Comparison of storage, treatment, utilization, and disposal systems for human and livestock wastes

by: Ron Fleming and Marcy Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario November, 2002

A - Introduction
Background Systems have been in place for many years to handle, store, treat, dispose of, or use excrement from humans and from farm animals. In towns and cities we see sewage treatment facilities to process human wastes and purify the water portion to the level where it can be discharged to surface water. A solid portion is often treated and spread onto farm fields as a source of plant nutrients or it is land-filled. In much of rural Ontario, individual homes use septic systems, where wastes are treated typically in a treatment bed on the owners property. These systems are able to handle the large volumes of very dilute wastes generated by humans. On livestock farms, we see a different approach. In most cases, the livestock manure (which contains feces and urine and may also contain dilution water, bedding, or spilled feed) is stored for up to a year and spread onto crop land where the nutrients can be used for crop growth and the organic matter used to maintain soil health. In the past few years, there has been an increased interest in manure treatment technologies on farms. Research has been carried out around the world to find the best methods to treat manure - for odour control, to kill pathogens, for volume reduction, for concentration of nutrients, for creation of saleable organic products, to reduce labour costs, etc. There have been suggestions that some of the systems used for human waste treatment may be appropriate on farms for livestock manure. The purpose of this report is to briefly describe the main systems in use today in Ontario (and in many other regions) and to put into perspective some of the features of the various systems used for human wastes and livestock manure.

What do we measure? The primary constituents that municipal wastewater treatment plants monitor include the following: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and bacteria such as E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform. The same constituents are used to measure the performance of individual septic systems for human wastes. BOD5 The biochemical oxygen demand is a measure of the dissolved oxygen required to stabilize the organic matter in five days. It is an indicator of the amount of organic material present in a liquid.

TSS

Total suspended solids are the organic and inorganic solids that are not dissolved and may be removed by coagulation or filtration. Nitrogen is a valuable nutrient used for crop growth. It is present in several forms, the main ones being: organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) includes organic nitrogen and ammonia. While nitrogen is valuable for crop growth, in surface water, it can accelerate the growth of aquatic plants. In groundwater, nitrates pose a health threat if they enter drinking water supplies. Phosphorus exists in both the organic and inorganic form. We often are interested in total phosphorus or phosphate, a form of phosphorus . Phosphorus, like nitrogen, can cause eutrophication in surface water - a nutrient enrichment causing microbial and algae growth. These conditions deplete oxygen to the point where chemical-reduction processes can render the water body unsuitable for many forms of aquatic life, reduce the recreational value of the water, and make it unacceptable for use as a source of drinking water. The concentration of bacteria is usually regulated through limits for E. coli, fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria and E. coli are organisms that can be quantitatively related to the presence of sewage or fecal matter. They are not necessarily pathogenic - i.e. capable of causing disease. However, they are used as indicators of the potential presence of pathogenic bacteria (or other organisms) that may be present in water.

Bacteria

For livestock manure, the three main crop nutrients: N, P, and K and the dry matter (DM) content are the most frequently measured parameters. Dry matter content is typically measured, rather than total suspended solids. K Potassium is a crop nutrient that is found in manure in significant amounts. Environmental effects of excess K are typically not a issue. Dry matter, sometimes referred to as Total Solids (TS), is the mass of solids, as a percentage of the overall mass of diluted manure.

DM

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 2

Typical Concentrations Typical concentrations of some of the discussed parameters measured to monitor waste properties are listed in Table 1. Table 1 - Comparison of typical waste stream characteristics (note: all values are rounded to 2 significant figures) (source: Fleming and Ford, 2001) Parameter BOD5 DM TS TN TP Units mg / L % mg / L mg / L mg /L Liquid dairy manure 14 000 10 100 000 3 800 800 9.5 x 107 Liquid swine* manure 28 000 9.8 98 000 4 600 1 600 4.0 x 106 Raw human sewage 220 0.070 700 40 7.9 1.0 x 106

Total coliform number / 100 mL bacteria * swine manure is from feeder pigs

B - Human: Wastewater Treatment Plants

The percentage of Canadians served by wastewater treatment has been increasing. In 1999, 73% of Canadians were served by municipal sewer systems. The level of sewage treatment used across Canada is gradually improving as more municipalities upgrade their existing wastewater treatment facilities. Municipal wastewater, consisting mainly of human waste, is the largest source of nitrogen and phosphorus released to the Canadian Environment. In 1999, about 82,750 tonnes of total nitrogen and 4950 tonnes of total phosphorus were released to lakes, rivers, and coastal waters from municipal sewage. Some municipal wastewater treatment plants are required to use advanced phosphorus removal methods before discharging their waste effluent into particularly sensitive waters. Repair and replacement of sewage systems have reduced leaks and pollutant loadings (Environment Canada, 2001).

Treatment Plant Classification Treatment plants can be classified as primary, secondary, or tertiary. The effluent quality progressively improves as you move from primary to secondary to tertiary treatment. 1. Primary Treatment This form of treatment is usually limited to the use of a separator to remove the larger solids, sand, and grit in the wastewater from the liquid. This is the most basic level of treatment Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 3

acceptable for municipal plants in Ontario. There is a great deal of pressure to upgrade existing primary plants to meet the performance standards of secondary plants. 2. Secondary Treatment Secondary treatment involves both separators and reactors. Reactors tend to oxidize, reduce, immobilize, or physically condition their contents and create gaseous products in the process. This form of treatment is largely a biological process that requires air to stimulate the growth of bacteria and other organisms which will eventually consume most of the waste materials. As this process continues and the settled sludge mixes with newer sludge, gradually a culture of organisms develop that is capable of consuming the organic material in the sewage within four to eight hours. Secondary plants tend to be either lagoon-based or mechanical. A further classification can be made in the reactor portion of biological secondary plants. The biomass of organisms contained within the reactor can be either: a) suspended by mixing - known as Suspended Growth Biological Treatment; or b) supported by attachment to a solid, inert medium - referred to as an Attached Growth Biological Treatment system. 3. Tertiary Treatment Tertiary treatment is defined as any additional treatment to remove suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, or other dissolved substances remaining after secondary treatment. Effluent filtration through a granular medium is the most common form of tertiary treatment applied in Ontario. In practice, chemically-assisted filtration normally achieves better effluent qualities than particle straining alone.

