(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Feasibility study of holding tanks and sewage haulage system for individual premises"

FEASIBILITY 
STUDY OF 
HOLDING TANKS 
AND SEWAGE 
HAULAGE 
SYSTEM FOR 
INDIVIDUAL 
PREMISES 



march, 1973 



i 



TD 
778 
F43 
1973 



0mm 




Ministry 
of the 
Environment 



The Honourable 
James A. C. Auld 
minister 

Everett Biggs 
deputy minister 



ano 



Copyright Provisions and Restrictions on Copying: 

This Ontario Ministry of the Environment work is protected by Crown 
copyright (unless otherwise indicated), which is held by the Queen's Printer 
for Ontario. It may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes If credit is 
given and Crown copyright is acknowledged. 

It may not be reproduced, in all or in part, part, for any commercial purpose 
except under a licence from the Queen's Printer for Ontario. 

For information on reproducing Government of Ontario works, please 
contact Service Ontario Publications at copyright (^Ontario, ca 



FEASIBILITY STUDY 

OF 

HOLDING TANKS AND 
SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 
FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 

FOR THE 

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 
PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 

MARCH, 1973 

Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment by 




JAMES F. MacLAREN LIMITED 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 
LONDON ■ TORONTO • WATERLOO - WINDSOR 



JAMES F. MACLAREN LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS 
320 ADELAIDE ST SOUTH, LONDON 42. ONTARIO (519)434-5711 

TORONTO • WINOSOH • MONCTON . MAiif Ax . OTTAWA . OVTRStAS' CABU lAVMAC 



1674 
March 28, 1973 



Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

1 St. Clair Avenue West, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

M4V 1K8 

Attention: Mr. W. M. Walkinshaw, P. Eng 
Director 



Feasibility Study of 
Holding Tanks and Sewage Haulage System 
for Individual Premises 

Gentlemen: 

In accordance with the authorization of the Ministry 
of the Environment by Purchase Order No. A444 dated 
November 6, 19 72, we have completed a comprehensive 
investigation into the feasibility of a sewage hold- 
ing tank and haulage system to service individual 
premises . 

Accordingly, we are pleased to submit the accompany- 
ing Report which contains a detailed account of our 
investigations, our conclusions, recommendations and 
relevant cost data, together with all supporting tables, 
figures and graphs. 

The terms of reference for this study, which are given 
in Appendix A to the Report, evolved from several 



,)AM( S F MacLAREN LIMITED 



-2- 

Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

March 28, 1973 

discussions with Ministry staff. The final scope of 
work as agreed upon on December 28, 1972, was intended 
to provide the Ministry with detailed information con- 
cerning the design, implementation, operation and regu- 
lation of a sewage disposal system for individual prem- 
ises which was based on the transport of sewage from a 
holding tank at a premises to a suitable disposal site. 

Because of limitations in the time available to complete 
the study and the seriousness of sewage disposal problems 
in certain areas of the Province, the scope of this study 
was restricted to a holding tank-haulage system only. 
Group sewage collection systems, based on gravity, pump- 
ing or vacuum, were not considered. In some cases such 
systems might be used to advantage to feed a common hold- 
ing tank and the basic parameters developed in this 
study could be extended to consider these alternatives. 

In conducting our studies, prime importance was attached 
to ensuring that the system evolved could be standardized 
to realize economic benefits in construction and compet- 
itive operation of the haulage service. Of equal im- 
portance was the requirement that the recommended system 
be as simple as possible in its operation yet contain 
sufficient checks to strongly discourage abuses of the 
system, such as dumping of holding tank contents at un- 
authorized locations or bypassing of the holding tank 
in disposing of sanitary wastes at individual premises. 

The recommended holding tank and sewage haulage system 
is shown on Figure A which is located in the pocket 



• _ 



JAMI S t Mai LARTN LIMITED 



-3- 



Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

March 28, 1973 

inside the back cover of the Report. This figure shows 
in diagrammatic form each of the components of the 
system as well as schematics of the mechanical, control 
and instrumentation features required. Each of the 
components of the system is described in detail in the 
Report. The contents of the Report have been arranged 
in a number of separate chapters, each of which deals 
with a particular aspect of our investigation. 

Chapter 1 introduces the subject and outlines the study 
approach. 

Chapter 2 discusses in detail each of the components 
of the holding tank and haulage system. These compon- 
ents are : 

i) the holding tank, 

ii) the sewage transfer mechanism, , lping, 
hose and fittings, 

iii) the transport vehicles which haul sewage 
from the holding tank to the disposal 
site, 

iv) the disposal of hauled sewage and odour 
control , 

v) the controls and instrumentation. 

Chapter 3 outlines a costing model to permit evaluation 
of the effect of the many variables on the cost of an 
overall haulage system. Also, the relationship between 
the control and instrumentation features of the proposed 



JAMl S r MacLAOEN LIMITED 



-4- 



Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

March 28, 1973 

system and the recommended accounting procedure is pre- 
sented. 

Chapter 4 contains a review of the existing legislation 
pertinent to control of pollution by private disposal 
methods and suggests the areas where existing legisla- 
tion can be amended to implement and enforce the recom- 
mended sewage haulage system. Also, the use of the cost 
model outlined in Chapter 3 is illustrated and a method 
for charging for sewage haulage service is suggested. 
A method by which the Province might subsidize the im- 
plementation of a sewage haulage system is also pre- 
sented. 

Several appendices to the Report follow Chapter 4. 
Appendix A presents the project plan and terms of 
reference for the study; Appendix B contains the back- 
ground data used to estimate waste water production 
rates; Appendix C contains a listing of all material 
and equipment suppliers contacted during the course 
of the study; Appendix D summarizes the results of the 
questionnaires regarding current sewage haulage prac- 
tice which were returned by sewage haulage contractors; 
Appendix E documents the basic cost data used to de- 
rive the cost model graphs; Appendix F summarizes the 
characteristics of several areas in which field studies 
could be carried out and a trial haulage system imple- 
mented; and Appendix G contains a list of the refer- 
ences consulted during the course of our investigations. 



I A fVI I l ; I r„1 /\ . I ARI ISJ L I (VI I T t Q 



-5- 



Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

March 23, 1973 

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Action 

The components of the holding tank and sewage haulage 
system and the control and accounting procedures recom- 
mended in the Report are technically sound in principle 
The approach developed is simple yet flexible enough 
to be evaluated and applied to a variety of conditions 
for pollution control. 

However, prior to requiring the implementation of sew- 
age haulage systems on a large scale which will entail 
considerable capital investment, we suggest two trial 
sewage haulage areas be established with one area to 
be serviced by water and the other by road. 

The suggested programme would be advanced as follows: 



i) prepare draft regulations for a holding 
tank and sewage haulage system. 

ii) conduct field studies in the selected trial 
areas and design the sewage haulage system 
for these areas. 

iii) prepare tender documents, tender for sewage 
haulage service, evaluate tenders and award 
a contract to the successful tenderer. The 
evaluation of tenders would also provide 
guidance on the items to be considered 
when reviewing an application for licensing 
a sewage haulage contractor. 

iv) monitor the performance of the test 

haulage system. The results of this pro- 
gramme would confirm the requirements of 
the haulage system with respect to draft 
regualtions, controls, accounting proce- 
dures, and charging schemes. 

v) establish rate schedules. 



JAMES F MacLAREN LIMITED 



-6- 



Ministry of the Environment, 

Private Waste & Water Management Branch, 

TORONTO, Ontario 

March 28, 1973 

Acknowledgments 

We wish to acknowledge and record our sincere apprecia- 
tion of the cooperation and assistance furnished to us 
throughout this assignment by the staff of the Ontario 
Ministry of the Environment, Private Waste & Water Man- 
agement Branch; the sewage haulage contractors who pro- 
vided detailed information regarding their operations, 
and the equipment suppliers and manufacturers contacted 
during our investigations; and to all others who aided 
us in any way. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 





J. V. Morris, P. Eng 
General Manager 



tH+J-f** 




L. N. Hogarth, P. Eng., 
Project Manager 



W. L. C. Knowles , P. Eng., 
Project Manager 



FEASIBILITY STUDY 

QE 
HOLDING TANKS AND SEWAGE HAULAG E SYSTEM 
FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 
PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



FEASIBILITY STUDY 



OF 



HOLDING TANKS AND SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 



MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 
PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



INDEX TO TABLES 



INDEX TO FIGURES 



REPORT 



Page 



CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 



1.1 General 

1.2 Justifications for a Sewage Dis- 
posal System Based on Haulage 

1.3 Project Initiation and Scope of Work 

1.4 Approach to the Study 

CHAPTER 2 - SYSTEM DESIGN, CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST 

2.1 Holding Tanks 

2.1.1 Design Criteria 

2.1.2 Tank Size 

2.1.3 Tank Shape 

2.1.4 Tank Materials 

2.1.5 Tank Installation and Fittings 

2.1.6 Manufacturers' Information 

2.1.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2.2 Transfer Mechanisms, Piping, 
Hoses and Fittings 

2.2.1 General 

2.2.2 Manufacturers' Information 

2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 



1-1 

1-1 

1-2 
1-7 
1-8 

2-1 

2-1 

2-1 
2-3 
2-5 
2-6 

2-13 
2-17 
2-17 

2-19 

2-19 
2-25 
2-26 



TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 



Page 



2.3 Transport Vehicles 

2.3.1 Design Criteria 

2.3.2 Manufacturers' Information, 
including Cost 

2.3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2.4 Disposal of Hauled Sewage 
and Odour Control 

2.4.1 General 

2.4.2 Disposal Costs 

2.4.3 Odour Control Systems 

2.4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2.5 Control Systems 

2.5.1 General 

2.5.2 Manufacturers' Information 

2.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 

CHAPTER 3 - SYSTEM OPERATION 

3.1 General 

3.2 Costing Model 

3.2.1 Holding Tank System 

3.2.2 Transportation System 

3.2.3 Haulage Units 

3.2.4 Time Requirements 

3.3 Accounting and Control 
CHAPTER 4 - IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1 General 

4.2 Existing Legislation 

4.3 Existing and Proposed Regulations 

4.4 Implementation and Enforcement 

4.5 Draft Regulations 

4.6 Charging Scheme 

4.7 Provincial Assistance 



2-26 

2-26 

2-28 
2-33 

2-34 

2-34 
2-35 
2-36 
2-39 

2-40 

2-40 
2-44 
2-44 

3-1 

3-1 
3-1 

3-1 
3-2 
3-4 
3-4 

3-5 



4-1 
4-1 
4-3 
4-5 
4-6 
4-7 
4-16 



APPENDICES 



Project Plan for Feasibility Study of 
Holding Tank and Sewage Haulage System 



B 



Background Data for Waste Water Production Rates 






TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

APPENDICES 

C List of Equipment Suppliers 

D Summary of Questionnaires on 
Sewage Haulage Practice 

E Documentation of Cost Data 

F Field Studies 

G Bibliography 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table No. 



Title 



Follows 
Page No 



1.1 

2.1 
2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

3.1 
4.1 

E-l 

E-2 
E-3 



Classification of Typical Lo- 
cations for Holding Tank and 
Sewage Haulage System 

Summary of Data from Holding 
Tank Suppliers 

Summary of Data from Lift Sta- 
tion and Pump Manufacturers 

Summary of Data from Hose and 
Hose Coupling Manufacturers 

Summary of Sewage Haulage Veh- 
icle Capital Costs 

Summary of Data from Control 
System Suppliers 

Example of Contractor's Records 

Annual Costs to Resident with 
Suggested Provincial Subsidy 

Calculated Fixed and Variable 
Operating Costs for Various 
Tank Truck Sizes 

Sewage Haulage Vehicle Operat- 
ing Costs from Surveyed Sources 

Treatment Costs - Activated 
Sludge Plants 



1-10 

2-44 

2-44 

2-44 

2-44 

2-44 
3-8 

4-17 

Appendix E 

Appendix E 

Appendix E 



LIST OF FIGURES 



Fig. No. Title 



Follows 
Page No 



A Proposed Sewage Haulage System Back Covej 

1.1 Typical Locations for Holding Tanks 1-10 

2.1 Functional Aspects of Proposed 

Sewage Holding Tank 2-44 

2.2 Estimated Daily Waste Water 

Production Rates 2-44 

2.3 Graph to Estimate Interval between 

Pumpouts 2-44 

2.4 Proposed Access and Suction Pipe 

Connections to Holding Tanks 2-44 

2.5 Capital Costs of Sewage Haulage Vehicles 2-44 

2.6 Calculated Haulage Vehicle Operating Costs 2-44 

2.7 Haulage Vehicle Operating Costs 

from Surveyed Sources 2-44 

2.8 Sewage Disposal Costs 2-44 

2.9 Sketch of Transfer Vehicle Recorder 2-44 

2.10 Proposed Control System of Monitoring 2-44 

3.1 Installed Holding Tank Costs 3-8 

3.2 Graph to Estimate Rate of Sewage Pick- 
up for Varying Dwelling Density and 

Tank Size of Haulage Vehicle 3-8 

3.3 Graph to Estimate Average Haul Time 

T 2 where V is Average Vehicle Speed 3-8 

4.1 Example of Determination of Optimum 

Holding Tank Size and System Cost 4-17 



FEASIBILITY STUDY 



OF 



HOLDING TANKS AND SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 



MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 



PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 



1-1 

FEASIBILITY STUDY 
OF 
HOLDING TANKS AND SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 
FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 
PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 



CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 
1 .1 General 

The continued development of Ontario at acceptably high 
standards is dependent, in part, on the ability of tech- 
nology to supply systems for the adequate disposal of 
sanitary waste water. A specific portion of this overall 
problem relates to situations where, because of the low 
density of development or physical constraints, group 
systems for sewage disposal involving conventional sewer- 
age systems are not feasible. 

Existing methods for private waste water disposal which 
rely on the use of 'soil systems' such as the septic 
tank and tile bed are not suitable for all situations, 
and in many locations public health hazards and environ- 
mental pollution have been documented, or are anticipated 
if development is allowed to continue. 

While research and development continues on reliable 
and effective methods of treating sewage at individual 
premises and on the environmental significance of treated 
effluent constituents, a solution to the immediate prob- 
lem is needed. The transport of sewage from individual 
premises, using a suitably equipped transport vehicle. 



1-2 



to an approved disposal site is considered to be the 
best of the alternatives for private sewage disposal where 
conditions are unsuitable for soil systems. As well the 
Ontario Ministry of the Environment has received complaints 
of indiscriminate dumping of septic tank and holding tank 
wastes in streams and other areas , causing environmental 
degradation. Therefore there is great concern that reg- 
ulated holding tank and sewage haulage systems be devel- 
oped to ensure that proper collection and disposal prac- 
tices are in use. 

Consequently, thorouqh studies of this type of disposal 
scheme are justified. 



1.2 Justifications for a Sewage Disposal 
System Based on Haulage 

In our society, human habitation of an area generally 
implies the use of water for washing and bathing and 
for the transport of toilet waste, as residents often 
consider this to be the minimum acceptable standard for 
cleanliness and sanitation. Assuming that human habita- 
tion will entail the production of waste water, there 
are three basic alternative methods for protecting the 
environment from the biological and chemical pollution 
associated with domestic sewage: 

a) Treatment and Re-use of Waste Water 

The total re-use of water would eliminain discharges, 
and hence pollution of the environment through waste 
water effluents. Extensive research and development 
continues in this field, although the prime purpose at 
present is to develop a method of alleviating the cri- 
tically short supply of potable water which exists in 



1-3 



many parts of the world rather than to develop new methods 
of pollution control. 

At present the technology of waste water recycling is 
such that the cost of systems permitting the total re- 
use of water far exceeds the cost of systems for con- 
ventional waste water treatment. In addition to the 
high cost, water re-use systems are mainly in the devel- 
opment stage and would require expert and experienced 
operating personnel. 

It is also recognized that the public is reluctant to 
accept waste water recycling where other alternatives 
are available. 

In conclusion, total water re-use methods are considered 
at this time to be technically infeasible or prohibitively 
expensive to operate except where waste water is the best 
source of raw water for future use. 

A number of devices on the market permit the re-use of 
water for a limited time within specially designed toilet 
units suitable for private use. These devices are in- 
tended mainly for use on recreational vehicles and at 
part-time residences such as summer premises. Water 
used in these units must be discharged eventually, since 
a true, closed recycled system does not exist. Never- 
theless, a very significant reduction in waste water 
quantity is possible compared to conventional water 
closet fixtures, even though the quantity of organic 
waste is not reduced. 

Other devices on the market provide for the incinera- 
tion of toilet wastes and eliminate water consumption 



1-4 



for toilet use. These units would reduce the total 
quantity of waste water but not eliminate the need for 
waste water disposal. No allowance for this reduction 
has been made in the design of disposal facilities as 
the units are not in widespread use at this time. 



b) Treatment and Discharge of Waste Water 

For many decades it has been realized tha+- the treatment 
of waste water before discharge to the receiving waters 
may be both aesthetically and economically desirable. 
Through the years, the technology of municipal sewage 
treatment has progressed to the point where plant efflu- 
ents can reliably attain increasingly stringent effluent 
standards. With few exceptions, however, the effluent 
standards do not represent as high a quality as the 
natural quality of the receiving water. However, addi- 
tional sewage treatment, commonly described as tertiary 
treatment, can be used to upgrade the effluent to such 
a quality. 

Unfortunately, the municipal practice is not entirely 
feasible where smaller establishments such as individual 
premises must be responsible for treating their waste 
water on an individual or small group basis. 

There are three main reasons for this: 



i) Although chemical and physical processes are 
used at sewage treatment plants, generally 
the process relies on biological purifica- 
tion through the action of small organisms, 
mainly bacteria. Small establishments in- 
herently produce a proportionately greater 
variation in the quality and quantity of 
sewage than would be experienced in munici- 
palities. The significance of these variations 



1-5 



is that the biological treatment process is 
continually in a state of adjustment as the 
food supply for the organisms increases and 
decreases in quantity. As a result it is 
difficult to maintain a high quality of 
effluent, and in fact, the treatment process 
may fail completely. 



ii) Residents generally do not have the knowledge, 
equipment or inclination to perform the rou- 
tine maintenance tasks required by municipal 
type plants (commonly known as 'package treat- 
ment plants ' ) . 



iii) The costs for such systems can be high unless 
a number of premises are close enough to be 
combined economically. 



In conclusion, scaled down municipal types of sewage 
treatment plants are inherently not suitable for installa- 
tion at individual premises. Consequently, further re- 
search and development is required for special waste water 
treatment systems for small installations. 

A viable alternative to the package treatment plant for 
a group of residences where suitable land is available, 
is the sewage lagoon, but generally this is not feasible 
for individual premises. 

The traditional sewage treatment and disposal method 
for individual premises has been the septic tank and 
tile bed. When correctly designed and constructed at 
suitable locations, this method has the advantages of 
being a very effective, ecologically sound type of treat- 
ment which is self-operating and requires little main- 
tenance. The system does not suffer, but in fact, gen- 
erally benefits from variations in loading. Research 
in a number of centres continues on the nature of this 



1-6 



system and ways of improving it, and the septic tank and 
tile bed generally remain unchallenged as the best dis- 
posal method at individual premises. Other types of 
soil systems similar to tile beds appear to be the most 
reasonable alternative method of treatment at the present 
time . 

For soil systems to be effective, there must be a suffi- 
cient area and depth of suitable, well-drained soil 
available and located at some distance from surface 
waters. Quantitative values for septic tank and tile 
bed design parameters have been established in the book- 
let, "Septic Tank Systems, Private Waste and Water Man- 
agement Branch, Ministry of the Environment". Although 
the values for these design criteria and other types 
of soil systems may be revised from time to time as addi- 
tional research information becomes available, it is read- 
ily apparent that there are many locations where develop- 
ment has occurred or could occur that are unsuitable for 
the use of soil systems. As a result there are areas 
where neither municipal type sewage plants nor soil systems 
can be used. The existence of such areas creates the 
need for classification (c) . 



c) Removal by Haulage and Subsequent 
Treatment of Waste Water 



The preceding sections (a) and (b) establish that there 
are areas of existing or proposed development where ade- 
quate waste water treatment cannot be performed, and 
the construction of sewerage systems for sewage removal 
is not feasible. These conditions are summarized 



— 



1-7 

graphically on Figure 1.1 and classified on Table 1.1. 

Where these situations apply, the only manner in which 
development can occur with modern standards of sanita- 
tion, without harming the environment through water 
oollution, is by removing sewage from the site by vehi- 
cle to a location where treatment can be performed 
satisfactorily. Due to the volume and weight of sewage 
produced, it will generally be necessary to have special 
facilities for the storage and transfer of sewage to 
make the system practical. 

If development is allowed, conditional on the use of 
such holding tanks in areas otherwise restricted be- 
cause of the waste water disposal problem, the proper 
use of the system must be ensured. Thus, safeguards 
which ensure the proper functioning of this type of 
system must be provided. 

1.3 Project Initiation and Scope of Work 

A proposal for a feasibility study of sewage haulage 
systems was submitted by this firm to the Public Health 
Engineering Service of the Ontario Department of Health 
in February, 19 71. When it became apparent that public 
funds would be made available for this study, additional 
communication in the form of meetings were held with 
the Provincial authority, which by this time had be- 
come the Private Waste and Water Management Branch of 
the Ministry of the Environment. Meetings to discuss 
and revise the terms of reference for the study were 
held on November 3 and November 27, 1972. The final 
scope of the study was agreed upon on December 28, 1972, 
and is summarized in the form of a 'memo to file' 



1- 



entitled "Project Plan" which is included as Appendix A 
of this Report. 

In general terms, the purpose of this study is to inves- 
tigate and to make recommendations on the design, imple- 
mentation, operation and regulation of a sewage disposal 
scheme for premises which is based on the vehicular 
transport of sewage from a holding tank at the source 
to a suitable disposal site. 



1 . 4 Approach to the Study 

The overall approach to the preparation of this report 
followed the procedure outlined below: 

a) Definition of the Problem 

This task was largely completed following 
discussions both within this firm and with 
the Ministry of the Environment. Revisions 
to the definition and its design criteria 
were made as the project continued and new 
considerations arose. 

b) Data Gathering and Analysis of Data 

Background data was available from files com- 
piled by the Ministry and this firm in the 
preceding months , which record technical 
articles, news items, existing work by Pro- 
vincial agencies and information from equip- 
ment suppliers. Additional information was 
gathered as the project continued, specifi- 
cally from selected equipment suppliers and 
from haulage contractors, through the use 
of a questionnaire distributed w±th the aid 
of the Ministry's personnel located in re- 
gional offices. 

c) Formulate and Evaluate Alternative Solutions 

Having defined the problem and the design 
criteria which the proposed system should 
contain, and with the knowledge of the types 
of equipment available, it was possible to 



1-9 



formulate alternative solutions and eval- 
uate each in terms of how well it attained 
the system objectives, and at what cost. 

d) Prepare Conclusions and Recommendations 

Following the assessment of the alternative 
solutions, recommended methods of dealing 
with the various facets of the problem and 
recommendations for future work were made. 



The above steps also summarize the activity diagram used 
internally by this firm to manage and monitor the progress 
of the study. A copy of the activity diagram is included 
in Appendix A. 

The components of a haulage system can be considered to 
consist of: 

i) the holding tank for storing waste water, 

ii) The transfer mechanisms, piping, fittings 
and hoses to transfer waste water from one 
component to the other, 

iii) the transfer vehicle (s) which convey the waste 
water from the holding tank to the disposal 
site , 

iv) the disposal site itself, 

v) the control systems which ensure the efficient 
and safe operation of the system as a whole. 

Chapter 2 of the Report is divided into these categories. 
Each section of Chapter 2 begins by discussing the nature 
and purpose of that component of the overall haulage 
system, followed by a description of the alternatives 
considered, the recommended solution and finalized com- 
pilation of data. 



1-10 



Chapter 3 describes the overall system operation includ- 
ing the basis of criteria used in the cost model which 
is employed to evaluate costs of systems designed and 
functioning as intended in the preceding sections. 

An example of calculating overall costs and optimizing 
the performance of the system is provided in Chapter 4. 
This final chapter also discusses methods of implement- 
ing the haulage service, and of regulating and enforcing 
the proper use of this type of sewage disposal system. 

