l SOD
lS
TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT
Processes for Beneficial Use
edited by
Mark J. Girovich
Wheelabrator Clean Water Systems lnc.
Annapolis, Maryland
The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quantities.
For more information, write to Special Sales/Professional Marketing at the
address below.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, micro-
filming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Mark J. Girovich
iii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Contents
Preface iii
About the Contributors xi
V
vi Contents
I. Sntroduction
II. Conditioning
A. Organic Polyelectrolytes
B. Polymer Feed and Control Systems
C. Inorganic Chemical Conditioning
D. Thermal Conditioning
III. Dewatering
A. Process Description
B. Thickening
C. Mechanical Dewatering
D. Passive Dewatering
V. Casestudies
References
I. Biosolicls Digestion
A. Introduction
B. Process Fundamentals
C. Equipment Review
D. Economics of Digestion
n. casestudies
References
I. Introduction
A. Growth ofCornposting in the United States
V. Process Energetics
A. The Biological Fire
B. Heat and Temperature
C. Temperature Control
D. Aeration
W. OdorRemoval
A. OriginsofOdors
B. Odor Control Technologies
C. Biofilter Fundamentals and Operations
D. Biofilter Challenges
IX. Marketing
A. Marketing Issues
X. OutlookandSUmmq
References
I. BiosolidsDqmg
A. Heat Drying and Production of Fertilizer
B. Partially Dried Biosolids
III. DryerDesigos
A. DirectDryers
B. IndirectDryers
V. HeatDrylngSystems
A. System Components
B. Handling and Treatment of Drying and Heating
MeCllUftl
C. EnvLonmental Control and Regulatory Issues
D. Ekonomics of Heat Drying
VI. Production of Fertilizer: Case Studies
A. Milwaukee Biosolids Dqmg and Pelletizing Plant
B. New York City Biosolids FertilizerFacility
C. Baltimore City Fertilizer Facility
I. Introduction
I. Introduction
A. Historical Background
W. Public Outreach
A. Communication Channels
References
Index 449
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
About the Contributors
8
,~
B.S. in appliedphysics fromKharkov State University.
, .
L
' '..,
i
"" 1 He is amemberof the AmericanSocietyofMechanical
j Engineers (ASME). The author numerous
of papers
and several patents, he has specialized in biosolids heat drying and alkaline
stabilization over the past 10 years.
Municipal wastewater treatment produces two products: clean water and water
slurries which are usually referred to as sludges.
While clean water is dlsposed of directly into the environment, it is not feasible,
environmentallyor economically, to do so with the solids generated by wastewater
treatment processes. They must be treated prior to disposal or beneficial use to
comply with public health, safety, environmental and economic considerations.
Municipal wastewater treatment solids contain si@cant amounts of organic
matter as well as inorganic elements which represent a valuable resource. These
components of the solids, &er appropriate treatment, can be beneficially used
(recycled) as a fertilizer, soil amendment or other beneficial use products. Energy
contained in the solids can be recovered. Ash resulting fiom the solids incineration
can also be used beneficially.
Recognizing potential value of wastewater solids,the term biosolids is used in
thisbook to mean a product of the wastewater solids treatment that can be beneficially
used.
In 1989,5.4milliondry metric tons of municipal solids were produced per year
by approximately 12,750 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) [l]. Current
(1995) municipal solids production is approximately 8.0 million dry metric tons per
year and is expected to increase substantially by the year 2000 due to population
growth, improvements in POTW operation and stricter treatment standards.
1
2 Girovich
In the land applicaiim category, the following beneficial use options are growing
in popularity (design capacity, dry metric tons per year, 1995 estimates):
The European Union (Ev> (12 countries) generated over 6.5 million dry metric
tonsof municipal solids in 1992. By theyear 2000, the amount will increase up to 9.0
million dm@ear. The EU directives of 1986 and 1991 generally promote beneficial
use of sewage sludge solids [2]. The future of beneficial use in the EU will depend on
the legislation regarding standards for beneficial use and incineration as well as the
acceptance of beneficial use versus incineration by the population. At present, the
beneficial use in the EU varies from 10 to 60 percent (Table 1-2).
Japan generates over 1.4 million dm@ear with approximately60% incinerated.
Accurate data on solids disposal in developing countries of Eastern Europe, Asia,
Biosolids Characterization,Treatment and Use 3
Latin America and Africa are not available at present. Detailed discussion on
biosolids disposal worldwide is provided in References [2] and [111.
primar?r solids are removed by gravity settling at the beginning of the wastewater
treatment process. They usually contain 3.0 to 7.0 percent total solids (%TS),
60 to 80 percent of which is organic matter (dry basis). The primary solids are
generated at the rate of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 liters (660to 925 gallons)
per each million liters of wastewater treated.
*
Secondarv solids are generated by biological treatment processes called
secondary treatment (e.g., activated sludge systems, trickling filters and other
attached growth systems which utilize microbes to remove organic substances
from wastewater). They usually contain fiom 0.5 to 2.O%TS. The organic
content of the secondary solids ranges from 50 to 60%. About 15,000 to 20,000
liters (3,965 to 5,285 gallons) of these solids are generated per each million
liters of wastewater treated.
- Advanced (tertiary) solids are generated by processes such as chemical
precipitation and filtration. The solids content varies fi-om 0.2 to 1.5%TSwith
the organic content of the solids in the 35% to 50% range. About 10,000 liters
of solids (2,642 gallons) are generated additionalIy per each million liters of
wastewater treated.
Biosoiids Characterization, Treatment and Use 5
-0.2-0.31
solids
Dry biosolids metric tons per 0.1-0.15 0.02-0.15
IL BIOSOLIDS CHARACTERIZATION
Characterization of biosolids by their source (primary, secondary, etc.) provides only
limited information about their properhes. There are numerous other physical,
chernical and microbiological parameters which are important for biosolids' treatment
and management.
1. Solids Concentration
many wastewater solids,especially thoseof industrial origin, is not true. The standard
procedurefor determhhg solids concentration employs drying a measured volume of
biosolids to a cunstant weight at 103 - 105 C. The solids concentration is the weight
O O
of dry solids divided by the volume of the sample expressed in mgA. In order to
determine percent of total solids (%TS) as a weightlweight ratio, the identical
procedure is applied with a measured weight of the biosolids sample.
Total volatile solids f%TVS) are determined by igniting the dry solids at 550"
+ 50°C in a furnace with excess of oxygen. The residue is referred to as non-volatile
-
or as fixed solids (ash) and the loss of weight on ignition determines total volatile
solids, Both %TS and %TVS are widely used in the biosolids treatment and
management practices as measures of dry matter (or moisture) and organic
(combustible) matter in the biosolids.
Total sumended solids (TSS) refers to the nonfilterable residue retained after
-
fdtration of a sample of the liquid biosolids and then dried at 103 105O C to remove
O
water. The concentration of TSS is the weight of dry solids divided by the volume of
the sample usually expressed in mgA.
Determination of volatile suspended solids is identical to that of total volatile
solids using loss on ignition methods. Total solids are the sum of the dissolved and
suspended solids. [3]
Water in biosolids is usually categorized as follows:
*
Free water is not attached to the biosolids particles and it can be separated by
gravitational settling.
- Floc water is trapped within the flock and can be removed only by mechanical
forces, which are usually much greater than gravitational force.
.. Carillarv water adheres to individual particles and can be also separated by
mechanical forces.
- Intracellular and chemicallv bound water is part of cell material and is
biologically and chemically bound to the biosolids' organic and inorganic matter.
2. Chemical Composition
3 . Macronutrients
I
~
Range Median
a. Arsenic 1.1 -230 10
b. Cadmium 1- 3,410 10
c. chromim 10 - 99,000 500
d. Copper 84 - 17.000 800
e. Lead 13 - 26,OOO 500
f Mercury 0.6 - 56 6
g. Molybdenum 0.1 - 214 4
h. Nickel 2 - 5,300 80
i. Selenium -
1.7 17.2 5
j. Zinc 101 - 49,000 1,700
k. Iron 1,OOO- 154,000 17,000
1. Cobalt 11.3 - 2,490 30
m. Tin 2.6 - 329 14
n. Manganese 32 - 9,870 260
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 9
Nitrogen is the most critical part in the plant growth. Poor plant yields are
most often due to a deficiency of nitrogen. It is a constituent of plant proteins,
chlorophyll and other plant substances. Biosolids nitrogen exists as organic and
inorganic compounds. Organic nitrogen is usually the predominant form of nitrogen
in soils (90 percent) and in biosolids and it is not available to plants. It must be
bacterially converted to ammonium (NH,+) and eventually oxidized to nitrate (NO;)
to become biologically available.
copper cu cu2+
Zinc zn Zn2+
Molybdenum Mo MOO; (molybdate)
Nitrogen is a unique plant nutrient because, unlike the other elements, plants can
absorb it in either cation (NH,+) or anion (NO;) form. Nitrogen forms not absorbed
by plants volatilize or oxidize and are lost to atmosphere as N, or N20. Volatilization
of ammofiium ion dependsupon pH. The higher the pH, the more nitrogen is released
as gaseous ammonia(NH3).
The nitrogen requirements of different plants range fiom 50 to 350 kg per
hectare (45-3 12 pounds per acre). [ 11 Heavy application of nitrogen-containing
bimlids or chemical fertilizermay result in unused nitrate migrating into surface or
underground water with adverse health and environmental effects.
10 Girovich
-
The nitrogen content of primary biwlids is in the range of 2% 4%; in secondaryand
anaerobicallydigested biosolids it is in the 2% - 6% range (dry basis) [7].
Nitrogen in biosolids is usuallydetermined as organic nitrogen (Org-N), soluble
ammonia nitrogen (NH,-N), soluble nitrate-nitrogen (NC) -N) and total (Kjeldahl)
nitrogen (TKN).
Numerous studies have been conducted on the rate of organic nitrogen
amversion into the biologicallyavailable forms (NH,+, NO,?, called mineralization.
One method of determinkg nitrogen mineralization and availability is based on
assumptionthat 15% of organic nitrogen becomes available to plants during the first
year and 6% of the remaining, or residual organic nitrogen, is released during the
second, 4% during the third, and 2% during the fourth growing season after
application. Based on these assumptions, the available nitrogen per ton of dry
biosolids and application rate can be calculated [8]. Nitrogen is usually the limiting
factor in biosolids land application, unless they have been stabilizedby an alkaline
material (he) or contain excessive amounts of heavy metals. In this case, calcium
or heavy metal@)becomes the limiting component. A detailed nitrogen discussion is
provided in Chapter 8.
Nitrogen is available fiom chemical fertilizer in a relatively concentrated form,
typically 8 to 40percent The chemical fertilizer's nitrogen is valued, however, at $2
to $4 pea percent point while the same for organic nitrogen in biosolids is $12 to $17
per percent (1994).
Phosphorus (P) is the second most critical plant nutrient. The nucleus of each
plant cell containsphosphaus. Cell division and growth are dependentupon adequate
supply of phosphorus. The most common forms of phosphorus are organic
phosphorus and various forms of orthophosphates (H$0 ;, HPO - , PO: -) and
polyphosphates,such as Na@O,),, Na,P,O,,, Na,P,07. Phosphorus is not readily
available in most unfertilized soils and is derived primarily fi-omphosphates released
by organic matter decomposition. Organic phosphorus is decomposed by bacterial
actioninto orthophosphatePO;. Polyphosphates also decompose (hydrolyze) in water
into orthophosphates. Sigdicant portion of phosphorus compounds are water
soluble. Stable orthophosphate (PO,) is predominate form which is absorbed by
plants.
Primary wastewater solids contain relatively small amounts of phosphorus.
Secondary biosolids contain greater amounts of phosphorus which is generally
removed from wastewater by biological means.
Amounts of phosphorus in biosolids depends on phosphorus concentrationin the
influent and type of phosphorus removal used by wastewater treatment plants.
Conventional primary and waste activated processes remove only 20-30% of an
influent phosphorus and, therefore, biosolids resulting fiom these processes contain
a small amount of phosphorus (0.1 to 2%).
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 11
This amount is Sutticient for plant growth when biosolids are applied at the
niirogen requirement rate. Excessive amounts of phosphorus can eventually be built
up in the soil and result in leaching.
The phosphorus requirementsof different plants range from 0 to 95 kilograms
per hectare (0 to 85 pounds per acre). Phosphorus is not removed fiom wastewater
by aerobic or anaerobic digestion. Only chemical precipitationusing aluminum and
ironcoagulants or lime is effectivein phosphorus removal. Biosolids resulting h m
these processes may contain greater amounts of phosphorus.
The following reactions convert phosphorus b m wastewater into the forms
found in biosolids.
Calcium (Ca) is rarely deficient in plants. It is needed for cell division, it makes cells
more selective in their absorption and it is a constituent of a cell wall. Most soils
(except sandy and strongly acid ones) contain suilicient calcium supply. Calcium is
supplied to the plants by soluble calcium ions fiom calcium containing minerals such
as CaCO, Addition of CaO, Ca(OH), or CaCO, to soils is done to correct the pH of
strongly acid soils to improve nutrient availability rather than to supply calcium for
plant growth.
Biosolids contain calcium in small amounts unless they are the result of
processes where lime is used (e.g., lime stabilization).
Mamesium (Mg) is important in chlorophyll formation. There is one atom of
magnesium in each chlorophyll molecule. There would be no green plants without
12 Girovich
magnesium. Most of the plant magnesium, however, is found in plant sap and the
cytoplasm of cells.
Magnesium is taken up by the plant roots as cation M e . Magnesium
bioavailability is affected by other ions such as potassium, calcium and nitrogen.
Magnesium requirements of different plants range fiom 9 to 36 pounds per acre.
Biosolids usually contain small amounts of magnesium (0.3% - 2%,dry basis).
sulfirr ranks in importance with nitrogen and phosphorus as an essential nutrient
in the formation of plant proteins; it is also required for the synthesis of certain
vitamins in plants. Sulfkantaining organic compounds are present in biosolids and
bioavailable sulfate (SO;2) is produced as a result of microbial decomposition.
Sulfur requirements of different plants range fiom 10 to 40 pounds per acre.
Biosolids contain fiom 0.6% to 1.5% of sulfur (dry basis).
5. OrganicMatter
Organic matter, dead or alive, is largely carbon (approximately 58% by weight), with
lesser amounts of hydrogen, oxygen and other elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and
phosphorus.
Organic matter in biosolids contains proteins, carbohydrates,fats--compounds
composed of long chains of molecules with molecular weights ranging from several
hundred to several million.
Organic matter is a nutrient source for plants and microorganisms, in sods it
improves water infiltration, aeration and aggregation of soil particles.
Microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and others) decompose biosolids'
organic matter and use some decomposition products (carbon, nitrogen and other
elements) for reproduction and, as a result, change the biosolids organic matter and
release certain products of decomposition (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, volatile
organics including odor pollutants, ammonia, nitrogen, water) into the environment.
Bacteria, actinomyceteSand fungi are the most active decomposersof organic matter,
but some algae, protam, rotifers, nematodes and others participate in organic matter
dewnposition These organisms also interact in a complex manner at various stages
of wastewater and biosolids treatment processes.
Most soils Containrelatively snall amount of organic matter (1 -5% in the top 10
inches of soil) but it largely determines soil productivity.
The biosolids organic matter can have a profound effect on the soil physical
propxt~essuch as soil fertility, humus formation, bulk density, aggregation,porosity,
and water retention. A decrease in bulk density, for example, provides for a better
environment for plant root growth. The high organic carbon content of biosolids
provides an immediate energy source for soil microbes. The nitrogen in biosolids is
in a slowly available organic form which provides for a reliable nitrogen supply.
Increasedaggregation results in better tilth and less potential for erosion and reduction
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 13
6. Micronutrients
7 . Pollutants
Biosolids usually contain organic and inorganic components which can adversely
affect plant and animal life as well as human health if present at excessive levels.
Inorganic pollutants include ten "heavy" or trace metals presently regulated by the
U.S. EPA arsenic, cadmium,chromium,copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
selenium and zinc. Ranges and mediancOncentrafioIlS of heavy metals in biosolids are
provided in Table 1 4 .
Arsenic, a toxic metalloid, has been the chemical villain of more than a few
murder plots. The combustionof coal introduces large quantities of arsenic into the
a w t S o m e f m l y used pesticides contain highly toxic arsenic compounds
as well as some mine tailings. The U.S. EPA has classified arsenic as a human
carcinogen. Arsenic content in biosolids varies widely (Table 1-4).
Cadmium comesh r nmetal plating and mining wastes. Cadmium is chemically
similar to zinc (both are divalent cations) and replaces zinc causing acute cadmium
poisoning (ludney damage, high blood pressure and destruction of red blood cells).
According to the U.S. EPA, cadmium is a probable human carcinogen. Cadmium
content in biosolidsvaries fiom few to over 3,500 mg/kg, dry basis.
Chromium comes fkom metal plating and mine tailing. It is an essential trace
element. Hexavalent chromium is classified by the U.S. EPA as a human carcinogen,
14 Girovich
B. Microbiology of Biorolida
Biosolids contain diverse life forms. These microscopic living organisms have both
beneficial and detrimental roles in the biosolids treatment and use practices.
Microorganisms in biosolids can be categorized into bacteria, including
actinomycetes, Viruses, helminths (parasitic worms), protozoa, rotifers and fungi. A
limited number of these organisms are pathogenic (i.e., they may cause various human
and animal diseases). One of the major objectives of biosolids treatment is pathogen
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 15
One of the coliform bacteria, Escberichiu coli (E. coli), is a natural inhabitant
only in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and, therefore, its presence indicates
16 Glrovich
fecal contamination and possible presence of pathogens. Fecal coliforms are the
principal indicator organisms (along with Salmonella sp. bacteria) for evaluatingthe
microbiologicalcontamination of biosolids.
Fecal stre~tomcciinclude the entexwmxs group and several species associated
with nonhuman warm-blooded animal wastes. Enterococci are enteric bacteria fiom
humans and their presence indicates contamination of human origin. Fecal coliform
tofecal streptococcusratio can help idenw sources of contamination. Ratios greater
than 4.4 indicate fecal pollution of human origin; ratios less than 0.7 indicate fecal
pollution b m nonhuman sources.
Salmonella SD. routinely found in unstabilized biosolids, compost handling
facilities and 1andfYls cause various diseases such as acute gastroenteritis (food
poisoning), typhoid fever, and salmonellosis.
While indicators very useful in assessing microbiological contamination, no
indicatorspecies is perfect. Coliforms, for example, die off very quickly in water (half
life is about 15 hours and only few coliforms survive more than 3 days); however,
coliforms may live significantly longer in biosolids.
Viruses are acellular particles which carry genetic reproductive information but
are incapable of living outside a host cell. They are extremely small (0.01-0.25
micmmter cr micron, pn)and extremely host-cell specific. More than 100 different
viruses may be present in untreated biosolids. The major concerns with viruses are
theirpotential for disease transmission and conditions necessary for their destruction
in biosolids. Diseases associated with specSc pathogenic bacteria and viruses and are
summarizedin Table 1-6.
Protozoa ("firstanimals") are very small (5 to lo00 pm in size), single celled
animals comprising a diverse group. Protozoa need water; they are present in all
aerobic wastewater treatment plants. Their role is important in the activated solids
processes (up to 50,OOO o r g a n i d d or about 5% of the dry weight of suspended
solids in the mixed liquor); they are present in trickling filters; rotating biological
contactors (RBC); oxidation ponds, and natural and manmade wetlands.
Protozoa are parasitic (live on or in other life forms) or fi-ee living. Many are
parasites of animals. Protozoa are of four different nutritional types: autotrophs
(plant-like forms capable of absorbing sunlight and using carbon dioxide to produce
organic compounds); saprobic organisms (animal-like forms that do not contain
chlqhyll IWT require light but rely on the organic soluble compounds); phagotrophs
(forms thatfeed on bacteria), and carnivorousprotozoa which feed on other protozoa.
Some protozoa require oxygen and some do not use it and are often unable to
grow in its presence.
Optimum pH for protozoa survival is in the 6.0 to 8.0 range. At pH below 5.0
and higher than 8.0 their population is adversely affected. Light is important for
autotrophs. Many protozoa compete with one another for bacteria as a food supply,
while others compete with bacteria and other saprobic protozoa for soluble organics.
Biosolids Characterization,Treatment and Use 17
I I
~~~~~ ~
I Mode of TrPRmtlsston
Commenb
I Disease I ModeofTrnnsmission
Comments
Ingestion of eggs
4.7 Variouskernatodes Intestid, lung and liver flukes
(flukes) Found in biosolids
I I I
~~
When biosolids are applied to land, humans and animals can be exposed to
pathogens directly by coming into contact or indirectly by Consuming water or food
Contaminated by pathogens. Insects, birds, rodents and people involved in biosolids
processing can also contributeto the exposure.
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 21
Biosolids treatment and managcmcnt practices are greatly influenced by odor and
other pollutant and nuisance factors such as dusts (particulate matter), gaseous and
liquid discharges, and vectors (insects, birds, rodents, etc.).
Biosolids are mherently odorous and if handled improperly can create offensive
odors and other pollutants and nuisances which may cost a lot of time and money to
con-ect.
Control of odors is one of the most difficult problems in biosolids treatment and
management. It is especially true if biosolids are beneficially used.
Dealing with odors and nuisances is often not a technical issue but rather a
matter of public acceptance, public education and human perception. Regulatory
requirements concerning odors are often poorly defined leaving much room for
interpretation and arbitrary action. Odor is an increasingly sensitive subject, and it is
one of the first (and frequently most important) issues concerning the public.