Major Treatment Technologies The level of sewage treatment is generally improving in Canada as more municipalities upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. In 1991, tertiary treatment was provided to 36 % of the Canadian municipal population. This percentage increased to 38 % in 1996. Secondary treatment was provided to 34 % of the Canadian population in 1996, up from 29 % in 1991. Ontarios population is largely served by tertiary treatment, with substantial increases in this level of service since 1983 in response to programs aimed at cleaning up the Great Lakes (Chambers et al., 2001). Table 2 gives a summary of the systems being used by communities in Ontario. The third most common system, Conventional Activated Sludge, is actually the predominant wastewater treatment technology in Ontario, on a treatment volume basis. It was used at 21.3 % of the total facilities, including nine of the largest 10 facilities, and 33 of the largest 45 facilities. Since Extended Aeration, Conventional Seasonal Lagoon, and Conventional Activated Sludge are used at 68 % of the total facilities in Ontario, the following portion of this report will be limited to the description of these three treatment plants. These systems are all considered to be Suspended Growth Biological Treatment systems.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 4

Table 2 - Wastewater treatment systems used in Ontario (source: Doyle, 2002) Technology Extended Aeration Conventional Lagoon- Seasonal Conventional Activated Sludge Primary Aerated Cell Plus Lagoon Conventional Lagoon - Continuous Contact Stabilization Conventional Lagoon - Annual Oxidation Ditch Aerated Lagoon Exfiltration Lagoon Rotating Biological Contactor Number 109 101 95 23 19 15 14 14 10 8 8 5 % of Total 24.4 22.6 21.3 5.1 4.3 3.4 3.1 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.1

1. Activated Sludge Treatment Process This is the most common form of secondary treatment in Ontario. It includes Conventional Activated Sludge (the majority of larger plants in Ontario) and Extended Aeration (most of the smaller plants). Conceptual schematics of the two systems are found in Figures 1 and 2. Treatment begins with screening of the sewage to remove larger debris. Grit removal is designed to remove larger settleable inorganic materials to reduce abrasive wear on mechanical systems later in the treatment process. Primary sedimentation removes most of the remaining solids and organic material. Screens, settling tanks, and skimming devices are commonly used for the separation. The activated sludge process involves an aerated or mixed reactor, also known as an aeration tank. There is a primary clarifier before this aeration tank and a secondary clarifier or sedimentation tank after the aeration tank. The distinction between the Conventional Activated Sludge and the Extended Aeration treatment systems, especially for municipal plants, is that Extended Aeration rarely involves primary sedimentation or a primary clarifier. Also, Extended Aeration treatment facilities tend to have much longer hydraulic detention times than Conventional Activated Sludge systems. As microorganisms grow and are mixed by the addition of the air, the individual organisms gather together or flocculate to form an active mass called activated sludge. The mixture of activated sludge and wastewater in the aeration basin flows to Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 5

Figure 1 Conventional Activated Sludge system the secondary clarifier, where the activated sludge settles. A portion of the settled sludge is returned to the aeration basin to maintain the desired food-to-microorganism ratio to allow the rapid breakdown of organic matter. Since more activated sludge is produced than can be used in the process, some of it is wasted from the aeration basin to the sludge-handling system for treatment and ultimate disposal. Air is normally introduced in the aeration basin either by diffusers or by mechanical mixers.

Figure 2 Extended Aeration system Chlorine is the most common disinfectant used to destroy disease-causing organisms in the wastewater effluent. Typically, as illustrated, chlorine contact tanks are provided at the end of the secondary or tertiary treatment processes. They are designed for a minimum of 30 minutes contact time at average plant flow. The treated wastewater then leaves the plant and enters a water source. Chlorination is the least expensive disinfection method. However, it may produce Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 6

undesirable effects in the river, either when it combines with organic matter or if the residual is too high - causing an acute toxicity to fish and aquatic insects. Ultraviolet light is an excellent disinfection method and does not leave any known residue. This method disinfects by altering the DNA in microorganisms and preventing them from propagating. Detention times are only one minute as opposed to 30 minutes for chlorine, and ultraviolet radiation has a non-toxic effluent. Despite the advantages of ultraviolet radiation in the disinfection process, chlorine is still the most commonly used. 2. Lagoon Treatment Process Conventional seasonal lagoons (depicted in Figure 3) are commonly used to treat wastewater in smaller communities. Lagoons function both as aeration and settling tanks. They are typically two metres deep and rely on oxygen transfer between air and the water surface. These types of facilities also rely on photosynthetic oxygen generation by algae to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria that degrade or metabolize influent organic matter. Seasonal lagoons have their effluent released only seasonally and must accommodate a large volume of wastewater. The screening process that removes large settleable inorganics is similar to that of the activated sludge process. Lagoons often are constructed as earthen basins. They tend to have long hydraulic detention periods and, as a result, a certain amount of nitrification is achieved. Higher temperatures and lower organic loadings generally encourage this production of the nitrate nitrogen. The chlorine disinfection process, before the release of the effluent into a body of water, is similar to the activated sludge process previously described.