Detailed back-up data is provided in the Appendices to 
the Report in order that the effect of future changes 
in the basic data evolved, may be evaluated and used 
to update the system analysis. 



TABLE 1.1 



CLASSIFICATION OF TYPICAL LOCATIONS 
FOR HOLDING TANK AND SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



Area 
Classification 



Access to 
Premises by 



Winter Soil and Water Haulage 
Use Table Condition Vehicle 



Typical Location 



II 



IJI 



IV 



Water 



Road 



Road 



Road 



No Little or no Barge 
soil truck 

No Little or no Truck (s) 
soil 

Yes Low permeabil- Truck (s) 
ity soil 

Yes Deep soil, Truck (s) 
water table 
near surface 



Small island 

Rocky beach 

Permanent residence 
Kent County (typ.) 

Permanent residence 
in low area 



NOTE: It is felt the above classification covers all relevant areas, fcr instance, a 
shoreline cottage not having road access could be considered a Class I area, a 
Class III or IV area not used in winter could have a holding tank above ground 
and be considered a Class II area. 



See Figure 1.1. 



I 



TYPICALLY PREMISES FOR SUMMER 

USE ONLY, POSSIBLY NO ELECTRICAL 
SUPPLY 





LITTLE SOIL OVER BEDROCK 
ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY WATER 



TYPICALLY PREMISES FOR SUMMER 

USE ONLY, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND 
ACCESS BY ROAD 




w^\ 




TTLE SOIL COVER OVER BEDROCK 
ACCESIBLE BY ROAD 



M 



TYPICALLY PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN CLAY SOIL, 
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ANO ROAD ACCESS 



POSSIBLE NEARBY SURFACE WATER 




M 



TYPICALLY A WINTERIZED COTTAGE 

WITH ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND ROAD ACCESS 



/ / / / ? 




DEEP PERMEABLE SOIL, HI6H WATER TABLE 

TYPICAL LOCATIONS FOR HOLDING TANKS 



FIG- 






2-1 

CHAPTER 2 - SYSTEM DESIGN, CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 

2. 1 Holding Tanks 

2.1.1 Design Criteria 

The basic function of the holding tank is to store san- 
itary sewage as it is generated in individual premises 
until a transport vehicle removes the waste water to 
a disposal site. 

In order to perform this function satisfactorily, the 
tank must meet the following standards for performance 



a) The tank must be adequately sized to 
receive the amount of sewage produced 
between removals. Adequate reserve 
capacity should be provided for greater 
than averaq^ volume of waste water or 
for delays in the normal removal schedule 
that can reasonably be expected to occur. 

b) The tank must be structurally adequate 
to withstand all pressures and forces 
it may experience. 

In the case of an above ground tank, 
this will include the internal hydro- 
static pressure exerted by the contained 
sewage, all internal forces caused by 
freezing of the contained sewage and 
the reaction forces at the tank support 
points . 

In the case of below ground tanks, ice 
forces may be prevented. However, the 
tanks must be designed to withstand 
external earth pressures. As an alter- 
native to structural design of the tank 
for freezing, provision may be made to 
avoid freezing of the tank contents. 

c) Adequate anchorage must be provided to 
prevent movement of the tank. If the 
tank is above ground, forces caused by 



2-2 



wind, waves and accumulated snow and 
ice must be withstood. Below ground 
tanks must be anchored to counteract 
buoyancy forces in cases of a high 
water table. 

d) All fittings and openings on the tank 
must be capable of being sealed to 
withstand internal pressures of at 
least 5 pounds per square inch (as 
specified in Underwriters' Laboratories 
of Canada Standards 142(a) and 58). 

It is considered that overflows of the 
tank which would act as pressure relief 
systems cannot be permitted for reasons 
of public health and environmental 
protection. Hence, each system must 
be checked to determine the maximum 
pressure which could be developed due 
to overfilling. For example, where 
the holding tank is located at a much 
lower elevation than the premises 
and vented through the premises ' 
plumbing system, overfilling of the 
tank could cause back-up in the inlet 
sewer and increased pressures on the 
tank. Similar problems could arise 
with pumped systems when a tank is 
pumped full and the air vent is auto- 
matically closed. This pressure 
could equal the difference between 
the discharge head of the pump and 
the static head between premises and 
tank. 

e) The tank must be sufficiently durable 
to function adequately for the design 
life of the system. Corrosion resist- 
ant materials suitable for the internal 
condition of septic sewage and the ex- 
ternal exposed condition must be used 
to construct the tanks or to coat less 
resistant materials used for construc- 
tion. The desired design life of the 
tank may vary depending on the specific 
location. The fact that a holding tank 
may be readily replaced or duplicated, 
especially if located above ground, and 
that holding tank systems may not be 
regarded as the ultimate solution in 



2-3 



many situations suggests that there will 
be a market for a shorter life and pre- 
sumably less costly tank as well as for 
durable tanks. In any case, it is con- 
sidered that the useful life for the 
holding tank should not be less than 
fifteen years although in subsequent 
sections an economic life of ten years 
has been assumed. 

Appurtenances to the holding tank such 
as level alarms and gauges are consid- 
ered under Section 2.5.1 of this Report, 



2.1. 2 Tank Size 

The first design criterion discussed in the previous section 
is that the tank should be adequately sized to contain all 
the waste water produced between "pump-outs". This re- 
quirement is not easily met however, for in addition to 
varying frequencies of emptying, the potential rate of 
sewage generation can vary greatly from one premises to 
another. This rate of generation depends upon the average 
number of people in the premises, their water use habits 
and their plumbing appliances. 

The required size of holding tank can be expressed by 

the equation Q = f x q x P, 

where Q = size of holding tank in gallons, 

f = factor of safety providing reserve 
capacity beyond established 
requirement, 

q = estimated total quantity of waste 
water, in gallons, produced daily 
from the premises based on types 
of facilities, habits and number 
of inhabitants. 

P = maximum normal period of time 

between emptying of holding tanks 
expressed in days. 



The value of the safety factor *f' is related to the 
reliability of the estimated sewage production rate 
and the extent to which it could be exceeded as well as 
the realiability of the removal service. It has been 
arbitrarily decided that a delay in the regular re- 
moval schedule of five (5) days should be allowed for 
in terms of reserve tank capacity. This reserve ca- 
pacity allows a reasonable time for the repair or re- 
placement of damaged equipment. 

The estimated daily waste water production rate 'q' for 
different conditions is presented by curves given in 
Figure 2.1. These curves have been developed on the 
basis of information in the bibliography, from information 
obtained in the questionnaire survey of sewage haulage 
contractors; and from an analysis of the basic parameters 
which pertain to conditions in Ontario. The background 
data for these curves is presented in Appendix B. 

It is assumed that the average values obtained in this 
way will be accurate except for occasional brief periods 
of higher rates resulting from a party or guests at 
premises. Reserve capacity for this type of occurrence 
has not been included as additional to the five day 
reserve for haulage equipment breakdown as it is con- 
sidered that all unusual events are unlikely to occur 
simultaneously. As a result, a total ' f value of 
(P # 5)/P is recommended for use in the above formula. 
Using the curves in Figure 2.2 and the ' f value proposed, 
values for holding tank size can be obtained as a fun- 
ction of the period of servicing, the number of inhabitants 
of the premises, and the type of facilities available. 



2-5 



No attempt has been made to suggest one design unit value 
of waste water production as the rate of water use depends 
on individual preference. However, it is felt that after 
holding tank systems are in use for a period of time, 
economics will dictate that water use reduction measures 
be undertaken by individuals. Thus it is felt waste 
volumes generated in holding tank areas will tend to be 
in the lower bands of the water usage curves. 



2.1.3 Tank Shape 

There are several functional requirements which may act 
as constraints to the shape of holding tanks. 



a) the tanks should have a shape that 
allows the complete removal of settled 
solids each time the tank is serviced. 
Obviously the type of outlet will have 
an effect as well as the tank shape. 

b) The holding tank shape may be chosen 
to minimize damage from freezing of 
the tank contents. 

c) Since holding tanks will be filled 
preferably by the gravity flow of 
sewage, there will be height restric- 
tions on tank shape at some locations. 
High tanks will also be undesirable 
aesthetically in many instances. 



Apart from the above considerations tanks may be shaped 
to minimize total construction and transportation costs 
Cylindrical or flattened oval tanks mounted with major 
axis horizontal and rectangular tanks are common con- 
figurations. 

It is also considered feasible to create the required 
tank volume by interconnecting a number of smaller 



2-6 



tanks set at the same elevation. This may have its 
advantages where transportation of a larger tank to 
remote locations is difficult or in the case of heavy 
precast concrete tanks. When more than one tank is 
used, the first would be connected in the standard 
manner and a low level interconnection would be made 
to the other tanks. Tank vents would be interconnected 
as well. 

Tanks used in this way would require special fittings 
which would permit a completely tight type of inter- 
connecting piping to be made which would not be damaged 
by freezing. The interconnecting piping could be made 
near the bottom of each tank so that hydraulically the 
tanks would act as one large tank, allowing the control 
and discharge apparatus to be connected to either tank. 
The potential problem in this arrangement would be the 
existence of a sewage filled pipe permanently under 
pressure being subject to mechanical damage or tampering 

A second alternative would provide an overflow from the 
tank receiving sewage to a second tank. The second or 
both tanks would be fitted with a control apparatus 
and both would require discharge fittings. 



2.1.4 Tank Material s 

Five types of materials for holding tank construction 
have been considered, namely: steel, concrete, fibre- 
glass-reinforced plastic, rubber impregnated synthetic 
fabrics and polyethylene. 

a) Steel Tanks 

Steel tanks have a number of advantages compared 
to the alternatives. They are easily fabricated 



2-7 



at moderate cost; may incorporate a variety of 
fittings; are reasonably light to transport to 
the site; and can be readily designed to sup- 
port their full weight so that a special sup- 
porting structure is not required. 

The main disadvantage of this material, is its 
relatively high rate of corrosion when exposed 
to the atmosphere, damp soil conditions and 
septic sewage. As a result steel holding tanks 
will require corrosion resistant coatings in- 
ternally and externally. In above ground in- 
stallations usually one coat of bituminous 
sealant is applied inside and an enamel finish 
outside. Below ground, bituminous sealants are 
applied both inside and outside. 

Underground steel tanks should comply with 
Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada Specifica- 
tion No. 58. Gauges of steel to be used for 
below ground tanks are as follows: 

500 gal. to 1,000 gal. 10 gauge 

1,001 gal. to 3,000 gal. 7 gauge 

3,001 gal. to 10,000 gal. V Plate 

Under the current regulations, it is not con- 
sidered advisable to use steel tanks for under- 
ground installation as damage to the external 
bituminous coating may result in corrosion 
which would not be noticed or be accessible 
for repair work. 



2-8 



Current Canadian Standards Association and 
Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada Standards 
for steel tanks are under revision. The 
more stringent corrosion protection recommended 
in the form of tape wrapping and cathodic pro- 
tection will make underground installation of 
steel tanks more acceptable but also more ex- 
pensive. 

However, steel tanks can give excellent service 
when used above ground with an expected useful 
life of over 15 years. They should conform to 
Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada Specifi- 
cation No. 142. Gauges of steel to be used for 
above ground tanks are as follows: 

500 gal. to 1,000 gal. 10 gauge 

1,001 gal. to 7,500 gal. 7 gauge 

More durable internal coatings for steel tanks in 
the form of bitumastic, epoxy and rubber linings 
also are possible, although more costly. Cathodic 
protection also may be desirable to prolong tank 
life under certain conditions. Appendix E 
contains information on the cost of steel tanks 
protected in the ways mentioned and gives a par- 
tial list of suppliers. Unlike some of the alter- 
natives, the price of steel tanks does not drop 
significantly when tanks are purchased in quantity, 

b) Concrete Tanks 

Concrete has been a preferred material for septic 
tank construction for many years and is used 



2-9 



extensively in waste water treatment plants. High 
quality concrete is generally quite resistant to 
conditions experienced in the atmosphere, most 
soils and when in contact with septic sewage. Con- 
crete can be seriously corroded under certain con- 
ditions where hydrogen sulphide released by septic 
sewage reacts on a moist surface exposed to oxygen 
and the air to form sulphuric acid. This acid can 
seriously corrode concrete as experienced in many 
sewer pipes carrying septic sewage. Apparently 
this type of corrosion has not caused serious problems 
in concrete septic tanks, perhaps due the formation 
of a scum blanket seal in the tank. More frequent 
recharging of oxygen is anticipated in holding tanks 
due to inlet pipe configuration being open to air. 
To ensure that the life of the tank is not reduced 
the interior should be coated with bituminous paint. 

Concrete septic tanks are generally available in a 
reinforced precast form at relatively low costs. 
It appears that most manufacturers can readily 
modify existing forms or produce new ones for casting 
tanks suitable for use as holding tanks. 

Probably the most serious disadvantage of using con- 
crete holding tanks is the difficulty of installing 
tanks of adequate size in relatively remote loca- 
tions. The mass of concrete tanks of capacity 1,000 
gal. and larger makes handling difficult and re- 
quires special equipment such as a mobile crane for 
installation. For this reason two or more smaller 
inter-connected concrete tanks may be a preferred 
arrangement, although capital cost increases signi- 
ficantly. 



2-10 



Special care is required to ensure that the con- 
crete tanks are evenly supported on an adequate 
base. Possible damage due to the freezing of 
tank contents would have to be prevented through 
the use of adequate reinforcing steel and perhaps 
with special shapes which would prevent the for- 
mation of large stresses due to ice. 

c) Fibreglass-Reinforced-Plastic 

The flexibility, durability and toughness of 
synthetic polymer reinforced with fine glass 
fibres for strength, yields a material which is 
receiving an increasingly wide use where these 
properties are valued. 

Fibreglass-reinf orced-plastic tanks presently 
are manufactured in a variety of sizes and shapes. 
Models specifically suited for use as sewage holding 
tanks could be designed in accordance with Can- 
adian Government Specifications Board Standard 
41-GP-22. The type of plastic used and glass 
reinforcing can be varied to suit the requirements 
for structural strength, ridigity and corrosion 
resistance. As a result it is possible to con- 
struct a tank of this type which would be satis- 
factory for long term service as a sewage holding 
tank installed either above or below ground. 

The weight of the empty tank is also relatively 
low, making transport and installation easier. 
In areas accessible only by water, the tank could 
be floated and towed by boat to sites. 



2-11 



A disadvantage of f ibreglass-reinf orced-plastic 
tanks as far as the purchaser is concerned is 
the higher initial cost compared to steel or 
concrete tanks. This is made up for in part 
by the indefinitely long life of the material. 

d) Rubber Impregnated Synthetic Fabrics 

Water tight and durable materials composed of 
rubber coated fabrics have been used success- 
fully to contain fluids in a variety of appli- 
cations ranging from inflatable gates for dams 
to impervious linings for large reservoirs. 
Flexible tanks for storing sewage can be made 
of this type of material. Tanks of this type 
can be durable and sufficiently corrosion re- 
sistant. Freezing of the tank's contents could 
be allowed because of the flexible character- 
istics of the material. The fullness of the 
tank could be readily judged which is a possible 
advantage to the removal contractor. Some dis- 
advantages of this type of tank are the following 



a) An accurate measurement of the con- 
tents would be difficult to obtain 

b) Flexible piping to the tank would 
have to be used. 

c) The tank would be relatively sus- 
ceptible to damage with the possi- 
bility of spillage of the contents, 

d) Automatic high level alarm systems 
of a pressure actuated type would 
be required. 



2-12 



e) The flexible tank could not be 
used below ground unless protected 
from earth pressures by retaining 
walls or similar structures. 

f) There may be a problem cleaning 
internally and removing sludge 
buildup. 

Advantages 

a) Relatively compact and lightweight 
package for transport to remote areas. 

b) Low profile - in cases where essential, 
tank could be installed under a premises 
as the tanks when full reach a height 

of only 3 feet, althouqh installation 
would be required to be accessible to 
allow inspection for leakage. 

c) Life expectancy approximately 20 years. 

d) Manufacturers claim tanks could be 
installed underwater at a wharf - 
and left there over winter if pumped 
out in fall. 

e) Tank and contents could be moved 

(i.e. palletized). 

f) Rubber tanks could be used as standby 
units for emergencies and unexpected 
high water useage. 



e) Polyethylene Tanks 

Polyethylene tanks are now being manufactured for 
industrial purposes and can be modified for use 
as domestic sewage holding tanks. No standards 
regulating manufacture of these tanks are currently 
in existence. 



2-13 



Advantages 

i) The material is inert, relatively 

lightweight, has long life (20 years) 
and can be installed for relatively 
low cost. 

ii) Fittings for vents, inlet/outlet and 

hatch can easily be molded into the tank. 

iii) Support saddles can be molded to 

tank for above ground installation. 

iv) Substantial discount on capital 

cost as quantities ordered increases. 

v) Compared to steel, concrete and 
fibreglass, polyethylene tanks 
appear to be a viable alternative for 
holding tanks above and below ground. 

vi) A life of 20 years for black polyethylene 
tanks above ground and 15 years if 
coloured. 

vii) Light weight simplifies transportation 
of tanks to all sites by road or water. 

viii) Polyethylene tanks can be molded in 
various shapes where aesthetics are 
a factor. 

Disadvantages 

i) High initial cost 

ii) Anchorage required. 



2.1.5 Tank Installation and Fitti 



ngs 



(a) Tank Installation 

Initially, holding tanks will be considered only 
in those areas where other methods of sewage 
disposal are neither practical nor economical. 



2-14 



These areas may be unsuitable for reasons of 
high water table; no soil cover over bed rock; 
unsuitable soil type such as impervious clay; 
topography; inadequate lot size for tile bed. 

A high water table, rock excavation or a very 
hard clay will encourage above ground install- 
ation unless system hydraulics or aesthetics 
dictate a lower installed elevation. 

It is anticipated that the majority of the 
holding tanks will be installed above ground. 
All tanks should be installed to slope to 
the pump-out pipe to ensure complete dewatering. 
In those installations where sewage is pumped 
to the tank, provision must be made to allow 
dewatering of the forcemain during extended 
periods that premises might be vacant. 

Above Ground Installation Requirements 

Generally an above ground installation should be 
located to allow connection from the premises 
plumbing by gravity; it should be located to be 
aesthetically acceptable; secure against external 
wind and wave action; and be readily accessible. 
For premises used only in summer, it is assumed 
that the tank would be pumped out before there 
was a danger of freezing. 

Tank manufacturers claim that freezing of the 
contents will not damage the tank provided it is 
properly vented. Adequate venting is of course 
essential when the tank is being emptied. Other- 
wise a vacuum can be created which could collapse 
the tank. 



2-15 



However, should the contents freeze it is felt 
that tanks, especially rigid concrete, can be 
damaged by the resultant pressure build-up. 
For those premises where the tank is in continual 
use, a covering of insulation may provide suf- 
ficient protection. This may be supplemented 
by placing a compressible float such as styro- 
foam in the tank or by installing a small heat 
lamp which would keep one area of the surface 
from freezing. Where the tank is only used in- 
termittently through the winter, a flexible 
tank could be installed with more elaborate pro- 
tection against freezing. 

The supports recommended for the tank materials 
considered are as follows: 

(i) Concrete 

A poured concrete footing would be 
required to ensure an equalized and 
adequate base. Sand, evenly distri- 
buted, would be acceptable provided 
that it is protected from washout. 

(ii) Steel, Fibreglass and Polyethylene 

The tank should be supported by saddles 
to keep it clear of the ground for in- 
spection purposes. These tanks would 
require anchor bolts to a concrete 
pad or base rock to ensure protection 
from wind and wave forces. 

(iii) Rubber Fabric 

A level sand or concrete pad is re- 
quired with protection from wind forces 
when the tank is nearly empty. 



2-16 



There is a possible hazard from vandalism, espec- 
ially in hunting areas, which could cause problems 
with all the above alternatives except concrete, 
unless the tank were protected in some manner. 

Below Ground Installation Requirements 

A smooth, even base should be provided and the 
excavation backfilled with compacted granular 
material to ensure an equal distribution of load 
on the tank. A rubber fabric tank would require 
a casing to allow it to expand and contract. 

All tanks must be designed against uplift pressure 
and, especially in the case of lightweight tanks, 
a base slab and anchorage system may be required. 
Suitable access to the tanks must be provided for 
inspection and maintenance. 

Unless founded on rock or in water free soil, the 
base of the tanks should be located below the level 
of frost penetration to avoid the danger of rupture 
of the tank or associated piping. 



(b) Fittings 



All tanks require a rigidly connected inlet pipe 
of minimum 4" inside diameter, outlet pipe of 
minimum 3" inside diameter, and a vent pipe 
similar to that shown in Figure 2-4; a 24-inch 
diameter hatch with waterproof lid and level 
control device similar to those described in 
Section 2.5.1. These should be located along the 
top centreline of the tank. 



2-17 



Where possible the fittings should be of the same 
materials as the tank. Steel, PVC or polyethylene 
fittings may be grouted in place for concrete 
tanks, but aluminum fittings must be protected 
from direct contact with concrete by a bituminous 
coating. 

All fittings to which the haulage contractor must 
connect should be of steel or aluminum compatible 
in size with the contractor's equipment. This 
size will be standarized by the regulatory author- 
ities but a minimum inside diameter of 3 inches 
is recommended. 



2.1.6 Manufacturers' Information 

In order to provide a firm base for analysis of the 
various components of the overall sewage haulage system," 
manufacturers of each type of tank were surveyed to eval- 
uate materials currently available. 

The data collected relating to sewage holding tanks is 
summarized in Table 2.1. Cost data are present day 
prices. 

A complete list of manufacturers contacted during the 
study is contained in Appendix C . 



2.1.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Holding tanks can be supplied at reasonable cost to meet 
the requirements of this system. Tanks may be constructed 



2-18 



of concrete, steel, f ibreglass-reinforced-plastic, poly- 
ethylene or rubberized fabric. All tanks have a useful 
life expectancy exceeding fifteen years. 

All tanks except rubberized fabric can be installed 
readily both above and below ground. Because the soils 
conditions will, in most cases, be unsuitable for septic 
tank installation and economical excavation, it is anti- 
cipated that the majority of the holding tanks will be 
installed above ground. 

Optimum shapes are as follows: 

Concrete - rectangular with rounded ends 

Steel, fibreglass - horizontal cylindrical tanks 

most economical 

Polyethylene - horizontal cylindrical shape or 

could be molded in flattened 
ellipse shape for lower profile 

Rubber - low profile (pillow shape) 

The priority of materials on the basis of installed 

costs are: 

concrete 

steel 

rubberized fabric 

polyethylene 

f ibreglass-reinforced-plastic 

Protection of tanks against freezing will be required if 
tank use requires pump-out during winter months. 

On the basis of criteria developed during the study and 
of questionnaires received from sewage haulage contractors, 
the recommended minimum size of holding tank is 1,000 
gallons. Recommended size increments are 1,250, 1,500, 
2,000 and thereafter increments should be 1,000 gallons. 



2-19 



2.2 Transfer Mechanisms, Piping, Hoses & Fittings 

2.2.1 General 

a) Transfer Mechanisms 

A number of systems are required under this category, 
namely : 



i) Transfer of sewage from premises to 
holding tanks. 

ii) Transfer of sewage from holding tanks to 
transfer vehicles. 

iii) Transfer of sewage from transfer vehicles to 
disposal facilities. 



The most desirable method of transferring sewage from 
the premises to a holding tank would be by a gravity 
system as no mechanical devices are required. However 
some premises may be located where the topography and 
ground conditions prevent the installation of a gravity 
system or where access by a transfer vehicle is impossible 
In such instances a small lift station may be required 
to transfer the sewage from the premises to the holding 
tank located in an accessible location. 

A detailed study would be required to establish the 
requirements of the individual lift system. However 
in most cases it is not expected that a capacity of more 
than 50 gpm at a head of 30 ft. will be required. This 
is approximately the minimum size of commercial units. 

A number of systems for transferring sewage from the 
holding tank to the transfer vehicles have been evaluated 



2-20 



and include: 



i) Pumping waste water from the holding tank to 
the transfer vehicle with a sewage pump. 

