Canada’s Challenges and Opportunities

to Address Contaminants in Wastewater

Supporting Document 1
National Questionnaire Results Summary

March 2018
Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................................................ 4
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 4
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Demographic Questions............................................................................................................................ 5
Section 1: Opportunities and barriers presented by current regulations ................................................ 7
Section 2: Key contaminants in need of attention ................................................................................. 10
Section 3: Key opportunities to address priority contaminants ............................................................. 18
Section 4: Opportunities to achieve resource recovery and climate change adaptation ...................... 22
Additional Comments ............................................................................................................................. 25
Observations and Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 27

Canadian Water Network thanks all questionnaire respondents who shared their perspectives.

This project was undertaken with the financial support of:

Ce projet a été réalisé avec l’appui financier de:

2
Preface
As the list of chemicals we generate as a society grows, many find their way into wastewater and
ultimately into our natural ecosystems. Some of these substances are contaminants that can be harmful
to human health, fish and wildlife, and to Canada’s waterways. To put into clearer context the ability and
opportunities to deal with wastewater contaminants in Canada, Canadian Water Network (CWN) led a
national review of known contaminants and contaminants of emerging concern in municipal wastewater
and our options to deal with them.

Supported by a $400,000 investment from Environment and Climate Change Canada, and leveraging
CWN’s extensive network of research and practitioner communities, CWN convened a national expert
panel from October 2017 to March 2018. The panel’s mandate, as established by CWN, was to assess
Canada’s needs and opportunities in dealing with multiple contaminants in domestic wastewater through
consideration of the following critical questions:

 Which wastewater contaminants do we need to worry about most, now and in the future?
 What are the options for our diverse Canadian communities to address these contaminants
through wastewater treatment?
 What are the important opportunities and trade-offs involved in those treatment choices,
including resource recovery, cost implications, socio-economic and cultural fit, and implications
for related issues like greenhouse gas emissions?

The expert panel was composed of a group of eight leading experts from across Canada with diverse
expertise in municipal wastewater treatment, conventional contaminants and contaminants of emerging
concern, environmental and ecosystem impacts, wastewater resource recovery, and the broader legal
and socioeconomic implications of wastewater effluent discharges. The panel was chaired by Dr. Donald
Mavinic of the University of British Columbia, an internationally recognized expert in wastewater
treatment.

The expert panel’s primary task was to generate a synthesis report providing a credible and useful framing
of where we are, what we know and don’t know, and a ‘blueprint’ for how we can move forward to
achieve benefits through more effective wastewater treatment in Canada. This blueprint was developed
through research and discussions that were augmented by incorporating perspectives from an extended
group of experts from across Canada. A broad range of geographic and topic-area insights were solicited
from expert contributors with knowledge of municipal wastewater practice, environmental impacts and
assessments associated with wastewater, as well as legal and community perspectives. The extended
expert input included both invited participation at panel working meetings, as well as broader national
input through an online questionnaire.

As a supporting document to the expert panel’s report, the current document provides a summary of the
results of the expert panel’s national questionnaire on Canada’s needs and opportunities to address
contaminants in wastewater.

3
Purpose and Scope
A national questionnaire was developed by CWN’s national expert panel on Canada’s challenges and
opportunities to address contaminants in wastewater, and supported by CWN staff. The objective of the
questionnaire was to inform expert panel discussions, and in particular to assist the expert panel in:

 Identifying opportunities and barriers for wastewater treatment presented by current regulations
within Canada

 Identifying key areas in need of attention through wastewater treatment for contaminants that
fall under Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER), as well as for known/established
contaminants and contaminants of emerging concern in wastewater

 Identifying key opportunities where wastewater treatment can effectively address concerns
about priority contaminants

 Identifying opportunities and trade-offs for wastewater treatment approaches to achieve

resource recovery and climate change adaptation

Although the panel’s work was focused on identifying areas where wastewater treatment options or
approaches are an effective way to deal with contaminants, the questionnaire was also designed to
provide an opportunity to comment on areas where other approaches may be most effective.

Methodology
An invitation and link to an online questionnaire was sent via email from CWN to 166 potential
respondents in December 2017 and January 2018. An effort was made to include a broad range of
perspectives from various sectors and across all regions in Canada including: federal, provincial and
territorial governments, municipal governments, indigenous community representatives, watershed
organizations, non-government organizations, academia and consulting firms. The list of potential
respondents was developed by the national expert panel, with support from CWN staff.

The questionnaire was completed by a total of 78 respondents, representing an overall response rate of
47%. 69 respondents completed the questionnaire in English and 9 completed it in French.