Figure 3 Conventional Seasonal Lagoon system Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal Sewage sludge results from the decomposition and settling of solids at sewage treatment plants. It usually contains considerable amounts of organic matter, between 0.1 to 0.3 % total nitrogen, and between 0.05 to 0.15 % total phosphorus (Payne, 2002). Magnesium, zinc, copper, boron and other heavy metals may also be present. Only stabilized sewage sludges with low Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 7

metal concentrations are suitable for land application and are considered biosolids. Municipal sewage biosolids (MSB) refers to the nutrient-rich organic materials removed during the treatment of domestic sewage in a wastewater treatment facility. Stabilization is accomplished by digestion or by some other acceptable means, such as adding lime. Digestion is the decomposition by either anaerobic or aerobic bacteria. Aerobic thermophilic digestion has become a popular stabilization process. Digestion may involve decomposition by anaerobic bacteria of the solids removed after settling in the primary and secondary clarifiers . This process is carried out in a digester and produces biosolids which can be used as soil conditioners. Methane gas is a product of digestion and it is used as fuel for heat exchangers and boilers. In smaller plants the process can be carried out in a single digester, while larger plants require two or more tanks to handle the larger volume of sludge. Digestion reduces the number and type of pathogens - viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. It also reduces the volume of material, and stabilizes organic matter, thereby reducing the potential for odours. Dewatering is the removal of water from the sludge using either vacuum filtration, centrifuges, or belt presses. Vacuum filters are used to reduce the water content of the sludge. The filter is a porous drum wrapped in a steel-coil blanket that picks up the sludge. The rotation of the drum reduces the quantity of water in the sludge with the aid of a partial vacuum inside the drum. A scraper edge removes the dewatered sludge from the outside of the drum. This sludge is then transferred to a storage area. A centrifuge is a horizontal or vertical cylinder which is continually turned at high velocities. This mechanical solid-liquid separator relies on centrifugal forces to separate the liquid and solid components of the sludge onto the inside wall of the cylinder into two layers. An auger which turns slightly faster than the cylinder moves the solids to the conic part of the unit where they are discharged. Belt presses consist of a flat, woven, fabric belt that runs horizontally between rollers. The liquid component of the sludge is forced through the belt by the rollers and the solids are carried along and belt and deposited in a collection chamber. Sludge dewatering facilities produce two streams. One stream is processed solids and the other stream is liquids. The liquid stream is returned to the head of the plant to be treated once more, since it contains high concentrations of suspended solids and BOD. Utilization of Biosolids Biosolids can be dealt with in a number of ways. These include direct application to farm land, disposal at a landfill, incineration, composting, or further processing such as lime stabilization or pelletization. In all cases, biosolid disposal requires the approval of the Ministry of the Environment. Incineration the complete combustion of organic matter and other volatile compounds a controlled process involving the burning of gaseous combustible residuals 2002 Page 8

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

 Composting by heat drying -

creates a residual ash removal of moisture from the biosolids and partial combustion of the organic matter volatile matter is removed and the biosolids are stable enough for use as a compost gases involved in the drying process are reheated to eliminate odours the biosolids, after drying, are processed into a soil conditioner a process in which organic matter undergoes biological decomposition to produce a stable end product that is acceptable as a soil conditioner methods of composting include open windrow and mechanical systems biosolids are heated in a dryer to evaporate any moisture products of this process are uniform-size, dust-free, odour pellets that can be stored for long periods of time pellets can be used as an organic additive to fertilizers most common form is lime stabilization which involves mixing biosolids with lime pathogen levels are controlled with the increased temperature and pH levels biosolids can then be converted into an alkaline soil conditioner suitable for use as a low-grade fertilizer or landfill cover this process actually increases the volume of biosolids digested sludge or biosolids are buried at a suitable site (i.e. appropriate distance from populated areas, leachate protection, runoff and erosion control, and protection against gas movement) biosolids may be used as a daily landfill cover to limit surface infiltration permitted only at licenced landfill sites applied to crop land, thus reducing the demand for commercial fertilizers, improving soil fertility, enhancing soil structure, and improving soil moisture retention and permeability 2002 Page 9

Composting by microbial action

Thermal Drying (Pelletization)

Chemical Stabilization

Burial / Landfilling -

Land Application -

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

ideal for crops such as corn, soybeans, canola, and cereals and can also benefit pasture land. can be used in forestry to encourage tree growth, and therefore timber production, or to rehabilitate soils affected by mining or quarrying. soil tests ensure suitability of the application site based on levels of nutrients, metals, and pH of the soil guidelines concerning biosolids land application require that the land is suitable, located a specified distance from residences, wells, and water sources and that the timing and method of application must be appropriate for the specific site considerations and crop management a field would receive biosolids once every five years, normally

Sewage Treatment Plants - Potential Water Quality Impacts All treated wastewater from a sewage treatment plant is discharged to streams or other surface water. While this can affect the quantity of flow in a stream, these systems are designed to minimize any impact on water quality. The cause of potential water quality impacts of sewage treatment plants fall into three main areas: 1. Bypasses Bypasses of municipal wastewater or raw sewage occur when the peak capacity of the sewage treatment facility is exceeded, usually during periods of heavy rainfall. The flow is deliberately redirected away from any further treatment and is released to the body of water. Occasionally during the construction and expansion of facilities, bypasses are necessary to prevent the raw sewage from backing up into homes, businesses, and streets and to avoid the shutdown of the entire facility. The capacities of wastewater treatment plants are designed to handle shortterm peak flows well above daily averages, so that normal fluctuations in the flow do not cause plant upsets. Diversion of flow is prohibited from any portion of the treatment facility except during emergency conditions. A treatment plant would ideally expand prior to reaching its maximum capacity. In most cases, raw sewage receives at least primary treatment and chlorine disinfection before discharge into the watercourse (Hartley, 2001). When there is a bypass incident, the facility operators must immediately notify the Medical Officer of Health, the Ministry of Health, and the Water Supply Section of the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES), detailing the volume and duration of the discharge. Municipalities report bypasses to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. The WES is responsible for providing annual summary reports to the Ministry of Environment and Energy of any by-passes of sewage to a receiving water body as a result of equipment failure or system overload. Data showed that 75 of the 204 reporting Ontario municipal wastewater treatment plants had bypasses in 1991, most of which occurred during the spring thaw months of March and April. The corresponding total annual diverted volume for1991 was 2.2. million m3 for primary Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 10