To minimize time spent during the transfer 
operation a pump with a capacity of approxima- 
tely 200 gpm at 50 ft. head would be required. 
The pump could form either part of the sewage 
system at the premises or be brought to the 
holding tank by the haulage contractor. 

The pump would cost approximately $1,500 and 
would require maintenance which would prove 
onerous to the resident. The resident also 
would be responsible for delays to the haulage 
contractor caused by breakdown of the pump. 

If the pump were owned by the contractor a 
more practical return on the investment would 
be realized through its use at several locations. 
However as such a pump would weigh approxi- 
mately 90 pounds, it might be difficult to 
transport if the holding tank were remote from 
a suitable vehicle access point. 

ii) Pumping sewage by means of a pump on the trans- 
fer vehicle. 

Under this system the pump would be owned and 
operated by the contractor. This would repre- 
sent optimum return on the investment and con- 
fine responsibility to the contractor. How- 
ever the distance between the holding tank 
and the transfer vehicle would be limited by 
the suction lift capability of the pump. This 
limitation also would prevent the complete trans- 
fer of all material from the holding tank and 
suction hose, increasing the likelihood of 
spillage during the transfer operation. 

iii) Pressurizing the holding tank. 

A compressor could be used to pressurize the 
holding tank and displace the sewage to the 
transfer vehicle. As in the case of the pump 
alternative (i) , the compressor could be installed 
at the premises or mounted on the transfer vehicle 
Additional disadvantages of this system include: 



2-21 



the holding tank would require certification 
as a pressure vessel, increasing the cost by 
at least 50%. 

the valving arrangement required would be 
costly. 

there are inherent dangers in a pressurized 
system which would be enhanced with the 
possibility of wastes plugging the piping. 

iv) Vacuum pumping by means of a vacuum pump on the 
transfer vehicle. 

There is a variety of vacuum pumps available for 
mounting on transfer vehicles. These pumps have 
been proven in similar systems. Generally a 
full vacuum lift of 30 feet can be realized which 
provides more flexibility than the sewage pump 
alternative. Most units can be reversed to 
agitate the holding tank contents if necessary 
and complete cleaning of the tank and hose is 
realized. This reduces the likelihood of 
spillage during the transfer operation. 

Noise control is desirable with these high speed 
units and this is provided by means of snubbers. 

In view of the large volume of air used which is 
discharged at a high velocity, good odour control 
is obtained through dilution and dispersion. 

v) System based on the Removal of a Full Tank and 
Replacement with an Empty Tank. 

The containerization principle has been considered 
as a transfer mechanism. This concept involves 
the uncoupling and removal from the site of a full 
holding tank and its replacement by an empty 
tank - a principle widely applied in collection 
of solid wastes. 

Mechanical equipment consisting of lifting and 
transfer equipment would need to be suitably 
rugged for the heavy loads involved. Holding 
tanks would have to be located in areas allowing 
easy approach. Generally, equipment of this 
type is far more costly than fluid transfer 
systems as evidenced by the fact that container- 
ization of fluids as a transfer mechanism is not 



2-22 



practiced beyond barrel size containers. In 
addition there is the problem that the system 
would be restricted to "near full" pickups to 
be efficient - presenting a logistics problem 
for the disposal contractor. 

In conclusion, in this application the contain- 
erization principle does not offer advantages 
compared to fluid transfer mechanisms. 



b) Piping 

This part of the system consists of the connection between 
the premises and the holding tank, either by gravity or 
through an intermediate pumping station and includes 
venting systems. Connections between other components 
are considered under Subsection (c) entitled "Hoses". 

Piping must be watertight; be simple to install; have no 
easy means of disconnecting; be protected against freezing, 
and be protected against vandalism. The installation 
should be in accordance with the requirements of the 
Plumbing Services section of the National Building Code 
unless superseded by Provincial or Municipal regulations. 
The minimum size of pipe for conveying sewage by gravity 
should be 4" internal diameter. 

A wide variety of pipe materials is available and suitable 
when properly installed. 

c) Hoses 

The connections between the holding tank and the transfer 
vehicle and between the transfer vehicle and the disposal 
facilities must have the following characteristics: 

flexibility, 



2-23 



suitability for transporting on the vehicle, 

ease of handling (i.e. lightweight) 

ruggedness to provide a reasonable lifetime with 
normal care, 

abrasion resistance for handling sludges, 

smoothness to keep head losses to a minimum, 

strength to withstand pressure or vacuum 
conditions. 

From an examination of materials available, these features 
are obtained by reinforced, rubberized hose. There is a 
large number of manufacturers who supply this material as 
described in the following subsection. 

The conditions of service require specifically a 3 inch 
diameter hose with a total length of 100 ft. in 20 ft. 
sections and a capability of withstanding 30" mercury 
vacuum to meet the necessary pressure conditions. 

d) Fittings (including valves, etc.) 

The fittings to form the joints between the piping and 
the flexible hose should have the following character- 
istics : 

watertightness , 

- ruggedness to withstand frequent use, 

ease of assembly and disassembly to reduce 
the time involved in the transfer operations, 

lightweight, 

- capable of being fitted with locks to prevent 
misuse, 

interchangeable between different manufacturers. 

From an examination of fittings available and a review 
of current practice, these characteristics are best met 



2-24 



by the quick coupling type which is illustrated on Figure 
2-4. Many contractors in the sewage haulage business show 
a preference for this type of fitting which does not re- 
quire any special wrenches for assembly as do flanged, 
band- type couplers, and screwed connections. This type 
is also being standardized in chemical bulk delivery 
industry and also by one of the largest bulk carriers in 
Ontario. 

A number of manufacturers produce interchange£tble coup- 
lings of different materials as described in subsection 
2.2.2. 

Any valve used in this system must be rugged and able 
to withstand all weather conditions. It will be used 
for fully open to fully closed operation and should be 
fast acting. 

A variety of valves in common use for sewage works has 
been considered for this particular application as 
follows : 



Gate - This valve has the disadvantages of being 
relatively slow to operate and closure of 
the valve can be restricted due to solids 
in the seat. 

Globe - As with the gate valve, the globe valve is 
relatively slow to operate and the seat 
could become affected by solids. 

Butterfly - This is a fast acting valve but it repre- 
sents an obstruction in the piping which 
can result in clogging or improper closing, 

Plug - The plug valve represents some restriction 
in the piping as the fully operational 
position is generally about 80% of the pip- 
ing cross sectional area. However it is 
quick acting and has a shearing action on 
closing which ensures tight seating. 



2-25 



Quick- - It is noted that some vehicle manufacturers 
Opening are using quick opening discharge valves, 
(shear Unless this type of valve is equipped with 
gate a locking device it is vulnerable to misuse 
type) and subsequent spillage of sewage. 



The valve recommended for this application is a plug valve 
operated by a wrench carried by the contractor. An 
appropriate specification would be: 



"The valve shall be of the lubricated plug type 
and arranged for permanent lubrication." 

"The valve plug shall be suitable for dead tight 
shut-off. A proper seal shall be provided on the 
plug stem through the valve body, and a position 
indicator shall be cast on the stem top." 

"The valve body shall be of cast iron." 

"The valve lubricant screw shall be provided with 
a buttonhead fitting to provide for grease gun 
lubrication. In addition, the valve shall be 
suitable for lubrication using a sealant in stick 
form." 



2.2.2 Manufacturers' Information 

In order to provide a firm base for analysis of the various 
components of the overall sewage haulage system, manu- 
facturers in each field were surveyed to evaluate mater- 
ials currently available. The costs tabulated reflect 
current prices. 

The data collected relating to transfer mechanisms is 
summarized in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. 

A complete list of manufacturers contacted during the 
study is contained in Appendix C . 



2-26 



2.2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 

From the returned questionnaires, discussions with vari- 
ous contractors in this field, and a review of alterna- 
tives, it is concluded that the optimum transfer mechanism 
is the vacuum pump mounted on the transport vehicle. 

The use of watertight pipe of minimum 4" diameter for 
transferring waste waters to the holding tank from the 
premises and 3" diameter reinforced, rubberized hose for 
interconnecting the other components are recommended. 
Aluminum quick coupling connectors are recommended as 
standard fittings and valves should be of the plug type. 

2.3 - Transport Vehicles 

2.3.1 Design Criteria 

Purpose 

A vehicle is required to transport sewage from the indi- 
vidual holding tanks to the final disposal site. The two 
most logical vehicles are the tank truck where access is 
more feasible by land and the self-propelled barge where 
access is by water. A combination of the two may also 
be required. 

In some areas where disposal sites are few, rail trans- 
portation in tank cars is a possible alternative, especially 
in some areas of Northern Ontario where communities are 
located on railroads. 

Where a barge is used, a transfer station will probably be 
required at the dock from where a tank truck would trans- 



2-27 



port the sewage to the disposal site. Vfaere the tank 
truck size for initial pick up at the holding tank is 
limited by local conditions and where large volumes of 
sewage must be transported long distances to the dis- 
posal site it may be economical to use a transfer station 
and large tank tractor trailer (or railway tank car) from 
the transfer station to the disposal site. 

Capability 

The vehicles must conform to the following basic criteria: 

a) Vehicles must cause minimum disturbance to the 
environment 

i) Noise - effective muffling of engines and truck 
mounted transfer mechanisns. 

ii) Odour - to be minimized at all times, 
iii) No spillage from vehicle or hoses i.e. a clean 
operation is necessary, particularly when coup- 
ling and uncoupling hoses before and after pump 
out. 

iv) Lot Damage - The transfer vehicle must be capable 
of providing satisfactory service without damag- 
ing the individual's property. A heavy truck 
could have difficulty in negotiating access roads, 
could cause ruts in access roads and driveways, 
and have difficulty in maneuvering at the site. 
For this reason the maximum size of vehicle that 
can serve most private holding tanks is probably 
limited to a 3/000 gallon tandem rear axle tank 
truck. If piping is laid from the private hold- 
ing tank to the lot front on a paved road, it 
might be possible to use a tractor trailer tank 
truck. 



2-28 



Where barges are used at private docks, the 
maximum draught of barge when loaded should be 
from 2*5 to 4 feet. Docking at private docks 
requires operator skill and some limit to barge 
size to avoid damage. 

b) Vehicles must meet pertinent Federal, Provincial and 
Municipal standards including safety and weight 
regulations. 

c) Vehicles must be economical and capable of running 
with minimum amount of "down time" for repairs. This 
is especially important if there are no reserve vehi- 
cles. Environmental damage could result if holding 
tanks were not emptied when full due to the contractor's 
vehicle being non-operational. 

d) Where a vehicle is equipped with a transfer mechanism, 
it must meet the requirements stipulated in Section 2.2 
and must be properly maintained for efficient operation. 

e) Vehicles must have some form of metering and/or control 
to measure quantity of sewage hauled from each holding 
tank and delivered to the disposal site to safeguard 
against illegal dumping of the truck or barge contents. 

f) Vehicle should be painted in a manner so as to be 
clearly identified as a carrier whose sole purpose 

is to transfer domestic sewage. 

2.3.2 Manufacturers' Information, Including Costs 

Equipment and truck suppliers and liquid waste removal 
contractors were contacted and asked for details of 



2-29 



their equipment and its performance. Some were con- 
tacted by phone and some by questionnaire. A summary 
of the questionnaires received is attached as Appendix 

D . A summary of their general comments relating to 
haulage units is included in this Section. Table 2.4 
lists those contacted and some of the basic information 
obtained. Costs tabulated reflect current prices. 

Trucks 

The tank and pump units are fabricated so that they can 
be bolted to a standard truck chassis. A tank of up to 
2,000 gallons can fit into a single axle truck. Tanks 
from 2,000 to 3,000 gallons are mounted on a tandem 
rear axle truck. For tanks for more than 4,000 gallons, 
tractor trailers are required. The initial costs of 
sewage haulage vehicles from Table 2.4 are shown on 
Figure 2.5. 

Because of the probable rough road conditions, it is 
advisable to have heavier than normal axles and chassis. 
A light chassis will twist on the bumps and the result- 
ant stresses will shorten the life of the truck and 
tank. 

Many contractors assemble their own tanker trucks by 
obtaining the tank, pump and truck chassis from differ- 
ent suppliers. There are several Ontario companies who 
will supply complete sewage tanker trucks, but in some 
cases money can be saved by the contractor assembling 
his own unit. 

Many of the liquid waste removal contractors are small 
owner-operator companies with only one or two tanker 



2-30 



trucks. As septic tank owners call them only when their 
tank is full, their business is intermittent. The aver- 
age call takes from 1% to 2 hours and averages about 
20 miles. 

Under these conditions a truck will last from 3 to 8 
years depending upon the annual use. The life of a 
properly maintained truck is probably 150,000 to 200,000 
miles. The sewage tank and pump can last for more than 
10 years or the life of two truck chassis. Larger trac- 
tor trailers, such as those used by the gasoline companies, 
driven at constant speed can last for 400,000 to 500,000 
miles, but because of their large initial cost, they are 
only economical if they are operated for 8 to 10 hours 
a day. 

Two types of pump are in use, namely: 

1) the vacuum pump and, 

2) the centrifugal sewage pump. 

These pump types have been compared and the vacuum system 
recommended in Section 2.2.1. 

Barges 

Self-propelled barges can be constructed by several 
Ontario steel fabricators. Because of draft limitations, 
the maximum size is probably 12,000 - 15,000 gallons 
(18' x 50') with maximum speed about 8 m.p.h. Maximum 
size that can be transported from lake to lake by road 
is about 2,000 - 3,000 gallons. This would be 25' long 
by 8' wide with 3' draft when loaded and would weigh 
10,000 - 15,000 lbs. empty. This could be powered with 
a 35-50 H.P. outboard and travel at 5 m.p.h. 



2-31 



A barge will last about 25 years if properly protected 
against rust and maintained. However, to avoid the danger 
of leakage of contents it is recommended that an inner 
liner be installed to carry the sewage rather than allowing 
direct contact with the hull which appears to be the 
practice at present. 

There are only a few barges in operation for sewage haulage 
service as the operating period is limited by ice condi- 
tions for 4-7 months of the year. During the operating 
period the barges are also used to transport other materials 

An alternative to the barge specially constructed for 
sewage haulage would be to use rubber containers which 
can be mounted on any boat with sufficient deck area. 

Operating Costs 

Because of the limited extent, variable and intermittent 
nature of sewage haulage operations it is extremely dif- 
ficult to obtain average operating costs. Most contrac- 
tors are naturally reluctant to disclose such financial 
details of their business and in some cases accurate 
records are not kept. 

a) Trucks 

The following examples of costs used by contractors are 
presented as a background to costs developed for this 
report. 

i) For large volume contracts (in the order of at 
least 3,000 gallons) about one cent per gallon 
of sewage transported is charged. 



2-32 



ii) For one job involving the haulage of up to 40,000 
gallons per day from an educational establish- 
ment a distance of eight miles to a treatment 
plant, the contractor used one 3,000 gallon tank 
truck and a 4,000 gallon tractor trailer and 
charged 3/4 of a cent per gallon. 

iii) For emptying septic tanks within a 10 mile radius 
involving a time of lh to 2 hours, including 
20-45 minutes to empty the septic tank, the 
charge per truck load is in the order of $25. 
This would be increased to $30 where the contrac- 
tor had to dig to remove the tank cover. 

To supplement the background data from sewage 

haulage contractors, fuel delivery and municipal 

operations were examined. However, in the time 

available, it has not been possible to relate 

meaningfully the available data to the require- 
ments of this study. 

Total operating costs for various vehicle sizes were 
therefore developed from the fixed and variable cost 
components. Fixed costs were calculated from the capital 
cost of the vehicle depreciated over six years with a 
10% interest rate, and insurance and licensing costs 
added. Variable costs include the cost of a driver, 
fuel, lubrication and repairs. The annual fixed costs 
were doubled to allow for contractor's overhead and profit. 
Examples of the detailed calculations are included in 
Appendix E and the results are presented on Figure 2.6. 

A further check on the calculated figures was obtained by 
reference to such sources as the "Rental Rates for Construc- 
tion Equipment" published by The Ontario Road Builders' 



2-33 



Association. The rental rates are presented on Figure 2.7 
and the sources of information are given on Table E-2 in 
Appendix "E" . 

b) Barges 

Two operators have quoted a rate of $16 - $20 per hour for 
rental of a 12,000 gallon barge with two operators if used 
for a full 8 hour day. Because of ice and other weather 
conditions the annual operating period for barges is limited 
to 4 - 7 months. A further variable is the possibility of 
using the barges to transport other materials between sewage 
haulage trips or on the outgoing trip to collect sewage. 

c) Rail 

Because of the many variables and the relatively few 
situations where rail haulage may be a viable alternative, 
no attempt has been made to derive typical costs for this 
method of transportation. 

2.3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 

There are several satisfactory manufacturers and/or 
suppliers of sewage haulage vehicles in Ontario. For a 
holding tank pumpout operation, a larger volume of sewage 
may be involved than for a septic tank operation and, 
therefore, greater care has to be taken to make a spill 
and odour free operation. A vacuum pump unit with a 
standard sized quick coupling hose and a metering device 
would satisfy these requirements. 



2-34 
2. 4 Disposal of Hauled Sewage and Odour Control 

2.4.1 General 

Sewage will be hauled to: 

existing municipal treatment plants, 

- treatment facilities specially constructed 
for the purpose (possibly lagoons) , 

- fields for spraying of lagoon supernatant or 
spreading of sludges 

Existing plants adjacent to holding tank areas are of 
relatively small capacity and may experience operational 
problems if large volumes of holding tank waste are intro- 
duced directly to the flow by dumping at a high rate. This 
might be overcome by providing a holding tank at the treat- 
ment plant from which the contents could be introduced to 
the plant flow at a controlled rate. This can only be 
evaluated on an individual plant basis by considering the 
normal plant flows, the plant capacity and the volume of 
holding tank wastes to be received by the plant. 

Alternatively, special treatment facilities may have to be 
constructed for the holding tank contents. These might 
include additions to existing plants which would increase 
their capacity during the summer period when the load from 
holding tanks would be at a maximum. Conventional biolo- 
gical treatment would be feasible in this case as the 
activated sludge seed would be available from the existing 
facilities which would also provide a stabilizing effect. 

If completely separate treatment facilities are required 
the conventional biological system is generally impractical. 
Physical/chemical treatment is possible but generally 
expensive. 

Facultative lagoons are a more common treatment method for 



2-35 



small, intermittent flows and would have to be designed 
for the particular conditions envisaged here. Aerated 
lagoons are also an alternative if there are space and 
excavation cost limitations. Probably six-month storage 
would be required but this is dependent upon whether the 
lagoons are aerated or not, and upon the receiving waters 
available. If this condition is restrictive then a spray 
irrigation system for the effluent may be required. 

At the present time in several areas septic and holding 
tank contents are spread on farmland and disced or 
ploughed into the soil. There is some concern about the 
possible transfer of pathogenic organisms when certain 
root crops are grown on these cireas and it is understood 
that Provincial policies are being developed in this 
regard. Where suitable land is obtainable and arrange- 
ments made for regular discing of the soil, this method 
may offer an economical means of disposal. 

2.4.2 Disposal Costs 

These costs are extremely variable throughout the Province 
depending upon the type of disposal system available and 
the scale of the system. The total costs for various 
disposal methods based upon retirement of the capital costs 
plus operating costs including labour, chemicals, power, 
maintenance, etc. , have been derived as illustrated in 
Appendix E and are summarized in this section for use in 
the cost generation model. 

a) Activated Sludge Plants 

Figure 2.8 shows the variation in total cost per 1,000 
gallons treated for different plant flows. Assuming that 
most of the activated sludge plants near the areas to be 



2-36 



serviced by holding tanks have flows in the range of 
0.5 - 2.0 MGD, an average cost of 30C/1,000 gallons was 
used although wide variations from this are possible. 

b) Lagoons 

Lagoon costs are very dependent upon soil conditions. 
Assuming a capacity in the order of 0.25 MGD with six- 
month storage constructed without rock excavation an 
average cost of 20C/1,000 gallons was estimated. Again, 
wide variations can be expected. 

c) Spray Irrigation 

On the basis of the calculations presented in Appendix 

E it is estimated that the cost of spray irrigation for 
a ten week season and 1,000 cottages would be approximately 
60$/l,000 gallons. 

Where disposal is directly from the transfer vehicle to 
the land with subsequent discing the cost would be in the 
order of $3.50/1,000 gallons. 

2.4.3 Odour Control Systems 

Although it would be anticipated that odours would be 
generated from the holding tanks and during the trans- 
fer operation, reports from the sewage haulage contractors 
indicate that odours are not a problem. As this is a 
subjective matter critical to the acceptance of the total 
scheme, it is important that consideration be given to 
ensuring that odours do not become a problem, and that if 
they are generated to a significant degree, they can be 
controlled. Control measures are simplified if the number 
of vents from the system are limited and accessible to 
control. 



2-37 



Odour causing compounds from sewage are not easily identi- 
fiable but are usually non- toxic in total. The odours 
are generally attributable to ammonia, hydrogen sulphide 
and mercaptans. 

Odour control systems may be based on: 

a) Adsorption which involves the mechanical adherence 
of a gas or vapour to a solid surface. Activated 
carbon, silica gel or alumina may be used. Activated 
carbon appears to be best suited to this application 
because it has good adsorption characteristics 
regardless of variations in concentration and humidity; 
it is available in cannister form and may be easily 
attached to a variety of vents. Replaceable cartridges 
are available or the activated carbon may be regenerated 
by heat if large quantities are involved. 

b) Odour neutralization - Odours may be controlled 

without physical or chemical alteration of the odour 

causing molecules by, 

i) odour masking where a stronger more acceptable 
odourous chemical is mixed with the obnoxious 
gases and predominates. 

ii) odour counteraction which is based on the 
principle that two antagonistic odours are 
paired in appropriate proportions to neutra- 
lize the original odour. The advantages of 
such a system are low initial equipment cost 
and negligible space requirements. 

The disadvantages are that the odour molecule 
is neither destroyed nor adsorbed but hidden. 
An odour is still present which to some people 
may be less acceptable than the original odour. 

c) Destruction of odorous compounds - The odorous con- 
stituents of sewage gases can be destroyed by inciner- 



2-38 



ation at 1400 - 1600 F and in some applications by 
the use of ozone or packed bed scrubbers with an 
oxidizing chemical such as potassium permanganate 
in the scrubber water. These methods are either too 
expensive or mechanically complex for application 
at individual premises, but may be employed at a 
sewage treatment plant disposal area if found to be 
necessary. 

d) Closed system - If all odours could be contained in 
pressurized holding and transfer tanks, the possibility 
of odours would be confined to the disposal area. The 
use of pressurized tanks would increase the cost and 
complexity of the systems a great deal and it is 
believed that they would be unsuitable for individual 
premises. However, pressurization can be avoided by 
transferring air from the vehicle tank to fill the 
emptying holding tank. This method is workable only 
with sewage pumps, as in vacuum systems the volume of 
air being displaced would not remain constant. 

e) Aeration - By adding air or pure oxygen to the sewage 
it can be maintained in an aerobic condition and thus 
avoid the generation of obnoxious odours. Such a 
system would further complicate the holding tank installa- 
tion. If the sewage is not aerobic when transferred to 
the haulage vehicle, then the application of air to the 
vehicle holding tank would tend to drive off odours and 
accentuate the problem locally. However this method 

may be required in the form of pre-aeration tanks at 
bilogical treatment plants to make the holding tank 
sewage suitable for subsequent treatment. 

f ) Chemical treatment in the holding tank - Chemicals 
may be added to sewage to control odours by inhibiting 



2-39 



anaerobic decomposition. Such chemicals are toxic 
to biological treatment and commonly include formalde- 
hyde or zinc sulphate. Although effective in the local 
system, these chemicals may upset a biological treat- 
ment plant if added in "slugs". However, if the holding 
tank contents were added in a controlled manner such 
that the formaldehyde concentration did not exceed 100 
ppm and the zinc concentration 60 ppm in the combined 
flow, this method of odour control would be acceptable. 

Further study would be required to determine the effect 
on other methods of disposal. 