Questionnaire respondents were required to complete all demographic questions, however, for the
remaining questions, respondents were offered the opportunity to skip questions that were outside their
area of expertise or that they preferred not to answer. A copy of the questions is provided in Appendix A.

4
Results
Demographic Questions
As shown in Figures 1-4, responses to the demographic questions revealed a broad range of perspectives
represented among questionnaire respondents.

Q: What is the nature of your organization?

Figure 1. Nature of organization (n = 78)

Non-government Other
5% Water utility Water utility
organization
10% 7%
Municipality
Consulting
8% Indigenous community,
government, or territory
Provincial or territorial
Municipality government
36% Federal government
University or other
research institution
22% University or other research
institution
Consulting

Federal government Non-government organization

Indigenous community,
5% Provincial or territorial government, or territory
Other
government 3%
4%

Q: What is your role within the organization?

Figure 2. Role in organization (n = 78)

Other Senior management

Senior
23% management
Middle or front-line
33%
management
Non- Non-management
management
14% Middle or Other
front-line
management
30%

5
Q: What is the primary focus of your role within the organization?
Figure 3. Focus of role in organization (n = 78)

Other
All of the obove 8%
5%
Operations
Regulations
4% Research
Operations Analysis
27%
Policy
Design and Implementation
9%
Policy
Regulations
Design and
Implementation All of the obove
6% Research
Analysis Other
28%
13%

Q: In what province or territory are you physically located?

Figure 4. Province or territory (n = 78)
Newfoundland and Washington USA
Yukon
Labrador 1%
1%
1% British Columbia
Nova Scotia
5% Alberta

Saskatchewan
New Brunswick
3% British Columbia Manitoba
14%
Ontario
Québec
Alberta Québec
13%
14%
New Brunswick

Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Ontario
4% Newfoundland and Labrador
42%
Manitoba Yukon
2%
Washington USA

6
A post-hoc analysis, shown in Table 1, suggests that the current sample is generally reflective of the
Canadian population distribution within provinces and territories1, although there is relative under-
representation of Québec and northern Canadian perspectives.

Table 1.
Comparison of questionnaire sample by province and territory to Canadian population distribution

Questionnaire sample Canadian population distribution

British Columbia 14% British Columbia 13%
Alberta 14% Alberta 12%
Saskatchewan 4% Saskatchewan 3%
Manitoba 2% Manitoba 4%
Ontario 42% Ontario 38%
Québec 13% Québec 23%
New Brunswick 3% New Brunswick 2%
Nova Scotia 5% Nova Scotia 3%
Prince Edward Island 1% Prince Edward Island 0.5%
Newfoundland and 1% Newfoundland and 1.5%
Labrador Labrador
Yukon 1% Yukon 0.1%
Northwest Territories 0% Northwest Territories 0.12%
Nunavut 0% Nunavut 0.1%

Section 1: Opportunities and barriers presented by current regulations

Section 1 comprised a single question asking respondents to provide written comments on both
opportunities and barriers presented by wastewater regulations in their region. The results for each are
summarized separately below.

Q: From your perspective, what are the opportunities and/or barriers presented by the
wastewater regulations in your region, compared to other jurisdictions (within Canada or
internationally)?
Qualitative responses (n = 50) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. This analysis revealed that a majority
of respondents interpreted the first part of the question – “opportunities” – as asking them to indicate
areas where there are regulatory gaps with opportunities for improvement. Therefore, many responses
were framed as areas that are lacking that should be considered and improved in future updates to the
regulations (see Figure 5). The most frequently cited responses included opportunities to incent
innovation, as well as to update and/or enforce existing regulations. Responses to the second part of the
question – “barriers” – focused on the shortcomings of existing (or lack thereof) regulations and the
challenges of implementation (see Figure 6). As with the first part of the question, the most frequently
cited response focused on innovation, and in this case, barriers and lack of incentives for innovation.

1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population (accessed January 30,
2018)

7
 Figure 5. Opportunities presented by wastewater regulations
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Opportunities to incent innovation
Regulations for water reclaim and reuse
Collaboration with research instituations for new/updated regulations
Enforcement of existing regulations
Plans for coordinated and targeted monitoring
Placing effluent limits on contaminants of concern
Nutrient management policies
Site-specific approaches
Source control policies and plans
Consistency of regulations (federal and provincial)
Provision of a national data base
Provincial regulations
Addition of online analyzers
Advanced planning of infrastructure
Advancement of analytical methods (e.g. inclusion of engineered microorganisms)
Aiming for international standards
Biosolids disposal
Collaboration between different treatment sectors (solid waste, drinking and waste water)
Comprehensive and outcome-based regulations
Consideration of green infrastructure
Consideration of sub-chronic effects
Prioritization of contaminants
Ecosystem health
Elimination of sewer overflows
Energy recovery
Focus on performance specifications
Implementation of a watershed approach
Improvement of operation efficiencies
Improvement of timelines
New initiatives
Provision of public assurance
Recognition of point/non point source policies
Regulation review and update
Regulations for discharge in oceans
Requirement of scientifically justifiable limits
Resource recovery
Risk based approaches
Semi-privatized systems
Including new BAPTs in updated regulations
Zero discharge goal for untreated sewage
Number of responses