plants and 9.6 million m3 for secondary plants, representing 0.11 and 0.46 %, respectively, of the total effluent volume treated (Chambers et al., 2001). For the year 1998, 83 facilities were included in a report by Doyle, with 43 incidents of bypass of either primary treatment, secondary treatment, or both treatments. Table 3 summarizes the volume of diverted flow and the length of time the bypass incident lasted. The treatment capacity for the province in 1998 was 6 784 016 m3 / day. The total bypassed flow from both primary and secondary treatment in 1998 was 13 173 419 m3 (the equivalent of less than two days processing for one years recorded bypass incidents). This diverted quantity of wastewater represented 0.53 % of the total annual effluent volume for 1998 (Doyle, 2002). Table 3 - Summary of 83 wastewater treatment facility bypasses for 1998 (source: Doyle, 2002) Bypass volume (m3) Treatment bypassed Primary Secondary Primary and Secondary Total Number of facilities 17 18 8 43 2 048 663 3 941 835 primary 1 893 172 8 067 835 1 163 749 9 231 584 1 383 2 370 secondary Total bypass time (h) primary 987 1 645 1 474 3 120 secondary

If discharged without treatment, wastewater will continue to consume dissolved oxygen from the receiving water (i.e. exerts a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)). Without oxygen, aquatic life cannot be sustained. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and pathogenic organisms can pose a threat to the water quality of a receiving body and to public health when wastewater enters a watercourse without sufficient treatment. Phosphorous and nitrogen, as previously mentioned, promote the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae. Coliform bacteria may not cause disease, but may indicate the presence of pathogenic organisms. These organisms may cause the following illnesses in humans: intestinal infections, dysentry, hepatitis, typhoid fever, and cholera. 2. Spills Raw sewage spills can be caused by blocked sewage lines, electrical failures, equipment malfunction, operator error, or the corrosion or collapse of aging sewer lines. The Medical Officier of Health and the Commissioner of the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) reported in 2000 that in the previous five years there had been a total of five sewage spills in the City of Toronto (Basrur and Gutteridge, 2000). These incidents had been contained and monitoring of the water did not reveal any irregularities or serious health threats to Toronto residents. The potential contaminants of a raw sewage spill are similar to those mentioned above for treatment plant bypasses.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 11

3. Land Application of Biosolids The land application of biosolids is a similar technique to spreading liquid manure on cropland. The potential impacts on water quality are also the same. (Refer to: Livestock Manure Systems - Potential Water Quality Impacts).

C - Human: Septic Systems

Septic systems are found in rural areas where municipal sewage treatment services are not available. About 8 million Canadians, slightly more than one-quarter of the population, are served by septic systems (Environment Canada, 2001). Most systems consist of an underground tank and a leach drain, or absorption field, that operate together to purify household wastewater (see Figure 4). Wastewater flows from the house by gravity to the septic tank. If the system is properly sized and functioning correctly, the sewage remains in the tank for the amount of time necessary to allow anaerobic bacteria to break down the solids. Incoming household wastewater displaces a quantity of effluent which flows from the tank outlet by gravity. The effluent enters the buried absorption field where it seeps into the surrounding soil. The liquid becomes filtered as it travels downwards through the soil. Aerobic bacteria in the soil further break down the liquid. Some moisture usually transpires into the air above the buried absorption or leach field, mostly during Figure 4 Typical septic system layout the summer. The remaining effluent moves (Vogel and Rupp, 1999) downward in the soil and eventually reaches groundwater. The absorption or leach field should be situated an appropriate distance from the home or well, away from any shade trees, and on the downhill side of the house. The soil of the absorption field must have an acceptable percolation rate. In other words, the soil must have characteristics that enable moisture to seep through it reasonably freely.

The Septic Tank Sewage flows to the large septic tank through the sewer line which is an extension of the homes main drain. The tank, typically made of concrete or fibreglass, is vented by this line back into the home to prevent the build-up of gases. At the opposite end of the septic tank, a second pipe leads to the leaching bed. Single chambered tanks are no longer permitted to be installed in Ontario. Regulations in Ontario now require that septic tanks be double-chambered. Normally, the first chamber is larger than the second. Baffles used in these tanks prevent solids from moving directly through the tank and plugging the leach field lines. Double-chambered septic tanks tend to allow sufficient time for the suspended solids to settle out of the effluent stream.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 12