1 . Odor co"l~'olilld~9
Although the exact origin, chemical composition and fate of many odors from
biosolids are difficult to classify and not well studied, it is also true that the
overwhelming majority of odor compounds are by-products of decomposition and
decay of organic matter. Therefore, the most effective control measures are based on
preventing or managing this decomposition cycle.
Raw organic material brought by the influent settles into primary solids largely
without microbiological decomposition. Primary solids are untreated solids from
residential and industrial sources which makes them potentially the most odorous.
Secondaiy solids are primarily products of aerobic microbiological activity.
Biosolids Characterization,Treatment and Use 23
2. Odor Measurement
Instrument-based odor detection has been advancingrapidly, able now to detect odors
in parts per billion concentrationfor a sigdicant number of compounds. Instrumental
odor detection preferred by the engineering Community has a limited use due to the
complexity and variety of odors,considerable amount of time and money required and,
more importantly, the availability of the human nose, still the best receptor that senses
odors better (in some cases three orders of magnitude better) than any instrument has
yet been able to do. Therefore, the human nose is still the most common means for
detecting and measuring odors.
The human nose provides a subjective odor evaluation and a number of
organoleptic methods (i.e., using the human olfactory system) have been developed
to improve reliability and to quant.@ odor compounds. Most common is the "odor
panel technique" (ASTM Method E-679).
The odor panel technique involves a panel of four to sixteen members who are
exposed to odor samplesdiluted with odor-fiee air. The number of dilutions required
to achieve a f%y percent positive response fiom the members is called the threshold
24 Glrovich
Approximate
Odor Odor ChnrPetertstlC
PoUutnnt Formula Recognition Odor
Threshold
@PW
others:
Cadaverine NH,*(CH,),*NH, c1.0 Decayingflesh
Indole WJYH <1.0 Fecal
3. Odor Coiilrol
Numerous odor control methods are employed in biosolids treatment and disposal.
Generally, two fundamental approaches are used:
D. Other Characteristics
density
particle size, granularity
abrasiveness
angles of repose, fall and slide
flowability and transportability (rheological properties)
con-osivity
adhesion
compressibility
hygroscopicity (for dried biosolids)
presence of foreign matter, grit and fibrous material
1. TraiisporIability
Liquid biosolids, whch are physically quite similar to water, can be pumped relatively
easily using cenmfugal, plunger, progressive cavity, diaplu-ap, piston or other types
of pumps.
Liquid biosolids (up to approsimately 6% TS) are usually Newtonian fluids, i.e.,
pressure loss is yopoitional to the velocity and viscosity under laminar flow
28 Girovich
conditions. The flow becomes turbulent at certain critical velocity (usually 1.2-2.0
d s e c . or 4-6 Wsec.).
The pressure drop in pumping liquid biosolids may be up to 25 percent greater
than for water. In turbulent regimes, the losses may be two to four times the losses of
water.
The transition from laminar to turbulent flow regime depends on the Reynolds
number which is inversely proportional to the fluid viscosity. The precise Reynolds
number at which the change of regimes occurs is generally uncertain for biosolids.
Thickened (and especially dewatered) biosolids are non-Newtonian fluids which
become plastic as dryness increases. This means, among other things, that the
pressure losses are not proportional to flow, so the viscosity is not a constant. Special
procedures are required to deteimine losses for these biosolids under laminar and
turbulent regimes.
Prior to treatment, liquid biosolids are usually ground. Grinding is essential
when pumping with progressive cavity pumps, prior to dewatering, heat treatment, or
other processes. Newer designs of grinders are significantly more reliable and durable
than types used in the past.
In certain instances in which quality of the end product is very important (e.g..
production of pelletized fertilizer), biosolids degritting and foreign matter removal is
skongly advisable. For liquid biosolids, degritting and foreign matter removal can be
achieved by using cyclone degritters which employ a centrifugal force to remove
heavier grit and foreign particles or by using a microscreen separation. In the case of
dried biosolids, the foreign matter is usually removed by screening.
fickened and especially dewatered biosolids are significantly more difficult to
transport, meter and store and carehl attention should be paid to the selection of
pumps, conveyance and storage amangements.
Piping design is also an important factor. Biosolids piping is rarely less than
150mm (6 inches) in diameter. Deposits quite often develop inside pipes, resulting
in an increase of the losses and, unless cleaning measures are implemented, ultimately
in failure.
Dewatered biosolids have rather ill-defined characteristics in terms of their flow
properties, or rheology. Direct measurement of biosolids' rheological properties
(viscosity, Reynolds number, shear stress) is time-consuming, not veiy informative
and, in most cases, does not provide usehl information. Many biosolids properties are
extremely dfiicult to predict due to numerous variables involved. For example, it has
been observed that dewatered biosolids (in the 35 to 45% TS range) exhibit unique
properties which are often referred to as a "glue-like'' or "plastic" phase. In that
condition, biosolids tend to foim a sticky inass, often shaped as large balls. This glue-
like material is veiy difficult to handle, and this condition should be recognized and
anticipated when designing biosolids treatment or conveyance.
Mechanical conveyors (predominantly screw and belt type) and, more recently,
shaftless screw conveyors and sFecial positive displacement, single and double piston
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 29
pumps are used to transport dewatered biosolids. Enclosed conveyors and pumps in
particular have the important advantage of containing odors.
2. Srorabilitj
3. Fuel Value
Biosolids contain organic matcrial and thus have a fuel value that can potentially be
realized. Biosolids heat content is approximately 5,500 kcalkg ( 10,000 BTU per
pound) of dry volatile solids or 2,500 to 3,000 kcalkg (4,500 to 5,500 BTUAb.) of
total d ~ matter.
y By way of comparison, coal has a fuel value of 7,750 kcalkg (1 4,000
BTUhb.).
4. Fertilizer Value
A. Beneficial Uses
The organic matter and nutrient content of biosolids make them a valuable resource
to use as a fertilizer and soil conditioner for agricultural crops; to improve marginal
and reclaim disturbed lands; to increase forest productivity and to stabilize and
revegetate forest land devastated by fires or other natural disasters. Biosolids products
are veiy effective in revegetating areas destroyed by mining and dredge spoil areas.
Fertilizing highway median strips and use as a landfill daily, maintenance and final
cover are additional mcthods of beneficially using biosolids. While Section 405(e) of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) reseivcs the choice of use and disposal practices to local
communities, the U.S. EPA actively suppoi-ts the beneficial use of biosolids. When
quality of biosolids with respect to pollutants is a limiting factor for beneficial use,
POTWs can implement or increase local pretreatment efforts to control discharge
limits for nondoniestic wastewater discharges in accordance with National
Pretreatment Standards. Over 2,000 POTWs in the United States established these
programs (1 992).
The following beneficial use methods are practiced in the U.S.A. [ I ] :
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 31
Approximately 1.17 million dry metric tons, or 21.6% of total biosolids generated in
the U.S.A. (5.4 million dry metric tons in 1989), were used to improve soils for
agricultural crops and pastures [l]. Liquid biosolids are usually surface applied or
injected into the surface layer of the soil. Dewatered and dried biosolids are typically
applied to the land surface by equipment similar to that used for applying chemical
fermizers,limestone,and animal manures and then incorporated by plowing or discing
(except on pastures). The amount of biosolids applied to agricultural land should
conform to agronomic rates designed to 1) provide the amount of nitrogen needed by
the crop, 2) minimize the amount of nitrogen leached to the groundwater, and 3)
minimizeintroduction of pollutants (heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds, etc.)
into soil.
Non-agricultural land application in 1989 included forest land (32.3 thousand dry
metric tons, or 0.6%), public contact sites (166.1 thousand tons or 3.1%) such as
parks, golf courses, etc., and reclamation sites (65.8 thousand tons or 1.2%).
Disturbed land resulting from both surface and underground mining can be
swce&Uy restoredby proper application of biosolids. Approximately 1.48 million
hectares were disturbed in the USA between 1930 and 1971 and only 40% of this has
ever been reclaimed. Disturbed land reclamation in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky,
Illinois, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama and Florida proved to be an excellent
oppcntun@for beneficial use of biosolids. Liquid, dewatered and dried biosolids can
be applied at si@icantly larger amounts on non-agricultural and disturbed land (up
to 180metric tonsper hectare) on a one-time basis. Instead of a nationwide nitrogen
standard, application rates are established by permits (usually state-issued) on a case-
by-case basis.
Approximately 12% ofbiosolids generated in the U.S.A. were sold or given away for
use on home gardens, landscaping and similar applications (1989). Presently (1 9 9 3 ,
biosolids in this category are either composted (500 thousand dry metric tons per
year), heat dried and pelletized (350 thousand dry metric tons per year) or alkaline
stabilized. Compost and pellets, in particular, are easy to transport and store for
considerable periods of time. They are distributed, marketed and used as a bulk
ferilizer in agriculture, on lawns, golf courses,ornamentals and home gardens. These
biosolids products may also be distributed in various size bags.
Significant increase in the heat dried and pelletized biosolids production
occurred in the late 1980's and early 1990's when a number of municipalities
32 Girovich
Most state regulations do not require that soil be used as daily cover material at
MSW landfills. Regulations generally require that the daily cover should use
"compacted layer of at least six (6) inches of suitable material" (e.g., Title 35, Subtitle
G, Part 807, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations).
Biosolids are also used as a final cover material usually mixed with top soil. In
order to establish a vegetative cover on a closed landfill, noimally about 0.3 to 0.9
meters (one to three feet) of biosolids and top soil mixture (1 :1) is applied.
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 33
Approximately 260 thousand dry metric tons per year were applied to these sites in the
U.S.A.(1 989). Th~smethod is defined as a disposal of biosolids (which may not meet
standards for land application) with minimal attempt to use them beneficially at sites
specifically set aside for this purpose. Dedicated sites may be owned, operated and
managed either by a POTW or a private operator. Dedicated sites may be
unproductive, disturbed, barren by mining or similar activities with no or minimal
organic content, erodible and acidic. Such sites range fi-om a few to 10,000 acres and
may include a vegetative cover crop. Measures should be taken on these sites to
prevent runofi or leaching of the pollutants to waters.
Excacting energy from biosolids can also be considered as a beneficial use. Energy
can be rccovered fiom biosolids in the foim of steadelectricity using biosolids-to-
energy processes such as incineration with energy recoveiy, gasification, pyrolysis,
and conversion into fuel.
About 470 thousand tons per year of biosolids incinerator ash (bioash) is produced
fiom 170 municipal biosolids incineration facilities in the USA. Bioash can be used
as a supplement to other beneficial uses of biosolids or as a raw material in production
of building and road cover products. For example, in Osaka, Japan, bioash is used as
the only raw material in manufacture of decorative paving bricks.
*
Biosolids disposal in MSW landfills under appropriate conditions enhances
decomposition of municipal solid waste and increases production of methane.
. Biosolids mixing with hydrocarbon-contamina~ed soils aids in establishing an
appropriate microbial population to destroy hydrocarbon pollutants and to
remediate sites.
. Biosolids addition to the soil structure to establish vegetation can improve the
success of reclamation of disturbed and contaminated sites.
34 Girovich
9. Nan-Beneflcial Uses
Non-beneficial uses of biosolids in the USA (1 989) include biosolids disposal into
monotills (0.15 millionmetric ton of less than 3.0%), incineration (0.86 million metric
tonsor 16.1%),codisposal in the MSW landfills (1.82 million metric tons or 33.9%)
and surface clsposd (0.55 millionmetxic tonsor 10.3%)[13. The disposal of biosolids
in MSW landfills is regulated under 40 CFR Part 258. In order to be co-disposed with
MSW, biosolids must: (1) be nonhazardous and (2) pass the Paint Filter Liquid Test.
If biosolids (sludges) are determined to be hazardous as defined by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP), they must be disposed of in compliance
with the hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR Part 261-268). Also, if biosolids
contain more than 50 ppm of PCBs, they must be disposed of in compliance with
toxic waste regulations (40 CFR Part 761). Ocean dumping was banned by an Act of
Congress after 1991.
The selection of a technically and economically optimal method of converting
wastewater solids into a beneficial use product is a complex process involving
evaluation of potential markets, economics, technical and environmental protection
issues, public response, regulatory and site specific factors.
Figure 1-1 summarizes biosolids generation, treatment and beneficial use
options.
1. Pathogen Reduction
Biosolids which are beneficially used should satisfy pathogen reduction requirements.
Current US. EPA Regulations (Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 503) establish two classes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biosolids
-
-
3 7% T.S.
Chemically Stabilized
Biosolids
Compost
Heat Dried Biosolids
Air Dried Biosolids
Thermally or Chemically
Primary
Solids
FIG.1-1
-
0.5 2.0% T.S.
2. l L a d m b m
0
3.
0
4.
5.
-
2,500 3,500 L' 15,000 20,000 L'
Iacinerahon
Secondary
Solids
m e r p v Rccov~y:
SteamElectrictiy
Conversion to Feel
Q&m
Building 8t Road
Material Component
Stabilized Biosolids
. .
.
Tertiary
Solids
DISPOSAL
Monofilling
MSW Co-Landfdlin
Incineration without
Energy Recovery
w
* Per million liters of
wastewater treated
D
3
Q
36 Girovich
Salriioriella sp: Less than 3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids (’I’S), diy
weight basis
Enteric viruses: Less than 1 PFU per 4 grams of TS, diy weight basis
- Viable helminth ova: Less than 1 per 4 grams of TS, dry weight basis
Class B requirements can be met by any of the t h e e (3) altematives. The implicit
objective of all three altematives is to ensure that pathogenic bacteria and enteric
vlluses are adequately reduced in density (as demonstrated by fecal coliforni density)
in Class B biosolids to less than 2 MPN or CFU per gram of total solids on diy weight
basis. Viable helminth ova are not necessarily reduced in Class B biosolids.
Additionally, site restrictions are applied which restrict crop harvesting, animal
grazing and public access for a ceitain period of time until environmental factors have
further reduced pathogens. See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion.
Class B requirements apply to bulk biosolids that are applied to agricultural land,
a forest, a public contact site, a reclamation site or a suiface disposal site, unless, in
the latter case, biosolids are covered at the end of each operating day.
Class A or Class B biosolids requirements apply to domestic septage used on all types
of land. No pathogen-related requirements apply to domestic septage placed on a
suiface disposal site.
Pathogen reduction in domestic septage applied to agricultural land, a forest or
a reclamation site can be met by means of one of two options:
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 37
2. VectorAttraction Reduction
A significant route for pathogen transport is vector transmission. Vectors are living
organisms capable of transmitting a pathogen from one organism to another
mechanically (simply transportingthe pathogen), or biologically (by having a role in
the paghogen's life cycle).
Insects,birds, flies, rodents are the most likely vectors. Current U.S. EPA
Regulationsestablish 12 options for vector attraction reduction. Compliance With the
vector attraction reduction requirements must be demonstrated separately from
compliancewith the pathogen reduction requirements.
Vector attraction reduction options are discussed in Chapter 2.
Current regulations establish numerid limits (ceiling concentrations) for trace metals
that must be met in order to land apply biosolids. If these limits are not met, biosolids
must be managed under the surface disposal category.
Ifthe biosolids @ly meets the ceiling limits, additional numerical limits (e.g.,
cumulative or annual loading ratas) are also provided for the metals. These numerical
limits are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
Biosolids thatmeet "exceptional quality" limits with respect to the trace metals,
in addition to Class A pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements, are
referred to as "Exceptional Quality" (EQ) biosolids. The EQ biosolids have fewer
recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, which is particularly beneficial for
distribution and management programs. Biosolids meeting these pollutant
concentrations also do not have to meet annual or cumulative loading limits.
"Exceptional Quality" metal concentrations are shown in Table 1-9 (Table 3 of
$503.13).
The requirements for use of biosolids on non-agricultural lands are the same as
thosefor use on agriculturallands. The U.S. EPA requires that biosolids be applied
to forest land or a public contact site at a rate that is equal to, or less than, an
agronomic rate (i.e., a rate that protects the groundwater and minimizes the amount
of nitrogen thatpasses below the root zone of the crop or vegetation grown on the site
by matching the amount of nitrogen taka up the the crop). This management practice
also applies to a reclamation site, unless otherwise specified by the permitting
authority. In this case,the permitting authority may allow larger amounts of biosolids
38 Girovich
I chromium I 1,200 1
I copper I 1,500 I
Lead 300
Mercury 17
Nickel 420
Selenium 36
zinc 2,800
Both bulk and bagged products must be treated by a Class A pathogen reduction
process and one of the vector attraction reduction options to be applied in bulk to a
lawn or home garden or sold or given away in a bag or other container.
Detailed discussion of the technical basis and requirements of the 503
Regulations is provided in Chapter 2.
Municipal solids are processed to achieve one or more of the following goals:
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 39
1. Volume Reduction
1 OO?!
60%
40%
20%
o?!
Liq.Bimlids Dew. Bimlids Compost Ahlinc Stab. Drying Inckatim
Reducing or eliminating pollutants from biosolids, air emission and odor control
represent one of the most diacult tasks in biosolids treatment.
Dilution (addition of certain materials such as lime) reduces pollutant
concentation in biosolids. Special lreatments are used to reduce amount of pollutants
in liquid, solid and gaseous discharges. Reduction of odors is achieved by various
means, such as chemical treatment (addition of oxidizing agents such as potassium
permanganate, lime, etc.) scrubbing, absorption, adsorption, masking, and
incineration.Detailed discussion on specific air emission and odor control is provided
in other chapters.
4. Environmental Impact
Bimlids treatment impacts upon environmental, safety, and public health conditions
hcludmg (butnot limitedto) air pollution, odors,liquid sidestreams,noise, siting, and
public acceptance. Certain treatment processes generate more gaseous, liquid,
particulate matter and other emissions than others (e.g., incineration) and, therefore,
have a greater potential social, environmental and health impact. Processes with
greater impact usually require higher capital (and often higher operating) costs and
may experience difficulty in achieving public and regulatory support and approval.
It is impossible to quant@ social, environmental and public health impact of
differentprocesses,but Table 1- 10 attempts to provide a qualitative evaluation of such
potential impacts.
5 . Economic Impact
The bimlids treatment and beneficial use market in the USA is estimated to be in the
$1.5 to 2.0 billion range annually (1995). About 9.0 million dry metric tons are to be
treated,berdicially used or disposed. Costs of treating and beneficial use of biosolids
varies widely h m as low as $90 for land application of stabilized biosolids to as high
as $400 per dry ton for heat drymg, including operational costs and cost of capital
(Fig. 1-3). Potential revenue sources are: 1) sale of final products, and 2) sale of
energy. Sale of bimlids derived products such as pellets and compost generally have
higher revenue potential than other end products. Sales of digester gas, production of
TABLE 1-10 SUMMARY
Treatment Volume Pathogen Potential for Reduction of F i Revenue
Reduction Reduction Energy Pollutants Product Potential
-1
Recovery
Dewatering signifcant No
I I Dewatered Medium to
I1 Medium No
Ti&
No Biosolids High
1”.
~
Air Drying
(1O0C/2-3
mos.)
I
C1assB I No
LOW VeryLOW very LOW Medium
Mesophilic
Aerobic
Digestion I No
Medium Medium No LOW
Anaerobic
Digestion I No
Class B
I Significant’
I No
I Liquid,
ClassB
LOW
No
LOW
LOW
Aerobic
Medium Medium
Mesophilic Small
1 1 1 I
LOW Medium
Reductionof
Pollutants
I 1 Final
Product
Capital
cost
O&M
cost Potential
Pasteurization No Class A No
1 I Dewatered,
I Low Medium No I Low
1
No ClassA
I Biosolids,
Class A I
Heat Drying for Significant Class A Significant No Dried High Medium No Low to
Autogenous Biosolids. to High Medium
Incineration or Fuel
Land
Application
(40-80% TS)
1
No
I 2;”. I
Fertilizer High Medium
to High
No
I Medium
I Wet Air
Oxidation
No Class A Medium
I Possible
I Liquid Medium
to High
No
I Medium
TABLE 1-10 (CON".)
1 Treatment Volume Redudion of Capital
Process Reduction Reduction Energy Pollutants Product
Impact
(Biosolids to
Oil) I Low
Nf A
I High
Melting VeryHigh
I NIA
I Medium NIA Building
Materials I High
FIG.
steam and electricity are potential sources of revenue fiom anaerobic digestion and
incineration. Certain processes provide potential for energy recovery and resultant
reduction in energy cost (e.g., heat treatment of liquid biosolids, heat drymg,
incineration,multi-effect evaporation).
Selecting an optimum treatment process for biosolids is a complicatedprocess
which should take into account technical, economic and site specific issues. Detailed
discussion on econOmics of various treatment and beneficial use methods is provided
in other chapters.
Biosolids Characterization, Treatment and Use 45
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA, Subpait D, 40 CFR Part 503. "Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge", Federal Regisfer, Vol. 58, No. 32, February 19, 1993.
2. J.E. Hall, F. Dalimer, Eur*opeatiSewage Sludge Sutvey, April 1994.
3. StandardMethds for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition,
Washington, D.C. Anierican Public Health Associafioti. 1980
4. M.J. Girovich, Simultaneous Sludge Diying and Pelletizing, Water Engineering
atidManagenienf, March 1990.
5. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishbig Co.
1991.
6. R.L. Donahue, R.W. Miller & J.C. Shickluna. Soils: An Introduction to Soils
and Plant Growth, Prenfice Hall, Itic. 1977.
7. Municipal Sewage Sludge Management, Vol. 4, Water Qiialip Mariagenietit
Library, Teclinortric Pirbliskitig Co. 1 992.