Chlorine tablets may be added to the holding tank to 
control odours and full prechlorination may be practised 
at the disposal site without adverse effects on the 
treatment process. 

2.4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Several viable methods of sewage disposal are available 
including direct land disposal; spray irrigation of liquid 
waste after settling; sewage lagoons; and conventional 
treatment. The methods to be used must be evaluated for 
each situation, taking into account haulage distances as 
well as treatment costs, particular suitability for the 
area, environmental conditions and relative seasonal and 
annual loadings. 

On the basis of existing reports and for the type of 
system recommended, odours may not be a problem. It is 
recommended that this be confirmed by field studies. If 
odour problems develop at the holding tank and transfer 
vehicle components of the system, it is recommended that 



2-40 



activated carbon filters be used on the vent pipe and 
vehicle tank exhaust system. Alternatively and depending 
upon the disposal system, chemicals may be added to 
inhibit anaerobic digestion. If problems develop at the 
disposal point several of the control methods already 
discussed may be applied, the most favourable being pre- 
aeration or prechlorination from a cost aspect. In 
summary, the cost of odour control has not been included 
in the cost generation model for this study but it is 
felt that any problems which might arise can be solved 
at a reasonable additional cost. 

2. 5 Control Systems 

2.5.1 General 

A control system is required which will ensure the safe 
and efficient operation of the total sewage haulage scheme. 
It must also provide the regulatory authorities with the 
means to ensure that the system is not misused yet be 
composed of elements which are rugged, simple and inex- 
pensive. Numerous alternatives were considered most of 
which were rejected on the basis of complexity, lack of 
suitability for this rugged application and/or cost. 
The most suitable alternatives are reviewed as they apply 
to each component of the system. 

a) Holding Tank Controls 

The controls for this component must perform the following 
two basic functions. As a single device could not be 
obtained which would perform the two functions economically 
and with sufficient accuracy, they are considered separa- 
tely. 



2-41 



(i) A device is required to determine when the 

holding tank should be emptied and to initiate 
an alarm which would inform the owner. To 
prevent overfilling by a pumped sewage system, 
the device must also shut off the pump and 
lock it out of operation. Should the alarm 
be ignored in a residence with a gravity 
system, back-up in the household plumbing 
system would occur before overflow of the 
holding tank, as the tank vent would be installed 
through the premises to an elevation above that 
of the plumbing fixtures of the premises. 

Assuming that hydro is available, the alarm 
device would operate an audible alarm in the 
form of a buzzer or bell. A two-way switch 
would allow the resident to silence the buzzer 
but a red light would be initiated in its 
place which would remain on until the tank had 
been emptied. If hydro is not available, a 
battery system could be used as a source of 
power with a constant light bulb to monitor 
the condition of the battery. Two types of 
devices are best suited for this function, 
namely: 

- A pressure sensitive diaphram switch 

- A floating plastic encased mercury 
switch 

Both devices would be suspended from the top 
of the tank and could be raised or lowered 
to sound the alarm at whichever percentage 
of tank capacity was most suitable to the 
owner and the sewage haulage contractor. 

ii) A method to determine the volume of sewage in 
the holding tank is also required as a check 
on the quantity of sewage removed by the haulage 
contractor. 

A large number of devices are available for such 
a function if the product to be measured were 
a pure liquid. However, most are unsuitable for 
sewage with the associated sludge solids. 

A device similar to a Levelometer unit with a 
protective shield could be used. This unit 
operates with its own air pump and is relatively 
inexpensive, approximately $50.00 (see subsection 
2.5.2). The depth of tank read-out generated 



2-42 



would have to be calibrated to the particular 
tank, shape to obtain a volume measurement. 

Alternately a water meter, with remote totalizer, 
could be installed in such a location as to mon- 
itor only the water tributary to the holding 
tank. This capacity would give a reasonably 
accurate measurement of sewage volume if read 
each time that the holding tc:nk was emptied, 
and would cost approximately $55.00. 



b) Transfer Vehicle Controls 

The controls for this component of the system must also 
perform the same two basic functions required at the 
holding tank. 



(i) A device is required to initiate an alarm at 
some predetermined level in the transfer 
vehicle tank and to shut off the filling 
mechanism before overflow takes place. Most 
manufacturers contacted during the study state 
that such a device is an integral part of their 
vehicles. It consists of a float operated 
flap valve which closes the vacuum filling 
pipe at a predetermined level. 

It is felt that this method may be subject 

to wear on the flap valve and hence inefficient 

operation. Therefore, it is considered that 

one of the level control units discussed for 

the holding tank would be preferable if installed 

to shut off the vehicle filling mechanism 

directly. 

(ii) A method to determine and record the volume of 
sewage transferred to the vehicle at each pick- 
up point is required for billing purposes and 
to prevent misuse of the system. 

One manufacturer suggested that a sight glass 
of a large enough diameter to prevent clogging 
by sewage solids might be used. However, this 
unit would be large and very susceptible to 
damage. 

Investigations indicate that there is only one 



2-43 



type of unit on the market which would ful- 
fill the requirements. The unit consists of 
a pressure sensitive tape with a power supplied 
recorder. The pressure sensitive tape is sus- 
pended from the top of the tank at its centre- 
line as shown on Figure 2-9. The manufacturer 
is noted in Table 2.5. 

Although there appears to be only one unit 
available as a single component, a unit com- 
prised of a liquid filled diaphragm could also 
be used to transmit the tank level to a mechani- 
cally or power operated clock recorder to 
provide a similar function to the tape unit 
referred to above. 



d) Disposal Area Controls 

It is important to measure the volume of sewage delivered 
by each transfer vehicle to the disposal area to provide 
a means of monitoring the total operation. Although the 
truck mounted measuring device could be used by checking 
as the vehicle is unloaded, an independent measurement 
would be desirable. 

Several such devices might be available at different dis- 
posal sites. Examples are weigh scales; magnetic flow 
meters on the unloading piping; or Parshal flumes if the 
discharge were to an open channel. If the discharge were 
to a transfer tank or storage tank at the disposal site, 
a device similar to the truck mounted recorder could be 
used. 

The most difficult disposal areas to monitor would be 
sewage lagoons or spray irrigation systems which are 
normally unattended. It is anticipated that a disposal 
vault with valved outlet would be required in these 
locations to properly control system operation. A suit- 
able metering arrangement would also be required. 



2-44 



2.5.2 Manufacturers' Information 

In order to provide a firm base for analysis of the various 
components of the overall sewage haulage system, manufac- 
turers in each field were surveyed to evaluate materials 
currently available. Costs tabulated reflect current 
prices. 

This information has allowed a practical haulage system 
to be proposed with confidence. 

The data collected relating to control systems is summarized 
in Table 2.5. 

A complete list of manufacturers contacted during the study 
is contained in Appendix C . 

2.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Certain equipment at present used for water metering can 
be used for the control of the sewage haulage system. The 
waste water produced would be monitored by measurements 
from a water meter attached to the water supply of indivi- 
dual premises. The owner of the premises would be noti- 
fied by an alarm when his tank needed emptying. The alarm 
would be activated by either a pressure sensitive diaphragm 
switch or a float switch. 

The quantities of sewage hauled would be measured both on 
the transfer vehicle and at the disposal site on chart 
recorders. A magnetic flow meter could be used at the 
disposal site. 



TABLE 2 . 1 



SUMMARY - DATA FROM HOLDING TANK SUPPLIERS 



TANK 
MATERIAL 



MANUFACTURER 



SHAPE 



VOLUME 
Imp. Gal 



DIMENSIONS 
(LxWxH) 



WEIGHT 



CAPITAL COST 
(F.O.B. Factory 



Steel 1) Clemmer Industries Ltd. 

446 Albert St., Waterloo, Ont. 

2) Dahmer Steel Ltd. , 

68 Shirley Ave., Kitchener, Ont. 

3) Domestic Tank & Equipment Co. 

69 Comstock Rd. , Scarborough, Ont 



4) Marcon Custom Metals Ltd. , 

489 Lancaster St. W. , Kitchener, Ont, 

Concrete 5) Winona Concrete Products Ltd. , 
489 Main St. W. , Grimsby, Ont. 



6) R & P Weber Concrete Products Ltd. , 
Breslau, Ont. 



Fibreglass 7) Precisioneering Ltd. , 
Reinforced 303 Nantucket Blvd. , Toronto, Ont. 
Plastic 8) Canada Barr els & Kegs Ltd., 
Box 280, Waterloo, Ont. 



Rubberized 9) Firestone Coated Fabrics Ltd. 

Fabric (supplier I.T.S. Liquintrol Co., Box 672, Hamilton) 



10) B.F. Goodrich Ltd., 

409 Weber St. W. , Kitchener, Ont. 

Polyethy- 11) Canbar Industrial Plastics 
lene Box 280, Waterloo, Ont. 



Cylindri- 2,000 
cal (Horiz) 



Rectangu- 
lar box 
with circu- 
lar end 
sections 


1 

2 

-3 


,000 
,000 
,000 


Rectangu- 
lar box 


1 


650 

750 

900 

,300 



Cylindri- 1,000- 
cal(Horiz) 5,000 

or vert.) 1,000- 
3,000 

3,000- 
5,000 

Pillow- 1,000 

shaped 2,000 

when full 3,000 

5,000 

2,000 



60" dia.x206" 



2,000 


72" 


dia. 


.xl44" 


1,000 


50" 


dia 


,xl42" 


2,000 


72" 


dia, 


.xl37" 


3,000 


72" 


dia 


.x205" 


5,000 


84" 


dia 


.x 251" 


2,000 


72" 


dia 


.xl44" 



102 H x62"x64" 

116"x68 M xl02' 

128"x80"xl08' 



90"x54"x66" 
102"x54"x66" 

96"x72"x66" 
108"x72"x66" 

72" dia.xl44 



approx. as for 
steel tanks 



91"x86"x32" 
200"x86"x32" 
285"x86"x32" 
303"xl30"x34" 

228"x96"x36" 



Cylindri- 


1,000 


72" 


dia.x72" 


cal (Horiz) 


2,000 


84" 


dia.xl05" 


or vert 


3,000 


90" 


dia.xl35" 


or flat 








oval) 









IT. 



1 T. 

0.5 T 
1 T 
1.5 T 
2.8 T 



5 T 
7 T 
9 T 



800. Fed & Pro- 
tax incl. 



900 lb. 



$1,300- 

275- 

480. 

505. 

1,040- 

1,140- 



190. 
315. 
420. 



130. 
150. 
175. 
205. 

50<Vgal 
of tank 



wt. approx. 850 up to 
half that of 3,000 gal 
steel 







750 for 3,000 






to 5,000 gal. 


78 


lb. 


$ 617. (Fed (, 


141 


lb. 


l,090.Prov. 


205 


lb. 


1, 380. Taxes 


323 


lb. 


1,9 30.+Duty 
Incl.) 


295 


lb. 


1,450 Taxes 
Incl. 


320 


lb. 


700 " 


500 


lb. 


1,110 


660 


lb. 


1,580 



TABLE 2.2 



SUMMARY OF DATA FROM LIFT STATION AND PUMP MANUFACTURERS SURVEYED 



ITEM 



MANUFACTURER 



SUPPLIER 



CAPACITY 



COST 



COMMENTS 



Lift Station 



Lift Station 



Sewage 
Ejector 



Vacuum 
Pumps 

Vacuum 
Pumps 

Vacuum 
Pumps 



Vacuum 
Pumps 



Barnes Pumps of 
Canada Limited, 
Mississauaa, Ont. 



Same 



50 gpm <a 30 ft. 



P ump $ 2 6 8 

Controls $149 
Tank $170 



F . E. Myers & Bros. Same 
Co. (Canada) Limited, 
Kitchener, Ontario. 



Duro Pump 



Pumps and 
Softeners 
Ltd. , Toronto 
Ontario. 



50 opm @ 25 ft. 



45 opm B 30 ft. 



$587 
Taxes excluded 

$5 34.85, taxes 
excluded 



$500.00, taxes 
excluded 



Available in higher ranges from areater number of Suppliers. 



San-Equip Ltd. 



J. B. Systems Ltd. 
Stoney Creek, Ont. 

Cusco Industries 
Thornhill , Ont. 



Yorkshire 
Steam Wagon Co. 
Leeds, England 



San-Equip 
Toronto 

Same 



Same 



From 1" vac. to Varies dependina 

30" vac. (mercury) on drive units 



ditto 



ditto 



ditto 



ditto 
ditto 



Power Requirements 2 30-Volt 
1 Phase 



Power Requirements 2 30-Volt 
1 Phase 



Power Requirements 2 30-Volt 
1 Phase 



- Manufacturer assembles complete 
truck unit. 

- Pumps are imported from Italy. 



Manufacturers of assembled units 
Punps imported from Italy 
Air cooled 

This is a packaoe unit 
including truck. 



TABLE 2.3 -SUMMARY OF DATA FROM HOSE AND HOSE COUPLING MANUFACTURERS SURVEYED 



ITEM 



MANUFACTURER 



SUPPLIER 


SIZE 


COS T/ FT . 


WEIGHT/FT. 


COMMENTS 


RNG Equipment 


F 66 - 2h" dia. 


$5.80 




1.951 




Limited, Toronto 


- 3" dia. 


$7.50 


— 


2.43# 




Sane 


Commander 












- 2V dia. 


$3.66 


- 


2.19# 






3 M dia. 


$4. 36 


- 


2.21# 




Bird Bridge 


410 - 2h" dia 


$3.07 


_ 


0.82# 


U. S. price 


Specialties Ltd. 


412 - 3" dia. 


$3.86 


- 


1.06# 




Toronto 












Same 


N-135 - 2%" dia. 


$5.26 


- 


L.44I 






- 3" dia. 


$6.76 


— 


2.12* 




Same 


Suction- 2H" dia. 


$2.70 


_ 


1.92t 






wire - 3" dia. 


$3.20 


- 


2.261 





Hose 



Hose 



Hose 



Hose 



Hose 



Hewitt Robins 
Toronto 

B.F.Goodrich 
Kitchener 



General Tire 
Indiana 



Goodall Rubber 
Le aside .Toronto 



Ontario Rubber 
Mai ton, Ontario 



braided 



Quick RNG Equipment 

Couplers Ltd. Toronto 



Same 



1" - 6" dia 



Trade name Ever-Tite 



Quick Dover Corpn 

Couplers (Canada) Ltd. 

Chatham, Ont. 



Same , 

Don Mills , Ont. 



H" - 8" dia. 



$3.00 up, 
dependent 
on size 



Trade name Kamlock 



These units are distributed throughout the Province by Agents 



TABLE 2.4- SUMMARY - SEWAGE HAULAGE VEHICLE CAPITAL COSTS FROM SURVEYED SOURCES 



SOURCES OF INFORMATION 



TANK SIZE 
(gals.) 



VEHICLE TYPE 



197 3 CAPITAL COST 
(excluding Provincial 
Sales Tax) 



TRUCKS 

1) Mr. S. Manley, B.P.-Supertest 
Farm Sales Manager, London 

2) Ontario Road Builders Assoc. 
Equipment Rental Rate Book. 
Rates for water trucks with 
pumps. 

3) Lucier Bros., Sewage Haulage 
Contractors, McGregor, Ontario 
near Windsor 

4) J. B. Systems Design and Manu- 
facturing, 210 Edgemount Ave. 
South, Hamilton. 

5) London Public Works Dept. 

2 tractor trailers used for 
sludge haulage. 

6) King Trailer, Woodstock for 
trailer costs. Tractor costs 
from International Harvester 
Co. of Canada Ltd., 1712 Dundas 
St. , London and London Motor 
Products Ltd., G.M.C. dealers, 
507 Richmond St., London. 



SELF PROPELLED BARGES 

A. Barge fabricated in 1972 by 
Daniels Welding Service, Midland 
and owned by Mr. Martin of Margo 
Custom Haulage Ltd, Parry Sound. 

B. Barge fabricated in 1972 by 
Daniels Welding Service, 
Midland and owned by 

Mr. Archer, Browning Island 
Dock, Lake Muskoka . 

C. 2 barges fabricated in 1972 
by Sealand, Lakefield for 
their own use. 



1,850 
11,000 

2,000 
2,500 
3,000 

3,000 
4,000 

2,000 
2,300 
2,500 
3,000 

4,000 trailer by King 
Trailers, Woodstock 
(Cost - $14,500) 

5,500 tandem axle, mild 
steel trailer (cost - 
$12,000) 

5,500 tandem axle, alu- 
minum trailer (cost - 
$17,000) 

6,500 triple axle mild 
steel trailer (cost - 
$18,000) 

6,500 triple axle alu- 
minum trailer (cost - 
$24,000) 



14,000 



Barge capable of being 
converted to 12,000 
gallon sewage carrier 



Single rear axle 
Tractor trailer 



Single rear axle 
Tandem rear axle 
Tandem rear axle 

Tandem rear axle 
Tractor trailer 



Dodge C800 Single rear axle 
Dodge CT800 tandem rear axle 
Dodge CT800 tandem rear axle 
Dodge CT800 tandem rear axle 



G.M.C. JH9 series diesel tractor 



4,000 



G.M.C. JH9 series diesel tractor 

50' x 18' wide steel barge propelled by 
twin diesels. Draft loaded 4 ft. max. 
speed 10 m.p.h. 



40' x 18' wide steel barge propelled by 
twin G.M. 96 H.P. diesels. Draft loaded 
4 ft. Max. speed 8 m.p.h. 



40' x 12* steel barge propelled by 35- 
50 H.P. outboard Draft empty 2 ft. 
Speed 4-5 m.p.h.. Barges built to 
operate on Trent Cana: -. 



15,000 
68,000 

14,000 
17,300 
19,400 

17,500 
20,000 

13,107 
16,900 
17,198 
17,536 

26,100 
28,300 



International Harvester Tractor 

International Harvester 20/70 diesel tractor 37,000 



47,000 



International Harvester 4200 diesel tractor 45,000 



54,000 



65,000 



Basic cost 
$2 5,000. 
Probable cost 
when equipped 
for sewage haul- 
age S40,000 



12,000 



TABLE 2.5 - SUMMARY DATA FROM CONTROL SYSTEM SUPPLIFRS 



ITEM 



Tank Capacity 
Device 



MANUFACTURER 



SUPPLIER 



S i mmon ds 

Precision 

Montreal 



Same 
Toronto 



SYSTEM 
LOCATION 



Holdinq Tank 



COST 



IYPE 



$35.00 



Self contained 
Manually oper- 
ated Air Pump 



COMMENTS 



Direct readina 

Protective device 
would be required 
inside tank 



Tank Capacity 
Device 



Neptune Meters 
Limited, Toronto 



Same 



Water supply 
tributary to 
holding tank 



$53.00 



Mechanical 
Water Meter 
c/w remote 
totalizer head 



Tank Capacity 
Device 


Rockwell 
Mfg. Co. , 
Pa. 


Same 
Toronto 


water supply 
tributary to 
holding tank 


$55 


.00 


Mechanical 
Water Meter 
c/w remote 
totalizer 


Tank 

Capacity 

Device 




Special 

See Fig. 2.9 




Transfer 
Vehicle 

Transfer 
Station 




$1. 


,000 


Graduated 
sight glass 
with recorder 


Disposal 

Recording 

Device 


Site 


Fischer & 

Porter, 

Toronto 


Same 


Sewaae 

Treatment 

Plant 




$2, 


,600 


Magnetic 
flow meter 
with chart 
recorder 


Disposal 

Recording 

Device 


Site 


Kent Cam- 
bridge 
Enaland 


Same 
Toronto 


Sewage 

Treatment 

Plant 


$2, 


,500 


Maonet 
flow meter 
with chart 
re cor de r 


Alarm 
Devices 




Proximity 
Controls Inc. 


Bestobell 
Controls 


Holding Tank, 
Transfer 


$ 


137 


Pressure 
Sensitive 






Minnesota 


Toronto 


Vehicle , 
Transfer 
Station 








Diaphrams 


Alarm 
Devices 




Flygt Canada 
Dorval , Que 


G.F.Seeley 
Rexdale & 


Holding tank , 

Transfer 

Station 


s 


50 


Floating Mer- 
cury Switch 


Alarm 
Devices 




Simmonds Pre- 
cision, 
Montreal 


Same, 
Toronto 


Transfer 
Transfer 


Station, 
Vehicle 


, $ 


37.50 


Fixed posi- 
tion float 


Alarm 
Devices 




R.Trist Con- 
trols, England 


Bestobell 

Controls 

Toronto 


Transfer 
Transfer 


Station, 
Vehicle 


r S 


142 


Fixed positio 
float 


Tank Capacity 
Device 


Inc. 
West Concord, 
Mass. 


Baker In- 
struments 
Ltd. , 


Transfer 
Transfer 


Vehicle 
Station 


$ 


841.00 


Pressure sen- 
sitive taoe 
with recorder 



40% discount for 

quantity. 
Adjustable 



Adjustable , 
Not recommended on 
transfer vehicle 
without protection 

Fixed location 



Fixed Locatic r , 

Discount or. 



Mi 1 1 — . ..4 - 1 - 



LEVEL INDICATOR (STD) 
(REMOTE) 



OUTLET PIPE 
SEE FIG No. 2 4 
(STD) 



ALARM DEVICE 
(STD) 



BLINL F_ANGt 



ACCESS SEE 
FIG. No 2 4 

:std) 




4 DIA. INLET PIPE (MAr BE INSTALLED 
AT END CF TANK WHEN TANK INSTALLED 
BELOW GRADE 



TANK TO HAVE / 4 PER FT 
SLOPE TO OUTLET END 



TANK SUPPORTS 
FOR ABOVE GROJNC 
N STALL AT ION) 






FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF PROPOSED SEWAGE HOLDING TANK 



FIG. 2-1 



650 



600 



oS 550 

z 
o 
-J 
_l 

5 500 

>- 
< 

Q 

* 450 

a 

£ 

§ 400 



FROM JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, WA". E r , CONSUMPTION 
FOR PROPERTY WITH THE FOLLOWING VAl UES! 

840,000 

8 25,000 

85,000 




en 

g 

2 

1 

a 

UJ 

3 



5 ;-■ 

UJ 



350 



300 



200 



150 



100 



50 



)| 23456789 10 I 

NUMBER OF PERSONS PER PREMISES UNIT - N 

ESTIMATED DAILY WASTE WATER PRODUCTION RATES 



FIG. 2 2 





1? 


1 L lo 
I i" Ij> 














1 o 


1 l t>j 
1 1° 


1° 


* o \o 












• § \\ i 




\° \ 


Q H IS 


HOLDING TANK 


VOLUME 






I 


V \ 




\ \ 


IN GALLONS 






\ 






\ \ 
\ \ 


Q' IS 


HOLDING TANK CAPACITY IN 




\ 


\9, 1 ;o\ 




GALLONS WITH 5'DAYS RESERVE 








\ 


I CAPACITY 






\ 


.0 1 % o\ 




\ 












\ 




\ 










30 


1 


M\\ 




\ 










\ 
\ 


^ HI \ 


\ 
\ 










§ 


\ 

\ 


o l \° \ 
5*1 i 






\ \ 
\ \ 








UJ 
Q. 

(f> 

z 
o 

_1 
_J 


\ 
\ 


\\ 
\\ 


\\ \ 




\ \ 
\ \ 








' 


'i A 
\ \\ 


\\ \ 
\\ \ 




\ > 
\ 

\ 
\ 






< 


\ \ 


4 \ 






\ X 






Z 










\ X 






200 

z 








v X^ 










\ 










o 


°- V 


V V \ 




\ 






»- 


I " 1 


\\ \\ \ 




% X. 




2 
o 
o 


5 \\ 
18 \\ 


\\ \\ 












a 




V \^ \ 






V 




* \ \ 


\ \ \ \ X 








cr 


\ \ N 


\ \ x 










H 


\ \ 
\ \ 


\ \ 


\ \ X 








UJ 


N \ \ 
\ \ 

\ \ 


\ X s v 


*, \ 








100 


\ \ 


L \ \ 










\ 




X S 

x >» 


\ **> 










\ 




X. v. 




**^^\^ 






< 

Q 


\ 

N 


X 


h X. 












V X. 
