8
Figure 6. Barriers presented by wastewater regulations

0 2 4 6
Lack of capacity / incentive for innovation

Insufficient funding

Lack of focus on resource recovery

Limited source control policies

Decline of regulators with technical expertise

Lack of environmental objectives

Lengthy timelines

High costs of implementation

Lack of regulations for emerging contaminants

Lack of site specific management policies

Expensive monitoring

Minimal enforcement

Insufficient operator training

Lack of focus on the capacity of receiveing environments

Outdated regulations

Inconsistent regulations (fedearl/provicial) and analytical methods

Complex analytical methods

Inconsistent regulatory approvals

Lack of collaboration among different sectors

Lack of coordination among municipalities

Lack of optimized solutions

Minimal provincial regulations

Lack of regulations for discharge into oceans

Lack of sub-chronic or genotoxic considerations

Limited data

Lack of focus on liquid waste management plans

Lack of focus on non point-source contamination

Lack of focus on green systems

Provincial restrictions

Number of responses

9
Section 2: Key contaminants in need of attention
Section 2 examined respondents’ perspectives on areas needing attention through wastewater treatment
within three groups of contaminants: contaminants regulated by the Wastewater Systems Effluent
Regulations (WSER), known/established contaminants associated with wastewater effluent, and
emerging contaminants. The results for each group of contaminants are summarized below.

Q: In your experience, which of the following contaminants regulated by the WSER are being
adequately addressed by wastewater treatment?
A majority of respondents indicated that contaminants regulated by the WSER (biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, ammonia, chlorine) are being adequately addressed by wastewater
treatment, although some respondents felt that this was not the case for ammonia.

Figure 7. WSER-regulated contaminants adequately/not adequately addressed by wastewater treatment

60
52
50 48
44
Number of responses

40 38

30

20 17

10 8 7
4

0
Biochemical oxygen Total suspended solids Ammonia (NH3, un- Chlorine
demand (BOD) (TSS) ionized)

Adequately addressed by wastewater treatment

Not adequately addressed by wastewater treatment

10
Q: For any areas not being adequately addressed by wastewater treatment, what are the main challenges?
Qualitative responses (n = 37) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by the respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. The aim of this question was to
understand the reason why the respondents thought some of the contaminants regulated by the WSER
were not adequately addressed by wastewater treatment (if that was the answer they chose). Some
respondents took a broader interpretation of this question and expressed the challenges for other areas
(i.e., not only WSER-regulated contaminants) they felt were not adequately addressed by wastewater
treatment. As a result, the most frequently cited response was a lack of regulations for emerging
contaminants. The second most frequent response related to plants lacking secondary treatment.

Figure 8. Main challenges for areas not adequately addressed by wastewater treatment

0 2 4 6 8

Lack of regulations for emerging contaminants

Limited number of upgraded plants

High costs

Insufficient monitoring and limited data

Lack of site specific management policies

Insufficient funding

Lack of focus on resource recovery

Technical challenges

Cold weather climate

Inadequate understanding of biological processes

Lack of enforcement

Lack of expertise

Lack of political will

Insufficient regulations for known pollutants

Need for evaluation of regulations

Lack of focus on best available proven technology

Exclusion of N-BOD from regulations

Limited source control policies

Outdated regulations

Number of responses

11
Q: In your experience, which of the following known/established contaminants associated with
wastewater effluents most require additional attention and/or progress in wastewater treatment?
Respondents (n = 64) were provided the opportunity to select up to three known/established
contaminants from the list provided (pathogens; phosphorus; other nutrients e.g., nitrogen; metals), and
to add additional known/established contaminants they judged were missing from the list. These
additional qualitative responses were analyzed and categorized as appropriate (“additional
contaminants” shown in blue, Figure 9). It was noted that many of the additional contaminants listed by
respondents also appeared as emerging contaminants in the next question (see Figure 11), potentially
reflecting a diversity of opinion in what is perceived as a known/established vs. emerging contaminant.
Even so, pathogens and phosphorus emerged as the two most frequent responses.