8. Beneficial Use of Waste Solids, hlat~iialof Pvacfice FD-15. WPCF. 1988.
9. S.E. Manahan. Environmental Chemistiy. 5 t h Edition. Lewis Pub/islier*s,]tic.
1991.
10. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 11, Chapters 13-20,
WEF Manual of Practice No. 8, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering
Practice No. 76. Book Press, Inc., Veimont. 1991.
11. C . Lue-Hing, D.R. Z e n , & R. Kuchenrither, Municipal Sewage Sludge
Management: Processing, Utilization and Disposal, Vol 4, Wafer Quality
Matiagenietit Libraty, Tecktioniic Publishing Co. 1992.
12. Wastewater Biology: The Microlife. Water Polliifion Control Federation, 1990.
13. U.S. EPA, Fate of Priority Pollutants in POTWs. EPA 44011-82-303,
Washington, DC. 1982.
14. U.S. EPA National Sewage Sludge Suwey, Washington, DC, 1988.
15. U.S. EPA, Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge:
Environmental Regulations and Technology, EPA 625/R-92/0 13, December
1992.
16. R.T. Haug, The Practical I-Iandbook of Compost Engineering: Principles and
Practice, Lewis Publisliers, 1993.
17. J.Y. Huang, G.E. Wilson & T.W. Schroepher. Evaluation of Sludge Odor
Control Alternatives, Journal of Etivirotittieri~alEtigineetitig, Div. ASCE 6,
1978.
18. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom Air, Nafional
Sa&y News, 1976.
19. C. Wilber & C. Munay, Odor Source Evaluation, BioCycle, Vol. 31, No. 3,
March 1990.
20. Odor Control for Wastewater Facilities, illanual of Practice No. 22,
Washington, DC, WPCF, 1979.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Fed era1 Reg u 1atory Requirements
Jane B. Forste
Wheelabrator Clean Wafer Systems Inc.
Annapolis, Maryland
A. Introduction
The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, was adopted to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's water". To that end, the
Act prohibits discharging pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance with
the statute. The CWA led to the establishment of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), a pennitting system which establishes specific
discharge limits for each pcnnitted wastewater treatment facility, including industrial,
commercial and public sourccs of wastewatcr.
In addition to regulating those sources discharging emucnt dircctly into the
Nation's waters, the CWA rcquircs the U.S. EPA to promulgate nationally applicable
pretreahncnt standxds to reshict dischxge of pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). These indirect industrial dischargers, as well as direct dischargcrs,
are subject to generally similar standards regarding levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local limits applicable to the specific industrial
dischargers within their system to meet local requirements. Thus, direct dischaip-s
must comply with NPDES permit emuent limitations and indirect dischargers must
comply with pretreatment standards. Prctreatment standards must also be set for
pollutants which cannot be treated readily by POTWs or which would inteifere with
POTW opcrations [l].
47
48 Forste
interim final regulation whosc ciiteiia partially fulfilled the requirement of Section 405
of the CWA to provide guidelines for disposal and utilization of biosolids. Because
of its issuance as a solid waste regulation, the 257 Rule resulted in a trend by many
states to regulate biosolids under their solid waste programs. In fact, the federal
rulemaking stated that facilities which did not meet the criteria of the 257 Rule would
be classified as "open dumps." As specified by Section 405(d) of the CWA, the
criteria contained in the 1979 regulation were designed "to avoid a reasonable
probability of advcrse effcts on health or the environment from disposal of sludge on
land." They were less comprchcnsive than later regulations and addressed only the
placement of biosolids on the land. All such practices were required to address
environmentally sensitive areas and diseases (pathogen control) in addition to
protecting food chain crops from the effects of cadmium and PCBs. The evaluation
of lead, pcsticides and pcrsistcnt organics was deferred to future rulemaking because
information available to the agency at the time was believed to be inadequate to
support specific standards.
solid wastekoil mixture be adjusted to 6.5 or greater at the time of each application
of any biosolids containing concentrations of 2 m g k g cadmium or more.
Cadmium Limits
A phased-in annual cadmium application rate was developed to provide an
opportunityfor POTWs to impose pretreatment requirements and reduce the levels of
the metal in their influent and, therefore, in the solids generated by these facilities.
The maximum cumulative application of cadmium was based on two factors:
background soil pH and soil cation exchange capacity. Higher cumulative application
rates were allowed for sites with higher cation exchange capacities that also had
background soil pHs equal to or greater than 6.5. These higher cumulative application
rates were allowed for soils with background pH of less than 6.5 if: (1) only animal
feed crops were grown, ( 2 ) pH was adjusted to 6.5 or greater each time an application
occurred; (3) a facility operating plan was developed to demonstrate to whom the
animal feed would be distributed to preclude ingestion by humans; and (4)fbture
property owners were notified that high cadmium application rates had been used on
the site and that food chain crops should therefore not be grown. The net effect of
these requirements was to establish controls based on the best available scientific
estimates of cadmium bioavailability at the time. As will be discussed later in this
chapter, many of the assumptions and the data used to develop these limits were
unnecessarily conseivative and/or based on an incomplete understanding of the
mechanisms of cadmium uptake and accumulation in crops. Nevertheless, this Rule
(along with recommendations for cumulative loading limits developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture) provided the federal basis for land application programs
in the United States for considerably more than a decade after becoming effectivc
October 15, 1979.
PCB Limits
Under the 257 Rule, solid waste containing concentrations of PCBs equal to or greater
than 10 m g k g had to be incorporated into the soil when applied to land used for
producing animal feed, including pasture crops for animals raised for milk. Such
incorporation was not required if it was assured that the PCB content was less than 0.2
m g k g (actual weight) in animal feed or less than 1.5 mgkg (fat basis) in milk.
In addition to cadmium, PCBs, pathogen and vector requirements, the 257 Rule
contained provisions based on requirements for a solid waste facility, i.e. prohibiting
open burning, generation of explosive gases, fires, bird hazards and access.
Even as it was published, EPA and the scientific community identified gaps and
limitations in the 257 Rule and began efforts to develop a more comprehensive risk-
based rule encompassingmore of the pollutants of concern than those contained in the
257 Rule, which remained an "interim final" rather than "final" rulemaking.
During the next decade, various study groups and task groups within EPA were
formed to develop a final rule as mandated under the CWA. It was not until 1989,
however, that such a rule was proposed to meet the mandate of Section 405(d) of the
CWA. Changes in the Act enacted in 1987 for the first time set foi-th a comprehensive
program for reducing the potential environmental risks and maximizing the beneficial
use ofbiosolids. At that time, the Act established a time table for the development of
use and disposal guidelines. Under amcnded Section 405(d), EPA was charged to first
identify, based on available infoimation, toxic pollutants which may be present in
[biosolids] in concentrations which may affect public health and the environment.
Then, for each identified use or disposal method, EPA was required to promulgate
regulations that specify acceptable management practices and numerical limitations
for biosolids that contain these pollutants. These regulations must be "adequate to
protect human health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse
affect of each pollutant" (Section 405(d)(2)@)). The statute also required EPA to
promulgate regulations in two stages and periodically review these regulations for the
purpose of identifLing additional pollutants for regulation.
Since Congress provided little guidance for the Agency in carrying out the broad
mandate to protect public health and the environment, EPA needed to address a
number of issues including: scope of the regulation, what pollutants should be
covered, what pathways of exposure should be evaluated, what individuals or groups
of individuals, plants or animals were most likely to'be affected, as well as what type
of modeling and risk assessment would be addressed in the final Rule. The Agency
also needed to determine at what concentrations a pollutant can adversely affect human
health and the environment, and what constitutes an adverse effect. The question of
an acceptable level of risk had to be addressed in meeting the "adequate protection"
mandate of the Act, taking into account background pollutant levels and the
uncertainties inherent in all risk analyses. The Agency conducted an extensive
infoimation gathering and analytical program beginning in 1984 to support the
development of the final regulation. M e r the 1987 amendments to the CWA were
adopted, the Agency's efforts increased and resulted in the development of important
documentation which formed the basis for the 503 Regulations.
52 Forste
With the promulgation of the 503 Regulations on February 19, 1993, EPA met its
longstanding obligation under the CWA to establish standards for the use and disposal
of "sewage sludge." This undertaking represented an unprecedented effort on the part
of the Agency to assess the potential for pollutants in wastewater solids to affect public
health and the environment through various routes of exposure. This enormously
complex effort required the Agency to address issues that affect many other EPA
regulatory programs. For example, the risk evaluated in the 503 Regulations for
biosolids applied to land required EPA to evaluate human exposure through
inhalation, direct ingestion of soil fertilized with biosolids and through consumption
of crops grown on such soil, as well as many others. The agency assesscd potential
risk of contamination of drinking water or surface water sources when biosolids are
managed on the land, and evaluated potential direct effects on crops, cattle, aquatic
species and wildlife. In addition, EPA evaluated the effect of emissions from
biosolids incinerators on human health. Thus, the development of the 503 Regulations
had an impact on Agency activities under the Clean Air Act (CAA),the Resourcc
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), thc Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The coordination of
this rulemaking with standards of other Agency programs presented a significant
challenge to the development of the 503 Regulations. The challenge was particularly
great with respect to non-human health effects, given the more limited infoimation
available in that area and the less well-developed methods available for cvaluating
such effects as comparcd to human health effects.
In promulgating the 503 Regulations, EPA expressed confidence that they do in
fact adequately protect public health and the environment from all reasonably
anticipated adverse affects, as required by CWA Section 405(d) based on the
following:
EPA evaluated the regulations for aggregate national health impact and found,
based on very conservative assumptions that probably overstate exposure, that
there are virtually no effects when biosolids are disposed of on land or used as a
soil conditioner or fertilizer in compliance with the Rule. Even when biosolids
are incinerated, the potentially greater human population exposed to emissions
is still subject to extremely small risk.
Beneficial use of biosolids is not new in the United States. In the development
of the 503 Regulations, EPA and the Technical Peer Review scientists reviewed
available scientific and technical literature and found no evidence that the use of
biosolids is causing significant or widespread adverse effects.
Regulatory Requirements 53
The promulgation of the 503 Regulations represents the Agency's first step
(Round I> of this rulemalung. The CWA statutory requirements mandate that the
Agency develop regulations in two steps and revise such regulations periodically
if additional information suggests such a need.
EPA has expressed the view that the Regulations as promulgated in 1993 are
adequately protective because most of the effects that the Regulations are designed to
prevent are chronic, not acute. Even in the unlikely event that new information would
dictate reconsideration of some of the determinations of the SO3 Regulations, no
adverse short-term human health consequences would be experienced since the
standards already protect against chronic effects and thus are well below acute effect
levels. The Agency is also committed to investigate many of the assumptions used in
deteimining the regulatory levels contained in the SO3 to insure consistency with broad
protection of public health and the environment.
Under Section 40S(d) of the CWA, EPA identified, based on available
information, pollutants which may be present in biosolids in concentrations which
might affect public health andor the environment. Then, for each identified use or
disposal method, EPA specified acceptable numerical limitations and management
practices for biosolids that contain these pollutants. In the absence of specific
gudance fiom Congress in carrying out the broad mandate to protect public health and
the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse affects of each pollutant, the
Agency was required to address and clarify a number of significant issues.
Remlatorv Issues
To determine standards that would adequate protect public health and thc
environment, EPA had to detemiine the following:
Tvpes of Risks
Potential human health and environmental effects from the use or disposal of
biosolids (e.g., eating foods grown on soil to which biosolids have been applied)
had to be identified.
0
Effect Levels
The "response"to the presence of a pollutant by plant, animal and human systems
had to be evaluated to determine at what point variation constitutes an adverse
effect.
Acceptable Level of Risk
The Agency had to decide what level of risk adequately protects human health
and the environment; this was unclear in the congressional mandate and varies
within other EPA programs.
0
Backmound Pollutant Levels
The Agcncy had to evaluatc the impact of sources of pollutants other than
biosolids (e.g., lead from gasoline).
Uncertainties
The Agcncy had to measure and account for the unavoidable uncertainties in its
analyses by using appropriately conservative assumptions and margins of safety.
Types of Effects Evaluated
EPA had to determine whether to evaluate health and environment effects on the
most exposed target organisms and/or based on the incidence of adverse effects
on the total population associated with use or disposal.
0
Pollutant Limits
The Agency had to determine whether to establish a single pollutant limit for all
1. Control Quality
By cstablishing limits on biosolids quality, the 503 Regulations create incentives for
treatment works to generate less contaminated biosolids. Those facilities that do not
meet the quality conditionsunder the 503 must improve the influent quality (e.g., more
rigorous pretreatment), provide better treatment of the solids (e.g., improved pathogen
reduction) or select another use or disposal method.
EPA's 1984 Beneficial Use Policy and the 1991 Interagency Policy on Beneficial Use
strongly supports beneficial use practices for biosolids--the term the Agency notes is
used to distinguish solids which can be beneficially recycled[4][5]. The Agency
believes that the improved productivity of land using the soil conditioning properties
and nutrient content of biosolids has human health and environmental advantages
beyond those that are directly associated with applying this material to the land. The
Agcncy sees secondary or related bcnefits of using biosolids resulting from a reduction
in adverse human health effects of incineration, a decreased dependcnce on chemical
fertilizers and a reduction in he1 or energy costs that may be associated with
incineration. In finalizing the Rule, the Agency considered and placed emphasis on
approaches that supported its policy of beneficial use.
The Agency evaluated the effects of each pollutant on a highly exposed individual,
plant or animal (HEI) and on populations at higher risk. It also examined regulatory
options that would base the Rule on: aggregate incident analyses only (the effect on
the whole population); the ME1 analyses only; and a combination of these two
approaches. The final 503 Regulations use an HE1 analysis supported by aggregate
risk assessment on higher risk populations or special sub-populations (e.g., children)
to insure protection of public health and the environment.
In establishing standards under 405d of the CWA, the Agency evaluated long-term
pollutant exposure and circumstances leading to: 1) increased toxicity and potency of
a pollutant in the environment, and 2) increased intensity of an adverse effect that the
pollutant might have on human health or the environment. While this approach is used
throughout the Rule, it does not include every conceivable combination of adverse
conditions; however, based on the conservative assumptions built into EPA's
modelling effort, the Agency expccts that few, if any, individuals will reccive greater
doses of a pollutant than the doses used to establish the standards. Therefore, EPA has
56 Forste
determined that the 503 Rule meets the statutory directive contained in 405d. EPA
concludes that adequate protection does not require the adoption of standards for
exposure conditions that are unlikely and from which effects are not significant or
widespread.
The flexibility associated with site-specific analyses was weighed by the Agency
against the simplicity of national numerical limits and a self-implementing rule.
Regulations that allow exceptions for every conceivable contingency would be
cumbersome and difficult to implement. Therefore, the limited exceptions in 503 to
national pollutant limits are restricted to circumstances in which site specific
conditions may make a significant difference in the pollutant limits without
compromising public health and environmental protection. In such cases where site-
specific conditions are appropriate, recalculated numerical pollutant limits for that site
can be imposed using EPA approved models by providing supporting information and
recalculated numerical limits to the permitting authority for approval. The Agency
places primary responsibility on the treatment works for insuring that biosolids are
managed as required. Because the 503 Regulations are designed to be self-
implementing, they spell out the requirements which apply to persons using or
disposing of this material.
Since the 503 Regulations are necessarily limited by the adequacy of idolmation
available at the time, they contain standards for pollutants and use or disposal practices
for which sufficient information exists. EPA may expand and refine these standards
in the future.
The National Sewage Sludge Survey (NSSS) was conducted by the agency to fill
some ofthe information gaps. Among other things, it gathered additional infotmation
on the pollutants in biosolids, as well as how they are used and disposed[6]. Those
pollutants and methods of use or disposal not covered by the February 19, 1993 Final
Rule will be evaluated for coverage under subsequent phases of503 rulemaking and
as adequate data are developed.
The 503 rulemaking was unique not only with respect to the complexity of the
task at hand, but the extensive review and input which was received by the Agency on
the technical standards. Experts from both inside and outside EPA reviewed the
scientific literature and provided additional data and scientific and technical input
which enabled the Agency to expand and refine the standards during the time
following the comment period and before promulgation of the final standard.
Reviewers included the EPA Science Advisoly Board, the Cooperative State Research
Service, the Regional Research Technical Committee (the W- 170 Committee),
Regulatory Requirements 57
C. Data Gathering
40 Citv Study
However, EPA recognized scveral deficiencies in using the "40 City Study" data. The
key deficiency was the fact that this study did not generally provide data on final
processed biosolids. In addition, POTWs selected for the 40 City Study were not
selected following statistical methods which would provide unbiased national
estimates of pollutant concentrations in biosolids.
EPA also recognized that biosolids quality had changed since 1978 due to the
initiation of many pretreatment programs, development of new industrial facilities
discharging to the POTWs, and changes in wastewater treatment processes. The
Agency therefore concluded that pollutant concentrations from the 40-city study did
not accurately reflect the current quality of biosolids. In addition, advancements in
analytical methodology since the 40-city study provide more accurate pollutant
analysis. Other data sources on biosolids quality also suffered from deficiencies which
made them inappropriate for establishing regulations.
survey also collected information on the use and disposal practices from 475 public
treatment plants with at least secondaxy treatment. The NSSS results provided EPA
with information necessary to establish numerical pollutant limits in the final Part 503
Regulations to encourage the beneficial use of biosolids and provide a greater degree
of public health and environmental protection than was contained in the February 6,
1989 proposal.
To establish numerical limits, data from the NSSS regarding pollutant
concentrations were required to estimate the level of risk which current quality and
current use or disposal practices pose to the environment. The survey information
enabled the Agency to fUrther evaluate its regulatory approach and "cap" pollutants at
the 99th percentile concentration in instances where the Agency believes that the
strictly risk based numerical limitations do not provide an adequate margin of safety
to protect public health and the environment.
EPA also used the results of the NSSS to attempt to assess potential shifts among
various use or disposal practices as a result of the final regulations, since effect of a
rule is important in determining how rapidly it should be implemented. For example,
a slight impact from a particular numerical limitation may make immediate
implementation of the regulations appropriate; however, if wide shifts in current
methods of use or disposal are anticipated from the numerical limits, POTWs may
need assistance in developing more stringent pretreatment limits or in adopting
alteinative use or disposal practices.
EPA will also study the analpcal results of NSSS to identify a preliminary list of
pollutants for second round rulemaking, based to some degree on pollutants that have
elevated concentrations in biosolids. Final decision on which pollutants to regulate in
the second round will depend on availabilityof data regarding a pollutant's toxicity and
environmental fate, effect and transport properties. EPA will follow a similar process
in identifying these pollutants as they did for the 1989 rulemaking.
Participants in the NSSS were selected from 11,407 POTWs in the U.S.,
including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. These facilities have been
identified in the EPA 1986 Needs Survey as having at least secondaiy wastewater
treatment (primary clarification followed by biological treatment and secondary
clarification). The effort consisted of both a questionnaire and an analytical survey.
The POTWs included in the two samples were selected according to stratified
probability design. All POTWs in the analytical survey were selected from among
those that had already been selected to receive the questionnaire.
The questionnairewas designed to allow results to be analyzed separately by flow
rate group and by biosolids use and disposal practice. Four hundred seventy-nine
POTWs provided idormation concerning service area, operating parameters, general
biosolids use and disposal practices, pretreatment programs, wastewater and biosolids
testing frequencies and financial information. The POTWs also provided use and
disposal practice specific information and indicated which practice(s) would be likely
alternatives to their current ones.
60 Forste
A total of 208 POTWs fiom four flow rate categories were selected for sampling
and analysis. EPA contract personnel collected the samples which were analyzed for
a total of 412 analytes. These analytes include every organic, pesticide, dibenzohran,
dioxin and PCB for which EPA has gas chromatography and mass spectrometry
( G C M S ) standards. The remaining pollutants are inorganic. Pollutants were also
selected based on: 1) the CWA Section 307(a) priority pollutants, 2) toxic compounds
highhghted in the domestic sewage study, and 3) Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA PL94-580) Appendix VIII pollutants.
Sampling preservation and analytical protocols were developed specifically for
the NSSS. Analytical methods 1624 and 1625 were adapted from methods to deal
with the biosolids matrix for volatile and semi-volatile organics respectively.
Pesticides and PCBs and dibenzohans and dioxins were analyzed using methods
16 18 and 1613, respectively. Metals and other inorganics and classicals were
analyzed by standard EPA methods. The analytical methods were either developed,
chosen or specifically adapted for the biosolids matrix to give the most reliable,
accurate and precise measurement of the 4 12 analytes undertaken.
EPA used data from total hydrocarbon concentration in exit gas along with the
aggregate risk analysis as the basis for the THC operational standards in the final part
503 regulations. This standard is technology-based since it is based on perfoimance
data from biosolids incinerators. Information on total organic pollutants and THC in
the exit gas provided the basis for THC being used as a surrogate for measuring
organic compounds in the exit gas. Tests show that there is a significant correlation
between THC and organic compounds and THC is easier and less expensive to
monitor than are total organics. THC can also be measured on a continuous basis
which enhances operating and management practices, Knowing which organic
pollutants are in the exit gas (or potentially in the exit gas) allowed EPA to develop
an ambient risk-specific concentration for the organic compounds. This value was
then used to estimate the risk level for the technology-based THC limits which is an
exit gas concentration. Details on the biosolids incinerator field studies can be found
in the technical support document for incineration.
1. Intioducrion
In developing the 503 Regulations, the U.S. EPA had to set up and justify numerical
limits for certain pollutants. EPA developed the numerical limits using the exposure
assessment models as described in this Chapter, and in the final 503 Regulations also
established an operational standard for total hydrocarbons emitted by biosolids
incinerators. The models incorporated well established measures of human health or
environmental protection as the design endpoint. Thus EPA based its environmental
assessment on human health or environmental criteria already published or
promulgated by the Agency, on human health criteria developed by the Agency, or on
plant or animal toxicity values published in scientific literature.