■* *» ^* N ^*'* > ^«.^ 
















^ ""* ""--^-"^H 


^ — J"*' 







0' — 
10 20 30 40 50 6 


3 


DAYS OF USE OF PREMISES BETWEEN PUMPOUTS 






GRAPH TO ESTIMATE INTERVAL BETWEEN PUMPOUTS 


2-3 






FIG. 



CON TRACTOR 'S HOSt CONNEC TION 



Pi UG /A I vF 






PI UG VAl Vf 



HOLDING TANK 
CONNECTION 




LENGTH TO SUI T 
HOLDING TANK 



suction guard 
to rest on 
bottom of tank 



SCREEN 

STRAIGHT THROUGH 
VENT FOR 
PRESSURF 
SYSTEM 

BAul ACTS AS 
FLOAT VALVE 



24 PI A SEALED ACCESS OPENING 
TO HOLDING TANK 



PROPOSED ACCESS AND SUCTION PIPE 
CONNECTIONS TO HOLDING TANK 



FIG. 2-4 



NOTE COSTS OBTAINED FEBRUARY, I9M 

X TRUCK 

O SELF - PROPFLLED BARGE 



70,000 



ui 

-J 

tn 

-J 
< 

u 

z 

> 

G 

a 
a. 

o 

z 

Q 

-J 



or 

<3 



o 



60,000 



50,000 



40,000 



30,000 



20,000 



10,000 



TRUCK 



COSTS 




SINGLE 
REAR AXI 



.TAN DEM 
REAJR AXLE 



TRACTOR TRAILER 



APPROXIMATE LIMITS CI" TRUCK TY*>ES 




2,000 



4£00 



6,000 



8,000 



10,000 



12,000 



14,000 



Qv - HAULAGE VEHICLE TANK SIZE (GALLONS) 



CAPITAL COSTS OF SEWAGE HAULAGE VEHICLES 



FIG. 2- 5 



c 
o 




VARIABLE 



OPERATING 
COST FOR 



Ov 
Qv 
Ov 



2,000, 2500, AND 3,000 
5,500 AND 6, $00 

4, 000 



500 



1000 



1500 



2000 



2500 



3000 



ANNUAL HOURS OF OPERATION 



Qv 

2,000 
2,500 
3.000 
4,000 
5,500 
6.500 



ANNUAL FIXED COSTS 

$ 9,200 
10,400 
II, 660 
16,620 
22,400 
25,000 



CALCULATED HAULAGE VEHICLE OPERATING 

COSTS FOR DIFFERENT TRUCK TANK SIZES 

(Qv- GALLONS) 

FIG. 2-6 



X TRUCK 

© SELF - PROPELLED BARGE 



£ 



s 

a 

< 

-j 

| 

cn 

o 



UJ 

-J 
O 



< 



30 
















25 






x . 


r x 








20 




X 


x / 












































^r 








O 


15 


| 


; v' 












! 


y x 














J 


i 












10 

5 













































2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 



Qv - HAULAGE VEHICLE TANK SIZE (GALLONS) 



HAULAGE VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS 
FROM SURVEYED SOURCES 



FIG. 2-7 



DATA OBTAINED ACTIVATED SLUDGE 
TREATMENT PLANTS. 



40 



1 • — 












€> 
















• 


9 




i 



















30 



en 
z 

3 

-j 
< 

(0 

O 
O 
O 



B 



(0 

o 



2 

O 



10 



10 



I? 



TREATMENT PLANT FLOW (M.6.D.) 



SEWAGE DISPOSAL COSTS 



FIG. 2-8 



ALARM DEVICE 




RECORDER ATTACHED TO S* 
VEHICLE SUCH THAT VIBRATION 
WOULD BE MINIMAL. 
MECHANICAL OR ELECTRIC 
POWERED TIME CLOCK OPERATED 



SIGHT GLASS 



GRADUATED TO 
INDICATE TANK 
CONTENTS (WITH 
PROTECTIVE SHIELD) 



VALVE MUST BE CLOSED 
DURING TRANSIT 




FLUID CONTAINER SIZED TO 
DISPLACE COLOURED LIQUID 
UP SIGHT GLASS PROPORTIONAL 
TO VEHICLE CAPACITY 




TRANSFER VEHICLE 

ELECTRIC SENSOR TAPE MOUNTED 
AT q_ OF VEHICLE TANK 



ALTERNATIVES 



NOTE - ARRANGEMENT SHOWN FOR FLUID 
RECORDER ALTERNATIVE. 



SKETCH OF TRANSFER VEHICLE RECORDER 



FIG. 2-9 




TOTALIZER READING TO BE COMPARED 
WITH TRANSFER VEHICLE READING. 



RECORDING MECHANICAL X 
TIME CHART IN GALS. 



CODED NUMBER 



WATER METER WITH TOTALIZER IN 
GALLONS LOCATED AT INDIVIDUAL 
PREMISES 

















II 
































i 


































UJ J 

2 
















-; 


» 






. 












[5! 












, a i 


3, 


6/ 


3 


























TRANSFER VEHICLE 



CONTRACTOR WOULD INSERT CODED 
NUMBER OR CUSTOMERS NAME 
CORROSPONDING TO HOLDING TANK 
AND DATE ON HIS OWN CHART 



u GALLONS 

/TYPICAL CHART 
(MAY BE CIRCULAR) 



2000 



STORAGE TANK 





cS 



5 



RECORDING 
TOTALIZER 



RECORDING MECHANICAL/ 
ELECTRICAL TIME CHART (GALS) 



MAGNETIC FLOW METER OR 
VALVED DISPOSAL CHAMBER 



SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 



TRANSFER STATION 



BOTH SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 
AND TRANSFER STATION CHARTS 
WOULD CORRESPOND WITH 
TRANSFER VEHICLE 



PROPOSED CONTROL SYSTEM OF MONOTORING 



FIG. 2-10 



3-1 



CHAPTER 3 - SYSTEM OPERATION 



3 . 1 General 



In the previous chapters of this Report, the results of 
the studies of each of the components of the sewage 
haulage system are presented. The system is composed 
of a holding component, a transfer component, a haulage 
component and a disposal component. The total system is 
illustrated by Figure A, located inside the back cover. 

As many variations are possible, a series of graphs 
(Figures 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.3) have been prepared 
to permit an evaluation of the effect of these variables 
on the cost and operation of an overall haulage system. 
These graphs enable the generation of total cost for 
system operation. Thus total cost can be reduced to the 
lowest value for any given service area and the applicable 
parameters. Examples of the use of these optimization 
procedures include : 

- best holding tank size for minimizing cost 

- feasibility of transfer station and special 
sewage treatment facilities 

- number of transfer vehicles required to service 
an area 

An illustration of the use of these graphs is presented 

in Chapter 4 of this Report. 

3.2 Costing Model 

3.2.1 Holding Tank System 

The optimum size of holding tank required depends upon 
the volume of waste water production; the time required 
by the Contractor to service the tank and the relationship 
between servicing costs and capital cost of the holding 
tank. 



3-2 

Figure 2.2 can be used to estimate the daily quantity 
of waste water from individual premises. While there 
is a wide variation in sewage volume rates, it is believed 
that a person served by a holding tank will initiate 
measures because of economic reasons to reduce water 
useage. These measures would include low water use toilets, 
use of spring loaded taps, use of commercial laundry 
facilities, etc. 

The interval between holding tank pumpouts for a given 
holding tank size can be determined directly from 
Figure 2.3. It would be dangerous practice to allow a 
tank to fill completely. If the 5-day reserve capacity 
is allowed in the tank to allow for circumstances such 
as delay on the part of the Contractor, or excessive 
water consumption due to parties etc. , the time between 
pumpouts is given by the Q' curves on Figure 2.3. 

The time between pumpouts is dictated by tank size and 
economics. However, it should be no more frequent than 
once per week. Also, if a premises is used in winter and 
is not accessible to a sewage haulage vehicle, the tank 
must be large enough for the winter season. 

The costs of an installed holding tank including the 
associated control system is given by Figure 3.1. This 
figure gives the installed cost for concrete, steel, 
fibreglas, polyethylene and rubber fabric tanks located 
either above or below ground. Costs for buried tanks are 
based on excavation in dry sand or clay, not rock. 

3.2.2 Transportation System 

The cost of the transportation system is dependent upon 
many factors including: 



3-3 



i) Number of premises served; 

ii) Waste water production volume; 

iii) Seasonal or year-round occupation; 

iv) Density of premises served; 

v) Type of access; 

vi) Distance to disposal site. 

These factors determine in large part, the equipment and 
manpower requirements to serve the area. 

Once the location and number of premises to be serviced 
and the location of the disposal site is known, the time 
to service the area can be estimated from Figures 3.2 
and 3.3. 

Figure 3.2 gives the time to fill the haulage vehicle 
tank for varying premises density. Figure 3.3 gives the 
travel time for the haulage unit from the area serviced 
to the disposal site and return for various average speeds 

The capital cost of the haulage vehicles, both trucks and 
barges has been determined. The results of these investi- 
gations are given in Table 2.4 and are shown graphically 
in Figure 2.5 as noted previously. This figure gives the 
relationship of capital cost of a haulage unit to the 
tank capacity of the haulage unit. 

In Figure 2.6 and Table E-l, the fixed and variable cost 
associated with a sewage haulage system are given as noted 
in Chapter 2. 

The following comments provide background information to 
permit the users of the foregoing figures and tables to 
make realistic estimates of the various parameters which 



3-4 



would affect the haulage system cost and its capacity. 
Although much of the information following is noted in 
detail in Chapter 2, it has been summarized herein to 
aid in the use of the graphs without having to refer to 
the detailed discussions in Chapter 2. 

3.2.3 Haulage Units 

a) Trucks 

To serve premises, the maximum size of truck is 
likely to be a 3,000 gallon Tandem rear axle unit. 
In some areas a 3,000 gallon unit may be too heavy, 
therefore, a single axle 2,000 gallon truck may have 
to be used. The choice of unit depends mainly upon 
the contractors preference for the conditions of use 

b) Barges 

Barge size is limited by draught and weight. The 
maximum draught required is 2% to 4 feet. The 
largest practical size of barge is probably 15,000 
gallons. The largest probable size that could be 
transported from lake to lake is 2,000 - 3,000 
gallons. This barge would be approximately 8' x 
25' long and would require a substantial launching 
ramp at each lake. 

3.2.4 Time Requirements 

a) Pump-Outs 

Minimum time to complete a pumpout would be about 
20 minutes for a truck. 



3-5 



In future it will take longer to read meters etc. 
and to take care not to cause damage or spillage 
but quick connecting hoses and a standard coupling 
to the holding tank will speed up pumpout. A net 
change to this minimum time requirement is not anti- 
cipated. iMinimum time for a pump-out by barge is 
likely to be 30 minutes because of time required 
to dock the barge. 

Where pumpouts are a few miles apart (either over 
rough roads or by water) it is possible that the 
time between pumpouts including the travel time 
could average 60 minutes. 

b) Travel to Disposal Site 

Time to unload is assumed a constant 20 minutes. 

i) Truck 

On roads where road width, surface and visibility 
are satisfactory, it should be possible to travel 
at 20 to 30 m.p.h. 

ii) Barge 

A barge in calm water can travel at up to 8 m.p.h. 
If the barge has an outboard motor, it may only 
be possible to travel at 4 - 5 m.p.h. 

In choppy waters the speed of any barge is probably 
limited to 5 m.p.h. because of its "bulky" shape. 

3. 3 Accounting and Control 

The components of the proposed sewage haulage system 



3-6 



have been discussed in Chapter 2 of this Report. A 
suggested method for implementing the system from a 
legislative view point has been advanced in Chapter 4 
as well as an indication of the cost of a haulage system 
to serve both seasonal and year round premises. 

The instrumentation associated with the sewage haulage system 
evolved as a result of this study provides an easy means 
of accounting for the amount of sewage produced in a 
premises and its disposal at a satisfactory treatment 
works. 

While no system can be made absolutely fool-proof, it is 
believed that the following components of the proposed 
system provide sufficient checks on the operation. Therefore, 
any large discrepancy between recorded sewage amounts and/ 
or time of sewage transfer would be an indication of dis- 
regard of the regulations pertaining to a sewage haulage 
system. 

In the control and accounting system the following records 
would be obtained: 

Sewage Volume at Premises 

The water meter installed in a premises downstream 
of any hose bibs would indicate the approximate 
number of gallons of sewage that should be in the 
holding tank. 

The recorder gauge mounted on the truck would 
indicate the number of gallons that was in the 
holding tank. 

A major discrepancy between these volumes should 
be investigated by a responsible pollution control 
official to ascertain the reason (s) for the discre- 
pancy. 



3-7 



Recorder Gauge on Truck 

Continuous operation of this gauge should be 
required whether the vehicle is in service or is 
standing by. In this way, a continuous record of 
vehicle operation would be obtained. This record 
would show the volume and time when any sewage 
transfer took place. 

Recording Gauge at Disposal Site 

This gauge would indicate the volume and time when 
sewage was delivered to the disposal site. 

Therefore, for all records of operation at the 
disposal site, there would be a corresponding 
record of operation of a haulage vehicle. 

It is envisaged under this proposed system that a licenced 
sewage haulage contractor would submit monthly to the 
local municipality, a complete record of his operation 
which would include the charts from each vehicle recording 
gauge. The contractor's operations would be tabulated 
easily as outlined in Table 3.1. 

With reference to Table 3.1, the customer would pay for 
haulage service on the basis of the water meter reading, 
which in this example is 2400 gallons (column 6). The 
contractor would receive payment for the amount of sewage 
hauled under contract with the municipality, which in this 
case is 2300 gallons (column 7) . Also, the contractor 
would no doubt be required to pay the municipality for 
use of the sewage treatment facilities to dispose of the 
contents of any septic tank pumpout done under private 



3-8 



contract with an individual ratepayer. (Column 2 and 
Column 7) 

Should a system such as the foregoing be implemented, 
the clerical workload of a local municipality would be 
increased as billings for service, checking of the haulage 
vehicle charts, and review and completion of the tabulation 
of the disposal site recorder chart data would have to be 
done. The amount of extra work would depend upon the 
type and extent of the service in a given area. This 
additional work load might be handled by existing staff 
for small operations or by either additional part-time 
or full time clerical staff hired for the peak summer 
season. 

Any major discrepancy in the figures entered in columns 
6 and 7 for a premises or in the totals entered in 
columns 7, 10 and 11 should be reported to the proper 
enforcement agency for immediate investigation. 



TABLE 3.1 - EXAMPLE OF CONTRACTOR'S RECORDS 
- SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS FOR JULY, 197 3 

Contractor: 
Address : 



. I 



Name and Address 
of Property Owner 



(1) 



Type 
of 

Service 
and Code 
Number 



(2) 



Date/ 
Time of 
Pump-Out 



(3) 



Volume of Sewage Collected Volume of Sewage Disposed 



By Water Meter 



Prev. 
Rdg. 

(4) 



Current 
Rdg. 

(5) 



Vol. 



(6) 



By 






Truck 


Loca- 


Date 


Recorder 


tion 


and 


Chart 




Time 



(7) 



(8) 



(9) 



By By Dis- 
Truck posal 
Re- Site Re- 
corder corder 
Chart Chart 
(10) (11) 



John J. and Mary D. 

Jones, 

R R #1 

Huntsville, Ont. H/Al 



John D. and Joan J. 

Smith, 

R R #3 

Huntsville, Ont. S/A2 



July 25 27350 29750 2400 2300 

10:45 

a.m. 



July 25 Not Applicable 
11:30 



500 



THIS 
COLUMN 
TO BE 
COMPLETED 
BY 

MUNICIPALI- 
TY 



a.m. 



Disposal 

H ■ holding tank serviced under contract with municipality 

S = septic tank serviced under private contract with ratepayer 



2800 



Hunts- July 25 
ville 1:30 
STP p.m. 



2800 



2775 
July 25 
1:30 p.m. 



3500 



3000 



2500 



tfi 

a 



2000' 



o 

U 



UJ 

-J 
-I 



1500 




1000 



500 



TANK VOLUME (THOUSANDS OF GALLONS) 



INSTALLED HOLDING TANK COST 



FIG. 3- 



2500 




< 

O 



o 



Q 

tr 

5 
o 



1000 



2000 
RATE OF 



3000 4000 

PICK-UP ( .GALLONS PER HOUR) 



5000 




GRAPH TO ESTIMATE RATE OF SEWAGE PICK- UP 

FOR VARYING DWELLING DENSITY AND 

TANK SIZE OF HAULAGE VEHICLE 

FIG. 3-2 



UJ 

E 



3 

s 

5 



o 

g 



10 



S 3 



a. 

? 

o 2 

z 

8 

a: 

o 









/ 














// 












*/ 












V 










4 


f 






w 


w 


J7 








*f 


§7 


«/ 








£/ 


£/ 


fY 








>y 


*•/ 


V ' 






ft 


/ 


V 1 


/ 






7 7 




/ «4V^ 














\^^ 










v^^ 


9 f^"" 












J*>^^ 












>>*£^ — 

















5 10 15 20 25 

DISTANCE FROM HOLDING TANKS "TO DISPOSAL SITE (MILES) 



30 



GRAPH TO ESTIMATE AVERAGE HAUL TIME 
T 2 WHERE V IS AVERAGE VEHICLE SPEED 



FIG- 3-3 



4-1 



CHAPTER 4 - IMPLEMENTATION 

4. 1 General 

The terms of reference for this Section are as follows: 

a) Review existing legislation pertaining to respon- 
sibilities for regulating standards for land 
development on an individual basis, specifically 
waste disposal systems. 

b) Review existing and proposed regulations related 
to the use of holding tanks. 

c) Recommend a method for implementing and enforcing 
the proper use of holding tank systems. Indicate 
where overall responsibilities should lie and how 
financial assistance by the Province should be 
made, if required, to initiate the use of holding 
tank systems. 

d) Prepare a draft regulation for the use of a holding 
tank system. 

e) Recommend a charging scheme. 

4 . 2 Existing Legislation 

The following existing legislation is applicable to the 
study problem. 

4.2.1 The Environmental Protection Act, 1972 

R SO, 1971, Chapter 86 as amended by 1972 Chapter Is, 
" 1969 and 1972 Chapter 6 

In particular, Part VII "Private Sewage Disposal Systems" 
is relevant. 

Section 60 requires conformity to regulations although 
at present, no regulations have been made. 

Section 61 requires licensing by the 'Director' to all 



4-2 



persons engaged in constructing, repairing, servicing, 
cleaning or emptying private sewage disposal system. 

4.2.2 The Planning Act - RSO 1970, Chapter 34 as amended 
by 1971, Chapter 2 

Applicable sections are: 

33. Requirements for subdivision and matters to be 
attended to re health, safety, convenience and 
welfare of future inhabitants; conditions that 
can be imposed. 

38. By-laws in particular 38(21) - regulating the 
construction of ...privy vaults; for requiring 
and regulating the manner of the draining, clean- 
ing and clearing and disposing of the contents. 

4.2.3 The Municipal Act 

RSO 1970 as amended by 1971, Chapters 81 and 98 
s 4 Sched. , paragraph 23 

This act empowers the municipality to pass by-laws dealing 
with control of pollution and charging ratepayers therefor 
The following sections are pertinent: 

354:68 (63-85) - Health, Sanitation & Safety 
362 1-22 - Basis of charging for services 



4.2.4 The Local Improvement Act 

RSO, 1970, Chapter 255 as amended 



This act is not strictly applicable, however, with amend- 
ments could be made so. If this act were amended, then 
the holding tanks would be owned and maintained by the 
municipality. 



4-3 



Applicable sections of the act are: 

9. Initiate on sanitary grounds, 

10. Requires publication of intention; ratepayers 
have right to petition for relief, 

20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 - How and how much of the cost 

of work is to be borne. 

4.2.5. The Public Health Act 

RSO, 1970, Chapter 377 as amended 

Applicable sections are: 



4 (d) Disposal of waste is a nuisance or is injurious 
to health, 

25 Provides for a municipality installing the work 
and recovering the cost with property taxes 
(over 5 years) and for registering lien against 
property. 

85-96 Nuisances - definition and powers, action and 
Incl. cost recovery for control therefor. 



4.2.6 The Ontario Water Resources Act 

RSO, 1970, Chapter 332 as amended by 1972 
Chapter Is, 70. 



Applicable sections "Sewage Works", 42-51 inclusive. 
However, this act does not appear to apply to holding 
tanks as Section 42(6)C excludes private works serving 
less than five residences from the provisions of the act 



4.2.7 An Act to Establish the Regional Municipality 
of ... 



All of these acts give the regional municipality authority 
to pass by-laws to regulate against pollution. 

4 . 3 Existing and Proposed Regulations 

The following relevant documents have been reviewed. 



4-4 



4.3.1 Proposed By-Law of the Corporation of the Town- 
ship of Harwich, Kent County 



This by-law sets forth requirements for the use of holding 
tanks. Provincial authority cited in the by-law was the 
Planning Act. 



4.3.2 Proposed By-Law of the Corporation of the 
Township of Storrington, Frontenac County 
and By-Law No. 13-1972 of the Township of 
Bedford, Frontenac County 



These by-laws also set forth requirements for the use of 
holding tanks. Provincial authority cited in the by- 
laws was the Municipal Act. 

4.3.3 "Guidelines for Steel or Reinforced Concrete 
Holding Tanks" prepared by the Private Waste 
& Water Management Branch, Ministry of the 
Environment 

These guidelines set forth the basis for designing tanks 
to meet local conditions of operation and loading. 



4.3.4 "Holding Tank Requirements", Peterborough County- 
City Health Unit 



This memorandum outlines the requirements to be met before 
a permit will be issued to allow the use of a holding 
tank system. 



4.3.5 "Statement from Simcoe County District Health 
Unit Regarding Holding Tanks" 



This is an explanatory statement to clear up misconceptions 
regarding the use of holding tanks in the Simcoe County 
area. 



4-5 



4. 4 Implementation and Enforcement 

It would appear that the following use of existing leg- 
islation could be made to implement and enforce the proper 
use of holding tank systems. 

4.4.1 The Environmental Protection Act, 1972 

Under Part VII "Private Sewage Disposal Systems" - make 
regulations pertaining to: a) holding tanks, 

b) transfer systems, 

c) haulage systems, 

and provide for penalties for non-compliance with these 
regulations. Penalties should be stiff ranging from 
fining of an individual who tampers with his holding 
tank system to the detriment of the environment, to confis- 
cation of equipment and revoking of the licence of a 
sewage haulage contractor for dumping of waste at a non- 
authorized discharge point. 

4.4.2 The Planning Act, RSO 1970 

Under this act, the local municipality would implement 
the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 
by passing by-laws designating those areas of the 
municipality in which holding tanks will be required. 

Amendment of the act will be required to state that the 
regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act 
shall apply. 

4.4.3 The Municipal Act, RSO 1970 

Under this act the haulage system would be implemented 
in the areas defined in accordance with Planning Act. 
This act also provides the authority for charging for 



4-6 



services rendered by or on behalf of the corporation. 

Possibly some amendment to Section 362 would be required 
to ensure sewage haulage systems or portions thereof 
would come under the provisions of the Act. 



It is contended that the involvement and cooperation of 
the local municipality in implementing and enforcing 
the regulations made under the Environmental Protection 
Act is most desirable. However, overall responsibility 
for designating areas for holding tank use and ensuring 
the implementation and enforcement of the regulations 
in these areas should lie with the Province. 

In implementing a sewage haulage-holding tank system 
in an area of a municipality, replacement of sewage disposal 
systems which are presently working effectively or are 
marginally adequate for intermittent seasonal use is not 
forseen. The Environmental Protection Act now requires 
an individual to obtain a permit from the Ministry to 
carry out any alterations or repairs to an existing 
system. This will permit Ministry staff to evaluate the 
feasibility of the improvements and, if indicated, require 
the installation of a holding tank. 

4. 5 Draft Regulations 

At the present time, this aspect of the study has not been 
advanced due to the insufficient time available. However, 
should the Ministry be able to make funds available for 
continuing the study beyond March 31, 1973, assistance 
could be provided to the Ministry's solicitors in the 
preparation of the regulations pertaining to the entire 
sewage haulage system. 