Figure 9. Known/established contaminants requiring attention/progress in wastewater treatment

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Pathogens

Phosphorus

Other nutrients (e.g. nitrogen)

Metals

Pharmaceuticals

Endocrine disruptors

Personal care products

Microplastics and microfibers

Chloride/salts

Emerging contaminants (general)

Nanomaterials

Organic pollutants (e.g. chlorinated organics, pesticides, genotoxins)

Antibiotic resistant genes

Heavy metals

Disinfectants/cytostatic agents/antibiotics

High strength sewage

Trace contaminants

Number of responses

12
Q: Why do you see these particular known/established contaminants as a priority?
Qualitative responses (n = 53) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by the respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. Adverse impacts on human health,
wildlife and the ecosystem, including algal blooms, were cited most frequently. In addition to providing
reasons why they felt particular known/established contaminants were a priority, some respondents took
this opportunity to express concerns about other issues such as increasing use and concentrations of
emerging contaminants and inadequate source control policies. See Figure 10.

13
Figure 10. Reasons for naming particular known/established contaminants as a priority
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Adverse impacts on public health, wildlife, and ecosystem
Negative impacts of phosphorus (e.g. cyanobacteria, eutrification)
Inadequate removal of metals, salts, nutrients, and ECs through conventional treatment
Lack of comprehensive research on different aspects of ECs (prevalence, risks, best removal technologies,…
Contamination of recreational waters
Increasing use and concentrations of ECs
Immediate problem of ammonia
Inadequate knowledge of efficiency of treatment processes
Inadequate nutrient management knowledge
Inadequate source control policies
Accumulation of metals in fish
Challenges in meeting new standards
Concerns about N2O (powerful GHG) in N-rich discharge receiving environments
Concerns about TAN numbers due to high nitrate discharge
High concentration of contaminants in spring freshet in the prairies
High strength sewage
Importance of heavy metals removal for recycling purposes
Inadequacy of indicator organisms for pathogen analysis
Inadequate knowledge of virus inactivation through disinfection
Inefficiency of UV in pathogen inactivation
Lack of onsite removal considerations
Long-term impacts
Nutrient recovery considerations
Nutrient rich wastes
Potential health risks due to wastewater reuse
Slow implementation of tertiary technologies
Toxicity and long residence of metals
Untreated/partially treated discharge

Number of responses 14
Q: In your experience, which of the following emerging contaminants associated with wastewater
effluents most require addressing through wastewater treatment?
Respondents to this question (n = 62) selected up to three emerging contaminants from the list provided,
and added additional emerging contaminants they judged were missing from the list. These additional
responses were analyzed and, as appropriate, incorporated within the provided list of emerging
contaminants. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products, endocrine disrupting chemicals and
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances were the most frequently selected categories of
contaminants.

Figure 11. Emerging contaminants that require addressing through wastewater treatment

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Endocrine disrupting chemicals

Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (e.g.

flame retardants, pesticides, DBPs, PAHs, PCBs, VOCs)

Microplastics and microfibers

Antibiotic-resistance genes

Nanomaterials

Number of responses

Q: Why do you see these particular emerging contaminants as a priority?

Qualitative responses (n = 54) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by the respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. Similar to the previous question on
known/established contaminants, adverse impacts on human health, wildlife and the ecosystem was the
most frequently reason for prioritizing specific emerging contaminants. Unknown risks associated with
emerging contaminants was another frequently cited response.

15
Figure 12. Reasons for prioritizing particular emerging contaminants

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Adverse impacts on public health, wildlife, and ecosystem

Unknown risks

Inadequate removal through conventional treatment

Increasing concentrations

Lack of regulatory limits

Inadequate source control policies

Impact on the bottom of the food chain

Cumulative environmental impacts

Long-term impacts

Persistence of antibiotic resistant genes

Site specific concerns

High toxicity and persistence

Unknown fate through treatment

Drinking water contamination

Easy ingestion

Extensive propagation

Inadequate detection methods

Possible accumulation in filters

Number of responses

Across the three categories of contaminants assessed in the questionnaire – WSER-regulated,

known/established contaminants and emerging contaminants – responses to these three separate
questions were combined and analyzed as a whole, as shown in Figure 13. Across all three questions,
pharmaceuticals and personal care products, endocrine disrupting chemicals, phosphorus and persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic substances were the most frequently cited contaminants requiring addressing
through wastewater treatment.

16
Figure 13. Combined responses: contaminants requiring addressing through wastewater treatment

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Pharmaceuticals & personal care products

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (e.g. estrogens)

Phosphorus

Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances

Other nutrients (e.g. nitrogen)

Microplastics & microfibers

Pathogens

Antimicrobial resistance

Metals

Ammonia (NH3, un-ionized)

Nanomaterials

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Chlorine

Total suspended solids (TSS)

Emerging or trace contaminants (general)

Chloride/salt

Disinfectants/cytostatic agents

High strength sewage

Oxidation and chlorination byproducts

Number of responses

17
Section 3: Key opportunities to address priority contaminants
Section three asked respondents to indicate the wastewater treatment approaches they felt offered the
strongest opportunity to address their top concerns, as identified in Section 2.