In its exposure assessment, if the Agency had not published or promulgated
criteria for specific pollutants, EPA evaluated non-cancer human health risks from
pollutant exposure using reference doses. EPA evaluated cancer risk using cancer
potency factors listed in the Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In
62 Forste
all cases, the Agency used cancer potency values corresponding to an incremental,
carcinogenic risk level of 1 x to evaluate the risk from pollutants found in
biosolids (a 1 x lo4cancer risk implies that one additional cancer case will occur in
a population of 10,000 exposed at that level for 70 years). The final limits for
pollutants ensure that the use and disposal of biosolids does not result in ambient
concentrationsof the regulated pollutants that exceed an incremental carcinogenic risk
level of 1 x
For biosolids disposed of in or on surface disposal sites (including monofills) or
incinerated, the treatment facility may submit modelling and data analysis for certain
physical parameters relating to the site. The permitting authority will review and
approve the facility’s site specific modelling and data analyses used to recalculate
numerical limits used in EPA’s approved exposure assessment methods. The
recalculated numerical luruts will therefore be based on EPA approved models and the
same health and environmental criteria as the national numerical limits and, therefore,
the recalculated limits will also adequately protect human health and the environment.
The 503 Regulations establish requirements for pathogenic organisms or
pathogenic indicator organisms such as fecal coliforms in biosolids applied to the land.
It also includes requirements for destroying or reducing the characteristics of biosolids
that might attract birds, insects, rats and other animals (so-called “vectors”). Based
on “vector”exposure to the pathogenic organisms potentially present in biosolids and
potential spread of disease from these disease vectors to humans, the Rule requires
measures for reducing the attraction of vectors to biosolids. These measures include
reduction or destruction of the odor-causing properties of biosolids that lure insects
and animals by a variety of means.
Management practices and general requirements to protect human health and
prevent environmental abuse supplement the numerical pollutant limits contained in
the 503. In addition, small quantities of biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other
container may require labelling with instructions on proper use of the product if such
a product does not meet the most stringent requirements of the 503 with respect to
pollutant concentrations.
Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are also contained in 503
at specified frequencies depending on the quantity of biosolids used or disposed by a
treatment facility. The pollutants for which a treatment facility must monitor their
biosolids depend on the use or disposal method employed, and recordkceping and
reporting requirements are also specific to each use or disposal method.
The 503 Regulations cover nearly 35,000 treatment facilities, including priniaiy
treatment POTWs, secondary and advanced POTWs, privately owned treatment
works, federally owned treatment works and domestic septage haulers. Based on the
NSSS, EPA estimates that the 503 will affect approximately 6,300 of the 12,750
secondary, advanced and primary POTWs that use one or more of the disposal
practices included in the 503. These 6,300 facilities generator or treat approximately
60% of the biosolids produced in the US. Of the remaining POTWs, EPA estimates
Regulatory Requirements 63
that 2,700 dispose of their biosolids (34% of the total generated) in MSWLFs that are
regulated under 40 CFR Part 258. The remaining 3,750 POTWs use other disposal
practices not covered in the 503 or the MSWLF rule. As noted above, in some cases
compliance with the requirements of the other practices also constitutes compliance
with 405(d) of the CWA.
EPA’s aggregate risk assessment estimated that the pre-503 use and disposal
practices contributed from less than one up to five cancer cases total for the entire US
population. The lifetime cancer risk to a highly exposed individual fi-om existing
practice ranged from 6 to 10-4for land application and surface disposal and from 6 x
lo4 to 7 x 10” for incineration. Other health effects associated with usc and disposal
prior to 503 wcre evaluated by the Agency as primarily relating to lead exposure. The
baseline risks for the 503 are extremely low as compared to aggregate risks identificd
by the Agency in other environmental rule making efforts. The aggregate risk
assessment estimates are discussed later in this chapter.
EPA’s regulatory impact analysis estimates that approximately 130 of the 6,300
aEected POTWs may produce biosolids which do not meet the numerical limits of the
503 Regulations (however, some POTWs may come into compliance by using site
specific data to calculate new numerical limits and imposing stricter pretreatment
requirements on industrial discharges).
T e c h c a l support documents, aggregate human health risk analyses, regulatoiy
impact analyses and the preamble to the 503 discuss the factors that EPA considered,
the data and comments that were evaluated, and the determinations that it made in
developing the Regulations. This information is containcd in 15 parts:
a Part XI describes, in several subparts, the requirements that apply to the use and
disposal of biosolids. Part XI also contains the requirements for septage use and
disposal, pathogen and vector attraction requirements and monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
0 Part XI1 discusses implementation of the Rule through federal and state permit
programs and the self-implementing nature of the 503 Regulation. A separate
rulemaking by the Agency promulgated state program management requirements
and changes in the NPDES permitting requirements. [ 101
Part XI11 describes benefits, costs and regulatory impact of the Rule along with
discussion of the data limitations and assumptions.
Part XIV provides information on obtaining copies of the 503 Rule, the technical
support documents, risk assessment and regulatoq impact analysis.
0 Part XV describes changes in 40 CFR Parts 257 and 403 (i.e., revisions to part
403 and removal from coverage in Part 257 of biosolids use and disposal
methods which x e now subject to the standards established in 40 CFR Pait 503.
Part XV lists the subjects in 40 CFR Parts 257,403 and 503.
In 1984 EPA began to assess which pollutants likely to be found in biosolids should
be examined closely as candidates for numerical limits. A list of approximately 200
pollutants in biosolids that if disposed of improperly could cause adverse human health
or environment al€ects was developed. The list was then revised by adding or deleting
pollutants using the potential risks to human health and the environment when a
particular pollutant was applied to the land, placed in a landfill or incinerated as the
test for inclusion or exclusion on the revised list. EPA also requested that the most
likely routes which a pollutant could travel to reach target organisms (human, plant or
wild or domestic animals) be identified. This process resulted in a recommendation
by the experts that the agency gather additional environmental information on
approximately 50 pollutants listed in Table 2-1.
In 1984 and 1985, EPA gathered data on the toxicity, persistence, transport and
environmental fate of the 50 pollutants being evaluated. The Agency also developed
preliminay information on the relative frequency of concentration of these pollutants
in biosolids by analyzing the product of 43-45 POTWs (depending on the pollutant)
in 40 cities. This 40-city study provided data on concentration of 40 pollutants (1 2
metals, 6 base neutral organic compounds, 6 volatile organic compounds, 9 pesticides,
and 7 PCBs).
Using this preliminay infoimation, EPA assessed the likelihood that each
pollutant would adversely affect human health or the environment. For this effort,
EPA used screening models and calculations to predict the concentration of a pollutant
that would occur in surface or groundwater, soil, air or food, then compare that
prdcted concentration with an Agency human health criterion, such as a drinking
Regulatory Requirements 65
AldridDieldrin X
~
1 Arsenic I x X X
Benzene X X
Benzo(a)anthracene X
Benzo(a)pyrene x X
I I
X
X X
Cadmium X X X
Carbon tetrachloride X
I Chlordane* X X
Chlorinated dibenzodioxins X
Chlorinated dibenzofurans X
Chloroform X
Chromium* X ~
X X
Cobalt X X
Copper* X X X
Cyanide* X X
DDTDDDDDE X X X
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-acetic
acid* I -x
Dimethylnitrosamine* X
66 Forste
Nickel* X X X
PCBs X X X
Pentachlorophenol* X X
Phenathrene X X
Phenol' X
Selenium* X
Tetrachloroethylene* X
Toxaphene X X X
Trichloroethylene X X
Regulatory Requirements 67
Trichlorophenol X
Tricresyl phosphate X
Vinyl chloride X
Zinc* X X X
* Pollutant evaluated found not to interfere with one or more use/disposal option(s).
water standard, to determine whether the pollutant could be expected to have an
adverse effect on human heallh. For this initial screening, EPA assumed conditions
that would maximize the pollutant exposure of an individual animal or plant, as well
as the worst possible pollutant related effects.
Based on concentration, toxicity, persistence and other factors, EPA scored each
pollutant and ranked them for more rigorous analysis, excluding two categories of
pollutants for M e r evaluation. Excluded were those which, when compared to a
simple index, presented no risk to human health or the environment at the highest
concentration found in the 40-city study or other databases, or, secondly, lacked human
health criteria or sufficient data to be evaluated at the time. [ 1 11
Table 2-1 notes the pollutants EPA did not analyze hrther because of their
demonstrated lack of negative eflect on human health or the environment. These
pollutants are also included in the list of pollutants for which eligible POTWs, by
complyingwith the requirements in Part 503, may under 40 CFR Part 403, apply for
authorization to grant removal credits to their industrial dischargers, shown in Table
2-2.
TheEPA also proposed to include septage from septic tanks in the definition of
"scwage sludge" and thus within the scope of the proposed requirements. EPA did not
propose separate standards for septage from septic tanks but rather regulated septage
under the various use or disposal practices contained in the proposed Rule.
The pollutant limits, management practices and other requirements were specific to
the use or disposal method employed. The use or disposal methods included in the
proposal were 1) application to agricultural or non-agricultural land, 2) distribution
and marketing (referred to in the final SO3 Regulations as sale or giveaway of
biosolids), 3) disposal in monofills, 4) disposal in on surface disposal sites, and 5)
incineration.
Forste
a. Land Amhcation
chain, the numerical limit was based on crops fed to animals intended for human
consumption. In contrast, the distribution and marketing scenario centered on a fruit
and vegetable home garden, not a garden in which feed for animals is raised.
Therefore, the numerical limits for pollutants in distribution and marketing were
somewhat higher than those for agricultural land application.
c. Monofills
d. Surface Disposal
Since the solids resulting from wastewater treatment typically include bacteria,
viruses, protozoa and helminth ova which can cause diseases (usually enteric diseases
through direct human contact with the organism or through the ingestion of an affected
animal), the proposal included requirements for the control of pathogens in biosolids.
It also required measures for reducing contact of the disease "vectors" with such
pathogens. The pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements were required
for biosolids applied to agricultural and non-agricultural land, distributed and
marketed or disposed of on a monofill or surface disposal site.
70 Forste
f. Incineration Requirements
The proposed 503 Regulations contained requirements for biosolids that are
incinerated in an incinerator firing only biosolids. Such incinerators were required to
comply with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) for mercury and beryllium. For lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and
nickel, the proposed Regulations set limits on the concentration of these mctals in the
biosolids that would be incinerated based on two factors: 1) the control cficiency of
the incinerator and 2) the dispersion factor (i.e., the relationship between ground level
concentrations and pollutant emissions). Limits were designed to result in ground
level concentrations for a given pollutant that would fall below the value required to
protect human health at a cancer risk level of 10.'. For lead, the standard National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead; for h s calculation, biosolids incinerators were
assigned 25% of the air shed loading for lead.
The 1989 proposed rulemaking also contained a limit for maximum allowable
total hydrocarbon concentration in biosolids. Like the metal limits, this limitation
would vary with dispersion factors and control efficiency. It was also designed to
prevent ground level concentrations of total hydrocarbons above a level associated
with a cancer risk of lo', To determine this risk-specific concentration for total
hydrocarbons, EPA used a number of assumptions about which organic pollutants
Regulatory Requirements 71
comprised the total hydrocarbon mixture and the levels at which these organics were
present.
4. Risk Assessnient
EPA's risk assessment processes and tools have been developed to identily the
potential for adverse aRects associated with a pollutant in order to deteimine what, if
any, measures are needed to protect public health and the environment. In developing
the 503 Regulations, EPA evaluated such risk from individual pollutants present in
biosolids. This risk assessment can be broken down into four stages:
hazard identification
5 dose-response evaluation
* exposure evaluation
* characterization of risks
72 Forste
Hazard Identification
The first element in risk assessment--hazard identification--determines the nature
of the effects that may be experienced by an exposed human or ecosystem from
an identified pollutant. Thus, hazard identification helps to determine whether a
pollutant poses a hazard and whether sufficient information exists to perform a
quantitative risk assessment. By gathering and evaluating all relevant data that
help determine whether a pollutant poses a specific hazard and quantitatively
evaluating those data on the bases of the type of effect produced, the conditions
of exposure and the metabolic processes that govern pollutant behavior within the
organism, potential hazards can be identified. Hazard identification may also
characterize the behavior of a pollutant in the environment (or within an
organism) as well interactions within the environment or within an organism.
Hazard identification therefore helps to determine whether it is scientifically
appropriate to infer that observed effects under one set of conditions (e.g., in
experimental animals) are likely to occur in other settings (e.g.,in human beings)
and whether a quantitative risk assessment can be developed from available data.
The first step in hazard identification is to gather mformation on the toxic
properties of pollutants through animal studies and controlled epidemiological
investigations of exposed human populations.
Animal toxicity studies are based on assumptions that effects in human
beings can be inferred from effects in animals. Animals bioassays include acute
exposure tests, subchronic tests, and chronic tests. Acute exposure to high doses
for short periods of time (usually 24 hours or less) is most commonly measured
as m e d m lethal dose (Ld&-(the dose level that is lethal to 50 percent of the test
animals). Ld,is also used for aquatic toxicity tests (i.e,, concentrations of the test
substance in water that will result in 50 percent mortality in test species).
Substanceswith a low LD, are more acutely toxic than those with higher values;
for example, sodium cyanide has an M,, of 6.4 m g k g while that of sodium
chloride is 3000 mgkg. Subchronic tests utilize repeated exposure of test
animals for periods ranging from 5 to 90 days depending on the animals by
exposure routes which comespond to human exposures. Such tests are used to
determine the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). This
latter is the largest dose a test animal can receive for most of its lifetime without
demonstrating adverse effects (not including cancer). For chronic effects, test
animals receive h l y doses of the test agent for approximately two to three years
at doses lower than those used in acute and subchronic studies. The number of
animals for these tests is also larger since the tests are trying to determine effects
that will be observed in only a small percentage of the animals tests.
Health effects can also be evaluated using epidemiology, the study of patterns
of disease in human populations and the factors the influence those patterns.
Well-conducted epidemiological studies are generally viewed by scientists as the
Regulatory Requirements 73
most valuable information from which to draw inferences about human health
risks. Unlike the other approaches described above, epidemiological methods
evaluate the effects of hazardous substances directly on human beings. They help
to identify human health hazards without requiring knowledge of the causative
factor and they complement information gained from animal studies.
Epidemiological studies compare the health status of a group of people who
have been exposed to a suspected causal agent with that of a comparable non-
exposed group. In case control studies, individuals with a specific disease are
identified (cases) and compared with individuals not having the disease (control)
in order to attempt to find common exposures. Cohort studies begin with a group
of people (a cohort) considered fi-eeof the specific disease; the health status of the
cohort known to have a common exposure is examined over time to determine
whether specific conditions or causes of death occur more frequently than might
be expected from other causes.
The next step in hazard identification is to combine the data to ascertain the
degree of hazard associated with each pollutant. EPA generally uses different
approaches to assess hazard associated with carcinogenic versus non-
carcinogenic effects. For non-carcinogenic health effects (e.g., mutagenic effects,
systemic toxicity), EPA's hazard identificatiodweight of evidence determination
has not been formalized and is based on qualitative assessment.
For carcinogenic risk assessment, EPA groups all human and animal data
reviewed into the following categories of degree of evidence of carcinogenicity:
- sufficient
limited (e.g., in animals increased incidents of benign tumors only)
inadequate
no data available
0 no evidence of carcinogenicity
Human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity in these categories is
combined into the following classifications:
Group A - human carcinogen
Group B - probable human carcinogen
B 1 - higher degree of evidence
B2 - lower degree of evidence
Group C - possible human carcinogen
Group D - not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
Group E - evidence of non-carcinogenicity
The following factors are evaluated by judging the relevance of the data for
a particular pollutant:
- quality of data
resolving power of the studies
relevance of route and timing of exposure
appropriateness of dose selection
74 Forste
replication of effects
number of species examined
availability of human epidemiologic study data
Hazard identification enables researchers to characterize the body of
scientific data in such a way that the following questions can be answered: 1) Is
a pollutant a hazard? 2) Is a quantitative assessment appropriate? Conducting
such quantitative assessments involves dose-response evaluations and exposure
evaluation.
These uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate from acute to chronic effects, to
accounf for differences in species sensitivity or variation in sensitivity in human
populations and, if appropriate, to extrapolate from an LOAEL to a NOAEL. If
information is available for only one route of exposure, this infomation is used
to extrapolate to other routes in the absence of I s and RfCs for those routes.
Once an RfD or R E is derived, the next step in risk assessment is to estimate
exposure.
Exposure Evaluation
EPA relies on two methods to determine pollutant concentration: 1) direct
monitoring of pollutant levels and 2) using mathematical models to predict
pollutant concentrations. Atter environmental pollutant concentrations are
determined by one of the above methods, EPA then determines the severity of the
exposure by evaluating data on the nature and size of the population exposed,
exposure route (i.e., oral, inhalation, dermal), the extent of exposure
(concentration x time) and the circumstances of exposure.
Collecting monitoring data provides the most accurate information about
pollutant concentrations. Such monitoring includes personal and ambient (or site
and location) monitoring. To reduce the variability of exposure assessments to
individual persons, the technique of sampling air and water and then combining
that information with the amount of time spent in various microenvironments (i.e.,
home, car or office) provides an estimate of exposure. Personal monitoring may
also include sampling of human body fluids (biological monitoring or
biomonitoring). Biological markers (biomarkers) can be classified as markers of
exposure of effect and susceptibility. An example of a biomarker of exposure is
lead concentration in blood. A biomarker of effect measures some biochemical,
physiologic or other alteration within the organism that points to impaired health.
Biomonitoring may also refer to the regular sampling of animals, plants or
microorganisms in an ecosystem. Ambient monitoring (or site or location
monitoring) involves collecting samples from the air, water, soil or sediment at
predetermined locations and analyzing them to determine environmental
concentrations at those locations. Exposures can be further evaluated by
modeling the fate and transport of the pollutants.
Measurements are a direct and preferred source of information for exposure
analysis, but such measurements are expensive and are oAen limited
geographically. Such data can be best used to calibrate mathematical models that
simulate the movement of pollutants into and through the environment with
mathematical equations or algorithms that can be more widely applied.
Mathematical models must account for both physical and chemical properties
related to fate and transport and must document mathematical properties, spacial
properties and time properties. Of the hundreds of models for fate, transport and
dispersion available for all media, there are five general types: atmospheric,
76 Forste
-. PoDulation Analvsis
Population analysis describes the size, characteristicsand habits of potentially
exposed human and non-human populations. Census and other survey data may
be usem in iden* and describing the populations exposed to a pollutant.
Integratedexposme a d y s s calculatesexpowe levels and describes the exposed
population and uses this information to quantify the contact of an exposed
population to each pollutant under investigationvia all routes of exposure and all
pathways h m the sources to the exposed individuals. In addition,uncertainty
must be described and quantified to the extent possible to achieve a valid
exposure analysis.
EpA's policy with respect to risk characterizationis designed to convey the
extent of the Agency's confidence in risk estimates. It is also important that risk
assessment information be clearly presented and separate fiom any risk
management considerations. Evaluating how exposure assessments were
conducted provides one method for i d e n e g the uncertainties in risks. For
example, in the human health risk assessment for the 503 Regulations, the
technical support documents define several exposure pathways for the three
biosolids management practices. EPA used point estimates for each exposure
pathway and did not consider variability of the parameters describingexposure
among individuals. Based on the amount of data and the lack of accepted risk
assessment methodologies in certain areas, it is difllcult to judge whether the
point estimates in the human health risks assessment and assumptionsmade in the
ecological effects assessment are likely to underestimateor overestimate actual
risks. Some aspects of the risk analysis probably contain coI1sefv(Ltiveor
protective assumptions while other factors may bias results in the opposite
direction. Also,some assumptions are based on EPA policy and reflect risk
management choices; some of which are conservativewhile others are less so.
a series of unmtainly factors so that higher exposures may also not present any
appmiablerisk For example, it assumesthat humans may be an order of magnitude
more Sensitivethanthe animals tested. But in fact humans may also be less sensitive.
This Bssesgnenf method also assumes,except as noted, that the risk assessmentsrelied
an far theseregulationsare based on exposureslasting a lifetime, whereas in fact they
may be much shorter. Similarly, cancer risks are calculated in the risk assessment
guidelines as "plausibleupper bounds" to the actual risk. Conservativeassumptions
used in these calculations, such as use of the most sensitiveanimal data in bioassays,
linear extrapolaticnto low doses, species-to-species conversionbased on surface area
and use of an upper confidence limit for the dose response slope make it unlikely that
cancer risk would be greater than what is calculated; in fact, it could be orders of
magnitude less or even zero. The application of uncertainty factors in the risk
assessment process provides a conservative level of protection even in the face of
limited data on the factors described above.
market today; therefore, these biosolids with higher metal concentrations most
likely produced higher plant concentrations than would be likely using current
values.
A further uncertainty results from the way the geometric mean calculations
were performed. A value of 0.001 was used as the uptake slope from studies
which showed no significant increase in metal uptake by the crops. Since the
geometric mean calculation is very sensitive to the inclusion of low values and it
appears that 0.001 is smaller than the upperbound on uptake that would be
obtained from "no significant increase in metal uptake" studies, the use of this
default slope of 0.001 may therefore underestimate the typical slope for crop
uptake.