4-7 



4 . 6 Charging Scheme 

In previous chapters of this report, cost data for the 
various components of the sewage haulage system have 
been generated to assist in the evaluation of alternative 
systems and in determining the interrelationship of holding 
tank size, sewage volume and haul distance to disposal 
site. However, and again due to time limitations, the 
specific areas suggested as being typical holding tank 
areas have not been studied in the field. Also detailed 
discussions of costs of sewage haulage service for these 
specific areas with the more knowledgeable and reputable 
haulage contractors have not been possible. It is recommen- 
ded that these items be completed should funds be available 
for this study after March 31, 1973. 

Several important questions remain unanswered or assumptions 
unsubstantiated such as: 

a) Who should own the holding tank? Should it be 
the property owner, the municipality or the 
sewage haulage contractor? 

Financial considerations tend to favour the 
contractor on the basis that there is a two- 
year tax write-off on all pollution control 
equipment. Ownership by the contractor would, 
therefore, permit a reduction in the overall 
cost of the system operation that would in all 
probability not occur if either the individual 
or the municipality owned the tank. 

On the other hand, the contractor would be 
required to finance the entire haulage system. 
This requirement could be well beyond his 
financial capabilities. Also, it is envisaged 



4-8 



that the local municipality would call tenders 
for a sewage haulage contract. Therefore, if 
in subsequent years, contractors are changed 
due to the results of retendering, then how 
would the transfer of ownership of the holding 
tanks be effected and on what financial basis? 

Lastly, if the haulage contractor were to own 
the tank, then it would not be possible to have 
the holding tank included in the property deed. 

Presently, it is suggested that the municipality 
own the holding tanks and be responsible for 
ensuring their continuing satisfactory performance 
If this were the case, the cost of installing a 
holding tank could be debentured over ten years. 
The recovery of cost would be a surcharge on the 
ratepayer's tax bill in much the same way as 
the cost of improvements carried out under the 
Local Improvement Act are charged. 



b) How many dwelling occupant days are there in 
a year and during the 10-week summer period? 



The number of days and their distribution 
throughout the year, of course, affect signifi- 
cantly the volume of sewage to be stored and 
hauled, and therefore, costs to any particular 
area. 

Presently, for seasonal use it is estimated 

that the number of occupant days could range 

from 20 to 80 days or more if the dwelling 

were used only during the period from May 24 

to Thanksgiving. However, more and more cottages 



4-9 



are being winterized to permit their use during 
the winter months. This practice could lead to 
a further 50 days of use. 

Travel Research Report No. 55, "Analysis of 
Ontario Cottage Survey" carried out by the 
Department of Tourism and Information provides 
significant data in this regard. 



c) How many customers can be served by a single 
haulage unit? 



This, of course, depends upon the rate of 
sewage generation during the summer months, 
the density of development, the haul distance 
to a suitable disposal site and the size of 
holding tank. For areas served by trucks, 
the estimated total sewage volume that can be 
handled by a single vehicle during the 10 week 
summer period ranges from 300,000 gallons to 
600,000 gallons. If the average number of days 
a dwelling were occupied during this period 
were 50 and the sewage volume generated amounted 
to 100 gpd per dwelling, then one truck could 
serve between 60 and 120 premises. in the 
remaining 42 weeks of the year, the truck would 
be under-utilized. 



d) What is the average volume of sewage generated 

per dwelling day? Is all waste water from dwellings 
presently served by holding tanks directed to the 
holding tank? 



Field surveys, including a test water metering 
programme, would be essential to provide data 
which could then be checked against the assump- 



4-10 



tions made in this report. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is envisaged 
that if a sewage haulage system is implemented on 
an organized and regulated basis by or on behalf 
of a municipality, then tenders for this service 
will be called by the municipality and a contract 
awarded to the successful tenderer. This pro- 
cedure would be similar to that practiced for 
solid waste collection services. 

However, for the foregoing to be economically 
feasible, it will be necessary that the muni- 
cipality assure itself before calling tenders 
that a sufficient number of premises are served 
by holding tanks and that further development 
in designated areas will be served by holding 
tanks, this being the only sound method for 
sewage collection. 

Under a municipal controlled system, the muni- 
cipality would pay the contractor for services 
rendered in accordance with his tender and 
the municipality would receive funds to pay 
for this service from those who benefit from 
it. It is also envisaged that a haulage contrac- 
tor would require a minimum guaranteed amount 
annually for the life of his contract before 
undertaking substantial capital investment 
in equipment to provide the required service. 

Therefore, it is proposed that a charging system 
embodying the following components would be a 
realistic basis for a municipality to charge 



4-11 



ratepayers for sewage collection and treatment 
costs. 



i) Sewage Treatment - It is proposed that a 
mill rate be levied on improved property 
assessment on all properties in the areas 
designated as a holding tank service area. 

ii) Sewage Collection - It is proposed that 

this be charged on approximately the same 
basis as the sewage haulage contractor's 
costs are incurred i.e., a fixed annual 
lump sum charge per premises served with 
a holding tank. This would be collected 
with taxes plus a service charge of $x/ 
100C gallons of sewage collected. It is 
proposed that two service charge rates 
be in effect, one for premises used on a 
seasonal basis and one for premises used 
year round. Each service charge rate 
should be established to result in minimum 
overall cost to the individual customer. 

In addition to the foregoing, the customer 
serviced would also have to pay for the 
supply and installation of a suitably 
sized holding tank. Regardless of who owns 
the tank, its cost will be borne by the 
individual customer. The only questions 
are how much of the tank cost, if any, will 
be subsidized by the Provincial government 
and over what period of time will the 
customer amortize the unsubsidized portion 
of the cost. 



4.6.1 Example 

The following specific example will serve to illustrate 
the foregoing charging system. 

a) The Area 

Cottage area served by roads. There are 250 cottages 
in the designated holding tank service area having an 
average assessed value exclusive of land of $5,000 



4-12 



(equalized basis) of which 100 cottages are served by 
holding tanks. The average volume of sewage generated 
in each cottage is 3,000 gallons per season. 

The cottages are spread out along the shoreline of a lake 
The density of development is considered 'medium' . 

The centroid of the serviced area is approximately 15 
miles from the nearest satisfactory sewage disposal 
site. 

What size should the holding tanks be to minimize total 
annual cost to the resident and what will be the annual 
cost to the resident for sewage holding, collection and 
disposal assuming the contractor has a 3,000 gallon 
capacity sewage haulage truck? 

It is assumed that the contractor's fixed annual costs 
are $10,000 and that his operating cost is $10/hour 
(Table E-l, Appendix E) . 

b) Analysis 

Step 1 - Using curves in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 establish 
time requirements to pick up and haul sewage to disposal 
site for various volumes per pick-up for a haulage 
vehicle having a capacity of 3,000 gallons. 



Volume/E 


»ick-up 


Time to Fill 


Haulage 


Total 






Haulage Vehicle 


Time 
25 mph 


Time 


500 




3 hours 


1*5 hours 


4*5 hours 


750 




2 hours 


1*5 hours 


3*5 hours 


1,000 




1*5 hours 


1*5 hours 


3 hours 


1,500 




1 hour 


1*5 hours 


2*5 hours 


3,000 




*5 hour 


1*5 hours 


2 hours 



4-13 



Step 2 - Estimate operating cost per 1,000 gallons col- 
lected and hauled, assuming say 90% efficiency, and amount 
of sewage that could be collected and hauled in say a 
10-week period, i.e. haulage rate equal to sewage volume 
generation rate. 



Volume/ 
Pick-up 


No. of 
Pickups 
to Fill 
Vehicle 


Theoretical 

Volume 

of Vehicle 

Gal. 


Actual 

Volume 

Gal. 


Gal./ 
Day 


Capacity 

Gal./ 
Season 
4 


Operatinc 
Cost/ 
1000 
Gallons 
5 


500 




6 


3,000 


2,700 


9#400 1 


297,000 


$16.70 


750 




4 


3,000 


2,700 


5,40c 1 


297,000 


13.95 


1,000 




3 


3,000 


2,700 


8,100 2 


445,000 


11.10 


1,500 




2 


3,000 


2,700 


10,800 3 


594,000 


9.25 


3,000 




1 


3,000 


2,700 


10,800 3 


594,000 


7.30 



1. Actual volume per trip multiplied by the assumed 
number of trips per working day based on Step 1, 
e.g. at 4*5 hours per round trip, two trips per day 
assumed and therefore sewage volume would be 2,700 
gal/trip x 2 = 5,400 gal/day. 

2. As for 1, except assumed number of round trips are 
^ 3 and 4 respectively. 

4. Based on 5^ working days per week in summer season of 
10-weeks duration. 

i.e., 5,400 x 5.5 x 10 = 297,000 gallons 

5. Determined as follows: 

4*$ hours/trip x $10/hour operating cost divided 
by sewage hauled of 2,700 gallons, equals 
$16.70/1,000 gallons hauled. 

Step 3 - Estimate annual operating cost for sewage 
collection for various sizes of holding tanks assuming 



4-14 



at least 500 gallon reserve capacity using cost of 

sewage holding tank (Figure 3.1) and annual cost amortized 

over 10 years at an interest rate of 10%. 



Volume/ 
Pick-up 


Operating 

Cost/1000 

Gallons 

16.70 


Annual 
Operating 
Cost 


Size of 
Holding 
Tank 

1,000 


Holding Tank 
Capital Annual 
Cost Cost 


500 


50.10 


$ 825. $134.20 


750 


13.95 


41.80 


1,250 


900. 146.50 


1,000 


11.10 


33.30 


1,500 


925. 150.70 


1,500 


9.25 


27.80 


2,000 


1,050. 171.00 


3,000 


7.40 


22.20 


3,500 


1,350 220.00 



1. Based on 3,000 gallons per season. 

2. From Figure 3.1 using above-ground steel tank. 

Step 4 - Plot curves of annual operating cost and annual 
holding tank cost versus holding tank size - see Figure 4.1 

Step 5 - Establish fixed charge portion of collection 
service and optimum sewage holding tank size by follow- 
ing procedure. 

a) Monies required to meet - $10,000 guarantee 

Monies raised by sewage 

treatment levy - say 

1 mill x $5,000/cottage x 

250 cottages 1,250 

Monies to be raised by 

fixed fee $ 8,750 or $87 . 50/cottage 

owner/year 

b) Add $87.50 to each point on the annual operating 
cost curve, Figure 4.1, and add this curve to annual 
holding tank cost curve. 

The low point on the latter curve is the optimum size 
of holding tank. The holding tank to be installed 
should, therefore, be the next larger standard size 
of holding tank, in this case, say 1,250 gallons. 



4-15 



The total annual cost to the cottage owner 
in this development would be: 

i) Sewage Treatment $ 5.00 

ii) Sewage Collection and Dis- 
posal - fixed charge 87.50 
- pump-out charge 42.00 
i.e. $14/1000 gallons 

iii) Holding tank cost 145.00 
(based on 1250 gallon tank) 

TOTAL ANNUAL COST $279.50 

Of the foregoing total cost of $279.50, $134.50 would be 
the charge to cottage owner for collection, haulage 
and treatment, or an average cost of 4*5$ per gallon. 

Also, for this particular case, frequent pick-ups of 
approximately 50 gallons each would result in the over- 
all minimum cost to the ratepayer. Also from Step 2, 
it is seen that the haulage capacity of the vehicle 
operated on this basis is approximately 300,000 gallons 
(297,000 gallons) which is the same as the assumed 
volume of sewage generated. 

We have also shown on Figure 4.1, the results of analysis 
should there be some permanent residents in the area. 
For a permanent resident generating approximately 24,000 
gallons of sewage per year the optimum holding tank 
size would be considerably larger in this case, 3,000 
gallons . 



4-16 



The annual cost to a permanent resident would therefore 
be: 

i) Sewage Treatment $ 5.00 

ii) Sewage Collection and Dis- 
posal - fixed charge 87.50 
- pump-out charge 175.00 

iii) Holding Tank Cost 

(based on 3,000 gallon tank) 205.00 

Total Annual Cost $472.50 

4 . 7 Provincial Assistance 

No recommendations have been formulated in this regard, 
although the following statements are included for dis- 
cussion: 

Some form of financial assistance from the Province 
would be advantageous in implementing a sewage haulage 
system in designated areas where the environment is 
suffering due to the sewage discharges and where 
other forms of sewage collection and treatment are 
not feasible. 

Persons permanently residing in these areas should be 
eligible for the same amount of subsidy as those per- 
sons residing in small communities in which the Province 
undertakes to construct and operate a Provincial Sewage 
Works system. 

Some incentive should be offered to seasonal residents 
to install holding tanks rather than carrying on with 
inadequate sewage treatment facilities. 

For discussion then, assume a Provincial subsidy system 
along the following lines for: 



4-17 



a) Existing Development - subsidize annual 
holding tank, capital and installation 
cost by 50% of annual cost spread over 
10 years. 

- subsidize sewage 
haulage costs by 50% after the first 3,000 
gallons per annum for 10 years but to be 
terminated by 198 5. 

b) New Development - not eligible for subsidy 



The annual costs derived in the previous example would 
then be as summarized in Table 4.1. 

Another form of subsidy could also be for some level of 
government to purchase capital equipment in bulk at 
discount prices and resell to the eventual owner. 



TABLE 4.1 - ANNUAL COSTS TO RESIDENT WITH SUGGESTED PROVINCIAL SUBSIDY 



Seasonal 
Existing New 



Permanent 
Existing 



New 



i) Sewage Treatment 

ii) Sewage Collection & Disposal 
-fixed 
-pump-out 

iii) Holding Tank 



$5.00 



$5.00 



$5.00 



$5.00 



TOTAL 



87.50 




87.50 


87.50 




87.50 


42.00 




42.00 


$175 less 1 
$76.50=$98. 


50 


175.00 


$145 less 
= 72.50 


$72.50 


Included as 
part of dwell- 
ing cost & 
therefore, 
no subsidy 


$205 less 
-$102.50 = 
$102.50 




Included as 
part of dwell- 
ing cost and 
therefore, no 
subsidy 



$207.00 



$134.50 



$293.50 



$267.50 



1. $7.30/1000 x 3 say $ 22.00 



plus 50% of $7.30 
x 21 

Provincial Subsidy 



76.50 

76.50 

$175.00 



560 



COTTAGER 



PERMANENT R ISIDENT 



480 



TOTAL ANNUAL 
HOLDING + HAU 



COST 

AGE (2+4) 



400 



< 320 



o 



V) 

o 
o 



240 



<•" 



TOTAL ANNUAL 
HAULAGE (4= 



COST 
IB + 3] 




< 

z 
z. 
< 



160 



80 



ANNUAL COST 
l|A+ IB) 



-HAULAGE 



ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE (IB) 
4TING COST (IA)| 



800 



1600 2400 3200 

HOLDING TANK SIZE (GALLONS) 



4000 



EXAMPLE OF DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM 
HOLDING TANK SIZE AND SYSTEM COST 



FIG. 4-1 



APPENDIX A 



PROJECT PLAN FOR FEASIBILITY OF 



HOLDING TANKS AND SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



A-l 



APPENDIX A 



PROJECT PLAN FOR 



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF HOLDING TANKS AND 



SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



The attached activity diagram sets out in an orderly and 
logical fashion the tasks required to satisfactorily 
complete the project. 

It will be noted that six distinct specialized disciplines 
will be required for the project (excluding the project 
management function) . Each of these disciplines tends 
to deal with one portion of a physical system required 
for sewage disposal using holding tanks, hence the pro- 
ject tasks can be segregated on this basis without the 
requirement for an undue amount of coordinating work as 
the project progresses. This type of arrangement enables 
the intensive application of manpower to the project 
that will be necessary to meet the March 31 deadline for 
completion. It will be essential, however, that all 
groups complete their tasks by the times indicated, for 
a thorough communication of information will be required 
at the coordination meetings to establish a firm basis 
for subsequent work. 

The preliminary 'design criteria' should be made avail- 
able to all groups before tasks are begun, for these 
will provide a base of information from which to work. 

The following paragraphs outline in some detail the scope 
of work intended for the activities shown on the diagram: 



A- 2 



0.0-1.4 Mobilize Staff 

Following authorization to begin the study a period of 
time will be required during which existing work loads 
will be reassigned to free personnel for this project. 



1.4-2.4 Obtain and Review Existing Readily Available Data 

Reviews of available literature on the use of holding 
tanks have recently been made by this firm and the Min- 
istry of the Environment. As a result, a separate search 
for recent literature on this topic is not intended. 
The information from the existing sources will be con- 
solidated and reviewed to form the basis of information 
for this study. From this review an appreciation of the 
scope of work will be obtained enabling the formulation 
of a realistic activity diagram. 



2.4-3.4 Prepare Activity Diagram and Formulate 
Terms of Reference for Separate Tasks 



The activity diagram provides the framework for organiz- 
ing the project's manpower requirements and provides a 
tool for project management with respect to budget and 
schedule. 

The terms of reference describing in detail the objec- 
tives and scope of the activities in the diagram will 
enable task groups to commence work packages with a 
clear understanding of the responsibilities involved. 
The adherence to the task descriptions will ensure that 
the overall scope of work of the project is fulfilled, 
and that an undue overlap of tasks is avoided. 



A- 3 



3.4-4.4 Formulate Preliminary Design Criteria 
for Systems 



From the literature, communications with the Ministry 
of the Environment and preliminary considerations based 
on this information a classification for types of sites 
where holding tanks will be used will be prepared. The 
functional requirements of the holding tanks, transfer 
mechanism, transport vehicle(s), treatment facility and 
control mechanism will also be described in order to 
produce a basis for the types of devices to be consid- 
ered . 



4.1-6.1-9.1 Assess Holding Tanks, Formulate Conclusions 
and Recommendations and Prepare Draft Report 



The purpose of this task is to investigate the types 
of tanks available and prepare recommendations on the 
basis of the information obtained. Considerations to 
be evaluated under this section of the work are: 

a) Tank Material 

Consider capital cost, durability, appearance, avail- 
ability and sources of supply, ease of installing fit- 
tings or making repairs, for both above and below ground 
installation. 

b) Tank Shape 

Consider the best shapes for tanks to enable the removal 
of settleable solids, to prevent damage in case of freez- 
ing of the contents and to blend in with cottage settings 
as best as possible. 



A- 4 



c) Tank Location 

Consider the restrictions which should be placed on 
tank location in order to prevent damage by wave 
action, ice formation or buoyant effects of high water 
tables, and required anchorage for each location and 
type of tank. 

Tank Fitting will be considered under other tasks. 

4.2 - 6.2 - 9.2 Assess Control Systems, Formulate Conclusions 

and Recommendations , and Prepare Draft Report 

In order to ensure that holding tanks systems are 
not misused by owners or waste removal contractors, it is 
considered necessary to build into the systems a set of 
controls which prevent persons from bypassing or dumping 
holding tanks, and prevent waste removal contractors from 
disposing of pumpings in an unapproved manner. Legal 
restrictions and incentive programmes for preventing such 
abuses will be considered under Sections 4.7, 6.7 and 9.7 
and coordination with this group may be required; however, 
it is the responsibility of this section to evaluate physical 
control systems which could be useful for this purpose. A 
suggestion for a control system is: 

a) Water use at the premises would be metered, and would 
have to tally with the contents of the holding tank. 

b) Meter readings from (a) would be checked independently 
and would have to agree with pumpages from the transport 
vehicle to the disposal site. 






A- 5 



In addition to the above , an indicator will be 
required to inform the resident when the holding tank is 
nearing the full mark. A simple float gauge, such as the 
type used on fuel oil storage tanks in homes, or a float 
operated warning device could be among the alternatives 
considered . 

Furthermore, overflow of the holding tank could 
not be tolerated, hence overflows will not be provided on 
the tanks. As a result, residents will require servicing 
of their tank scon after the "near full" point is indicated. 
If the full point is reached, the production of sewage wastes 
must be halted. Investigations should be made into ways of 
automatically preventing additional sewage flows when this 
situation arises, such as an interruption of the power to the 
potable water system, or a valve on the waste line to the 
holding tank which would close when the tank is full, thus 
backing up any additional waste water in the waste water 
piping. 

Capital and operating cost figures should be 
established for all systems considered in this section. 

4.3 - 6.3 - 9.3 Assess Transfer Systems, Formulate Conclusions 

and Recommendations and Prepare Draft Report 

"Transfer systems" in this context refers to 
mechanical devices used to transfer sewage from one con- 
tainer to another (as opposed to the transport vehicle). 
Aspects of transfer systems to be reviewed in this section 
include : 

a) Evaluation of best method to transfer sewage, such as 
sewage pump, or pressurization of tank(s), or suction 
in tanks (s) . 



A- 6 



b) Evaluate methods of supplying power lor this transfer 
(relatively brief) . 

c) Consider the types of couplings an.l hoses that would be 
best for use. How can spillage during transfer opera- 
tions be prevented? 

d) Is a system which transfers gases from filling vessel 
to emptying vessel mechanically feasible and operable 
as a method of reducing air pollution due to odour? 

e) Does "containerization" have any advantages in this 
type of operation? 

The above alternatives should be considered for 
truck and barge mounted tanks. Capital and any operating 
costs should be obtained for the mechanical equipment. 

4.5 - 6.5 - 9.5 Assess Transportation Modes, Formulate Cost 

Model, Conclusions and Recommendations and 
Prepare Draft Report 

The two transportation modes in this study are 
barging and trucking. The suggested pattern of the study 
and tasks to perform are : 

a) Establish: 

- realistic classification for premises using holding 
tanks (based on densities of premises using holding 
tanks 

- trip times for barges and trucks for above densities; 

- capital and operating costs for transportaion modes; 

- probable length of operating season; 

- sewage treatment costs. 

b) From the above and any other information required 



A- 7 



(project management qroup will help with this) , set 
up a model which will calculate the annual cost per 
premises for sewage removal, as a function of premises 
density, distance to disposal site, type of vehicle 
used, size of holding tank at premises (hence frequency 
of pick-up), volume of sewage produced pei premises, 
and any other relevant parameter. The model will 
preferably be of a type which is easily understood 
lending itself to modification if required (perhaps 
a nomograph) . 

c) Following steps (a) and (b) , and by making use of the 
model, determine the conditions under which the 
construction of a special waste disposal facility to 
handle holding tank wastes becomes economical. 

d) Consider the economics of transfer stations, (quality 
of roads to premises will limit the size of truck 
that can be used for the initial pick-up in many 
cases, perhaps a later transfer to a larger tanker 
would be advantageous - as for solid waste haulage) . 



4.6 - 6.6 - 9.6 Assess Sewage Treatment Systems, Formulate 

Conclusions and Recommendations and Prepare 
Draft Report 



A considerable amount of work has already been done 
by the Ministry on researching the nature of holding tank 
wastes and methods of disposal, and there is no need to 
duplicate this effort. Some additional aspects of the 
overall problem may be investigated, if necessary; however, 
the main tasks of this section are presently envisaged to 
be: 

a) Prepare cost estimates for the secondary treatment 

of holding tank contents (possibly cost per 1,000 Igal. 



A- 8 



vs. size of plant). This should be done for the 
following situations: 

- discharge to existing sewage treatment plant; 

- discharge to special sewage treatment plant 
built for this type of waste (perhaps evaporation 
would result in negligible quantities of effluent) . 

- discharge to a land disposal system. 

This information will be used in the model for 
calculating total costs for sewage haulage. 

b) Investigate and recommend the type(s) of back-up 
system(s) that can be used for temporary toilet 
facilities in the event the holding tank becomes full 
(such as vault privy, portable no-water use systems). 

c) Investigate methods of controlling odour generated 
in the holding tank (such as the use of replaceable 
activated carbon filter on air vent, or use of 
chemical additives) , and prepare recommendations. 
Assess seriousness of potential odour problems and 
the need of odour control devices. 

d) Establish a classification for sizes of holding 
tanks required at various types of premises, and 
curves for size of tank vs. required frequency 
of emptying for use in the cost model. 