Figure 5 Typical two-chambered septic tank (Joy, 2002) The septic tank functions as a breeding ground for important anaerobic bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and actinomycetes. Movement in the tank stops once the comparatively rapidly moving wastewater has entered. The only movement is some temporary surface rippling. The stilling of the tank serves two functions. Anaerobic creatures thrive since they grow much better in still than in moving water, and the solids are able to sink to the bottom due to the motionless water. Microorganisms attack and digest the organic solids as they are sinking. Methane and other gases are produced in the process. A scum forms over the surface of the liquid in the tank. Gases bubble to the surface and bring along fine particles of solid material which combine with oil and grease to form this layer of scum. The scum layer reduces the movement of the liquid beneath it and insulates the anaerobic bacteria from any air that seeps into the tank. Bacteria will continue to thrive and break down the organic material into its constituent elements as long as the temperature does not drop below freezing. Anaerobic bacteria are not capable of completely transforming the organic matter into its component elements. Only aerobic bacteria (in the presence of sufficient oxygen) can properly break down the organic matter. When attacking organic substances, anaerobic creatures produce water, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, phosphorus, and heat. In a physical sense, the anaerobic bacteria are altering the organic materials by transforming them from a solid state to a liquid state. The anaerobic community cannot digest material such as stone or plastic and these materials remain in the tank. Eventually these materials must be removed by pumping. As with proper maintenance of the tank, this is recommended every three to five years.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 13

The Absorption Field The effluent from the septic tank travels to the absorption field through perforated plastic pipe. The liquid is still septic and must be treated because it contains substances that promote the decomposition of vegetation and animal matter, as well as harmful pathogens, bacteria, and viruses. The liquid flows out of the pipe and through a layer of coarse gravel surrounding the pipe. Most of the liquid passes into the soil by gravity. Some of the liquid leaves the soil entirely by evaporation or by the process Figure 6 Cross-sectional view of absorption of transpiration where the roots of plants take up field layers (Vogel and Rupp, 1999) water and this water evaporates from the leaves of the plant. Worms and nematodes aerate the soil, providing the oxygen required for aerobic organisms to digest and chemically oxidize the organic waste present in the effluent. The wastes of aerobic bacteria are soluble, stable compounds that act as food to plants. The soil acts as a filter and prevents the larger bacteria from moving far. Clay, in particular, absorbs viruses and locks them in place to prevent their movement. Soil mainly consists of small pieces of inorganic particles and organic matter in various stages of decay. Every particle of clay and a form of organic matter known as humus carry a minute electric charge. Microorganisms also carry an electric charge on their protein coating. Because of the electrical charges they may be attracted to the charged soil particles and held in place. As the effluent flows further downward through the soil it will continue to be filtered. Eventually, much of this water reaches the groundwater. The efficiency of the absorption field becomes threatened when the soil immediately surrounding the pipes becomes saturated and clogged with fine particles of organic matter. The soil will lose its ability to function as a filter and the effluent will build up and appear on the ground surface. The drain or absorption field can become an effective filter once more by removing the old gravel and clogged earth, treating the nearby soil, and replacing the gravel and covering it with a fresh layer of soil.

Alternatives to Conventional Septic Systems 1. Shallow Buried Trenches This alternative system uses shallow buried trenches in the leaching field to dispose of the septic tank effluent through small diameter pressurized pipes. These pipes are contained in chambers in the upper soil layers. Shallow buried trenches are intended for smaller building lots and less permeable soils such as heavy clay soils. The system tends to make the effluent more available for plant root uptake.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 14

2. Chambered Systems The chambered system is a replacement for the conventional stone and pipe leaching bed. The pipes are not pressurized and there is no crushed stone layer. As an alternative to gravelfilled trenches, they provide more infiltration surface area. 3. Peat Filter Systems Peat-based leaching beds treat septic tank effluent. After percolating through the peat filter, wastewater exits the bottom of the shell and infiltrates the soil through the crushed stone bedding. The compact design makes this filter system well-suited to lots with insufficient space for conventional treatment trenches. The peat filter must be replaced on average every eight years. 4. Artificial Media Filters Artificial media filters provide further treatment to septic tank effluent before entering the leaching bed. These filters use an absorbent synthetic media to provide aerobic treatment. Wastewater is sprinkled over the filter and slowly percolates through the media. Air circulation through the media is accomplished by fans or by natural convection. These systems can be housed in an above-grade structure or buried in a concrete or fibreglass tank.

Septic System - Potential Water Quality Impacts Groundwater resources may become contaminated or polluted from a septic systems absorption field effluent. This is particularly likely to occur when water tables are high or when the effluent flows into saturated soil which is not capable of properly purifying the wastewater. An average of 61 % of septic field systems in various surveys of cottage systems in Ontario were not properly designed, constructed and maintained (Chambers et al., 2001). Septic system effluent constituents that can contaminate groundwater include: bacteria and viruses, nitrate, phosphate (a common form of phosphorus), and organic substances. 1. Bacteria and viruses The contamination of groundwater by bacteria and viruses is a serious contamination problem. The majority of bacteria and viruses are small enough in size to move through soil pores. If they are not destroyed they may leach downwards to the water table. Adsorption slows the downward movement of bacteria and viruses. The process is particularly effective with an increasing clay content of soils. In sandy soils, however, adsorption is weak and the adsorbed organisms may not likely be bound permanently to the soil and can become re-suspended in the water moving through soil pores that eventually reaches the groundwater. Microorganisms including coliform bacteria and viruses tend to move only a few dozen centimeters within the percolating waters in unsaturated soil layers although much greater distances can be achieved under saturated flow conditions. Release of adsorbed microorganisms and their downward leaching has been noted during periods of heavy rainfall when water is rapidly percolating through the soil (Cogger, 1988). Results of various studies have shown that unsaturated soils remove a large percentage of Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 15