Dietary Consumption
Pollutant limits for the 503 Regulations were calculated based on population
average food consumption estimates. Survey data from short-term food
consumption reports of large surveyed populations provided the basis for these
estimates--an accepted basis for estimating population average food consumption
rates.
Such estimates do not reflect the higher food consumption rates per unit of
body weight of young children compared with adults. Another limitation arises
from the fact that it is possible that individuals who raise a particular crop may
have a highcr consumption rate than do individuals who only buy such a crop.
On the other hand, homc gardens do not produce a specific crop year round,
which may offset this bias.
EPA estimated the amount of food coming from biosolids treated land using
USDA survey data on average percentage food consumption from home-grown
crops. EPA estimated that large garden plots were required to produce the
amount of home grown crops consumed although EPA believes that a relatively
small percentage of gardens are that large. Also, because of seasonal factors it
may be difficult for most gardeners to produce the quantities of leaf) vegctables
that are assumed; leafy vegetables are an important factor in the risk assessment
since they tend to have high mctal uptake slopes.
cultivated forest species and perennials and these may differ in their response to
biosolids-borne contaminants.
Metal phytotoxicity depends particularly on soil pH and the degree of
binding to the biosolids matrix. Since most metals are more available in acidic
soil, EPA used the assumption of a soil pH of 5.5 as representing a reasonable
worst case condition for agricultural soils. Based upon results from several field
studies, EPA believes that metals are bound to the biosolids matrix and remain
relatively unavailable biologically.
0. Wildlife
In the absence of standard methodology at EPA for assessing iisks to wildlife,
there are uncertainties about how biosolids application affects terrestrial wildlife
and soil biota. Available data and methodologies only describe direct toxicity to
a few species. With uncertainties as to how to extrapolate this information to
other birds, mammals, amphibians and soil invertebrates whose relative
sensitivity to the compounds of concern is unknown. The ecotoxicological
analysis focused on cadmium and lead which had the most data available. EPA
used a simple linear model of bioaccumulation or bioconcentration from soil to
earthworms to shrews and did not model the more complex effects of biosolids
contaminants on the terrestrial food chain. In the absence of standard
methodologies, EPA did not consider how amendment of forest soils or edges of
agncultural fields with biosolids might change the composition of species in the
plant community, either through nutrient enhancement or phytotoxicity, and any
subsequent ramifications such changes might have throughout the food web.
Uncertainty about the impact of biosolids on soil biota exist because the criteria
are based solely on a N O E L for the earthworm (Eiseniafoetidu) which may not
be the most sensitive or appropiiate species for evaluating many of the chemicals.
Possible additional factors influencing soil flora and fauna include adding
nutrients to the soil and possible increased exposure to organisms that feed in the
litter layer due to the organic matter in biosolids. While these considerations need
to be explored further, it should be noted that the same lack of data and
uncei-hinties exist with respcct to the current agricultural practices on sites used
to produce food and feed crops throughout the US.
Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to develop standards for biosolids use
or disposal, to protcct from reasonably anticipated adverse affects, and to
promulgate these standards in two stages and to revise the standards periodically.
EPA concluded that the standards adopted on February 19, 1993 are adequately
protective based on its assessment of available data. To verify the conclusions
about the adequacy of these standards, EPA has committed to developing a
comprehensive,environmental evaluation and monitoring study. The results will
provide a database for the Round 2 biosolids standards and will also help the
Agency in its efforts to develop a comprehensive, ecological risk assessment
Regulatory Requirements 81
methodology and to conect any uncertainties in future Part 503 rulemakings. The
final plan, including study design, will be available for public comment at the
time that Round 2 regulation is proposed.
risk to the MET Aggregate risk can also be seen as an appropriate measure of
total public health impact and therefore a good indicator of whether the goal of
adequately protecting public health has been achieved. A combination of
approaches was selected by EPA for the purposes of the proposed 503; this was
revised for the hal Regulations based on current Agency policy, public comment
and scientific peer review.
For the proposed 503 Regulations, using the ME1 approach, the Agency
identified a most exposed individual plant or animal that remained for an
extended period of time at or adjacent to the site where the maximum exposure
occurs. EPA used models of 14 exposure pathways to determine the
concentration of biosolids-borne pollutants that may be utilized or disposed of in
each use and disposal practice without exceeding human health or environmental
criterions. These criteria were taken from those already published or
promulgated by the Agency, fiom human health criteria developed by the Agency
or from plant and animal toxicity values published in scientific literature. For
example, to protect sources of drinking water, pollutant limits were developed
which would ensure that the Agency’s maximum contaminant levels were not
violated. For surface water protection, Water Quality Criteria were used. For
carcinogens, the risk specific doses corresponding to an incremental carcinogenic
risk level of 1 x 10” were used for all use and disposal practices except when
biosolids were distributed and marketed. For distribution and marketing,
numerical limits were established so as not to exceed an incremental carcinogenic
risk level of 1 x lo6. For all pathways, the human MEIs assumed to be the most
sensitive individuals were continuously exposed over a 70 year lifetime.
Endpoints for the ecologicals MEIs were conservatively developed using the most
sensitive species with steady state duration and concentration of exposure over
a critical life period.
For all use or disposal practices, carcinogenic risk targets were applied
pollutant by pollutant, except for the organic pollutants in the emissions of
biosolids incinerators. In this case, EPA set a limit on total hydrocarbon
emissions, rather than on each individual pollutant as described previously.
For the proposed 503 Regulations, the Agency’s approach to situations where
individuals were unlikely to be exposed to biosolids pollutants (i.e., forests,
reclaimed lands, and others) a proposed 98th-percentile pollutant concentration
was developed based on the assumption that such practices would have negligible
impacts on human diets. These pollutant concentration limits also applied to
surface disposal since the Agency believed such sites are generally small, located
away from population centers and presented little likelihood of exposure.
Regulatory Requirements 83
EPA Science Advisory Board -- The SAE3 reviewed the technical bases of the
incineration portion of the incineration portion of the regulation. As various SAB
committees have reviewed similar EPA incineration regulations in the past, most
notably for municipal solid waste combustion and hazardous waste incineration.
Their final report of August 7, 1989 was also submitted to EPA. [ 131
During the comment period, EPA received more than 5,500 pages of comments
from 656 commenters during the 183 day public comment period. Comments were
submitted from municipalities, industries, federal and state agencies, professional
associations, academia and the general public. These comments were provided in
addition to the foimal peer review described above.
These public and scientific review groups provided EPA a comprehensive rangc
of opinions, comments, and recommendations. Many commenters criticized the
Agency's risk assessment as being overconservative for some use and disposal
practices and underconseivative for others. Other significant areas of criticism
included the risk levels used by EPA ( i c , which risk levels are most appropriate);
data selection and the parameters used in the analysis of exposure assessment and thc
impacts that the proposed nile would have on beneficial use of biosolids. Following
the public comment period, EPA provided public notice of the availability of National
Sewage Sludge Sluvey data along with information and data from the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Study and the Domestic Septage Study. The notice described some of the
rcsults of the survey and changes the Agency considered making to the proposed 503
Regulations as a result of these studies. The notice also requested comments on a
a4 Forste
number of changes to the use and disposal standards that were being considered for
the 503 Regulations in light of the comments submitted earlier the peer review and
new idormation developed since the February 8, 1989 proposal. During the 60-day
public comment period for the NSSS notice, the Agency received more than 1000
pages of comments from 153 commenters. Many of these comments supported the
changes identified in the notice as potential revisions to Part 503.
A. Introduction
Thc Agency's proposed regulatory approaches received extensive peer review and
public comment, focusing especially on the ME1 exposure scenario used and the use
of the 98th percentile technique.
The Agency agreed with many of the comments provided by the public and the
scientific peer review committees and noted that there is no clear guidance in Section
405, which contains only limited discussion of how to establish pollutant limits and
concluded that its statutory duty was to protect against reasonable risks to exposed
populations and not to risk associated with highly unlikely or unusual circumstances.
Therefore, the Agency decided to evaluate the risk to a highly exposed individual
(I-IEI) instead of the ME1 for the final 503 risk assessment. This approach more
realistically protects the health of individuals or populations which are at higher risks
than the population as a whole.
EPA retained a 70-year exposure for the HE1 in the final risk assessmcnt as a
conservative assumption in the context of a highly mobile society. Furthermore, this
70-year exposure duration represents a steady state assumption that is consistent with
the measure of carcinogenic risk (i.e., the probability of contracting cancer based upon
a lXetime--70 year-exposure). Tlus esposure assessment assumption, which is in part
a policy judgment by EPA, was considered by the Agency to be preferable to the less
conservative alternatives suggested and, in the Agency's opinion, represents an
appropriate response to their obligation to protect public health. Furthermore, EPA
believes that retaining the 70-year assumption insures that the population of highly
esposed individuals will remain extremely small.
In preparing the proposed 503 Regulations, EPA used what it believed were
"reasonableworst-case assumptions." Each of these has a margin of safety associated
with it, depending on the accuracy ofdata and information supporting it. For example,
if EPA had insufficient data from biosolids/field studies 011 metals uptake in crops,
data from biosolids/pot studies or saldpot studies were used in the original ME1 risk
assessment analysis. The margin of safety associated with the data from saltlpot
studies is much geater than the margin of safety associated with data from
biosolids/pot studies and far greater than the margin of safety associated with data
from biosolids/field studies.
Regulatory Requirements 85
The proposed Regulations were developed using each of the above types of data
described above and in addition, selected data using only studies which showed an
effect, thus eliminating valid field studies in favor of pot studies or salt studies which
showed an effect which did not occur at similar levels in the field. Individual
researchers and members of the peer review committee emphasized that data from pot
and metal salt experiments should not be extrapolated to results found in the field.
Thus the peer review concluded that the approach used to select data for individual
contaminants and pathways in the proposed rule was scientifically unsound and needed
to be revised.
The peer review committee also criticized E P A s identification of an ME1 in the
proposed rulemaking. As noted by the committee:
The problem occurred when a series of parameters and assumptions, each having
large margins of safety, were used in the same exposure pathway assessment. This
results in an unrealistically conservative analysis which the Agency acknowledged
could conceivably over-regulate a useldisposal practice.
Information provided by the NSSS, the incinerator study, the scientific peer
review committees and the public was incorporated into the aggregate risk assessment
for the final Rule and showed minimal risk from current biosolids management
methods (pre-Part 503 or base line risk). EPA agreed with the public and the
scientific peer review committees that the 98th percentile approach is inconsistent
with the ME1 approach and that numerical limitations derived ftom the 98th percentile
approach do not insure protection of public health and the environment because they
lack a formal pathway risk assessment. In developing the proposed 503 standards, the
Agency had relied on this approach because it did not have reliable exposure
assessment models nor input data and information to conduct the pathway risk
assessment for certain practices. The Agency also believed that this 98th percentile
approach was supported by the aggregate risk assessment which showed low exposure
86 Forste
and minimal human health impacts on the population as a whole from the use and
disposal practices which would be governed by this approach. Following the
proposal, the Agency workcd with experts within and outside EPA to devclop and
refine modeling techniques and supporting data to conduct a formal pathway risk
asscssmcnt for these practices. Public comments and scientific peer review provided
EPA with better data and lnfoimation so that numerical limitations for all biosolids use
and disposal practices could be derived using risk assessment.
For the final Regulations, EPA selected an approach based on a risk to highly
exposed individuals (HEIs) and consideration for higher risk populations (aggregate
risk assessment), not an unrealistic worst-case ME1 approach. EPA believes this
approach is consistent with the congressional intent to establish standards adequate
to protect public health and the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse
affccts of each pollutant.
In the final Regulations, EPA evaluated the risk to highly exposed individuals and
populations from pollutants found in biosolids using differcnt exposure assessment
pathways. In evaluating the standards for the final Rule, the Agency established
criteria based not only on cancer risk but on a series of other health and environmental
effects, including the overall incidence of othcr serious health effects within thc
esposed population as a whole (including average exposed and highly exposed
individuals and within special subpopulations such as children). EPA also evaluated
effects on plants and animals and considered policy assumptions, estimation of
uncertainties and margin of safety, weight of the scientific evidence for human health
and environmental effects, other quantified or unquantified health and environmental
effects and other impacts associated with use and disposal of biosolids before selecting
the final standards.
The Agency also determined that in order to insure adequate protection of public
hcalth and the environment, they needed to add safety factors to the numerical criteria
derived from the exposure assessments. This dccision also served a sccond critical
objcctivc in the rulcmaking, that is, to promotc the use of biosolids for their beneficial
properties. EPA believes that an inportant component to promote beneficial usc of
biosolids involves building public confidence that using biosolids to @-OW food that
the public eats is safe, and that adding a margin of safety to the model-derived criteria
should help to encourage this practice.
In addition, adding safety factors to the model-derived numerical criteria enabled
EPA to overcome some of the unquantifiable variables in the real world movement of
pollutants fi-ombiosolids to environmental end points. EPA therefore made a number
of assumptions to reduce the complexity of actual experience. The Agency believcd
that these exposure assessments generated numerical criteria consistent with the stated
goals of the rulemaking. Also, through its exposure assessments, EPA derived
numerical limitations from metals that represented the total quantity that could be
added to the soil. So long as that total quantity (loading) for the metal is not exceeded,
the eqosure assessment models predict that there will be no haim to the HEI. Sincc
Regulatory Requirements a7
the model does not concern itselfwith whether the total quantity is received in a single
application or over time, adopting a purely cumulative loading approach would mean
that biosolids with extremely high metals concentration could be applied to the land
so long as the cumulative load is not exceeded. Such an approach, which is strictly
risk based, could therefore allow for degradation of current biosolids quality. EPA's
aggregate risk assessment shows only small effects associated with current use and
disposal--that is, biosolids used at pre-503 pollutant concentration levels presented a
low risk and therefore such levels already had an inherent level of protection.
The models do not look exclusively at data from the most heavily contaminated
biosolids. Therefore, in order to ensure continued protection of public health and the
environment EPA determined that existing quality of biosolids applied to land should
be "protected" and not allowed to deteriorate above current concentration levels. EPA
has stated that implicit in its numerical pollutant limits for land application is the
assumption that biosolids with low concentrations of pollutants are safe and to
downgrade the quality of biosolids reduces the protective levels inherent in such
limits. EPA concluded that its uncertainty about the protectiveness of the numerical
criteria derived from the exposure assessment models for land application is increased
by adding margins of safety to the numerical criteria. Accordingly, the Agency placed
a "ceiling" on the concentration of pollutants in biosolids that may be applied to land
at the 99th perccntile pollutant concentration from the NSSS survey. This ceiling
concentration is the &r of the 99th percentile pollutant concentration or risk based
pollutant limitation and acts as a trigger, dictating when biosolids quality is no longer
suitable for beneficial use, regardless of how it is applied to the land. One important
purpose of the ceiling limits is to direct the "cleanest biosolids" into beneficial usc
practices. The agency has also "capped" the numerical pollutant limits for land
application at the 99th percentile pollutant concentration found in the NSSS. If that
concentration is lower than the risk-based numerical pollutant limit, this cap
dctermines when biosolids quality is suitable for beneficial use under the alternative
pollutant limit concept or must be applied using cumulative pollutant loading rates as
discussed below.
EPA made these risk policy decisions (i.e., the capping and ceiling) to provide an
additional margin of safety to protect public health and the environment beyond the
risk-based standards developed for the final rule while maintaining quality to
encourage utilization consistent with the Agency's beneficial use policy.
A complete description of the exposure assessment methodology and risk
management issues for the proposcd 503 rulemaking is found at 54 Federal Register
5764 - 5791. The following section describes the exposure assessment pathways
modeled in the final Part 503 Rule and the basis for the decisions made in developing
the approach for each use and disposal practice. A detailed discussion of the exposure
assessment methodology (i.e., models, pathways, parameter values, assumptions and
others) and the risk management decisions used by EPA to develop the final Part 503
numerical critcria are contained in the Technical Support Documents.
88 Forste
9 Surface Disposal
Biosolids-soil-air-human (Pathway 13)
Biosolids-soil-groundwater-human(Pathway 14)
Incineration
Biosolids-incineration particulate-air-human (Pathway 13)
Regulatory Requirements 89
* Most limiting pathway (regulatory limit) for arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury
and selenium.
** Most limiting pathway (regulatory limit) for copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
For situations where EPA determined that these exposure assessment pathways
for a particular use or disposal option did not yield adequately protective results,
additional management practices were imposed under the Regulations to prevent
environmental abuses and to protect public health.
All pathways, except 3 , s and 7, assume the mixing of biosolids with 15 cm (i.c.,
six inch plow layer) of the suiface soil, either by incorporation or by natural
weatheringprocesses. Using this assumption, which entails the affected surface layer
having a mass of two million kghectare, pollutant concentrations in soil (per unit mass
of soil) could be converted to cumulative pollutant loading rates for metals (mass of
pollutant/hectare of land, In addition, annual pollutant loading rates for organics (mass
of pollutant per hectare of land per 365-days) could also be converted to pollutant
concentrations in soil.
EPA first determined the pollutant concentration in soil that would be allowed
(i.e., the maximum pollutant concentration in soil that when taken up by a plant and
consumed by a target organisms does not produce undue risk for a particular pathway).
Having made that determination, the model then can be used to determine the
allowable pollutant loading rate in two different ways.
I. Metals are determined based on a cumulative pollutant loading rate. That is, the
total quantity of metals consistent with no undue risk. This number is derived
from the allowable pollutant concentration in the soil multiplied by the mass of
soil in the top 15 cm of a hectare of land.
2. The annual pollutant loading rate for organic pollutants (kg/ha/365 days) takes
into account the rate of pollutant loss or decay. A first order decay of organic
pollutants is assumed by the model--that is, that the quantity lost per year is
directly proportional to the quantity present. Assuming continued annual
applications, pollutant concentrations for organics gradually approach a plateau
at which the quantity lost each year equals the quantity applied. Therefore, the
annual pollutant loading rate is dcteimined such that the concentration levels off
at that allowable soil concentration when biosolids are applied for n long period
of time.
For human exposure pathways, maximum pollutant intake allowed was based on
several different EPA health effects criteria: reference dose (RtD), recommended
daily allowance (RDA), or concentration (RE) for noncarcinogens, a risk specific
90 Forste
dose for carcinogens based on a risk level for all use and disposal practices. A
daily dietaiy intake derived from a drinking water standard or a drinking water
standard (MCL). The only exception to this approach is Pathway 11 (inhalation)
which limits the pollutant concentration in the soil to an amount which will not exceed
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health N O S H ) work place air
quality criteria ifsigmficant quantities of soil become airborne. This pathway was not
a limiting pathway for any pollutant in the final Regulations
Brief summaries of each of the pathways analyzed for the 503 Regulations are as
follows:
Pathway 2 - Evaluates the situation it1 which biosolids are added to tlie soil in
a home garden.
Pathway 2 differs from Pathway 1 primarily in the fraction of food g-oups
produced on biosolids amended soil. For this pathway, as much as 60 percent of
the EIEI's diet of certain food groups is grown in the home garden where biosolids
are used as a fertilizer. Pathway 2's home gardener produces and consumes
potatoes, l e a vegetables, legume vegetables, root vegetables and garden fi-uits;
grains, cereals and peanuts are not included in these crops because home
gardeners do not usually consume such crops when they grow them on biosolids-
amended soils.
Regulatory Requirements 91
intake. For Pathway 6, when a sensitive species has been identified for a specific
pollutant, that species is used in the exposure assessment (e.g., livestock,
domestic grazing animals, birds and rodents).
-
Pathway 11 Evaluates liuiiian exposure to biosolids pollutants through
inhalation.
A tractor driver tilling the field is the HE1 for Pathway 1 1 which evaluates the
impact of suspended particles of dewatered biosolids. Pathway 1 1 assumes the
incorporation of biosolids to a depth of 15 cm and a distance from the driver to
the soil surface of 1 m with no more than 10 mglcubic meter (mglm’) of total
dust.
Regulatory Requirements 93
Numerical limits were derived for both covered and uncovered suiface disposal
sites, considering pollutant losses through three processes: volatilization, on-site
degradation, and leaching.
Public comments and the scientific peer review of 503 resulted in changes in
many of the assumptions and data originally proposed for the exposure assessment
methodology. These changes resulted in more realistic exposure scenarios re1at'ive to
the use of biosolids which are land applied for agricultural purposes. A discussion of
the major comments, responses and actions taken by EPA are contained in the final
Part 503 Regulations and the Techrucal Support Document for Land Application. [ 141
These sources provide detailed information on the Agency's response to the significant
comments on the exposure pathways and the final action in the 503 Rule resulting
from the Agency's evaluation of such comments.
Domestic SeDtane
Many of the 130 commenters who provided input to the Agency on the proposed
regulations for septage, opposed the 1989 proposed limits as overly stringent,
burdensome and with little or no environmental benefit. As a result of these
comments, the Agency agreed that the regulation of septage in a manner similar to
Regulatory Requirements 95
biosolids would have been difficult to implement and therefore unlikely to achieve the
Agency's public health and environmental statutory objectives. Based on this
assessment, EPA developed an alternative regulatory strategy for septage which
replaced the 503 pollutant monitoring and cumulative pollutant loading limits used for
biosolids with a single hydraulic loading rate (30,000 gallons per acre per year). Thc
revised approach also requires short-term lime stabilization to control pathogcn and
vector attraction or site use and access restrictions in the absence of pH control. EPA
also simplified many of the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
domestic septage.