4.7 - 6.7 - 9.7 Assess Implementation and Enforcement 

Legislation, Formulate Conclusions and 
Recommendations and Prepare Draft Report 



The tasks in this secton include the following: 



A- 9 



a) Review existing legislation pertaining to respon- 
sibilities for regulating standards for 
development, specifically waste disposal systems. 

b) Review existing and proposed regulations related to 
the use of holding tanks. 

c) Recommend a method for implementing and enforcing 
the proper use of holding tank systems. Indicate 
where overall responsibilities should lie and how 
financial assistance by the Province should be 
made, if required, to initiate the use of holding 
tank systems. 

d) Prepare a draft regulation for the use of holding 
tank system. 

e) Recommend a charging scheme. 

5.4 - 7.4 - 10.4 Coordination Meetings 

The three scheduled coordination meetings will 
probably be attended by a representative of each of the 
disciplines involved in the study. The meetings 
will give all groups the opportunity to review the status 
of the project, discuss relevant ideas developed during 
this work, alter the terms of reference of their task if 
required, and obtain extra help if required to complete 
their task on schedule. A representative of the Ministry 
could also attend the meetings to ensure that the objec- 
tives of the study are being adequately pursued. 

8.4 Prepare Format for Draft Report 

An overall index will be prepared to aid task 



A-10 



groups in the preparation of individual sections of the 
draft report. 

11.4 Consolidate Draft Report 



The separate portions of the draft report will 
generally form separate chapters of the report; however, 
a certain amount of consolidating, reorganizing and 
rewriting will be required. In addition, introductory 
and concluding sections of the report will have to be 
added. Additional help from task groups may be required 
by the project management group during this stage. 

12 .4 Client Review of Draft Report 

Close contact with the Ministry will have been 
maintained throughout the project, hence significant 
revisions are not anticipated; however, an overall 
polishing of the report can be made following the review 
by the client to result in the final version. 



1 
I 



C/WZ £AJG/AJ£FaP//UG 



# 



£l£CT7P/C4i AAJD 
£/UG/aU££&/AJG 



4SS£ 5b 

+SOLD <JG 



■■tP 



J5StSS 



coa/taPcu. 

SSST4-ASS 



M£CH4AJ/CAL fAJG/A/fFJP/AJG 



V 



^SS£SS 



sxsr&vs 



PPOJ£Cr 
U4/U4GS- 



MOB/L/ZF 



SrASV 



Q37Z4AJ / 



7Aur*oe/*Ar/oAJ 
ro &&c>ceeo 



£X/sr/AVG 
A?£AD/L/ 

AVA/LA&.£ 
£HM 



per&iGc 



* J Acwr/ 



^OA=¥JULAT£ t 



% 



coMAcer* 



'ASSfSSMfASr 

e 'QfMucArs 

COAJCLUS'OKJS 
f *P£COAA - 
4Sr<UDAr/OA/S 



V 



©- 



\ 

f CO-OeOMMTAO*A 
ASffr/ASG 



A~0&MUlAf£ 

r*A?A/S OT 
AP£A-*A?TA/Cf 

a~oa? set=*A>Ar£ 



P&FI/UAa? 

o£sioaj 
CsP/r&Ps4S~aP\ 



^ SVSTSM £AJG/AJ££P//JG 



ASS£SS 



y 



&9> ' r&AAJS£>OA?r-\ 
Arrow 

AAOD£S 



SAAJ/TaUPY £</G/AS£££>/AA3 



$ 



assess j 



LEGAL CQA/S/OF/PAir/CXSS 



S£n/AG£ 
rGeATAAeA/r 

SXSrTTAJS 



@ 



ASSESS 



BW 



PttPAee 



AJ/L//STP> Of /*/" /AjS/zPOAJMS/L/r 



ssct/oaj o* 

GA9AAT 

&£-&oA?r 



way 



~ ■ 



V 7 



w 



co-oP&Aur/OAJ 
mcst/ajg 



Q 



^ • €) 



*&£&*&£ 



Q 



/dS£>l 6~AA£A/7Xr/QAJ 
f £A/^OA>C£AA£A/T 
'SG/SLAr/OAj 



PQAPAAAr 
POJP />A?ATT 



\7 



W 



CO -OffD/AJAroU 

A/ssr/A/c 



«Lf> 



> 



y 






ci /£Ajr 






/" /A/All/ 2 £ 



D&Arr 

A?fA*OA?r 



p/?oj£cr /A//r/Atr/oAs 



GJr^fAP AAJD AAJs4L/S£ GAK4 



&e&oer p&€PtAG4r/atj 



£4fftu£sr s7*4?r r/A4£ 

/AJ HSofrt/AJG OAYS 

AAi&upAre or 

A ur#0#/ZAT/OAJ 




V 



SUGG£ST£-D AA££r/ASG *///>/ 
CL/FAJT OAP H/A?/rr*AS STATUS 

&£/*oA?r 



A/O0AT A\/UAA3£AP 



ACr/wrV D/AG&AAsf 
/t-f^s/S/L/ry sruor p~oap sft4/AG£ moid /mo 



APPENDIX B 



BACKGROUND DATA FOR WASTE WATER 



PRODUCTION RATES 



B-l 

APPENDIX B 

BACKGROUND DATA FOR WASTE WATER 
PRODUCTION RATES 

A. "Septic Tank Systems" - Ministry of Environment 
publication. 

Standard Domestic Sewage Volume - 60 gpcd 

B. U.S. Public Health Service 

Q Imp. Gal. = 73+20. 7N gpd domestic use in areas 
served by Public Water Supply and Septic Tanks, 

where N = number of persons per household 

C. John Hopkins University Study 

Q Imp. Gal. = 25+33. 3N gpd domestic use in areas 
served by public water supply and septic tanks 

N = number of persons per household 

D. Oakridge Area - City of London 
Public Water Supply and Public Sewers 

1967 Study by James F. MacLaren Limited concluded 
that sewage volume was 30.3 gpcd or approximately 
125 gpd/dwelling. 

E. John Hopkins University 

Domestic use in areas served by both public water 
supply and sanitary sewers. 

Q Imp. Gal. = 131 + 2.88V 

where V = market value in $1 ,000/dwelling unit 

F. Minimum Useage - Computed for this Study 

a) Water Closet - 1 quart/flush 

Low water use 

Toilet - assume 8 flushes/day /person 

and therefore 
sewage volume 2 gpcd 

b) Toilet - for personal hygiene - 4 gpcd 

- for personal laundry 

(handwashing) - 2-4 gpcd 



B-2 



c) Kitchen - per dwelling 

-- dish washing - 10 gpd 
- general use - 20 gpd 

Total domestic use would be given by the 
equation : 

Q = 30 + ION gpd 

where N = number of persons per household. 

Less restrictive use of water would be reflected 
by the equation: 

Q = 30 + 15N gpd 

which would allow for a weekly household laundry 
and bath or shower per occupant. 

The data aene rated from the above equations are shown 

graphically on Fiqure 2.2. 

No attempt has been made to suggest one design unit value 
of wastewater production as the rate of water use depends 
on individual preference. 

However, it is felt that after holding tanks are in use 
over a period of time, economics will dictate that water 
use reduction measures be undertaken by individuals. 
Thus it is felt that waste volumes generated in holding 
tank areas will tend to lie in the lower bands of the 
water usage curves of Figure 2.2. 



APPENDIX C 



LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SFECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


M 
C 
ftS 

Eh 

C 

•H 

•H 



EC 


01 
0) 

cr> 
M 

c 
to 

Eh 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


H 

u 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 




Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


■ 
c 

a 




R. N. G. Equipment Limited 

32 Stoffel Drive 

Toronto (Rexdale) Ontario 


Hewitt - Robins 
















X 




DO 


R. N. G. Equipment 
Co. 




X 














X 


DO 


Scovill 


















X 


DO 


Hannay Rees 
Clifton B. Hannay 
S Son Inc. 
















X 




DO 


The Warren Rupp 
Company 








X 












DO 


Gorman -Rupp 








X 










o 
1 

1— < 


DO 


Liquid Controls 
Corporation 










X 











LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


M 
C 
f0 
E-« 

c 

•H 

'O 

•H 



X 


■ 

0) 
CP 

3 

a 

c 

Eh 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


en 
u 

0) 

-P 

<u 

4J 

(0 

5 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


C 
•H 

a 

3 


Goodall Rubber Co. , of Can. 

Limited, 

2 Thorncliffe Park Dr. 

Toronto, Ontario 


Goodall Rubber Co. 
of Canada Limited 








X 








X 


- 




Dover Corporation 


















X 




Evertite Coupling 
Co. Ltd. 


















X 




Dixon Valve S 
Coupling Co. 


















X 


Ontor Limited, 
12 Leswyn Road 
Toronto, Ontario 


Clayton Mark 6 
Company 




















DO 


Hayward Mfg. Co. Inc 












X 


X 






DO 


Homestead Industries 












X 


X 




n 
i 

to 

























LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


c 

H 

cn 
c 

•H 

o 

X 


CD 

0) 
Cn 

o 

M 
C 
«J 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


u 


4J 

o 

M 

4-> 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


cn 
Cn 

C 

-H 

a 
o 


Ontor Limited 
12 Leswyn Road 
Toronto, Ontario 


Allied Control Co. 
Inc. 














X 






DO 


Ontor Limited 




X 




i 












DO 


Nalgene Industrial 
Division 


X 


















Simmonds Precision 
1740 Cote Vertu 
Montreal 381, P. Q. 


Simmonds Precision 




X 
















J. B. Systems Design 6 Mfg. 

330 Leaside 

Stoney Creek, Ontario 


J. B. Systems Design 
and Manufacturing 






X 


X 












Affiliated Engineering 
Equipment Limited, 
1875 Leslie St. 
Don Mills, Ontario 


Affiliated Engineer- 
ing Equipment Ltd. 








X 






X 




o 
1 


DO 


Maxitrol Company 












X 


X 







LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


M 

C 

Eh 

CP 
C 
•H 
TJ 
fH 

£ 


■ 



CP 

US 

o 

M 

C 
ftJ 
Eh 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


m 

u 

4J 

0) 

S 
u 

<D 
4-) 
«J 

3: 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


(0 

CP 

B 

-H 

a 

3 
O 

u 


Crane Canada Limited 
Southern - Deming Div. 
P. 0. Box 2700 
Montreal, 307 P. Q. 


Crane Canada Ltd. 






X 






X 








Neptune Meters Limited, 
3526 Lake Shore Blvd. W. 
Toronto, Ontario 


Neptune Meters 
Limited 










X 










Cusco Industries 
25 Harlech St. 
Thornhill, Ontario 


Cusco Industries 






X 


X 












Wheels, Brakes & Equipment 

Limited 
1901 Barton St. E. 
Postal Sta. "B" 
Box 411 
Hamilton, Ontario 


Central Engineering 
Co. Ltd. 






X 


X 












Gorman, Rupp of Canada Ltd. 

7 Burwell Rd. 

St. Thomas, Ontario 


The Gorman Rupp Co. 








X 










o 

1 

4^ 

























LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 

NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


C 

«j 

tp 

c 

•H 
TJ 
i-A 

33 


0) 

0) 

o 

M 
C 
«J 

E-" 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


CO 

M 

<D 
4J 

s 

u 

■p 

(0 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 

— _ . ■ i 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


en 
tr 
C 
•H 

a 

o 
u 


Protective Plastics Ltd. 
84 Railside Rd. 
Don Mills, Ontario 




X 


















Fabricated Plastics Ltd. 
50 Bay wood Rd . 
Etobicoke, Ontario 




X 


















Ferro Metal Limited, 
46 Crockford Blvd. 
Scarborough, Ontario 




X 


















Oaks Precast Industries 

Limited, 

351 Elizabeth Street 

Guelph, Ontario 




X 


















G. F. Seeley 6 Son Limited 
108 Skyway Avenue 
Rexdale, Ontario 


Flygt Canada Limited 




X 




X 












Hydroflex Hose Ltd. 
61 Sanford North 
Hamilton 23, Ontario 


















:•: 


o 

1 

























LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


tn 

id 

o 

U) 

M 


U 


M 

C 
nJ 

Eh 
C 

•H 
TJ 
.H 


a: 


en 

CD 

o 

c 

E-* 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


en 
u 

0) 

♦J 

M 

CD 

to 
5 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


(0 
t7> 
G 
•H 
rH 

a 

o 
u 


Francis-Hankin 6 Co. Ltd. , 
117 Crockford Blvd. 
Scarborough, Ontario 














X 










Victaulic Co. of Canada 

Limited 
116 Milvan Drive 
Weston, Ontario 






















X 


Dover Products Corporation 
of Canada Limited 
1875 Leslie St. Suite 5 
Toronto, Ontario 






















X 


Control 6 Metering Ltd. 
711 Kipling Avenue 
Toronto 550, Ontario 












X 












Toledo Scale Co. of Canada 
3 3 Edward St. 
Toronto, Ontario 




•• 




















Robert Morse 
270 Eastern Ave- 
Toronto, Ontario 




X 


















C-6 



LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 







w 


M 








en 


ices 


M 










<D 


en 






u 


> 


<a 










t-\ 


id 

C-4 




CT 1 






<D 


u u 


M £ 


0) 




SUPPLIER 


MANUFACTURER 


•A 




e 


•P 


O 0) 


o 


T3 -H 


tn 


NAME AND ADDRESS 


NAME 


u 




3 




U U) 


0) 

2 


U-4 C/3 




(T3 <D 










o 


U-t rH 


<+-i c 




w a> 


U) -Q u 


tf 


•H 






^4 






C/> u 


W itf 


u 


<D Cr> 


O "3 -H 


w 


H 






o 




M 


C H 


c x: 


0) 


> rf 


> -»J > 


CD O 


O* 






p 




c 


itj .c 


«d o 


■p 


r-i 5 


f-l ~ u 


oi m 


D 






M 


o 




>-t <D 


u o 


<tj 


rd o 


rt3 Q) 












B 


H 


H > 


H 2 


3: 


> c/i 


> cu w 


re a: 


U 


Eastern Scale Works 


Eastern Scale 






















30 Cornforth Rd. 


Works 


Y 




















Toronto 16, Ontario 
























DO 


Martin-Decker 
Corporation 


x 




















The Yorkshire Patent, 
























Steam Wagon Co. 
























Yorkshire 










X 


X 












Environment One Corporation 
























2773 Balltown Rd. 
























Schenectady, N. Y. 












X 












Brooks 














X 










Waugh 6 MacKewn Ltd. 


Mona *ch Machin- 






















Box 2277 


ery Ltd. 




X 






X 










i 


London, Ontario 

















































LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SrECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


X 

c 
td 

Eh 

D» 
C 
•H 
'O 

o 

X 


00 

0) 

o 

M 

c 

Eh 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


Water Meters 

i 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 

— — 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


m 

CP 

G 

•H 

a 



u 


Domestic Tank Company Ltd. 
69 Comstock Rd. 
Toronto, Ontario 




X 


















Clemmer Industries Ltd. 
446 Albert St. 
Waterloo, Ontario 




X 


















Dahmer Steel Limited 
68 Shirley Street 
Kitchener, Ontario 




X 


















Marcon Custom Metals Ltd. 
489 Lancaster St. W. 
Kitchener, Ontario 




X 


















Winona Concrete Prod. Ltd. 
489 Main West 
Grimsby, Ontario 




X 


















R. P. Weber Concrete 

Products Limited, 
R. R. 2 
Breslau, Ontario 




X 










i 






n 



LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 


MANUFACTURER 
NAME 


c 

Eh 

C 
•H 
73 

o 


Tank Gauges 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


to 
u 

0) 
0) 

£ 
u 

0) 

<d 

2 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 




Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


C 
H 

a 

o 
u 


Precisioneering Limited 
303 Nantucket Blvd. 
Scarborough, Ontario 




X 


















Fabricated Plastics 
50 Baywood Road 
Rexdale, Ontario 




X 


















Fibreglass Protective 

Plastics Limited 
84 Railside Rd. 
Don Mills, Ontario 




X 


















Tywood Industries 
501 Garygray Dr. 
Weston, Ontario 




X 


















B. F. Goodrich Ltd. 
409 Weber St. W. 
Kitchener, Ontario 




X 














X 


o 


I. T. S. Company 
Box 672 


Firestone Coated 
Fabrics 


X 


















Hamilton, Ontario 


I. T. S. Liquintrol 




X 

















LIST OF SUPPLIERS 



SPECIFIC ITEM SUPPLIED 



SUPPLIER 
NAME AND ADDRESS 

1 


MANUFACTURER 

NAME 


C 

c 

-H 
TJ 
•H 



m 

en 

3 

a 

o 

c 

Eh 


Transfer 
Vehicles 


Transfer 
Mechanism 


CO 

u 

-P 
<D 
S 

U 


5 


Valves for 
Sewage Services 


Valves for 
Portable Water 
Services 


Hoses and 
Hose Reels 


CD 

XT' 

c 

-H 

a 



u 


Ellis & Howard Limitc. 1 
Box 1000 
Kitchener, Ontario 


^avis Controls 
( arwick) 




X 
















Tubefit Limited 
1216 Victoria St.N. 
Kitchener, Ontario 


• 




X 
















Canada Barrels 6 Kegs Ltd. 
Box 280 
Waterloo, Ontario 




X 


















Baker Instruments Ltd. 
118 Doncaster Avenue 
Willowdale, Ontario 


Meritape Inc. 




X 




X 












DO 


Validyne Engineering 
Corp. 








X 












DO 


Meriam Instrument 








X 












DO 


Staub 6 Co. 








X 










n 

i 

o 



APPENDIX D 



SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRES ON 



SEWAGE HAULAGE PRACTICE 



D-l 



APPENDIX D 



SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRES REGARDING 
SEWAGE HAULAGE PRACTICE 

During this study, questionnaires relating to sewage 
haulage practice were prepared by James F. MacLaren 
Limited in cooperation with the Private Waste and 
Water Management Branch of the Ontario Ministry of 
the Environment. Thirteen completed questionnaires 
were received during February 1973. 

The questionnaires received provide a sample from 
most of the areas of the Province which are now serv- 
iced by sewage haulage programmes. 

The results of the completed questionnaires were 
reviewed and have been summarized in the copy of the 
questionnaire contained in this Appendix. 



D-2 



January 1973 



QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING SEWAGE HAULAGE PRACTICE 

INTRODUCTION 

The firm of James F. MacLaren Limited has been employed 
by the Ministry of the Environment, Private Waste and 
Water Management Branch, to prepare an engineering report 
and recommendations on the subject of sewage haulage. 

The report will deal with the design of holding tank and 
collection vehicle systems, and the types of controls and 
regulations which will be required to ensure the satis- 
factory operation of the service. 

A valuable addition can be made to the report by information 
gathered from persons already engaged in providing this 
type of service. The questionnaire has been prepared to 
help gather this information, and your effort in completing 
the form will be sincerely appreciated. Any additional 
comments or suggestions not related to specific sections 
of the questionnaire may be included in Section 8(d). 

If requested, information supplied will remain confidential 
to this firm and the Ministry of the Environment. 



D-3 



1. SEWAGE HAULAGE FIRM 



a ) Name : 



b) Address: 



c) Telephone: 



2. DESCRIPTION OF AREA SERVICED 
a) Name (lake, village, etc) 



b) Location (township, county) 



c) Number of summer residences served -range 1-1,000 

d) Number of permanent residences served -range 0-2500 

e) Other types of establishments served (please describe) 

commercial buildings, restaurants, industries, 
pollution control plants, schools, lodges, 

Provincial Parks 



3. DESCRIPTION OF HOLDING TANKS 

a) Material normally used for holding tanks (steel, 
concrete, etc.) 

Concrete and Steel 



D-4 



b) Materials used for corrosion control and water- 
tightness: 

- most don't know 

- where known, bituminous coatings on inside 
and outside of underground steel tanks 



c) Shape of tank (rectangular, circular or other) 
rectangular and cylindrical 



d) 



Sizes of holding tanks in area(s) serviced 



Type of Area 


Holding Tank Size (gal.) 


Largest 


Average 


Smallest 


Summer Residences 

Permanent Residence 

Other: Industries, 

schools, parks, etc, 
(see 1 (e) ) 


4,300 
10,000 

20,000 


2,000 
3,000 

10,000 


300 
1,000 

2,000 


1 





most replies 

e) Are the above sizes adequate? Yes . if not, 

give recommendations 

- those replying"no" recommended tanks larger 
than 1,000 gallon, preferably 2,000 gallon 

capacity. 



D-5 



f) Are the contents of holding tanks (number of gallons) 

most replied 
measured in some way? Yes if so, how is this 

done? Most measure volume by knowing holding tank volume; 
some measure depth with stick; others employ 

float switch and alarm system. 



g) Is the overflow of the holding i ^nks prevented? 
Most replied "Yes" if so, how is this done? 

Mostly by some alarm system to warn occupant 



h) Is the tank vented? Yes If so how? explain 

Most replies stated holding tank is vented through 
the normal vent in a home plumbing system. 



i) Is there an odour control system on the tank vent? 
No . If so, please describe. 



j) Are holding tanks equipped with any other types 
of mechanisms, such as aerators, mechanical 



D-6 



agitators, etc? No If so, please describe 



k) Are chemicals used to control odours or condition 

contents in ~*ny war? No . if so# please state 

type, quantity and method of application. 



1) Who owns the holding tank - Cottage owner or 

Contractor? All stated Cottage Owner 

4. SEWAGE TRANSFER METHODS 

a) Describe the method used to transfer sewage from 

holding tanks to vehicle tank, such as pump, vacuum 
or pressure systems, or gravity (give details of 
mechanical equipment, manufacturers, drive system 
and flow rates : ) 

Most employ vacuum system attached to transfer 

vehicle tank; some employ sludge pumps; others 

use submersible pumps - pump capacities range 

100-800 gpm. 



D-7 



b) Type of hoses used: (i.e. diameter, length, material 

and manufacturer) Mostly 2-3 inch dia. hose: afifflfi 
4" dia. Mostly rubber and plastic hoses in approx. 

20 ft. lengths. Quick coupling hoses widely used. 



c) Method of connecting: 

(i) Holding tank to house plumbing Normal PVC, 

ABS or Asbestos Cement pipe attached by clamps. 

(ii) Vehicle tank to holding tank : Most drop sucti on 
hose through hatch in tank 



(if standard or fast coupling types used, describe) 



d) How is spillage from hose prevented after pump out? 
Either by employing vacuum pump until hose is dry 

or by allowing hose to drain into holding tank. 



No 
Is the transferred sewage metered? . If so, 

how is this done? 



D-8 



f) Is the transfer method generally satisfactory? 
Yes . If not, what are the reasons? 



g) Does clogging ever occur during transfer? Seldom 

If so, please give details? If ifc occurs vacuum 
pump may be reversed or tank contents agitated to 

break up large pieces. 



h) Does spillage occur during the transfer operation? 
No . If so, at what point, and how? 



i) Are objectionable odours released during the 

transfer operation? Very little odour released. 



D-9 



j) Can odours be controlled in some way when sewage 

50% - Yes 

is transferred from holding tank vehicle? 50% ~ N p 

If so, please explain? Control by tight transfer 
fittings or by replacing tank cover over miction 

hose. 



Are solids which settle in the holding tank diffi 
cult to remove by the normal transfer method? 



_fcta 



If so how are the solids removed? 



Most agitate tank contents with wa<- P r nnrfpr 
pressure prior to transfer of contents. 



1) Is garbage collected at same time as tanks are pumped? 
No 



5 



SEWAGE TRANSPORT 



Mode 


Type & 
Size 


Number 
Operated 


No. of 
tanks 
per 
vehicle 


Tank 
Size 
Gals. 


Other equip. 

i . e . pumps , 

meters 

etc. 


Truck 


3-5 ton 


1-3 


1 


Avg. 
L500 


- wash water 
compressor 


Barge 


- 


1-3 


1 


Avg. 
4000 


- 


Other 













D-10 



b) What is the approximate travel distance between 
Holding tanks in the area(s) serviced? 

Maximum 15-40 mi. 

Minimum 200 ft - 1 mi 



Average k mi - 8 mi. 



6. SEWAGE DISPOSAL 



a) Give the location of disposal sites used which are 
municipal sewage treatment plants? 

Approximately half of replies stated use of muni- 
cipal treatment facilities in area of operation. 



b) Give the location of other disposal sites used, and 
describe the type of operation carried out: 



Most 


replies 


stated 


areas approve! 


b} 


local 


MOH 


were 


used 


for 


spread 


ling 


and ploughing 


underground 


the < 


collected 


waste. 















c) What method is used for off-loading the contents of 
the haulage vehicle tank? 