Q: Given the contaminants you identified as priorities in Section 2, what wastewater treatment
approaches offer the strongest opportunity to address your top concerns? Describe up to three
approaches. For each approach, please indicate where you see co-benefits (e.g., opportunities to address
more than one contaminant, or achieve resource recovery in addition to addressing contaminants), as
well as key trade-offs that must be considered for implementation (e.g., increased energy use, cost).
Qualitative responses (n = 35) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by the respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. In addition to wastewater “treatment”
approaches, some respondents expressed the importance of considering other kinds of approaches
including source control, storm water management, resource recovery and water reuse (see Figure 14),
representing some overlap with the following question on non-treatment approaches. The concerns
addressed by each approach, as well as the associated co-benefits and trade-offs are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 14. Wastewater treatment approaches offering strongest opportunities to address top concerns

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Advanced oxidation processes (ozonation, etc.)
Source control
Stormwater management and treatment
Resource recovery and water reuse
Anaerobic digestion
UV treatment
Biological nutrient removal (BNR)
Chemical coagulation
Constructed wetlands
Granular filtration
Improved secondary treatment
Lagoons (for small systems)
Membrane bioreactors (MBR)
Nitrification/denitrification
Public education
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Activated carbon
Agricultaral waste management
Best available proven technology
Decentralized treatment
Extended aeration
Improved solids removal
Long-residence time technologies
Microfiltration (MF)
Natural capture of contaminants
On-site/at source treatment
Optimization
Pilot Projects
Trickling filters
Number of responses

18
Table 2. Wastewater treatment approaches: concerns addressed, co-benefits and trade-offs

Approach Concerns addressed Co-benefits Trade-offs

Reduction of chlorine usage for
Energy intensive and expensive,
disinfection, removal of emerging
Advanced oxidation formation of unknown toxic by-
Elimination of emerging contaminants, energy recovery,
processes (ozonation, etc.) products, unlikely to be feasible
contaminants improving the downstream
(n = 13) for many smaller WWTPs, safety
biodegradation of complex organic
concerns
compounds
Prevention of contaminants from
entering the wastewater system,
reduced costs, monitoring of
Source control (n = 5) All contaminant categories industrial discharge for verification Long-term plan
of compliant with municipal by-laws,
requirement of short time
degradation for pharmaceuticals
Reduction of need for new sewer
Prevention of discharge of most
capacity, potential for energy and
contaminants into the
Stormwater management nutrient recovery, can be done
environment, reduction of peak _
and treatment (n = 5) provincially or federally on the
flows and achievement of full
change of ownership from a home,
sewage treatment
reduction of chloride at the source

Phosphorus recovery can address Water reclamation is not easy at

Resource recovery and
water reuse ( n = 4)
Anaerobic digestion (n = 3)
UV treatment (n = 3)
Biological nutrient
removal (BNR) (n = 2)
Revenue generation
All contaminant categories
Elimination of pathogens
Removal of nutrients and
emerging contaminants
eutrophication and reduce costs of
chemical use
Energy recovery, reduction of GHG,
secondary biological treatment for
high BOD (replacing activated
sludge)
Safer for workers and receiving
waters, no by-products produced,
effective
Reduction in overall chemical use,
denitrification, reduction of Total
Nitrogen, low TAN number
discharge, phosphorus recovery for
feedstock or compost
large centralized wastewater
treatment facilities
_
Energy costs, need for use of
more appropriate regulated
parameter(s)
More process control and need
of highly trained operators,
capital investment, high energy
consumption due to aeration
and mixing

Nutrient removal, removal of

Chemical coagulation
emerging and established Enhancement of sedimentation _
(n = 2)
contaminants

High efficiency, simple and

Elimination of emerging
Constructed wetlands
contaminants, removal of
(n = 2)
organics, TSS, and metals
economic, can cope with storm
_
surges and other events, can create
habitat

Improved secondary Removal of emerging

Effective High costs
treatment (n= 2) contaminants

Elimination of emerging
contaminants and nanomaterials (in
Enhancement of removal of
case of using sand and anthracite in
Granular filtration (n = 2) suspended solids, BOD, and High costs
combination with activated carbon),
phosphorus
removal of specific contaminants (if
tailored with synthetic resins)
Central treatment, easy to operate
and maintain, use of septic tanks for
Lagoons (for small Removal of regulated
solids by residents and therefore High capital costs
systems) (n = 2) contaminants and phosphorus
reduction of footprint for septic
fields