The h a l rule on domestic septage contains limits on hydraulic loading based on
an average septage analysis to provide an estimated crop nitrogen rate. Short-teii
alkaline stabilization for septage may be achieved by raising the pH to 12 or greater
for 30 minutes. If alkaline stabilization is not possible and domestic septage is applied
to agricultural land, crops whose edible portions may contact the surrace soil and root
crops grown in the soil are prohibited for 14 and 38 months rcspectively following
septage application. In addition, for sites where potential for public exposure is high
(e.g., parks and recreational areas) public access must be restricted for 12 months
following application of domestic septage; whcre such potential esposure is low,
public access must be restricted for 30 days. Similarly, animals must not be allowed
to graze or feed crops harvested for 30 days. [ 151
The standards contained in the final Part 503 Regulations consist of general
requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, operational standards
and requirements for frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.
In the final regulation, EPA uses the term "land application" in a restrictive sense to
delineate clearly between different regulatory requirements. Since biosolids are
not only disposed on land, but in many cases also used to condition the soil or
provide nutrients, the Part 503 uses the phrase land application only when referring
to biosolids used for their beneficial properties. When biosolids are disposed of by
placing them on the land, Part 503 rcfers to this practice as "surface disposal."
Requirements for biosolids applied to the land differ for bulk material or that
soldgiven away in a bag or other container. The latter is used to distinguish situations
in which biosolids are typically applied in small amounts in a single application (e.g.,
home gardens) from those in which biosolids may be applied in large quantities ovcr
wide areas (e.g., agricultural and reclamation use) or bulk material. Many of the
requirements in the regulation apply to the "person who prepares" biosolids--referring
to the person or entity that effectively controls the quality of the biosolids or the
material derived therefrom that is ultimately either used or disposed. For esamplc, in
situations where a treatment works generates biosolids that are blended with othcr
96 Forste
substences, the person blending is the one who prepares the biosolids since he controls
the quality of the material that is ultimately used or disposed.
The final rule requires that any person who generates biosolids or derives a
material from biosolids, any person who applies biosolids to the land, any
ownedoperator of a surface disposal site, and any person who fires biosolids in an
incherator must maintain certain records. It also establishes reporting requirements
for Class I biosolids management facilities, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
with a design flow rate 2 1 million gallons per day, and POTWs that Serve 10,000
people or more.
The "surface dqmd"subpart (C) in thefinal regulations combines the originally
proposed subparts on monofills and surface disposal because differences between
theae two did not merit separate treatment, since in either case the material is placed
on the land for final disposal and may present essentially similar potential threats to
public health and the environment.
EPA also moved the subpart on removal credits fiom the final Part 503
Regulations to the general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403) since the
Agency believed tha! these lists of pollutants eligible for removal credit more logically
belonged with the pretreatment requirements.
Unlined' Linedb
Arsenic - - 100' -
AldrinlDie1cb-h(Total) 2.7 - - -
Benzane 16' 140 3400 -
-oopyrene 15 100' looc -
-
~
Chmmium - - 100' -
copper - 46' looC 1400
Molybdenum - 40 40 -
Nickel - - 100s -
N-N- ' ylamine 2.1 0.088 0.088 -
Pentachlorophenol 30 - - -
Phenol I 82 82 -
Polychlorinated biphenyls 4.6 <50 <50 -
Selenium - 4.8 4.8 4.8
of concern for Part 503 was developed indicated that the existing concentrations of
pollutants in biosolids did not exceed those concentrations contained on the list in
Table 2-2. EPA also determined that at those concentrations the pollutants do not
pose a threat to public health and the environment at the highest levels detected.
Secondly, the pollutant was placed on the GI1 list shown in Table 2-2 if, after
determining a risk level, EPA decided not to regulate this pollutant in the final Part
503 Regulations. The concentration specified for those pollutants to be eligible for
removal credits are the concentrations developed during the risk assessment. These
pollutants are designated with an asterisk on the list in Table 2-2.
Based upon either low concentration or low risk as described above, a removal
credit is available for those pollutants with respect to the use/disposal of biosolids if
the concentration of the pollutant in the biosolids is less than or equal to the
concentration shown in Table 2-2 and if the treatment works complies the applicable
requirements in 40 CFR 403.7.
A POTW applying for removal credits must provide proof that the pollutant
concentrations in its biosolids do not exceed the pollutant concentrations shown in
Table 2-2. If subsequent monitoring reveals pollutant concentrations above those
levels or any more stringent level in the biosolids permit, the POTW is no longer
eligible for removal credit authority for that pollutant. Removal credit eligibility is
h t e d to those pollutants regulated specifically in Part 503 and to pollutants that the
Agency determines do not threaten public health and the environment as specified
concentrations.
The general provisions of Part SO3 establish standards for biosolids applied to the
land or disposed by surface disposal or incineration. The requirements for reducing
organisms in biosolids that cause disease (pathogens) are contained in Subpart D of
Part 503. Either Class A or Class B pathogen reduction requirements must be met
when biosolids are applied to the land or placed on a surface disposal site. In addition,
the regulations require reduction of vector attraction, that is, control of those
characteristics of biosolids that attract disease-spreading agents (e.g., flies or rats)
when applied to the land or placed on a surface disposal site. There are no pathogen
or vector atlraction reduction requirements for biosolids fired in an incinerator which
achieves such reduction during the incineration process.
For land application, the pollutant limits and management practices protect public
health and the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse affects of arsenic,
cadmum, chromium, copper, lead, mercuiy, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and zinc
in the biosolids. EPAevaluated the risks associated with organic pollutants and other
inorganic pollutants in biosolids and concluded that numerical pollutant limits for
these are not required for the reasons described in this chapter.
For surface disposal, the pollutant limits and management practices are
established to protect public health and the environment from the reasonably
anticipated adverse affects of arsenic, chromium and nickel in the biosolids. For
incineration, these limits and practices are based on arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
Regulatory Requirements 99
chromium, lead, mercury and nickel in the biosolids. In addition, EPA established an
operational standard for biosolids incinerators that limit the total hydrocarbons (THC)
in the exit gas from a biosolids incinerator stack.
The recordkeeping requirements of the 503 Regulations specify who must
develop and retain information, what information must be developed and the length
of time such information must be kept. Section 405(f) of the CWA provides that
permits issued to a publicly owned treatment works or any treatment works treating
domestic sewage shall include conditions to implement the Part 503 Regulations
unless such are included in permits issued under other federal or approved state
programs. Thus,Part 503 requirements may be implemented through a CWA permit,
a Subtitle C Solid Waste Disposal Act Permit, a Part C Safe Drinking Water Act
Permit, a Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaiy Act Permit, a Clean Air Act
Permit, a permit under an approved state program or an EPA-issued "Sludge Only"
permit. However, it should be noted that the requirements in the Part 503 must be met
even in the absence of a permit, i.e., the Part 503 is self-implementing. Thus a
responsible person must become aware of the Part 503 standards, comply with them,
perform appropriate monitoring and recordkeeping and, if applicable, report
information to the permitting authority even when a permit is not issued. These
standards are also directly enforceable against any person who uses or disposes of
biosolids through any of the practices addressed in the final regulations. An
enforcement action can be taken against a person who does not meet those
requirements even in the absence of a peimit.
Relevant dates for the biosolids program are shown in Table 2-3.
Requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping under Part July 20, 1993
503 become effective (except for THC)
Compliance date for Part 503 requirements other than February 19,1994
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (where construction is
not required)
Rcquireinents for reporting under Part 503 become effective February 19,1994
(except for THC)
Date for closure of active sewage sludge units 1) located within March 22, 1994
GO meters of a fault that have displacement in Holocene time
(unless authorized by the permitting authority); 2) located in a
wetland (unless authorized under an NPDES permit); or 3)
located in an unstable area
Compliance date for Part 503 requirements other than February 19,1994
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (where construction is
required)
Date when active sewage sludge unit owners/operators must 180 days prior to the
submit closure plans date the unit closes
Permit application information duc from facilities with NPDES At the time of the
pcrniits (not needing site-specific limits) next NPDES permit
renewal
Permit application information due from facilities who 180 days prior to the
commence operation after 2/19/93 date proposed for
commencing
operation
Regulatory Requirements 101
3. the risk assessment for the pollutant shows no reasonably anticipated adverse
affects at the 99th percentile concentration found in biosolids as per the NSSS.
The NSSS was specifically designed to resolve data deficiencies which EPA
acknowledged existed in the information used to develop the proposed rule.
Based on the results of the survey and the status with respect to the production of
a pollutant, the above three criteria provide a reasonable certainty that numerical
pollutant limits are unnecessary. For example, if the pollutant is banned from
production, it is highly unlikely that it will be present in biosolids and there is no
consequent need to establish numerical limits. For a number of the banned and no
longer manufactured pesticides that EPA had proposed to regulate, examination of the
NSSS data confirmed that these pesticides were not present in today's biosolids.
Fourteen pollutants meet the criteria detailed above and are no longer regulated in the
Part 503 Rule:
aldriddieldnn
benzene
benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate
chlordane
DDT (and its derivatives DDD and DDE)
dimethyl nitrosamine
heptachlor
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
lindane
polychlorinated biphenyls
toxaphene
trichloroethylene
Details on the analysis used in deciding not to regulate are contained in Appendix
A of the Technical Support Document for Land Application.
m e g a t e Risk Assessment
EPA's aggregate risk assessment evaluated the "baseline" public health impacts of
biosolids use and disposal without the 503 Regulations, assessed the impacts after
implementation and established the difference between these two estimates as the
public health "benefit"of the final rule.
For the baseline estimates, EPA used a sample of plants from the NSSS and used
additional information on the plants from the questionnaire portion of the NSSS to
develop a profile of use and disposal practices across the country. The Agency also
102 Forste
used the data to assign pollutant concentrations under baseline conditions to treatment
plants in different categories.
Data describing cancer potency or other effects were used to develop measures
of individual risk. The results provided an aggregate determination of the likely
number of individuals experiencing each effect expected per year in the affected
populations as a result of biosolids. Details on the aggregate risk assessment are
contained in the Technical Support Document, "Human Health k s k Assessment for
the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge: Benefits of Regulation"[l7]. For land
application, EPA used average values for the pollution concentrations from facilities
practicing land application as deteimined by the NSSS. The mathematical models
contained in 503 were used to predict the transport of pollutants to groundwater and
ambient air for the baseline assessments. Additional modelling was used to predict
the uptake of pollutants from treated soil to agricultural crops and animal tissues and
to estimate contamination of surface water. Using average population densities, the
Agency established current human exposure to and risk from each pollutant in
biosolids through each relevant exposure pathway.
The final step in the assessment of current risks was to extrapolate results to the
national level based on the estimated number of facilities practicing land application
and the quantity of biosolids applied. The baseline assessment showcd a pre-503 risk
of less than one possible cancer case, 1000 possible cases of individuals who would
exceed a threshold lead concentration and 500 possible individuals experiencing lead
related effects. In no CRSC did the average exposure to the other inorganic
pollutants for which limits are included in the land application exceed the
reference dose for the pollutant during the baseline assessment.
The aggregate risk assessment & implementation of the final part 503 land
application regulations are: <1 possible cancer case, <I possible individual who
exceeds a blood lead level and 4 lead case. The results indicate that pre-503 use and
disposal practices for biosolids posed little risk to public health. Sufficient data were
not available for deteimining how the regulation would reduce human exposure and
risk from land application; therefore, benefits from regulating this practice range from
0 to 100 percent of the estimated baseline risks. Even though the estimated baseline
risks from all biosolids use and disposal practices combined were very low, the
aggregate risk analysis shows that the adoption of the final standards will further
ensure that these use and disposal practices will not jeopardize public health in the
future.
domestic sewage or any device or system used in the storage, treatment, recycling and
reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage, including land dedicated to the disposal
of biosolids that are located within the confines of the facility with a design flow of 1.O
MGD or more or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR
Part 503, must control stormwater. Specifically not included are farm lands, domestic
gardens or land used for a beneficial use of biosolids which are not physically located
within the facility. For this category, EPA viewed fac es such as large treatment
works that may experience spills and bubbleovers (e.g., on-site composting and
chemical storage) as suitable candidates for stormwater permits. Such activities are
considered to be more akin to industrial activity in scope and size and hence should
be required to obtain an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges.
The 503 Regulations do not establish requirements for the specific treatment of
biosolids except for properties (other than chemical composition) that may pose a
threat to public health and the environment. Therefore, requirements to reduce
pathogens and vector attraction are provided while processes used to prepare biosolids
for final use or disposal (e.g., composting) are not subject to the 503 standards.
The pathogen requirements of Part 503 are not risk-based but are pei-fomiance
standards based on the demonstrated ability of treatment processes to reduce
pathogens. Such requirements include raising the temperature of the biosolids and
maintaining that temperature for a specific period of time.
While EPA encourages the beneficial use of biosolids through such practices as
land application, the specific use or disposal practice selected by a municipality or
authority responsible for biosolids remains a local determination and responsibility.
Therefore, the Part 503 does not establish requirements for the selection of a use or
disposal practice.
The Part 503 Regulations do not establish requirements for use or disposal of
biosolids from an industrial facility which treats industrial wastewater because those
materials are not biosolids which are generated during the treatment of donicslic
sewage in a treatment works. If industrial wastewater solids are disposed on the land,
the requirements of 40 CFR Pait 257 must be met. The 1987 Water Quality Act
included under Section 405(d) industrial manufacturing and private processing
es that treat domestic sewage combined with industrial wastewater. During the
development of the Part 503, insufficient time was available to develop standards for
use or disposal ofwastewater solids generated at such facilities. In addition, EPA did
not have sufficient information on the number of such facilities, the amount of solids
generated at them and the practices through which the solids are used or disposed in
order to evaluate the impact of the Part 503 numerical standards. The Agency also
questioned whether the models and data used to develop the numerical limits in 503
are appropriate for industrial wastewater solids which also have a domestic scwage
component. For these reasons, the Part 503 does not establish requirements for the
use or disposal of biosolids generated at an industrial facility during the treatment of
industrial wastewater combined with domestic sewage. Such materials may be
104 Forste
considered in future revisions to the Part 503. It should be noted however that the Part
503 Regulations do apply to biosolids generated at an industrial facility during the
treatment of only domestic sewage, that is, without combining the domestic sewage
with industrial wastewater. Thus all industrial wastewater treatment facilities that treat
domestic sewage, whether generated on site or off site, are considered Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage and may be required to apply for a permit under 40
CFR 122.21.
The Part 503 Regulations do not establish requirements for wastewater solids
determined to be hazardous; these materials must be used or disposed under the
,applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 268. Biosolids having a
concentration of polychlorinated biphenols 3 50 mgkg of total solids (dry weight)
must be used or disposed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 76 I ,
not the Part 503 requirements. Ash from incinerated biosolids also are not subject to
the Part 503 but must be used or disposed in accordance with the appropriate
requirement (e.g.,40 CFR Part 257 when disposed on the land). Wastewater grit and
screenings are not subject to the Part 503 Regulations as they have completely
different characteristics than biosolids and must be disposed in accordance with
appropriaterequirements (e.g., 40 CFR Part 257 when disposed on the land). Solids
generated from the processes which produce drinking water also are not subject to
Part 503 since they are not generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. Since the characteristics of domestic septage and the characteristics
ofcommercial septage (e.g., grease from a grease trap at a restaurant) and industrial
septage (e.g., from a septic tank or similar treatment works that receives industrial
wastewater) are different, the Part 503 requirements for domestic septage do not apply
to commercial or industrial septage and these are excluded from the Part 503
Regulations.
beyond monitoring and reporting to establish conformance with the three requirements
specified above. Thus, a person who blends such biosolids is not subject to any
further regulatoly requirements, including monitoring and reporting. This distinction
is especially important for products (e.g., heat-dried biosolids) which are often sold
to a dealer who then blends the biosolids with some other material for sale to the
consumer.
Pollutant Limits
Based on numerous comments on both the 1989 proposed and the 1990 NSSS, EPA
concurred with the view that protection of public health and the environment allowed
for the development of standards for biosolids that receives minimal regulation as a
result of meeting certain quality requirements. Such materials may either meet Class
A pathogen reduction requirements and be subject to no fi.uther federal regulation, or
meet Class B pathogen reduction requirements and be required to conform to the
general requirements and management practices for land application.
The numerical s t a n h d s for biosolids not subject to cumulative pollutant loading
limits result from the loading rates for inorganic pollutants (i.e. trace or "heavy"
metals) through the various exposure assessment pathways described above. EI'A
derived the pollutant concentrations in such materials from calculations using the
already established cumulative pollutant loadings and applying certain conservative
assumptions to back calculate to a pollutant concentration. Maximum metal
concentrationsfor such biosolids are shown in Table 2-4 (Table 3 of 6 503.13). Since
pollutant concentrations are based on the cumulative pollutant loading rates and
include the same conservative safety factors, they provide the same degree of
protection to human health and the environment as is provided by the cumulative
pollutant loading rates.
For the final rule, the cumulative pollutant loading rate was converted to an
annual pollutant loading rate by assuming that the entire load for the pollutant was
applied in one year, which EPA believes is a conservative assumption and unlikely to
occur. Annual pollutant loading rates were then converted to pollutant concentrations
using the following equation:
EPA assumed that the AWSAR used in this equation is 10 dry metric
tonshectare/year for 100 consecutive years. EPA believes that a pollutant
concentration derived fiom h s equation is conservative because it is unlikely that any
one site will receive 10 metric tons of biosoliddhectarehjear for 100 consecutive
years. It is also unlikely that nutrient-based (agronomic) application rates for
agricultural land will require such annual application rates for 100 consecutive years.
the 503 quality requirements are being met. This reduction of general requirements
and management practices applies both to bulk biosolids applied to the land and to
biwlids sold or given away in bag or similar container. It also applies to a material
derived ffom biosolids if that material is derived fiom a biosolids that does not meet
the three q d t y requirements.
Land AvDlication
The 503 Regulations recognize two broad categories of biosolids applied to the land
and establish requirementsfor each. For both categories,biosolids must meet metal
ceiling concentrations, otherwisethey cannot be applied to the land. The first broad
categq is bulk biosolids applied to the land, that is, biosolids that are not sold or
given away in a bag or other container. These biosolids must meet either pollutant
concentration limits or the amount of the pollutant applied to the land in the bulk
biosolids must not exceed a cumulative pollutant loading rate. The ceiling limits,
cumulative pollutant loading rates and annual pollutant loading rates are shown in
Table 2-5 (Metal Concentrations and Allowable Loadmg Rates). In addition,
pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements must be met for bulk biosolids
applied to the land and general requirements and manageme$ practices may have to
be met depending on the degree of treatment for pathogen reduction of the bulk
biosolids.
For the second broad categq--biilida sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land--oneof two pollutant limits also must be met.
The biosolids must meet the pollutant concentrations in Table 2-4 for bulk biosolids
or the amount of a pollutant applied to the land annually must not be exceeded in an
annualpollutant loading rate (Table 2-5). Annual pollutant loading rates are used to
calculate the application rate specified on a label on the bag or other container. This
rate cannot be exceeded and is based on EPA's estimation of 20 annual applications
for biwlids combined with the cumulative pollutant loading limits (the CPLR + 20).
The annual rate is for the whole biosolids, not just for a single pollutant, although one
such pollutant will govern the annual rate. In addition, these biosolids must meet the
highest quality (Class A) pathogen reduction requirements and a vector attraction
reduction requirement. Depending on quality, such biosolids may also be subject to
' general requirements and a management practice.
For land application, there are instances in which not all the requirements must be
met to comply with the standards:
If the biosolids or material derived therefi-om meets certain pollutant limits (see
Table 2-4) and operational standards for pathogen and vector attraction reduction
as well as fiequency of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for land application,
the general requirements and management practices do not apply if these three
quality requirements are met.
For a bulk material derived from biosolids, the land application subpart
requirements do not apply when the derived material meets the pollutant
concentrations in 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen reduction requirements in
503.32(a) and one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in 503.33(b)( 1)
through 503.33(b)(8). In this case, the biosolids used to produce the bulk matcrial
already meets the three quality requirements.
In the fust instances cited above, an EPA Regional Administrator or a state dircctor
in a state with an approved management program may require that any or all of the
general requirements or management practices be met on a case-by-case basis, even
when the biosolids or bulk material derived therefrom meets the three quality
requirements, if found that these are needed to protect public health and the
environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effect of a pollutant in the
biosolids. The final Part 503 Regulations do not authorize the EPA Regional
Administrator or the state dircctor to impose the general requirements and
management practices on a bulk material derived frJm a biosolids that already meets
the three quality requirements. Because the 503 requirements do not apply to
biosolids used to make that material once it has met the identified quality
requirements, no records have to be kept on who receives those biosolids or what
happens to them after the thrce quality requirements are met.
For biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container, the general
requirements and management practices do not apply when the biosolids or material
derived therefrom meet the three criteria dcscribed above. However, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements do apply to such biosolids derived material.
Ceiling concentrations are included in the Part 503 to address EPA's concein about
the potential impact of a "dirty" biosolids on public health and the environment. They
are the less stringent of two values: the cumulative pollutant loading rate from the
land application exposure assessment and assumed 100 year site life at an assumed
annual application rate of 10 metric tonshectare the 99th percentile concentration
fiom the National Sewage Sludge Suvey, whichever is less stringent. EPA concluded
that when pollutant concentrations in biosolids do not exceed the ceiling
concentrations, the potential for short term impacts on the environment from land
application are greatly reduced.