the bacteria and viruses present in the septic system effluent. Substantial bacterial and viral removal occurs within the first 30 cm of unsaturated soil. Within 60 to 120 cm of the bottom of the trenches, removal of these contaminants is nearly complete. Bacterial and viral survival is prolonged by saturated conditions most commonly as a result of high water tables. There is a potential for bacterial and viral persistence when there is a zone of saturated soil beneath the absorption trenches (Cogger, 1988). 2. Nitrate Excessive amounts of nitrate in drinking water can lead to methemoglobinemia (sometimes referred to as blue baby syndrome), a condition which prevents the normal uptake of oxygen by the blood. Infants are especially susceptible to this condition. Nitrate is a highly soluble compound that is readily transported to groundwater. The three main mechanisms that can reduce nitrate concentration include the uptake of nitrate by plants, microbial denitrification, and dilution of groundwater. Plants use nitrate if it is accessible to their roots during the growing season. Nitrogen from septic tank effluent is only available to plants surrounding the absorption trenches and this nutrient is continuously added to the soil throughout the year, whether the plants can effectively use it or not. As a result, plants are not effective throughout the entire year at using the nitrate released from septic systems. Denitrification is the process carried out under anaerobic conditions in the soil that reduces nitrate to nitrogen gas. It is most effective in wet soils that are otherwise unsatisfactory for wastewater treatment. The most commonly used method to control nitrate concentrations is through dilution in the groundwater aquifer. Nitrate can reach unacceptable levels in groundwater beneath soils that are otherwise acceptable for septic tank effluent treatment (Cogger, 1988). 3. Phosphate and Organic Substances The environmental problem most commonly associated with phosphate (a form of phosphorus) is the eutrophication of lake water (mentioned earlier). Phosphate pollution from septic tank effluent is of much less concern in comparison to nitrate or bacteria and viruses since phosphorus is adsorbed tightly to soil minerals and its potential for movement is limited. Very little phosphate moves through soil and groundwater to lakes. Phosphate movement is evident, however, in some sandy soils with limited phosphate fixation capacity, especially surrounding older or heavily loaded systems with higher water tables. The organic matter in wastewater also includes trace amounts of toxic man-made organic compounds derived from household products such as solvents. These compounds are sometimes slow to degrade, and have the potential to contaminate groundwater if they percolate through the soil in sufficient quantities. If the concentration of this type of contaminant gets too high it may also negatively influence the performance of the septic tank. A number of studies, however, have shown that the levels of these toxic organic compounds created no serious problems (Cogger, 1988).

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 16

D - Livestock Manure Systems

Handling and Transfer to Storage Most livestock farmers handle manure in one of two forms - either as a liquid or as a solid. Liquid manure contains feces and urine and may also contain washwater, spilled water (e.g. from drinkers), precipitation into the storage, spilled feed, and bedding. Normally solid manure contains feces, some or all of the urine, bedding, spilled feed, and little or no additional water. The main factors considered in choosing between a liquid and solid manure system are: labour, economics, environmental concerns, and animal welfare. Liquid systems are used by most large dairy operations, some large beef operations, most swine operations, and some caged laying hen operations. Solid systems tend to be popular with smaller dairy and beef operations, some large beef operations, broiler chicken operations and most caged laying hen operations. Some farms have both solid and liquid manure systems. There are a number of methods used to collect and transfer manure to storage. In some cases, the storage is a part of the housing system (e.g. bedded manure that the animals move around on) or the manure falls through slatted floors into a tank under the animals. These systems can require very little labour, outside of actual spreading. In other cases, manure is removed from the barn regularly (e.g. every day or every week) and stored until the timing is right to spread the manure onto the fields. The number of livestock farms in Ontario and the amount of manure produced per year are included in Table 4. Table 4 - Ontario livestock farms and amounts of manure produced annually (source: Goss et al., 2002) (based on 1996 and 1997 Census data) Total Manure Produced (million L/yr) Ontario Region Total for Ontario Total Livestock Farm Numbers 28 885 Poultry 1 850 Cattle 19 350 Swine 9 654

Storage Most farms in Ontario store manure for long periods of time and spread the manure onto fields at times when the greatest amounts of nutrients can be used by the crop. Other factors considered in determining a spreading time include: soil moisture levels, making best use of labour resources, minimizing adverse environmental impacts, availability of a custom applicator, and economics. While some storage capacities may be less than 200 days, a normal minimum storage period recommended or required is about 250 days. This allows most farmers flexibility in applying manure to cropland. In addition, there is a growing number of farms with up to 400 days of manure storage capacity. Solid manure is usually stacked on a concrete pad. This storage should have a system to Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 17

collect and store contaminated runoff resulting from precipitation onto the stack. Alternatively, some solid manure storages are covered to exclude precipitation. Liquid manure storages may be concrete tanks directly under barns. A number of farmers have uncovered clay-lined earthen storages. Many farmers have uncovered circular concrete or steel tanks. There are also a number of covered concrete storages. Liquid manure storages typically become anaerobic - little or no oxygen is present. This leads to odour production, and siting formulas are typically used to maintain enough distances to non-compatible land uses to minimize odour conflicts.

Treatment While many farmers are using or have tried some form of treatment (e.g. liquid manure additives, solid manure composting, aeration, solid-liquid separation), the majority of farmers use no treatment system.

Land Application The goal of land application is to make use of the nutrients and organic matter in manure. This can reduce crop production costs, as it reduces the need for inorganic fertilizer. Similar systems are used for land application of sewage biosolids. Often, manure is spread onto the land and incorporated into the soil within a day or two. Some farmers inject manure directly into the soil. This requires more energy, but reduces losses of ammonia-N to the air. Under certain cropping regimes, incorporation may not be practical (e.g. no-till, spreading onto hay). In 1996, 384 000 tonnes of nitrogen and 139 000 tonnes of phosphorus were applied as manure to cropland in Canada (Chambers et al., 2001).