Either by gravity drain or by pressurizing tank 
to expel contents. 



D-ll 



d) What is the haul distance from the holding tanks 
to the disposal site? 

Maximum 40-60 mi. 

Minimum * mi - to 10 mi ' 
Average 



6-10 mi 



7. HAULAGE COSTS 

a) How is the resident charged for the service (such as 
fixed annual charge, gallonage charge, taxes, etc.) 



Most charge a 


fixed 


charge 


up to 


a minimum 


volume 


and 


a variable 


gallonage charge 


for 


volumes 


above 


the 


minimum. 

















Please complete the following table, if possible: 



Type of 
Establishment 


Average Volume 
Removed per 
Year (Gallons) 


Average 
Annual Cost 
To resident 


Summer Residence 
Permanent Residence 
Other: 


500-2000 


$30-$100 









D-12 



c) How is the contractor paid for his services? 

By individual occupant 

d) Is the system for charges and payment satisfactory? 

y es . If not, how could it be improved? 



e) Are records presently kept of the quantities of 

most replies 
sewage hauled by the Contractor? no • If 

so, please describe? A few kee P invoi ^ es as records 



f) Have laboratory analyses been performed on samples 

of the sewage from holding tanks? No . If 

so, where, when, how and why? 



8. GENERAL 

a) From the contractors point of view, what is the most 



D-13 



practical method for arranging servicing of the 
holding tank (for example, servicing at fixed inter- 
vals like garbage collection, or servicing when 
contacted by the resident?) 

Most recommended servicing at fixed intervals. 

Some recomm ended alarm system obligating occupant 

to contact contractor. 



b) 



Servicing of existing holding tanks: 






Type of 
Residence 


Size of Tank 


Average 
frequency of 
servicing 


No. of emer- 
gency servic- 
ings per year 


summer 


winter 




Seasonal 
residence 


Varies 
eg. 1000 
eg. 3000 


2 
2 


- 


- 


Permanent 
residence 


Varies 
eg. 3000 


2 


- 


- 


Other Hotel 


eg. 5000 


Monthly 


Monthly 

< 

















c) Does the transfer of tanks (replacing a full tank 
with an empty tank) of fer any advantages compared 
with the transfer of the tank contents? 



Unanimous "NO" 



D-14 



d) General Comments: 

- Problems experienced with existing warning devices. 

- Make alarm systems mandatory. 

- Establish municipally owned disposal areas or waste 
treatment facilities in various locations allowing 
shorter haul times. 

- Licence sewage haulage operators and set up franchise 
system for delineated areas of collection. 



- Suggest some tax exemptions on equipment used for 
sewage haulage . 



APPENDIX E 



DOCUMENTATION OF COST DATA 



E-l 



APPENDIX E 



DOCUMENTATION OF COST DATA 



This Appendix is intended to document supporting data 
for information noted in the body of the Report. 

Tables E-l and E-2 show the agreement between calculated 
fixed and variable cost and costs based on current ren- 
tal rates . 

Table E-3 shows the basis of activated sludge treatment 
costs. 

Information is included to show how the costs of alterna- 
tive disposal methods were derived. 

Costs of alternative coatings for steel holding tanks 
also are included. 



E-2 



COSTS OF SPECIAL LININGS FOR STEEL TANKS 



Source 


Coating 


Cost ($/ft 2 ) 


Domestic Tank and Equip- 






ment Ltd. , Toronto 


Bitumastic 


0.50 




Epoxy 


1.00 


Dahmer Steel Ltd., 


Bitumastic 


0.55 


Kitchener 


Epoxy 


0.75 


B. F. Goodrich Ltd. 


Natural 




Kitchener 


rubber 


4.00 



E-3 



COST OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL 

1 . Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Plants 

The data used to produce Figure 2-8 were obtained from 
the James F. MacLaren Limited report on Initial Assump- 
tion Operating and Financing of Water, Sewage and Drain- 
age Works and Waste Disposal Facilities prepared for the 
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 

The annual treatment costs used are those estimated for 
1973 for those treatment plants in the Waterloo Region. 
The costs include debt retirement charges and operating 
costs . 

In order to obtain similar data for other treatment 
works, a detailed investigation of each plant's financ- 
ing arrangements, debt retirement charges and operating 
costs would be required. This could not be done during 
this study due to time limitation. 

The data from Waterloo Region are summarized in Table 
E-3. 

TABLE E-3 - TREATMENT COSTS - ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS 



Municipality 


Estimated 1973 
Total Costs 

$ 634,873. 


Average 
(m.g.d. 


Flow 
) 


Cost 
(C/1,000 gal.) 


Kitchener 




12.0 




14.5 


Waterloo 




406,400. 




6.7 




16.6 


Gait 




269,000. 




5.5 




11.2 


Preston 




215,000. 




1.5 




40.0 


Elmira 




72,712. 




0.55 




36.3 


Hespeler 




3 23,460. 




1.3 




26.3 



E-4 



2 . Lagoons 

Treatment costs noted for lagoons arc based on the fol 
lowing examples: 

New Hamburg 0.2 mgd 240/1,000 gal. 

Capreol 30 acres 160/1,000 gal. 

Dutton 0.25 mgd 100/1,000 gal. 

Seaforth 0.1 mgd 700/1,000 gal. 

Owing to the great variations in these figures and in 
view of the problems of obtaining detailed information 
on other lagoons an estimated cost of 200/1,000 gal. 
has been used. 



3 . Costs of Spray Irrigation 

It is assumed spray irrigation of settled tank contents 
or of lagoon effluent could be a method of disposal. 

Costs of this type of operation were obtained by assum- 
ing the following: 

No. of premises served 1,000 

Yearly sewage production per premises 3,000 gallons 

Days available for spraying operation 40 

Dosage rate (rate obtained from M.O.E.) 2.-000-12,000 

U.S. gal ./acre/day 

Total sewage produced annually 3 million gallons 

Assuminy 10 hr. day - rate of spray- fi 

ing 3x10 



40x10x6 " 120 g P m 



Require spray area of approx. 70 ,000 = 7 acres 

10,000 



E-5 



Capital Costs: 

Equipnent : 

120 gpm pump $ 1,500 

pump enclosure 500 
500' of 3" ABS pipe 

and spray head 1 ,000 

Sub Total $ 3,000 

Land : 

7 acres @ $300 2,100 



Total Capital Costs $ 5,100 



Assume Annual Operating Costs $ 1,000 

Assume 10-year life of equip- 
ment amortized @ 10% 

Annual cost = 0.163 x 5,100 = $831. 
Total annual cost approximately $ 1,800 



Annual cost = 1,800 m*. *n ,-,«« i 

ifoooTooo = eoc/i.ooo gai 



4 . Cost of Disposing Waste Directly on Land 

Assume Injector unit as used by D & D Disposal Services, 
Beamsville. This unit ploughs waste 10" under- 
ground and covers over. 

Estimate Volume of Waste 

Assume - 1 vehicle collects 300,000 gallons in 10-week 

summer period 

- 6 day week 

Volume collected per day = 3000,000 c A ~~ ,, 

— g^g = 5,000 gallons 



E-6 



Capacity of Injector - spreads 2,000 gallons/hour 

(16,000 gallons per day) 



Capital Cost of Equipment - 1 - 70 HP tractor 

1 



$13,000 



800 gal. tank 

mounted on trailer 

plus injector 

unit 4,000 



Total 



$17,000 



Annual Fixed Costs 



Depreciation 
Overhead & Profit 



Hourly Cost = 3,400 
10x6x8 



$1, 


f 700. 


1- 


,700. 


$3 ( 


,400. 


$7. 


,10 





Variable Operating Costs (hourly) 

Fuel, 2C/HP/hr. $ 1.50 



Maintenance 
Operator 



1.00 
4.50 



$ 7.00 



Total hourly costs approximately $14.00/hr. 

At rate of 2,000 gallons/hr. - cost is $7.00/1,000 gallons 

Operating cost only is $3.50/1,000 gallons. 



TABLE E-l - CALCULATED FIXED AND VARIABLE OPERATING COSTS FOR VARIOUS TANK TRUCK SIZES 

Q = Truck Tank Size in gals. 

X = Initial Cost including 

5% Provincial Sales Tax ($) 

Fixed Costs 

Depreciation 

Insurance and License 

Fixed Vehicle Costs 

+ 100% Overhead and Profit 

TOTAL FIXED COSTS ($) 

Variable Costs (per hour) 

Labour at $4.50/hr. 

Fuel and Lubricants 
(at 2c/H.P./nr. for gas engines) 

Repairs 

TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS 9.50 9.50 9.50 11.50 10.50 10.50 

($ per hour) 

Notes: 1. Vehicle depreciation - vehicle amortized at 10% over 6 years. 

2. Fuel and lubricant costs of 2c/H.P./hr. obtained from 

Ontario Road Builders Association Equipment Rental Rate Book. 



2,000 


2,500 


3,000 


4,000 


5,500 


6,500 


15,700 


18,300 


21,000 


29,400 


40,000 


45,800 


3,600 


4,200 


4,830 


6,860 


9,200 


10,500 


1,000 


1,000 


1,000 


1,500 


2,000 


2,000 


4,600 


5,200 


5,830 


8,360 


11,200 


12,500 


4,600 


5,200 


5,830 


8,360 


11,200 


12,500 


9,200 


10,400 


11,660 


16,620 


22,400 


25,000 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


4. 50 


4.00 


4.00 


4.00 


5.00 


4.00 


4.00 


1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 



TABLE E-2 - SUMMARY - SEWAGE HAULAGE VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FROM SURVEYED SOURCES 



Sources of Information 



Tank Size and Vehicle Type 
(gal.) 



Hourly 

Equipment 

Cost 



Labour (Cost) 
$4.50 + 30% 
Overhead and 
Profit 



Total 
Hourly 

Operating 
Cost 



TRUCKS 

1) Ontario Road Builders Association 
Equipment Rental Rate Book 



2) Sudbury Public Works Department 

3) Existing septic tank emptying rate. 
$25 fc average $1.75 hour trip. 

4) Estimating manual prepared by 
Richardson Engineering Services Inc 
Downey, California 



SELF-PROPELLED BARGES 

A) 50' x 18' wide 14,000 gal. barge 
owned by Mr. Martin, Margro 
Custom Haulage Ltd., Parry Sound 
Built in 1972 



B) 40' x 18' wide barge owned by 

Mr. Archer, Browning Island Dock, 
Lake Muskoka. Built in 1972 



2,000 
2,500 

3,000 

2,000 



2,000 

2,000-2,600 
2,600-3,500 
3,500-4,300 
4,300-6,500 



14,000 



single rear axle chassis 

tandem rear axle chassis 

tandem rear axle chassis 

truck 



truck 



barge 



Not at present used for sewage 
haulage. Capable of being fitted 
with 12,000 gal. tank. 



7.25 

8.95 

10.00 

9.50 



8.00 
11.50 
14.50 
17.50 



5.85 
5.85 
5.85 

5.85 



5.85 
5.85 
5.85 
5.85 



13.10 
14.70 
15.85 

15.35 



14. 30 

13.85 
17.35 
20.35 
23.35 



20.00/hr. 

rented for 
8 hr . day 



Pres 

rental rate 
16.00/hr 



APPENDIX "F' 



FIELD STUDIES 



F-l 



APPENDIX "F 



FIELD STUDIES 



To get a better understanding of the areas in Ontario 
that were being considered for holding tank areas, 
James F. MacLaren Limited requested details of some 
of theso areas from the Ministry of the Environment. 

Information was received in February about the five 
areas listed below. Unfortunately, because of lack of 
time, it has been impossible to date to study these 
areas. As mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4, it would be 
necessary to obtain more data about the length of 
occupancy, the waste water production and the number 
of premises requiring holding tanks before accurate use 
can be made of the cost model. 

Possible Holding Tank Areas 

a) Thousand Islands 

About 100 probable seasonal holding tanks on 
the islands between Gananoque and Mallorytown. 
To be serviced by barge from Gananoque and/or 
Mallorytown. 

b) Go-Home Bay 

Eighty summer premises on Georgian Bay. Access 
by water only. Probably to be serviced by 
barge from Honey Harbour, 13 miles away. 



F-2 



c) Shrewsbury 

Community of about 300 homes next to Lake Erie 
in area of high water table. There are about 
50 year-round families, the rest is seasonal. 
Sewage would probably be hauled to proposed 
sewage treatment plant in Blenheim, 54 miles 
away. 

d) Innisfill Shoreline 

This area consists of 2,760 permanent residents 
and 7,899 cottages located in an area of high 
water table and bad soil conditions along 12 
miles of Lake Simcoe shoreline. The area is 
located between 7 and 16 miles east of Barrie 
by road. In a sewage haulage scheme the sewage 
could possibly be treated in the Barrie Sewage 
Treatment Plant, or it might be economically 
feasible to construct a treatment plant specially 
to treat the holding tank contents from this 
area. 

e) Riley and Kahshe Lakes 

There are 855 summer residences around these 
two lakes, 7 miles south of Gravenhurst. Of 
these about 130 cottages would require holding 
tanks and could only be served by water. The 
two lakes could possibly be served by one Con- 
tractor using some form of "transportable" 
barge. 



APPENDIX G 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



G-l 



APPENDIX 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



James F. MacLaren Limited, Resume of United States 
Air Force Bare Base Project 

Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Shore Disposal of Ship 
Sewage, Volume 1 , Department of the Navy, Washington , 
D. C. 1 June 1969 

Interdepartmental Task Force, Appointed by The Advisory 
Committee on Pollution Control, Report to The Advisory 
Committee on Pollution Control on Environmental Manage- 
ment of Recreational Waters in Cottage Areas of Ontario . 
March 1970 

Uniroyal Inc. , Flexible Holding Tank for Pleasurecraf t 
Sanitary System, Final Report FWQA Contract # 1U - 
12-506 , August 1^70 

Statement by the Honourable George A. Kerr, Q. C, 
Minister of Energy and Resources Management, Regarding 
Environmental Management of Recreational Waters in 
Cottage Areas of Ontario . October 1970 

Sewage, Closed Cycle System , Modern Power and Engineering, 
January 1971 

J. Bailey £ H. Wallman, Flow Reduction of Waste Water 
from Households , Water and Sewage Works, March 1971 

J. J. Kolega, A. W. Dewey and C. S. Shu, Streamline 
Septage Receiving Stations , Water and Wastes Engineering 
1971 

R. E. Winter 6 Associates Ltd, Pollution Study Report 
Lake Simcoe Shoreline in the Township of Innisfil , 
October 6, 1971 

Graeme Matheson, Assistant Editor, Health Department and 
OWRC Disagree Over Nutrient Sources , Water and Pollution 
Control, March 1972 

Holding Tanks May Solve Muskoka's Sewage Problem, Water 
and Pollution Control, March 1972 



G-2 



Bibliography - continued 

Allan E. Dyer, Phm. B. , B. Sc, Ph.D., M. D. Pollution 
Report, Go -Home -Lake , April 11, 1972 

A Study Committee, District Engineers' Section, Sanitary 
Engineering Branch, Water Treatment and Pollution Control 
Division, Report on Treatment and Disposal of Septic Tank 
and Holding Tank Pumpages , April 1972 

J. H. Stokes, Pollution of the World's Harbour, Dock and 
Inland Waterways, with Particular Reference to Ships , 
Environmental Health, London 1970, v. 78 

General Electric Company, Watercraft Waste Treatment System 
Development and Demonstration Report , U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series 
15020 DHG 09-71, 1971 

R. I. Price, Anti-Pollution Measures . Intergovernmental 
Maritime Consultative Organization - subcomittee on 
Ship design and Equipment. Environmental Health, London 
1970 

Rust Associates, A Review of the Boat Harbour Waste Treat- 
ment Facilities for the Nova Scotia Water Resource Commission . 

E. T. Kinney, Control of Shipboard Waste , Naval Engineering 
Journal v. 83, September 1971 

U. S. Department of the Interior. Federal Water Pollution 
Control Association Research Series No. WP D^ST-IO 

B. Storch, Sewage Disposal , Shipping World & Shipbuilder, 
September 1972 

James F. MacLaren Limited, Report to the District Municipality 
of Muskoka on the Initial Assumption, Operation and Financing 
of- Sewage Treatment Works, Trunk Sewers and Watercourses , 
January 1971 

Alvin L. Franks, Supervising Engineering Geologist, California 
State Water Resources Control Board, Failure of Septic Tank 
Systems Because of Improper Physical Location 



G-3 



Bibliography - continued 

Underwater Storage Inc., Silver, Schwartz Ltd., Joint 
Venture. Collection, Underwater Storage and Disposal 
of Pleasurecraft Waste , FWPCA Publication No. DAST 10 

Ministry of the Environment, The Cottager's World of 
Water 

Ontario Water Resources Commission, There are Three Ways 
to Get a New Water or Sewage System 

Ministry of the Environment, How to Find and Control 
Pollution in Your Lake . 

Ministry of the Environment, Septic Tank Systems 

Ontario Water Resources Commission, Introduction to 
Popular Treatment Methods for Municipal Wastes and 
Water Supplies 

James F. MacLuren Limited, Report to the Regional Muni- 
cipality of Waterloo on the Initial Assumption, Operation 
and Financing of Water, Sewage and Drainage Works and 
Waste Disposal Facilities^ January , 1973 . 

Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada, Standard for Large 
Aboveground Tanks for Flammable Liquids, Second Edition , 
ULC - 142 (a) , August, T5S5~. 

Underwriters' Laboratorie<; ui Canada, Standard for Under- 
ground Tanks for Flammable Liquids, Third Edition, ULC- 
58 , January, 1962. 

Canadian Government Specifications Board, Standard for 
Process Equipment: ReinforceJ "^olyester, Chemical Re- 
sistant, Custom-Contact Molclec, jo. 41-GP-22 , May 9, 1969. 

Ontario Department of Tourism and Information, Analysis 
of Ontario Cottage Survey, Report No. 55 . 

J. Bailey and H. Wallman, A Survey of Household Waste 
Treatment Systems Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 
December, 1971. 

Townshend , A. R., Mun ic ipal Waste Water Treatment , Un- 
published Paper, Dr-_T,.-er, 1967. 



G-4 



Bibliography - continued 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Guidelines for Steel 
or Reinforced Concrete Holding Tanks , August , 1972 . 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, R eport on the 
Cottage Pollution Control Program, 1970/71 . 

E. J. P. Uhlik, Report on Shrewsbury , Ontario Public 
Health Engineering Service Southwestern Region, 
December, 1970. 

Peterborough County-City Health Unit, Holding Tank Re- 
quirements . 

Simcoe County District Health Unit, Statement from Simcoe 
County District Health Unit Regarding Holding Tanks , 
November , 1972 . 



£>Mys/CAL 
LAYOUT 




t^p>/cal pp£~ssop>£ D/sre/sur/o/u sysppu 



GPAV/TY S£W£P OP 

S£*AG£ SUMP POMP AMD POP>C£MA/M 



S£HYAG£ MOLD/ AUG K4AJK 



M^CMA/J/CAL 
SCtf£MAr/C 



i^yappp M£r£P 




G/PAV/TY SEW£* °* 

*#ce*w" TO HOLD** W 



ZS S£H/AG£ SUMP e POASP 



POTABL£ /UAT£P POMP 



ALAPAA D£Y/C£ 

PUMP LOCk*- 

OUrO£WC£ \ 



POPC£MA/V 

opgpaypy 

S£H/£P 



L£M£l /A/D/CATOP 




V£/Ur /P P4AJX P/LLPD 
SY POP>C£MA/AJ 



BALL F IQAT 
TO PP£V£A/T 
OVPPPLO/V 




7XA/K r/pocx 

(to £/TH£P TPAA/SP£P STAT/OM OX 
P/SPOSAL S/Tp) 




jSAPG£ A/OUA/T££> 

[TO £/TH£P S/fOP£ TPAA/S££P 
STAT/OA/ OP TAA/AT TPOC/<) 

T&AAUSPPP Y£P/CL£ 



£ 



LOCMOOT AA/£> 
^ALAPM P£Y/C£ 



\Y£M/CL£ ZAA/M 



o-fcH* 



-*»- 



J> 



VACUUM 
PU/WP 





-4T * 



PP>AAJSP£P STAT/OA/ 
(/P £COA/OM/CS P£QC//P£S) 



Y£A/r oooup coautpoL 

D£Y/C£ /P P£G & -^ 




_IOC#OOT 
AlAPM 



0£ V/C£ 



c 




""■* ** 




. TPAAJSPOPT Y£P/Cl£S 
Qf £CO/VOM/CS P£QQ/P£S) 



W0 



IOC WOT AA/O 
\AAAPM P£V/C£ 



Er*4^r 




MCOUAJ 
PUAYP 




S£tYAG£ r&£}4rAS£Asr f D/SPOSAL 



£>/SCMAPG£ QPM40££& 

S£YYAG£ YSPPC/AL 

PP£ - 7&£s4rAS£AUr PSC/L /T/£S 

xy^> / s£^ > £Qo/e££>j 




S^f 4 - 



S£JM4G£ r / e£ATM£AJT 



COAJT&OL A/UD 
/AJSTPOM£AJr4TAO& 
SCP£AAAP/C 



P>£sUOP£ ro^L/Z£P 



S£/VA0£ POMP 
LOCKOUT D£V/C£ 

(/P PPQ'P) 



A/.APM DEV/OE 



V. 



^ 



N 



A U 



^=Y=&=<&= 



WAT£P /U£r£A? 



^—-* 



coasa/£ct/oa/s 



A/OT ne/&U72P>)Y 

ro ho££>/ajg 

TAA/K 



coa/a/pcp/ca/s 



»i »■ 



r<e/&U7A l p > y ro 

"OL&/ASG Z4AAA' OA/LY' 




^1 TAAJ*' 

—£ c4PAc/ry 
/A/o/cAPoe 



Z OCX OUT £>£ i//C£ 



AlAPM D£Y/C£ 



POS£ COM/U£CT/OA/ 



LOCKOUT D£Y/C£ 







ppcopopp 



P£D S./GPP 



-t*l- 



7AJUK 
CAPAOr/ 
/I/O IC A TOP 
4 P£COGD£P 



i 



L 







* 



ALAPAA ££Y/C£ L AUD/Bl£ ALAPM 



Morop> 



££fA 0-£ r*C/AAP LOCKOUT £>£l//C 
f/P PSOO/P£P) 



i 



-tf- 



o 



£>&/tf£ LOCKOUT 



-fX5— ^ 



t 



M- 







TAAJK 
CAPAC/TY 
/AJD/CATOP 
{ P£COPDFP 



t 



A4AGAJ£r/C -3~ 

PL OH/ M£P£P> ^yj-, 







ih 



O 



ALAPM 



^~ 



O 



OP/i/£ LOCKOUT 



AJAGAJer/c plow assppjp 

H//PM P£COA?D£P> 




A£T£&AJ4T/\/£ 

&S/YS/CAL 

LAYOOTS 



\D= 



XYAy/AAOAA JOG ' POS£ l£AJGTP 



[IP 



POL&/AJG TA/UK ABOYP 
OP 3£IC*Y GPAD£ 



^ 



m 



-t^j- 





->k. 



v - 



S£/VAO£ P£C£/Y/A/0 TAA/AT 
AT D/SPOSAL S/T£ 
f£/TP£P ABOY£ OP &P/.OSV OPAP£) 




M p 
Vr'JP 



o 



irKPCH 



gpctf| 



o 



HOLP/A/0 TAA/A< 
ABOVS OR B£LOW GPOOA/D 



MAXIMUM MOS£ LPAUGTA/ OP /OO PP 



MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ONTARIO 
PRIVATE WASTE AND WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH 



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF HOLDING TANKS AND 
SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM FOR INDIVIDUAL PREMISES 



PROPOSED SEWAGE HAULAGE SYSTEM 



JAMES F. MACLAREN LIMITED 

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS 
LONDON TORONTO WATERLOO WINDSOR 



DATE: MARCH, 1973 



SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 



FIGURE 'A 1 



FILE LI674-D- 5087