19
Table 2. Continued
Approach
Membrane bioreactors (MBR)
(n = 2)
Nitrification/denitrification (n = 2)
Public education (n = 2)
Reverse Osmosis (RO) (n = 2)
Water reuse (n = 2)
Activated carbon (n = 1)
Agricultural waste management
(n = 1)
Best available proven technology
(n = 1)
Decentralized treatment (n = 1)
Extended aeration (n = 1)
Improved solids removal (n= 1)
Long-residence time technologies
(n = 1)
Microfiltration (MF) (n = 1)
Natural capture of contaminants
(n = 1)
On-site/at source treatment (n =
1)
Optimization (n = 1)
Pilot projects (n = 1)
Trickling filters (n = 1)
Concerns addressed Co-benefits Trade-offs
Relatively expensive, less
Removal of emerging
_ removal efficiency comparing
contaminants
to ozonation
N2O elimination, ammonia Removal of trace and emerging Higher energy use, WWTP
removal contaminants footprint, associated costs
Elimination of emerging
_ _
contaminants
Removal of all contaminant Removal of nutrients and viruses, Energy intensive and
categories potential for water reuse expensive
Not easy at large centralized
Resource recovery _ wastewater treatment
facilities
Removal of emerging
_ _
contaminants
Better management of
Reduction of nutrient loads on
agriculture with best practise _
lakes and rivers
guidelines in place
Removal of established and Resource recovery, cost and time
_
emerging contaminants recovery
Nutrient recovery _ _
Easy operation, relatively stable
_ _
flows
Increase of the capacity of
Solids removal aeration, reduction of GHG, _
increase nitrification capacity
Increased energy use and
costs, land and infrastructure
Elimination of some
_ requirements, possible effects
contaminants
on GHG emissions and solids
generation
Removal of some contaminants Very effective at removing
_
of concern nutrients
Nutrient removal _ _
_ Treatment at lower quantities _
All concerns _ _
All concerns _ _
Easy to operate and excellent Need for a proper front end
Enhancement of removal of
performance results for small and a digester, need for
CBOD, TSS and Phosphorous
systems sludge drying systems
20
 Q: In your experience, are there situations where wastewater treatment approaches are not an
effective way to address your top concerns? If yes, what other approaches would provide the
strongest opportunity?
Qualitative responses (n = 44) were analyzed and coded into themes expressed by the respondents. As
appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. As shown in Figure 15, a vast majority
of the respondents (59%) listed source control as an approach that could effectively address priority
concerns about contaminants in wastewater.

Figure 15. Non-treatment approaches providing opportunities to address top concerns

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Source control

Public education

Storm water management by building green infrustructure

Site specific management

Research

Contingency plans

Decentralized systems

Urine seperation

Number of responses

21
Section 4: Opportunities to achieve resource recovery and climate change adaptation
Section 4 asked respondents to assist the expert panel in identifying opportunities and trade-offs for
wastewater treatment approaches to achieve resource recovery and climate change adaptation.

Q: From your perspective and within your professional context, consider the advantages and
trade-offs for particular wastewater treatment approaches in relation to resource recovery and
climate change.
Within this question, respondents were asked to consider:

A) What wastewater treatment approaches provide significant advantages or trade-offs for

resource recovery from wastewater?

B) What wastewater treatment approaches provide significant advantages or trade-offs for

climate change considerations?

As with the other questions, qualitative responses (n = 35) were analyzed and coded into themes
expressed by the respondents. As appropriate, multiple themes were noted within some responses. The
analysis revealed that a majority of respondents considered advantages for resource recovery and climate
change considerations as related concepts. For this reason, the advantages for resource recovery and
climate change are presented together (see Figure 16). As shown in Figure 16, a vast majority of the
respondents (49%) expressed that anaerobic digestion of sludge/biosolids is an effective approach that
provides significant advantages for resource and energy recovery (biogas production). A small number of
respondents described wastewater treatment approaches with trade-offs for climate change (including
membranes, aeration, conventional treatment and phosphorus recovery: see Figure 17), but approaches
with trade-offs for resource recovery were not indicated by the respondents. Across responses, a number
of resources to target for resource recovery were noted, and are presented in Figure 18. The most
frequently cited resources for recovery were energy/biogas and phosphorus.

