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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11