Two pollutant limits for bulk biosolids applied to the land are contained in the Part
503. The first limit consists of cumulative pollutant loading rates in 503.13(b)(2) (see
112 Forste
Table 2-5). The cumulative loading rate is the total amount of an inorganic pollutant
that can be applied to an area of land. Cumulative pollutant loading rates must be met
when bulk biosolids that do not meet the pollutant concentrations contained in
503.13@)(3). To comply with this requirement, the amount of each pollutant in the
bulk biosolids must be known, records must be kept of the amount of each pollutant
applied to each site. When the cumulative pollutant loading limit for any of the
pollutants in Table 2-5 is reached for a site, no more bulk biosolids may be applied to
that site. The ceiling concentrations and cumulative pollutant loading rates must be
met when bulk biosolids are applied to agricultural land, forests, a public contact site
or a reclamation site.
Equation (2-1) can be used to estimate site life for bulk biosolids with a particular
quality and for a certain Annual Whole Sludge Application Rate (AWSAR) when the
cumulative pollutant loading rates are met. When either the quality of the bulk
biosolids or the AWSAR changes, the site life for the land also changes. In order to
use this equation, the concentrations of the regulated metals must be determined on a
dry weight basis and the AWSAR determined-- usually based on a selected agronomic
rate. The Annual Pollutant Loading Rate (APLR) may be calculated as follows:
Where:
The years an inorganic pollutant can be applied to the land is calculated by dividing
the cumulative pollutant loading rate (CPLR) by the APLR calculated in accordance
with equation (2-1). The lowest number of years calculated in this manner is the
period that this bulk biosolids can be applied to the land without causing any of the
cumulative pollutant loading rates to be exceeded, This calculation is used only to
estimate the number of years biosolids can be applied to a site; when the pollutant
concentrations change or when the AWSAR changes, this estimate will also change.
Regulatory Requirements 113
EXAMPLE:
Given:
Step 1 - Pollutant concentrations in bulk biosolids (dry weight basis):
oncentration
- Step 2 - Assume thc annual whole sludge application rate for the bulk sewage
sludge is 10 MThd36.5 day period base on agronomic requirements.
Step 3 - Calculate the annual pollutant loading rates for the pollutants using
equation (2-2):
~~
For this example, the lowest number of years is 85 for lead. Bulk sewage sludge
with the inorganic pollutant concentrations given in Step 1 of this procedure can be
applied to the land at an AWSAR of 10 M T h a for 85 years. After that period, the
cumulative pollutant loading rate for lead is exceeded.
To develop the pollutant concentrations in Tabre 2-5, the cumulative loading rates
were converted to annual pollutant loading rates and the calculated annual pollutant
loading rates and an assumed AWSAR were used by EPA in Equation (2-1) to
calculate a pollutant concentration (C = APLR f AWSAR x 0.001).
The pollutant concentrations calculated using the equation (2- 1) were compared to
the 99th percentile concentration values for these pollutants from the NSSS. Thus the
pollutant concentration limits in Table 2-4 are either the concentration calculated
using this equation or the 99th percentile concentration, whichever is more stringent.
To convert the cumulative pollutant loading rates to annual pollutant loading rates,
EPA assumed that the life of the sitc where biosolids are applied is 100 years and that
the AWSAR is 10 metric tons/hectare/year based on an estimated agronomic rate.
Regulatory Requirements 115
Because the pollutant concentrations shown in Table 2-4 are based on conservative
(100 year) site lives and typical AWSARs, the Agency concluded that records do not
have to be kept of the amount of each inorganic pollutant in biosolids applied to a site.
The pollutant concentrations are monthly average concentrations which may not be
exceeded in bulk biosolids in order to be exempt from the recordkeeping requirement.
EPA's use of the 99th percentile "cap" has been the subject of litigation. A
unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on
November 15,1994 remanded to EPA the limits or caps on chromium and selenium.
The Court rejected EPA's reliance on the National Sewage Sludge Survey for
establishing the parameters by determining what limits could be met by 99% of the
POTSs responding to the survey, stating that the 99th percentile caps are not related
to risk. The 3,000 mgkg maximum loading for chromim and the 100 m a g cap for
selenium were rejected because EPA had failed to meet the statutory burden of
assessing the risk to public health and the environment. EPA will have to redetermine
those caps as mandated by the Court.
The Court also found EPA had failed to establish a rational relationship between the
assumed application of all the covered pollutants, including those that are risk-based,
in liquid biosolids and the actual usage of heat-dried biosolids. This part of the
regulation was also remanded to EPA either to just@ its assumptions or to provide
more tailored caps.
Since no risk-based chromium limit can be established based on available field data
(which show no adverse effects from chromium) it is likely that chromium will be
deleted fi-om the 503 Regulations. It is also expected that the Agency will reevaluate
and impose risk-based limits on selenium.
For biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container which do not meet the
pollutant limits but are below the ceiling concentrations, annual pollutant loading rates
must be met as shown in Table 2-5. These annual pollutant loading rates assume a
cumulative pollutant loading rate to be reached in 20 years. That is, an assumed site
life of 20 years. EPA concluded that 20 years is a conservative assumption because
most biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container will be applied to a lawn,
a home garden or public contact site which EPA believes are unlikely to receive
biosolids for longer than 20 years, particularly 20 consecutive years. These annual
pollutant loading rates for "bag or other container" biosolids are also being challenged
and may be deleted from Part 503 if that challenge is upheld.
Domestic Septage
A separate pollutant limit is contained in the 503 Regulations for domestic septage
applied to agricultural land, forest or a reclamation site. This annual application rate
is based on an estimate of the amount of nitrogen needed by the crop grown on the
application site by the following equation:
116 Forste
Where:
N= pounds of nitrogen needed by the crop per acre per 365 day period
ANC = available nitrogen concentration in milligrams per liter
AAR = annual application rate in million gallons per acre per year
8.34 = a conversion factor
N
AAR' ................................ (2-4)
ANC x 8.34
The 503 Regulations require that the allowable annual application rate be
calculated using the following equation, which is equation (2-4) with a value
substituted for ANC x 8.34:
N
AAR' ................................ (2-5)
0.0026
EPA allowed the annual application rate for domestic septage to be used only
when it is applied to agricultural land, forests or a reclamation site because site
restrictions are imposed on such sites. EPA assumed that the applier has control over
the application site. Because of the difficulty of imposing site restrictions on a public
contact site, lawn or home garden application of domestic septage to such site an
annual application rate is prohibited under 503.
Biosolids applied to agricultural land, forest, public contact sites or reclamation sites
must meet either Class A or Class B pathogen reduction requirements.
Class A biosolids are essentially pathogen free; Class B biosolids have reduced
levels of pathogens, and are subject to use restrictions to prevent immediate and direct
public contact.
*a Salmonella sp. : Less than 3 MI" per 4 grams of total solids (TS), dry
weight basis.
0- Enteric viruses: Less than 1 PFU per 4 grams of TS, dry weight basis.
0. Viable helminth ova: Less than 1 per 4 grams of TS, dry weight basis.
Process Requirements
Either F. colifomi or
No option to substitute
Uilknown Either F. colifonn or Yes2 yes3 operational monitoring for
Processes Salmonelia' microbiological monitoring.
Process
Either F. colifonn or
equivalent No No Process equivalent to PFRP.
~aliiioiie~a'
to PFRP
Notes: ' -the density of fecal colifonn must be less than 1,000 MPN per gram of total
solids (dry weidit basis) oLthe density of Salmonella sp. bacteria must be less than 3
MPN per 4 grams of total solids (dry weight basis).
hi addition to requiretnaitsin 1. above, the density of enteric viruses must be less than
1 PFU per 4 grams oftotal solids (dry weight basis).
In addition to rquiremcnts in I. and 2. above, the density of viable helminth ova must
be less than 1 per 4 grams of total solids (dry weight basis).
Class B requirements can be met by any of the three alternatives shown below. The
implicit objective of all three altematives is to ensure that pathogenic bacteria and
enteric v i ~ are
w adequately reduced in density (as demonstrated by fecal colifoim
density in Class B biosolids of less than 2 million MPN or CFU per gram of total
solids on dry weight basis). Viable h e h t h ova are not necessarily reduced in Class
B biosolids. Additionally, site restrictions are applied which restrict crop harvesting,
animal grazing and public access for a certain period of time until environmental
factors have further reduced pathogens.
The Class B requirements apply to bulk biosolids that are applied to agricultural
land, a forest, a public contact site, a reclamation site or a surface disposal site,
unless, in the latter case, biosolids are covered at the end of each operating day.
2. HeatDryIng 2. AlrDrying
Biosolids are dried by direct or indirect contact Biosolids are dried on sand beds or on
withhot gases to reduce the moisture content of paved or unpaved basins. The biosolids
the biosolids to 10% or lower. Either the dry for a minimum of 3 months. During
temperature of the biosolids particles exceeds 2 of the 3 months, the ambient average
80EC (176EF) or the wet bulb teniperature of daily temperature is above OEC (32EF).
the gas in contact with the biosolids as the
biosolids leave the dryer exceeds 80EC (1 76EF).
6. G m i a Ray Irradlntlon
Biosolids are irradiated with ganuna rays from
certain isotopes, such as Cobalt 60 and Cesium
137, at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room
temperature (ca. 20EC [68EF]).
7. Pasteurization
The tempaature ofthe biosolids is maintained at
70EC (15PEF) or higher for 30 minutes or
longer.
Site restrictions with respect to types of crops, animal grazing, turf growing and
public access are also required for Class B biosolids [503.32(b)(5)], as shown in
Figure 2-4.
~~
Food crops with harvested parts that touch the biosolids/soil mixture and
are totally above the land surface shall not be harvested for 14 months after
application of biosolids.
Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be
harvested for 20 months after application of biosolids when the biosolids
remain on the land surface for four months or longer prior to incorporation into
the soil.
Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be
harvested for 38 months after application of biosolids when the biosolids
remain on the land surface for less than four months prior to incorporation into
the soil.
Food crops, feed crops and fiber crops shall not be harvested for 30 days
after application of biosolids.
Animals shall not be allowed to graze on the land for 30 days after application
of biosolids.
Turf grown on land where biosolids are applied shall not be harvested for
one year after application of the biosolids when the harvested twf is placed on
either land with a high potential for public exposure or a lawn, unless
otherwise specified by the permitting authority.
Public access to land with a high potential for public exposure shall be
restricted for one year after application of biosolids.
Public access to land with a low potential for public exposure shall be
restricted for 30 days after application of biosolids.
The same site restrictions that apply to Class B biosolids applied to the land are
also imposed when domestic septage is applied, unless a pH requirement for
domestic septage is met along with site restrictions concerning the harvesting of
crops. These restrictions prohibit harvesting of crops, grazing of animals and public
access to the site for a period of time. Restrictions on crop harvesting are part of this
second alternative because EPA does not believe adequate pathogen reduction is
achieved by pH adjustment to allow crops to be harvested immediately after applying
domestic septage.
Management Practices
When bulk biosolids are applied to agricultural land, forests, a public contact site or
a reclamation site, the management practices set forth in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 are
imposed. These management practices do not apply for bulk biosolids applied to a
124 Forste
lawn or home garden based on EPA's determination that large amounts of bulk
biosolids will not be applied to lawns or home gardens for several applications and
the pollutant limits already insure a high degree of protection. In addition, the
management practices in many cases have no relevance in the lawn or home garden
setting.
Monitoring
Monitoring frequency requirements in the 503 Regulations apply to both pollutant
concentrations in biosolids and for compliance with pathogen reduction and vector
attraction reduction requirements. Frequency of monitoring requirements also are
included in the subparts on surface disposal and incineration in order to make the
Part 503 self-implementing.
Option9 Biosolids are injected into soil Biosolids applied to the land
503.33 so that no significant amount of or placed on a surface disposal
ex91 biosolids are present on the site. Domesticseptage
landsurface 1 hour after applied to agricultural land, a
hj4m except Class A forest, or a reclamation site, or
biosolids which must be placedona surface disposal
injectedwithin8hoursafter site
I
TABLE 2-9 MONITORING FRE 2UENCY
Amount of Biosolids* Estimated Size of Frequcncy
(Metric Tons pcr 365 Day Facility (MGD)***
Period - Dry Wcight Basis)
>O to ~ 2 9 (320)**
0
Under the 503 Regulations, the peimitting authority can reduce the fiequency
of monitoring for pollutant concentrations and pathogen requirements after two years
of monitoring at the fiequency specified in Part 503. However, monitoring fiequency
must be at least once per year when biosolids are applied to the land. Reducing the
fiequency of monitoring for pathogen densities addresses enteric viruses and viable
helminth ova in biosolids. As part of those requirements, the biosolids must be
analyzed for viruses and ova each time the biosolids are monitored. After those two
organisms are found in the influent to the pathogen treatment process and after tlie
Regulatory Requirements 127
Recordkeering
The final Part 503 Regulations contain recordkeeping requirements for bulk biosolids
and bulk material or biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container
regardless of whether such biosolids meet the requirements which would exempt
them from the cumulative pollutant loading limits contained in Table 2-5.
Recordkeeping requirements also apply to domestic septage applicd to agricultural
land, forests or reclamation sites.
Recordkeeping requirements specify the information that must be developed, the
person who must develop and retain the infoimation and the period h a t this
information must be retained. The infoimation that must be developed depcnds on
which pollutant limits are met and which pathogen and vector attraction reduction
requirements are met; the infomation is needed to show that the requirements i n
Subpart B are met. For biosolids that do not meet the pollutant concentrations in
503.13(b)(3), the more stringent Class A pathogen requirements and one of the
vcctor attractionrequucments in 503.33(b)(I ) through (8), the person who prepares
the biosolids must develop certain information (e.g., pollutant concentrations in the
biosolids) and the applier must develop other information (e.g., the record of the
amount of each pollutant applied to the land). These persons may be the treatnicnt
works, an agent of the treatment works, a private contractor or some other person
For example, when the bulk biosolids meet the pollutant concentrations and the less
stringent Class B pathogen requirements, the person who applies the biosolids to thc
land must develop infoimation concerning how the restrictions on the application site
are met and keep those records. Depending on which pollutant limits are met,
infoimation must usually be retained for five years. However, when cumulative
pollutant loading rates are met, records for certain information have to be retained
indcfinitely in order to know how much of an inorganic pollutant has bccn applied
tcj the land.
128 Forste
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) will review the Agency's dioxin risk
assessment. Two separate charges--an exposure document charge consisting of 20
questions and a health document charge consisting of 23--will be addressed. The
issue of toxicity equivalence factors (TEFs) is likely among the most controversial
issues to be examined. TEFs are used to calculate a toxic potency, measured in terms
of the potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD), for various dioxin-
like chemicals. Data h i s h e d to EPA concluded that POTWs are nominal sources
of dioxin releases to the environment.
EPA will propose and promulgate additional standards for the use or disposal
of biosolids (Round 11) following a review of contaminants from a list of 31
pollutants listed in a Consent Decree dated May 25, 1993. The Agency will then
develop regulations that will establish requirements for biosolids under the following
conditions: when applied to the land for a beneficial purpose, when disposed on land
by placing on surface disposal sites, and incinerated. The court-ordered schedule
calls for proposed Round I1 regulations by December 1999 and final promulgation
by December 2001. EPA may significantly reduce the number of pollutants for
M e r regulatory action and focus on only those with a human health impact
potential.
EPA is scheduled to propose claracations to ease implementation of the Part
503 rules and to address inconsistenciesin the regulations in 1995. According to an
EPA internal memo a Federal Register notice will propose the Agency: (1) clarify
the land application rules to indicate that pollutant ceiling concentration limits pertnin
to any land-applied biosolids; (2) delete the requirement to record the time of day
Regulatory Requirements 129
REFERENCES
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document for Land
Application of Sewage Sludge. EPA 822R-93-001a. November 1992.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Domestic Septage Regulatory
Guidance: A Guide to the EPA 503 Rule. EPA 832-B-92-005. September
1993.
16. U S . Environmental Protection Agency. Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, Appendix G.11. February 19, 1993.
17. US. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Part
503 Sewage Sludge Regulation. EPA 821-R-93-006. 1993.
3
Conditioning and Dewatering
Robert J. Kukenberger
L INTRODUCTION
Conditioning and dewatering is an integral and often necessary process associated with
reuse or disposal of wastewater solids. Biosolids conditioning, the first step in the
process, prepares liquid biosolids by changing chemical and/or physical properties to
allow separationof the solid and liquid fractions. Dewatering, the separation of solid
and liquid portions of biosolids slurries, is generally accomplished by mechanical
means,although passive systems, such as drying beds and natural fieeze/thaw lagoons,
are used where weather permits. Thickening can be the first phase of dewatering, or
can function as a stand-alone process to remove a portion of the liquid fiaction,
creating a thick slurry.
Conditioning and dewatering prepares the biosolids for subsequent processes,
such as dqmg, incineration, composting, alkaline stabilizationor for beneficial use as
a soil amendment and fertdizer, or for disposal in landfills. The volume and weight
of liquid or slurry biosolids can be reduced by as much as 20-fold, although typical
processes will achieve a 10-fold reduction in volume and weight. Handling
characteristicsare also improved, as dewatered biosolids can be handled as a solid or
semi-solid rather than as a liquid slurry.
This chapter focuses primarily on chemical conditioning with organic
polyelectrolytes (polymers) and mechanical dewatering. Inorganic chemical
conditioning (e.g., lime and ferric chloride) is also covered; however, the use of
inorganic chemicals is becoming less common as polymer technology improves.
131
132 Kukenberger
11. CONDITIONING
A. Organic Polyelectrolytes
The use of polymers in the wastewater industry began in the1960s [l]. Biosolids
dewatering equipment technology has developed substantially since the introduction
of polymers, leadingto the extensive useof polymers for conditioning. Polymers
are
manmade, long-chain molecules which function in several ways coagulate and
flocculate solids particles. The most important bonding mechanisms associated with
polymer conditioning are:
Electrostatic
attraction
vanderWaalsattraction
Chemical
bonding
Electrostaticattraction is similartomagneticattractionandreliesonthe
attraction of positively and negatively charged particles. Vander Waals attractionis
a weak attraction caused by polarization. van der Waals attraction can be explained
qualitatively by considering that even neutral atoms and molecules have systems of
is an attraction of highly
oscillating charges that attract each other. Chemical bonding
polar molecules. Chemical forces extend only over very short distances [2].
+
W
Daa1abmz.d
Coagulation
rmlabnm
Catlonio
Flocculation
Figure 3-1 POLYMER COAGULATION AND FLOCCULATION
134 Kukenb erger
Stoc~lausen,lnc.
2408 Doyle Street
Greensboro, NC 27406
(919) 333-3561
1. ClassiJicatioii of Polyiireis
specific polymers are beyond the scope of this book; however, the reader is directed
to the "Guidance Manual for Polymer Selection in Wastewater Treatment Plants" for
specific polymer manufacturing and development information [4].
Major polymer manufacturers in the USA are shown in Table 3-1.
2. Foriiis of Po!ytner.s
Drv Polymers
Dry polymers are manufactured as powder, granules, beads, or flakes. Dry polymers
have a high active content, typically 90-95% [5]. Dry polymers have proven to be
very effective for biosolids condilioning; however, handling of diy polymers requires
more manual labor than handling of liquids and emulsions.
Emulsions
Emulsions are dispersions of polymer particles in hydrocarbon oil. Emulsions are
high molecular weight polymcrs with high solids. Active polymer levels of emulsions
usually range from 25 to 50%. Emulsions are pourable, clear to white milky liquids
with viscosities ranging fi-om 300 to 5,000 centipoise (cps) [5]. Emulsions are stored
in tanks and transported with pumps; therefore, many operators prefer emulsions over
dry polymers.
Mannichs
Mannich polymers have high molecular weight and very high viscosity, typically
rangng kom 45,000 to 60,000 cps. As a cornpaison, room temperature molasses has
a viscosity of 24,000 cps, and water has a viscosity of 1 cps. Mannich polymers have
an active solids level of 2-10%. 'The pH of Mannich polymers can be as high as 12.
Mannich polymers have a I-elativelyshort shelf life, which is a factor in purchase,
delivery, and storage. Maiuiichs are manufactured using formaldehyde, which has
raised concerns regarding the health and safety of workers using mannichs and the
environmental impacts associated with beneficial reuse of mannich-polymer-treated
biosolids [5].
Liquid Polvmers
There is a wide range of liquid polymer types available. Liquid polymers have low to
medium molecular weight, viscosity ranging fiom 1 to 6,000 cps, and active solids
ranging from 10 to 60%. The pIH of liquid polymers is generally neutral to acidic.
Shelf life can be from two months to one year depending on the manufacturer [5].
3 . Polynier. Seleclioti
Design of new or upgraded facilities should include the capability of handling both dry
and liquid or emulsion polymers to give the operator flexibility. Selection of the most
effective polymer for each application is based on the following criteria:
136 Kukenberger
Biosolids characteristics
- Performance objectives
Type of dewatering process employed
Downstream impacts of filtrate or centrate
Cost
Jar testing is used for screening to determine which polymers have the most
potential to be effective in full-scale dewatering applications. Polymer testing is
usually conducted as an annual event; therefore, the operator should attempt to obtain
biosolids samples for testing that represent, as closely as possible, conditions for the
upcoming year. If a side-by-side comparison of various polymers is being made, the
tests should be done simultaneously to be sure the biosolids are of similar
characteiistics. Ifcost is to be a major selection factor, preliminaiy cost estimates can
be made prior to jar testing based on dosage and cost estimates from the polymer
vendors. Cost is typically expressed as cost per unit weight of biosolids treated
(dollars per dry ton of biosolids). Polymer vendors and manufacturers will generally
provide jar testing to screen various polymers and will assist the operator on full-scale
field testing.
Biosolids should be characterized to determine solids concentration, inorganic
(ash) content, biological solids content, and biosolids chemishy. Concentrations of
solids can change due to changes in the wastewater and biosolids treatment practices.
