposal ECA Potential odour concerns May require land acquisition Lagoon Treatment Can provide an advanced level of treatment Proven and acceptable treatment based on sitespecific design considerations Less likely to infiltrate the water table unless a percolation pond is used Requires a large area of land Requires OWRA s.53 ECA Requires significant engineering design effort, ongoing operations costs Potential odour concerns 14

19 Geotubes Low capital and operating costs Requires less land than lagoons, comparable to dewatering trenches Product is a stabilized solids suitable for land application Can be outsourced on an annual or contract term basis May be locate at existing WWTP if sufficient area is available to reduce filtrate treatment costs Filtrate requires collection and treatment May require additional ECAs Requires site preparation and laydown area, soils assessment Although Table 9 summarized the advantages and disadvantages of the three treatment technologies, the final selection of the treatment process for an independent septage treatment plant highly depends on the site specifications and regulations which MOE is going to promulgate. 15

20 7.0 REFERENCE US. EPA (1984) Handbook of Septage Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/ US. EPA (1994) Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/R-94/002 TSH (2005) Townships of North Frontenac & Addington Highlands Septage Feasibility Study Ministry of the Environment and Climate Chane (MOECC) (2008) Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. PIBS 6879, ISBN MOECC (2008) Draft Guide to Disposal of Septage in Dewatering Trenches. Draft for EBR Consultation Only. ASI Group Ltd. (2005) Septage Treatment Technology Review. Internal project E

21 Appendix 1: JWC Honey Monster

22 SRS-09 This Honey Does! Honey Monster Septage Receiving System Overview The automated Honey Monster septage receiving system, based on our proven Auger Monster screen, allows cleaner handling of septage truck waste by reducing and separating unwanted solids such as rocks, rags, clothing, plastics and other troublesome trash. The unique combination of grinding, solids removal, washing and dewatering allows a typical septage truck to unload in 5 to 15 minutes. The system is completely enclosed to ensure safety, vector control and to capture foul odors. The optional MonsterTrack metering and control system uses a flow meter to track septage and provide accurate billing data for the facility and a receipt for the hauler. Features & Benefits Advanced Screening and Dewatering Auger Monster screen with 1/4 (6mm) perforations removes unwanted solids and trash Perf screen captures far more than bar screens Patented dual compartment compaction zone provides significant additional dewatering Easy Access, Pivoted Auger The auger is mounted to a pivot support for easy inspections and removal A forklift or crane can lift and swivel the screening trough and auger out of the tank Dual Shafted Grinder Muffin Monster grinder maximizes surface area of solids for better washing and compacting Triple-manifold Wash Water System Washes soft organics off of captured solids Ensures optimal throughput while minimizing odors High Level Ultrasonic Sensor Regulates plug valve for optimum performance Baffles prevent overflow conditions Optional MonsterTrack System Records driver information and measures flow data PIN or card access for security Printed transaction receipts Data stored on compact flash card Ethernet/SCADA connection capable Exclusive tilt and swivel auger. Track loads with MonsterTrack!

23 Honey Monster Septage Receiving System Operation 1) Haulers connect to the cam lock inlet and start the flow of septage which first passes through the rock trap. SRS-09 1 Multiple piping configurations available to suit your location. Contact the factory for more information Drain Water & Septage 6 Discharge of captured solids 2) Muffin Monster grinds-up solids. 3) Ultrasonic level sensor and modulating plug valve regulate flow. 4) If the MonsterTrack option is installed, the flow meter sends data to the controller. 5) Septage and solids now enter the perf screening trough. Spray wash cleans the solids and keeps the screen clear. 6) The unwanted solids are captured by the inclined auger screen and transported to the compaction zone for additional dewatering before being discharged. 7) The screened septage now safely flows into the wastewater treatment plant. Options 142-3/8 (3616) 298 (7569) 48-1/8 (1223) Macho Monster grinder for higher-flows 6 (150mm) inlet and pipeline Cold weather protection system Discharge bagger ph and conductivity sensing loop 316 stainless steel pipe and tank 4 (100) CAM Lock Connector 35-13/16 (910) Muffin Monster Rock Trap Actuated Plug Valve Flow Meter Spray wash Inlet Pivot Support 12 (305) Pipe Outlet 132-1/4 (3360) Materials of Construction Tank, Piping & Support: 304 stainless steel Auger Assembly: Casings and trough are 304ss; rotor is 480mm Ø alloy steel Grinder Housing: ductile iron housings ASTM A Cutters: 8620 carburized alloy steel, hardened to Rockwell C Mechanical Seal Faces: Tungsten carbide Model Screen Diameter Auger Motor Screenings Capacities Maximum Flow SRS3235-XE 19 (480mm) 2 HP (1.5 kw) 90 ft 3 /h (2.55 m 3 /h) Up to 1,000 GPM (227 m 3 /h)* Headquarters 290 Paularino Ave. Costa Mesa, CA USA Toll Free: (800) Phone: (949) Fax: (949) jwce@jwce.com Western Product Support 2600 S. Garnsey St. Santa Ana, CA 92707, USA Toll Free: (800) Phone: (949) Fax: (714) jwce@jwce.com Eastern Product Support 4485 Commerce Dr, Ste 109 Buford, GA 30518, USA Toll Free: (800) Phone: (770) Fax: (770) jwce@jwce.com JWC Environmental. JWC Santa Ana, CA is registered by UL to ISO9001:2000 File #A JWCI Congleton, UK is registered by QAS to ISO9001:2008 File #A U.S. patents apply: 4,919,346; 5,060,872; 5,320,286; 5,333,801; 5,354,004; 5,478,020; 5,505,388; 5,593,100; 6,176,443; 6,332,984; 7,073,433; 7,080,650; 7,081,171; 7,086,405; RE37,550E; RE37,349E; RE40,422; RE39,948E. Addtl patents pending. (SRSXE-EN-09)

24 UNCONTROLLED