Livestock Manure Systems - Potential Water Quality Impacts The areas of concern with respect to water quality are very similar with all organic nutrient sources. In most cases, manure systems make efficient use of the manure constituents for growing crops and building soil health. These systems provide a way for recycling nutrients back to the soil, rather than disposing of them, which is the end result of human wastewater treatment systems. The greatest potential for water quality impacts is in the following areas: 1. Runoff from solid manure storages The runoff that results from precipitation onto solid manure storages can leach nutrients and bacteria from the manure. Many farms do not have a system to catch and store this liquid. This is especially a concern if the runoff source is located beside a stream or a surface inlet for a drainage system. While this runoff may not be as concentrated as raw manure, it can have an impact on water quality. Some farms have runoff storages, or have structures that significantly reduce the quantity of runoff. Others have vegetative areas that the runoff must cross, which helps to treat the wastewater. Vegetative filter strips facilitate the infiltration of the water into the soil and the utilization of the nutrients by the plants growing there. Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 18

2. Over-application of manure If manure spreading is viewed by the farmer as a disposal method, there is a tendency to over-apply the manure to fields. Nutrients are applied at rates higher than what the crop can use. With nitrate, this can lead to leaching downward through the soil profile. A certain amount of this nitrate, depending on many factors, may eventually reach groundwater. Phosphorus is not as mobile but can accumulate in the soil to levels where leaching can become a problem. Currently, a great deal of effort is going into promoting the more widespread use of nutrient management plans. This is one of the most effective ways to avoid the problem of over-application of nutrients, from whatever source. 3. Macropore flow of liquid manure to subsurface tile drainage systems Under certain conditions, liquid manure has gained access to subsurface tile drain systems shortly after spreading. This, then can reach surface water. The management techniques needed to avoid this potential problem are fairly well established now. 4. Runoff from fields If manure is spread onto a field and heavy rains fall on the field before the manure is incorporated, there is a risk of manure runoff. The greatest risk of this happening is with winterspread manure, a practice which is no longer considered acceptable in Ontario (mainly because of this increased risk). The risk in this case is from the spring melt, not necessarily the heavy rains. 5. Accidental spills of liquid manure Occasionally, manure storage systems or spreading equipment fail, resulting in the leaking of liquid manure. In some cases, manure has gained access to surface waters, where it can cause serious environmental harm (especially in the short term). This section has addressed concerns with livestock manure, but because the management of land applied sewage biosolids is somewhat similar, the same issues can apply to the application of biosolids to farmland.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 19

E - Summary of Losses and Transformations

Situation #1 Assume: 1000 L of raw sewage enters a sewage treatment plant. This is roughly the amount (with dilution liquid) produced by four humans. Assuming the wastewater underwent secondary treatment at a conventional activated sludge system facility, the concentrations of parameters listed below would be achieved. The volume of wastewater lost as grit and screenings is assumed to be negligible. An effluent volume of approximately 999.4 L is considered to be exiting the plant.

Material #1 - Raw Sewage (1000 L)

TSS BOD 5 TKN TP total coliform bacteria (source: Doyle, 2002) 200 g 170 g 30 g 7g 5 x 107 per 100 mL

Secondary Effluent discharged to surface water (999.4 L) TSS BOD5 TKN TP total coliform bacteria (source: Doyle, 2002) 15 g 15 g 20 g 3.5 g 200 - 1000 per 100 mL

600 g of Biosolids (Anaerobic dewatered liquid) TS BOD5 TKN TP total coliform bacteria (Source: 1 180 g (ref1) N/a 10 g 3.5 g N/a

OMAFRA, 2000)

The reduction of the parameters considered at the aeration stage are not considered significant since the volatile organic compounds and ammonia levels are low. Parameters are provided for the effluent exiting the treatment facility and for the sewage biosolids. Wasted sludge from both the primary and secondary clarifier is considered. The mass of biosolids was found given that the primary clarifier removes 60 % of the TSS and given that from 0.3 to 0.5 g of sludge is produced for every gram of BOD5 removed in the secondary clarifier (Zhou, 2002). The total coliform bacteria effluent value is based on a chlorine dosage rate of 2 - 8 mg/L and a total chlorine Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 20

residual of 2.5 - 3.5 mg/L (Qasim, 1994). Data are not provided for sewage sludge since it is an intermediate of the treated biosolids. The biosolids considered received anaerobic treatment and were de-watered to a total solids concentration of 30 % (OMAFRA, 2000)

Situation #2 Assume: 1000 L of raw sewage enters an individual residence septic system. This is roughly the amount (with dilution liquid) of medium concentration wastewater produced by four humans. The amount of the parameters below that have been lost to the air is considered negligible. This quantity of these parameters that is normally lost to the air varies seasonally. The constituents reported for the septic tank effluent are concentrations reported prior to this material entering the leaching bed. The concentrations of these parameters in the groundwater are outside the footprint of the leaching bed but no more than 10 m away.
Material # 2 - Untreated Domestic Wastewater (1000 L)
220 g 220 g 40 g 8g 107 - 10 8 per 100 mL (source: Medium concentration wastewater - Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991 ) TSS BOD5 TN TP total coliform bacteria

1000 L of Septic Tank Effluent (prior to entering leaching bed)

68 - 624 g (ref2) 140 - 666 g (ref2) N/a 7.2 - 17 g (ref3) 104 - 105 per 100 mL (ref3) (Source: 2 Viraraghavan and Warnock, 1976 3 Anderson et al., 1994 ) TSS BOD5 TN TP total coliform bacteria

1000 L of groundwater (no more than 10 m from the leaching bed) TSS 40 g (ref2) BOD5 35 g (ref2) TN N/a TP 0.3-18 g (ref4) or 4.4 g (ref2) total coliform bacteria 0-17per 100 mL (ref5) (source: 2 Viraraghavan and Warnock, 1976 4 Schiff, 1993 5 Ritter et al., 1994)

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 21

Situation #3 Assume: 1000 L of livestock manure enters a manure collection and storage system. This is roughly the amount (with dilution liquid) produced by 172 feeder pigs. The raw manure parameters will only be altered slightly following storage in a manure collection basin that is open to the air. The ammonia-nitrogen levels will decrease somewhat due to losses to the atmosphere during storage and spreading. The other parameters will remain virtually the same until the manure is applied to cropland.