22
Figure 16. Wastewater treatment approaches providing advantages for resource recovery and climate change

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Anaerobic digestion/biosolids treatment for biogas recovery

Site specific approaches

Thermal hydrolysis

Membranes including RO

Storm water management by building green infrastructure

Biological nutrient removal

Aerobic systems

Chemically enhanced pre-treatment/coagulation

Decentralized treatment

Source control

Thermo checmical hydrolysis

Best available proven technology

Biological hydrolysis

Composting

Deammonification

Filtration

Improved solids removal

Lagoons

Low energy consumption processes

Sedimentation

Source seperation

Urine seperation

Carbon tax

Number of responses

23
Figure 17. Wastewater treatment approaches with tradeoffs for climate change

3
Number of responses

0
Membranes Aeration Conventional Phosphorus
treatment recovery

Figure 18. Resources to target for recovery

20

18
Number of responses

16

14

12

10

0
Energy/biogas Phosphorus Water Nitrogen Carbon Iron Potassium

24
Additional Comments
Finally, respondents were provided an opportunity to provide any additional comments and
recommendations for the expert panel to consider. A high-level analysis of topics that emerged is provided
in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Topics of additional comments for expert panel

0 1 2 3 4 5
Public education
Research
Source control
Update politics and regulations
Adequate funding
Environmental protection
Innovative technologies
Adavancement of monitoring approach
Water reuse
Bioassays for identification of sub-chronic and genotoxic effects
Biosolids treatment
Climate change considerations
Collaboration among different sectors
Consideration of hazards of onsite septic fields
Consideration of wastewater toxicity and bioactivity
Control of volatilization of aeration tanks
Cumulative effects assessment
Economical approach
Emerging contaminants
Enforcement and encouragement
Nutrient recovery
Operation optimization
Operator education
Phosphorus removal
Receiving water considerations
WSER ongoing participation

Number of responses

25
Observations and Conclusions
The questionnaire sought to include a broad range of perspectives about wastewater treatment status
and needs in Canada from various sectors and across all regions. Overall, the questionnaire results suggest
that a majority of respondents share similar concerns and priorities. The themes that were repeatedly
expressed in their responses included:

 Need for updated and new regulations that include emerging contaminants

 Need for development of source control policies

 Importance of public education in promotion of source control plans

 Collaboration between research institutions and regulators for updating regulations

 Need for further research to develop/modify technologies that can efficiently remove emerging
contaminants as well improve the removal of regulated and established contaminants

 Consideration of opportunities to incent innovation

26
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Canada’s Needs and Opportunities to Address Contaminants in Wastewater
To put into clearer context the ability and opportunities to deal with wastewater contaminants in Canada,
Canadian Water Network (CWN) is leading a national review of known and emerging contaminants in
municipal wastewater and our options to deal with them. The review will consider the following critical
questions:

 Which wastewater contaminants do we need to worry about most, now and in the future?
 What are the options for our diverse Canadian communities to address these contaminants
through wastewater treatment?
 What are the important opportunities and trade-offs involved in those treatment choices,
including resource recovery (e.g. energy, nutrients), costs, implications for related issues like
greenhouse gas emissions, and socio-economic and cultural fit?

An expert panel of national leaders has been convened to frame and assess the leading knowledge,
practice and priorities in municipal wastewater treatment in Canada. The panel’s work will be augmented
by other experts from across the country with knowledge of municipal wastewater practice,
environmental impacts and community perspectives.

Questionnaire Objectives
You have been invited to complete this questionnaire based on your specific expertise related to
wastewater impacts, treatment or practice. Your responses will assist the expert panel in:

 Identifying opportunities and barriers for wastewater treatment presented by current regulations
within Canada;
 Identifying key areas in need of attention through wastewater treatment for contaminants that
fall under Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER), as well as for known/established
contaminants and emerging contaminants in wastewater;
 Identifying key opportunities where wastewater treatment can effectively address concerns
about priority contaminants; and,
 Identifying opportunities and trade-offs for wastewater treatment approaches to achieve
resource recovery and climate change adaptation.

Although the panel’s work is focused on identifying areas where wastewater treatment options or
approaches are an effective way to deal with contaminants, this questionnaire will also provide an
opportunity to comment on areas where other approaches may be most effective.

Special Instructions
 If more than one person from your organization or department is interested in completing the
questionnaire and shares the same or similar perspective and expertise as you do, please choose
only one person to complete the questionnaire, or pool your responses.
 All responses will be confidential. You will not be identified in any way, and the responses will be
aggregated.

27
  You may skip any questions that are outside of your expertise.
 This questionnaire is expected to take 15-20 minutes to complete. Please ensure that you
complete the questionnaire when you have sufficient time as you will not be able to save your
answers.

This project was undertaken with the financial support of the Government of Canada through the federal
Department of Environment and Climate Change.

Demographic Questions
1. What is the nature of your organization?
Please select one.
 Water utility
 Watershed or conservation authority
 Municipality
 Indigenous community, government or territory
 Provincial or territorial government
 Federal government
 University or other post-secondary institution
 Consulting
 Water treatment technology industry
 Non-government organization
 Other (please specify)

2. What is your role within the organization?

 Senior management
 Middle or front-line management
 Non-management
 Other / not applicable

3. What is the primary focus of your role within the organization?

Please select one
 Operations
 Research
 Analysis
 Policy
 Regulations
 Other (please specify)

4. In what province or territory are you physically located?

Please select one
 British Columbia
 Alberta
 Saskatchewan
 Manitoba
 Ontario

28
  Québec
 New Brunswick
 Nova Scotia
 Prince Edward Island
 Newfoundland and Labrador
 Yukon
 Northwest Territories
 Nunavut
 Other (please specify)

5. If you wish, specify your geographic perspective in the context of the current questionnaire (e.g.,
name of city, region or watershed). This will allow the expert panel to interpret your responses
within a more specific context. (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

Section 1: Opportunities and barriers presented by current regulations

From your perspective, what are the opportunities and/or barriers presented by the wastewater
regulations in your region, compared to other jurisdictions (within Canada or internationally)?

 Opportunities: (open-ended response with 600 character limit)

 Barriers: (open-ended response with 600 character limit)
 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

Section 2: Key contaminants in need of attention

From your perspective and within your professional context, for each of the three groups of contaminants
below, indicate the most important areas needing attention through wastewater treatment.

A) Contaminants regulated under the WSER

In your experience, which of the following contaminants regulated by the WSER are being
adequately addressed by wastewater treatment? (drop-down menu choices: adequately
addressed by wastewater treatment/not adequately addressed by wastewater treatment)

 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) [adequately addressed/not adequately addressed]

 Total suspended solids (TSS) [adequately addressed/not adequately addressed]
 Ammonia (NH3, un-ionized) [adequately addressed/not adequately addressed]
 Chlorine [adequately addressed/not adequately addressed]

For any areas not being adequately addressed by wastewater treatment, what are the main
challenges? (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

29
B) Known/established contaminants

In your experience, which of the following known/established contaminants associated with

wastewater effluents most require additional attention and/or progress in wastewater
treatment? Select up to three.

 Pathogens
 Phosphorus
 Other nutrients (e.g. nitrogen)
 Metals
 Other (specify)
 Other (specify)

Why do you see these particular known/established contaminants as a priority? (open-ended

response with 500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

C) Emerging contaminants

In your experience, which of the following emerging contaminants associated with wastewater
effluents most require addressing through wastewater treatment? Select up to three.

 Pharmaceuticals and personal care products

 Endocrine disrupting chemicals (e.g., estrogens)
 Antibiotic-resistance genes
 Microplastics and microfibers
 Nanomaterials
 Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (flame retardants, pesticides, PAHs,
PCBs, VOCs)
 Other (specify)
 Other (specify)

Why do you see these particular emerging contaminants as a priority? (open-ended response with
500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

30
Section 3: Key opportunities to address priority contaminants
Given the contaminants you identified as priorities in Section 2, what wastewater treatment approaches
offer the strongest opportunity to address your top concerns? Describe up to three approaches.

For each approach, please indicate where you see co-benefits (e.g., opportunities to address more than
one contaminant, or achieve resource recovery in addition to addressing contaminants), as well as key
trade-offs that must be considered for implementation (i.e. increased energy use, cost).

Treatment approach: (open-ended response with character limit):__

Concern(s) addressed: (open-ended response with character limit):__
Co-benefit(s) and/or trade-off(s): (open-ended response with 500 character limit):

Treatment approach: (open-ended response with character limit):__

Concern(s) addressed: (open-ended response with character limit):__
Co-benefit(s) and key trade-off(s): (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

Treatment approach: (open-ended response with character limit):__

Concern(s) addressed: (open-ended response with character limit):__
Co-benefit(s) and key trade-off(s): (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

In your experience, are there situations where wastewater treatment approaches are not an effective way
to address your top concerns? If yes, what other approaches would provide the strongest opportunity?
(open-ended response with 500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

Section 4: Opportunities to achieve resource recovery and climate change adaptation

From your perspective and within your professional context, consider the advantages and trade-offs for
particular wastewater treatment approaches in relation to resource recovery and climate change.

A) What wastewater treatment approaches provide significant advantages or trade-offs for

resource recovery from wastewater? (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

B) What wastewater treatment approaches provide significant advantages or trade-offs for

climate change considerations? (open-ended response with 500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

Wrap-up
Are there any additional comments you would like the expert panel to consider?
(open-ended response with 500 character limit)

 Prefer to skip/not my expertise

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Learn more about the expert panel and its work.

31