Material # 3 - Feeder Pig Manure (1000 L)

TSS BOD5 TN TP total coliform bacteria
N/a 28 000 g 46 000 g 1 600 g 4 x 108 per 100 mL (source: Fleming and Ford, 2001)

Land Applied Manure (1000L)

TSS BOD5 TN TP total coliform bacteria (source: Fleming, 2002)
N/a 28 000 g N/a 1 600 g 4 x 108 per 100 mL

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 22

F - Summary
The methods of storage and treatment of human and animal wastes vary significantly. Breaking down organic matter and destroying pathogens is the goal of human waste treatment. A small portion of the nutrients may be used on land for crop growth. A large amount of treated wastewater is discharged to the environment - it is the water that is re-used. In contrast, livestock manure systems aim to make use of nutrients for growing crops. Typically there is no attempt to break down organic matter before it is applied to the soil. Similarly, there is no attempt to destroy pathogens, although steps are taken during storage and land application to reduce the risk of any pathogens surviving in the manure from entering surface water or groundwater. Both livestock manure and human waste have the potential to contaminate water resources (surface water or groundwater), though steps are taken in all cases to minimize any risks. It may not be fair to compare human and animal waste due to their very different storage, handling and treatment systems. An understanding of these different methods of treatment is necessary before alternative methods of waste handling and treatment can be developed.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to the following individuals for supplying important information for the completion of this report: D. Joy, Professor, School of Engineering, University of Guelph M. Payne, Biosolids Utilization Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food H. Zhou, Professor, School of Engineering, University of Guelph

References - Related Reading Anderson, D.L. et al. 1994. Insitu lysimeter investigation of pollutant attenuation in the vadose zone of fine sand. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. ASAE. Basrur, S. 2000. Toronto Staff Report: Raw Sewage Discharges in Lake Ontario. Available in pdf form: www.city.toronto.on.ca/legdocs/2000/agendas/committees/hl/hl000925/it008.pdf. Date accessed: May 30, 2002. Chambers, P.A., M. Guy, E.S. Roberts, M.N. Charlton, R. Kent, C. Gagnon, G. Grove, and N. Foster. 2001. Nutrients and their impact on the Canadian environment. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. (CD-ROM). Cogger, C. 1988. On-Site Septic Systems: The risk of groundwater contamination. Journal of Environmental Health 51(1): 12 - 16. Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 23

Doyle, E. 2002. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General. Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Paper 9. Walkerton Inquiry CD-ROM. Available online at: www.walkertoninquiry.com. Date accessed: July 4, 2002. Environment Canada, Indicators and Assessment Office, Ecosystem Science Directorate, and The Environmental Conservation Service. 2001. Nutrients in the Canadian Environment: Reporting on the State of Canadas Environment. State of the Environment Report. Available online at: www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/National/soeass.cfm. Date accessed: May 29, 2002. Fleming, R. and M. Ford. 2001. Humans versus Animals - Comparison of Waste Properties. Available online at: www.ridgetownc.on.ca/Research/Reports/Subject/manure.htm. Date accessed: May 29, 2002. Goss, M.J., K.S. Rollins, K. McEwan, J.R. Shaw and H. Lammers-Helps. 2002. The Management of Manure in Ontario with Respect to Water Quality. Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General. Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Paper 6. Walkerton Inquiry CD-ROM. Available online at: www.walkertoninquiry.com. Date accessed: July 4, 2002. Hartley, M. 2001. Municipal Wastewater Spills and Bypasses Report. Grand River Conservation Authority. Available online in pdf form at: pages.sprint.ca/travellerdreams/files/wwtp.PDF. Date accessed: July 4, 2002. Joy, D. 2002. Personal Correspondence. University of Guelph. Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. 1999. Septic Smart: New Ideas for Household Septic Systems on Difficult Sites. Booklet designed by the LandOwner Resource Centre, Manotick, ON. OMAF [Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food]. 2000. Sewage Biosolids: Managing Urban Nutrients Responsibly for Crop Production. Government factsheet. Payne, M. 2000. Land Application of Sewage Biosolids for Crop Production. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Factsheet No. 00-023. Payne, M. 2002. Personal Correspondence. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Qasim, S. R. 1994. Wastewater Treatment Plants - Planning, Design, and Operation. Lancaster, Pennsylavania: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc. Ritter, W.F. et al., 1994. Alternative On-Site Wastewater Systems Impacts on Ground-Water Quality. Presented at the NABEC-94 Conference, Guelph, Ontario, July, 1994. Fleming and Ford Ridgetown College - University of Guelph 2002 Page 24

Schiff, S., et al. 1993. Septic Systems and Phosphorous. Presented as the conference on problem environments for septic systems and communal treatment options (Waterloo) - May, 1993. Tchobanoglous, G. and F. L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, Third Edition. New York, NY: McGraw - Hill, Inc. Viraraghavan, T. and Warnock, R.G. 1976. Groundwater Pollution from a Septic Tile Field. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 5(1976): 281 - 287. Vogel, M.P. and G.L. Rupp. 1999. Septic Tank and Drainfield Operation and Maintenance. 1999. Montana State University Extension Service. Available online at: www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt9401.html. Date accessed: July 25, 2002. Zhou, H. 2002. Personal Correspondence. University of Guelph.

Fleming and Ford

Ridgetown College - University of Guelph

2002

Page 25