Lower solids concentrations will generally require more polymers (on a pounds per
dry ton basis). Expected changes in solids concentrations should be assessed, and
appi-opiate adjustments made, during jar testing and field testing of conditioning and
dewatering processes.
Biosolids with low inorganic (high ash) content usually have cationic charge
neutxalization requirements. Fresh or digestcd biosolids generally have an ash content
of 1 5 5 0 % and eshibit cationic charge neutralization demands. Higher ash contents
(>50%) may be encountered from lime-stabilized or chemically treated biosolids.
Extremely old biosolids, such as lagoon-stored biosolids, may also have high inorganic
content. Biosolids with greater than 50% inorganic content may exhibit either an
anionic or nonionic charge demand. Bench testing with various polymers should be
done to verify the ionic charge demand, and subsequently the most appropriate
polymer. In some cases, a combination of anionic, nonionic, and cationic polymers
will be more effective than any single form of polymer due to the charge neutralization
requirements.
The percentage of solids resulting fi-om biological treatment processes can
significantly impact conditioning. Solids produced by biological (secondary)
treatment processes are more difficult to dewater than raw pl-imaiy or chemical solids
[ 5 ] . Unconditioned biological solids have poor characteristics for mechanical
dewatering. The trend in larger wastewater treatment fac es is to condition
secondary solids separately from raw or primaiy solids. It is generally less costly to
Conditioning and Dewatering 137
treat these solids separately; however, the cost and complexity of two separate systems
may offset the advantages, particularly in smaller facilities.
Extended storage of biosolids usually increases conditioning requirements. Only
well stabilized biosolids should be stored prior to conditioning and dewatering to
prevent anaerobic conditions. Biosolids should be processed within a few hours of
production; however, aeration of raw biosolids for up to 4 or 5 days can improve
dewatering characteristics. Dewaterability deteriorates significantly if biosolids are
stored for longer than 5 days.
Anaerobically digested biosolids generally have higher polymer dosage
requirements than raw or unprocessed primary biosolids, and are generally more
difficult to dewater. Polymers with moderate cationic charge and moderate to high
molecular weight are usually most effective on anaerobically digested biosolids.
Polymer dosage requirements for aerobically digested biosolids are similar to dosage
requirements for anaerobically digested biosolids, however, more highly charged
polymers are typically required.
Polymer feed systems are selected based on the form of polymer to be used. In larger
wastewater eeatment plants, designers will often select multiple feed systems to allow
the operator to select the most appropriate and cost-effective polymer form.
Polymer feed systems should allow for dosage variations of 20 to 1 to give the
operator adequate flexibility. Multiple polymer application points into the biosolids
stream should be provided. It is necessaiy to provide diy, temperature-controlled
storage areas to prolong the life of the polymer. Make-up water should have a pH of
6-8, be fkee of suspended solids, have a specific conductivity of < I ,200 micromho per
centimeter (pmhohm), total dissolved solids of 4 0 0 mg/L, and temperature of 10"-
50°C (50" -120°F). Residual chlorine in the make-up water should be less than 0.5
mg/L [ 11. Typical polymer feed systems are depicted in Figure 3-2. Polymer feed
138 Kukenberger
Dry Feeder
Llquld or
Emulrlon
Storage
TMk
2. Polynier COWO~
Systeim
The control of polymer feed for biosolids conditioning affects the thickening and
dewatering perfoimance, quality offiltrate or centrate, and the cost of chemicals. With
polymer conditioning, “more is not better” because overdose as well as underdose can
have deleterious effects on dewatering efficiency. Manual control is typically
accomplished by measuring cake concentration, filtratelcentrate quality, and, in belt
filter press installations, by visual obseivation of the conditioned biosolids on the
gravity deck.
Several technologies have recently become available for automatic or semi-
automatic control of polymer feed, including streaming current detectors, sludge
flocculation controllers, and reflective (infrared) scanning of gravity drained biosolids.
The streaming current detector measures colloidal charge (streaming current) in
the filtrate or centrate fi-om the biosolids dewatering process. Research has shown that
a near zero charge indicates optimum dewaterability and that the centratekltrate
exhibits nearly the same charge as conditional biosolids [9]. Therefore, streaming
current measurements of filtrate or centrate can be used to control polymer feed.
Biosolids flocculation controllers measure the rheological characteristics of the
biosolids before and after conditioning. Relationships have been developed between
polymer addition and rheology, which can be used to optimize polymer addition and
Conditioning and Dewatering 139
3. Polynier Consuiiiptioii
Vacuum Assisted
1. Ferric Chloride
2 . Lime
Lime and feiric chloride are often used together to condition biosolids for dewatering
on filter presses and vacuum filters. With filter presses, the dewatering process is
accomplished in batches, therefore, biosolids are conditioned in a batch (or feed) tank
prior to filling the filter press. Vacuum filtcrs are operated as a continuous process;
therefore, lime and feiiic chloride are added just upstream of the dewatering machine.
142 Kukenb erger
Lime and ferric chloride are not typically used for belt filter presses or
centrifuges, as organic polymers are better suited for these dewatering machines.
F a n c chloride reacts with biosolids by neutralizing negatively charged particles
and forming fmic hydroxide complexes. Because alkalinity is utilized in the reaction,
pH is lowered. Lime is used to raise the pH, provide additional alkalinity, and thereby
allow the reactions involving feiiic chloride to be more eEcient. Lime also forms
calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide complexes, which provides a matrix in the
biosolids, improving dewaterability .
Feiiic chloride is typically dosed at 2- 10% of solids on a dry weight basis. Lime
is usually dosed at 0-40% on a diy weight basis.
Ferrous sulfate (Fe(S0.J) and ferrous chloride (FeC4 ) (waste pickle liquor - a by-
product of the steel industiy) may be used in lieu of ferric chloride. Evaluation of
alternatives to feiric chloride should be based on performance, cost, and availability.
Also, waste pickle liquor may contain by-products of the steel manufacturing
processes, which could cause quality problems associated with reuse or disposal of
biosolids.
Ash, pulverized coal, saw dust, and diatomaceous earth have also been used as
additives for filter presses and vacuum filter dewatering. These additives have limited
use and depend on biosolids characteristics, type of dewatering equipment, and
reuse/disposal options. These additives are noimally used in conjunction with organic
or inorganic chemicals and serve as a filter aid or "precoat" to allow release of the cake
fiom the filter cloth. The addition of diatomaceous earth, fly ash, and cement kiln dust
wese found to be successful when using polymers with plate and frame filter presses
PI.
5. Selection Criteria
The decision to use inorganic chcmicals, particularly lime and fen-ic chloride, should
be based on the following criteria:
D. Thermal Conditioning
1 . High-Pressure Tliermal Conditioning
Thermal conditioning of biosolids at elevated pressures breaks down (lyses) the cell
wall of the microorganisms in biological solids, which allows the release of bound
water. High-pressure theimal conditioning alters the physical properties of biosolids,
which results in a drier cake a s compared to that produced by chemical conditioning.
High-pressure thermal conditioning is described in Chapter 6.
High-pressure themially conditioned biosolids will thicken by gravity to a range
of 6 to 15% solids and can be mechanically dewatered to a range of 35 to 75% solids
[ 101. Vacuum filters are typically used for dewatering biosolids that have been
conditioned by high-pressure thermal treatment.
Mixed primary and biological solids dewatering can be enhanced by preheating the
solids to 60°C (140°F) at atmospheric pressure prior to dewatering. Cake solids
concentration may be inci-eased by up to 6%, and polymer usage may be decreased by
as much as 25% with this process [ I I]. This process may be cost effective when
waste heat is available fiom biosolids incinerators or fiom other sources.
Digested or thickened biosolids are heated in heat exchangers prior to polymer
addition and dewatering. Centrate can be returned to the head of the plant or used as
a heat source in the biosolids heat exchanger. The potential for odors is greater if
heated biosolids or centrate/filtrate is exposed to the atmosphere prior to cooling;
therefore, odor conwool facilities need to be designed and sized to address this potential.
Figure 3-3 depicts a thermally enhanced mechanical dewatering system.
-
PoIynmr Centrate
Dewatared
BlOSOlld8
Spiral Heat Dewaterho
Exchanoer Yachhe
111. DEWATERING
A. Process Description
Characteristics of biosolids
Type of conditioning employed
Type of thickening or dewatering device
B. Thickening
1. Gravity Thickening
combined primary and secondaiy (waste activated) biosolids. Gravity thickeners are
usually circular tanks with steep cone-shaped bottoms to promote bottom withdrawal
of thickened biosolids. Gravity thickeners can achieve undeiflow solids
concentrations of 5- 10% on primaiy biosolids and 4-6%on combined primary and
waste activated biosolids [ 131. Gravity thickeners are sized based on solids mass
loading per unit area. Overflow rates are also an important criteria. Too high of an
overflow rate can cause solids carry-over, and too low of an overflow rate may cause
septic conditions. Dilution water, such as plant effluent, is typically added to maintain
sufficient overflow rates. Typical design mass solids loading and oveiflow rate is
presented in Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. 8 [ 131.
3. Ceiilvi~ugalTI1icketI it iy
Gravity belt tluckenas and rotaiy drum thickeners are similar to the first stage of belt
filter presses. Polymer conditioning is essential with municipal biosolids, as these
units rely on liquidsolid separation and drainage of the free liquid through a porous
belt or wedge-wire drum. Gravity belt thickeners typically achieve 4-10% solids
concentration [ 131.
146 Kukenberger
C. Mechanical Dewatering
Belt filter presses (BFPs) are mechanical dewatering machines that utilize two or more
porous belts to dewater biosolids. There are three stages of dewatering on a BFP:
*. Gravity drainage
0. Compression
0. Shear
Condiuonlng Lone
Dhcharge TO Pressure Zone
\t
Eiosolkls Feed
Gravlly Drainage Zone
Centrifuges for thickoning and dewatering of biosolids are typically solid bowl
machines. Solid bowl centrifuges are operated as a continuous process. These
machmes rely on centrifugal force that separates the solid and liquid fractions. Solids
are forced away fiom rotating axes of centrifuges, due to the differences in densities
of the solid and liquid phases, and the liquid moves toward the center of the machine.
Both inorganic chemicals and organic chemicals (polymers) have been used
successfully with centrifuges. Due to advances in polymer technology and centrifuge
machine design, polymers are now used for most centrifuge dewatering systems on
municipal wastewater biosolids.
Modem centrifuges for dew atering biosolids consist of a solid bowl, usually
tapered on one end, a scroll conveyer, a case to cover the bowl and conveyor, a heavy
cast iron base, a main drive, and a back drive. The main drive rotates the bowl, and
the back dnve assembly controls the conveyor speed. The range of differential speeds
between the bowl and conveyor vary with different manufacturers. There are two
configurations of solid bowl machines: co-cuirent and counter-current. In the co-
current design, the liquid and solid phases travel in the same direction, and liquid is
removed by an internal skimming device or ports located in the bowl. In the counter-
current design, liquid travels in the opposite direction from solids, and liquid
overflows weir plates. Figure 3-5 shows the main components of a counter-current
solid bowl centrifuge.
Over the last 5 to 10 years there have been significant improvements in
centrifuge design. These new machines, referred to as "high solids" or "compression"
centrifuges, provide improved performance and less maintenance than older
centrifuges. Recent improvements include:
.
0. Higher operating speeds
Less differentid in speed between conveyer and bowl, resulting in less
wear
148 Kukenberger
The current generation of cenh-tfbges can achieve solids concentrations from 25-
35%, 510% higher than earlier generation centrifuges and standard BFPs [ 141.
The operator controls the centrihge perfoimance by vruying feed rate, type of
conditioning chemicals, dosage rate, and the bowl/conveyor speed differential. With
some manufacturers, the pool depth in the centrihge can be varied, thereby affecting
dewatering peifomance. The operator monitors solids concentration and solids
recovery (centrate quality) as primaiy perfoimance parameters.
Damtarlno Barnoh
3 . Pressure Filters
Pressure filters (commonly refemed to as plate and frame presses) used for biosolids
and industrial sludge dewateiing are recessed plate presses, either fixed volume or
vaiable volume (diaphragm) machines. The teim "plate and frame press" is derived
from the food industry, which developed the forerunners of today's pressure filters.
Pressure filters are operated as batch processes and require storage and batch tanks
to contain feed biosolids in enough volume to fill the press. In large systems, multiple
presses can be used to reduce storage volume. Modein filter presses can produce
dewatered biosolids with a solids content in escess of 40% [ 131.
Recessed plate pressure filters are horizontally aligned to allow discharge of
dewatered cake by gravity into a receiving bui or conveyor (see Figure 3-6). Recessed
plates are placed on a fixed fi-ame which has a closure mechanism that presses the
plates together and holds them in position during the filling and dewatering cycle.
Conditioning and Dewatering 149
For a fixed volume press, the biosolids are pumped into the recesses over a
period of several hours to continually increase pressure and force the liquid through
the filter cloth. JAW pressure units achieve a pressure of up to 100 pounds per square
inch (psi) (690 kilopascal [@a]), and high pressure units achieve a pressure of up to
225 psi (1550 Wa). The maxirnurn pressure is maintained until the filtrate essentially
stops, signifying the end of the dewatering cycle.
The variable volume press has a diaphragm behind the cloth media. Biosolids
are pumped into the press until the recessed chambers are filled. Pumps are then shut
off, and air or water is pumped into the diaphragm to create pressure in the recessed
chamber. With variable volume presses, higher pressures can be achieved, cycle
times are reduced, and generally more consistent dewatering results can be achieved.
However, diaphragm presses are more costly than fixed volume presses and require
more auxiliary equipment.
Biosolids to be dewatered in pressure filters are typically conditioned with lime
and feinc chloride. Recently, some municipal biosolids dewatering installations have
had success with polymers alone; however, cloth blinding and difficulty with cake
release have been generally observed with polymer-conditioned biosolids. However,
the small decrease in performance with polymers may be offset by lower chemical
costs, reduced ammonia odors, and lower metals content in dewatered biosolids.
Operator control of performance is limited to conditioning; therefore, chemical
selection and dosages are critical control parameters.
rFilter Plates
4. Jfacu14111 Filteis
Vacuum filters have been in existence since the late 1800s and have been used in the
United States for dewatering municipal sludge since the 1920s. The use of vacuum
filters for biosolids dewatering has sharply decreased in recent years due to
developments of more efficient dewatering equipment. Vacuum filters are still used
with high-pressure, thennal-conditioned biosolids, since high solids concentrations
(30-50%) can be achieved. Vacuum filters are also used for dewatering lime sludge
from lime softening water treatment plants, particularly in the southeastern United
States.
The most common vacuum filter consists of a large, horizontally mounted
rotating drum,whch is covered by a porous cloth or metal coils (see Figure 3-7). The
bottom portion of the drum is submerged in a vat of biosolids. As the drum rotates,
biosolids are picked up on the porous medium under a vacuum. The divm is divided
into sections, and vacuum is applied by a rotary valve. The filter operates in three
zones:
Cake foi-niation
Cake dewatering
Cake discharge
Cake
Feed
5. Rotaiy Press
Static Mechanlcal
SECTION A-A
6. Screw Presses
D. Passive Dewatering
D y n g beds for municipal biosolids dewatering have been designed and constructed
with many variations, including:
Diymg beds require larger land area than mechanical dewatering, are generally
more labor intensive, and are subject to weather conditions. Because they are typically
open to the atmosphere, odor control is difficult, and diying beds used in highly
developed areas may result in odor complaints. However, drying beds remain in use
for many municipal biosolids dewatering operations. Diying beds are used in small
communities across the United States and at some large plants in areas where the
weather promotes rapid diying. In recent years, polymer conditioning has been used
successhlly with diying beds to promote liquidsolids separation and faster
dewatering. Mechanical mixing of the biosolids following npplication to the bed is
also being used, especially on larger installations. During the first several hours of
Conditioning and Dewatering 153
drying, the primary mechanism of liquid removal is by gravity drainage. Sand beds
and paved beds with drainage channels are equipped with an underdrain system.
Filtrate is typically directed to the head of the treatment plant for treatment with the
plant's influent. After initial gravity drainage is essentially complete, evaporation
becomes the primary dewatering mechanism. Final solids concentration depends on
the weather conditions and the length of time the biosolids remain on the bed. Final
solids concentration from drying beds can be as high as 80%; however, dust can
become a problem if the solids become too dry.
2. Vacuirin-AssistedDtyiiig Beds
3 , FreezeRiraw Lagoons
Freezehaw lagoons and diying beds have been shown to be effective in dewatering
biosolids and alum sludge generated in water treatment plants [ 181. The freezing and
thawing process separates the liquid and solid fraction, and it is believed that freezing
breaks all walls, allowing removal of bound water after thawing occurs. Mechanical
freezelthaw devices have been developed; however, energy requirements have
prevented development of h s technology; therefore, freezelthaw systems are generally
limited to climates that can support natural freezehhaw cycles.
4. Bag Dewatering
Small treatment plants with wastewater flow rates of less than 200,000 gallons per day
(gpd) can dewater biosolids cost effectively with a bag dewatering system. The bag
system is a gravity dewatering system with no moving parts. Polymer-conditioned
biosolids are pumped into a gravity drainage plenum, which provides initial
dewatering and distribution to the bag chambers. Woven polypropylene bags are
filled with biosolids and allowed to drain by gravity. Filtrate is collected in a pan
placed underneath the bags and returned to the head of the plant. Cycle time is 4 to
6 hours - 2 hours for filling and 2 to 4 hours for drainage. A standard 22-gallon bag
yields approximately 20 pounds of d y solids per bag at about 10-1 2% dry solids [ 191,
154 Kukenberger
Bags can be stacked outdoors for further diying by evaporation to as high as 60%
solids concentration. Figure 3-10 depicts a bag dewatering system.
,- Levd Probe
Emergency
Overllow -
pipe
r Alr DlstrlbutlonZone
Wet scrubbers use a chemical solution to remove odors from the odorous air
stream. Selection of chemicals for wet scrubbers should be based on the odorous
compounds to be removed. The most common scrubbing solutions are sodium
hypochlorite and potassium permanganate with water. Hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and
proprietary chemical solutions are also employed. Adjustment to pH may be
beneficial with some chemicals; therefore, acid and alkaline solutions may be provided
with wet scrubbers.
Activated carbon adsorption can be employed as the primary odor treatment
system, or as a polishing step. When used as a polishing step, a bypass may be
provided so that the carbon is only used when necessary, thereby extending the life of
the carbon bed. Carbon adsorbs a wide range of odorous compounds; however, due
to the non-selectivity of carbon, the capacity of the carbon can be prematurely
exhausted due to the adsorption of non-odorous hydrocarbons [20].
Biofilters use bacteria naturally present in soil and compost to biodegrade
odorous compounds. Biofilten can be custom designed (in ground) filters, as depicted
in Figure 3-12, or manufactured units [2 I]. Custom designed biofilters should meet
the following criteria:
Collect leachate by sloping the bed floor and using a liner and collection
system with n drainage pipe fitted with a valve or water trap to prevent
leakage of untreated air through this pipe
Prevent leakage around the perimeter of the bed and along the air supply
pipe by estending the active media past the edge of the air distribution
zone and using a flange or other device around the air supply pipe as it
enters the biofilter
Specify corrosion resistant air supply duct work and piping
Evaluate the method and frequency of media replacement
Conditioning and Dewatering 157
Provide a water supply for surface sprinklers and an inlet air humidifier
Use geotextile fabric between the active media and the air distribution
zone to prevent migration of fines
Provide condensation drainage holes, as necessaiy, in the air supply piping
Avoid surface compaction by keeping equipment and vehicles off the bed
V. CASE STUDIES
Prlmuy
Bloeollde
Sonde
/ 1 Cmtrlfugam
Gravity
Secondary
Bloaollda
Storm*
Lomdlng Hoppore
Lime ind
Kln Dlul
Belt Filter
Gravity Anieroblc Stormgo
Thickeners Digesters
Ylxeri
Pump.
f
Conditioning and Dewatering 163
storage tanks. Stored biosolids are pumped to a battery of four Sharples DS 706 solid
bowl, continuous feed, scroll-type high solids centrifuges, shown in Figure 3- 14.
Dewatered biosolids drop by gravity into a battery of four Schwing KSP-25V twin
cylinder, hydraulically driven, reciprocating dewatered solids piston pumps. The
d e w a t a d solids pumps discharge to storage hoppers. Storage hoppers discharge by
gravity to a truck loading bay. Dewatered biosolids are currently trucked to a landfill
stabilization facility, followed by beneficial use. The long-term plan will incorporate
trucking to an N-Vir& facility for additional treatment and ultimate beneficial reuse.
Table 3-3 lists the key parameters of the Yonkers Dewatenng Facility.
The average feed rate to each press is 85 gallons per minute at 2% solids
concentration. The BFPs are fed with Robbins & Myers I60 HSI Moyno progressive
cavity pumps (Figure 3-17) from a holding tank. Dewatered biosolids are conveyed
by a serpentine conveyor to an N-Viro@ stabilization process (Figure 3-18).
Stabilized biosolids are applied to agricultural land surrounding the Syracuse, New
York area.
REFERENCES
I. BIOSOLIDS DIGESTION
A. Introduction
165
166 Snow
B. Process Fundamentals
1. Aerobic Digestion
Bacteria growth in a batch reactor can be represented by Figure 4-1. The aerobic
digestion of biosolids originating from biological processes such as activated sludge
is primarily endogenous, i.e., microorganisms consuming their own protoplasm. This
is represented by the "death" phase portion of the growth curve. When biosolids from
primary settling are introduced, the organic material is first oxidized resulting in the
growth of new cells represented by the "growth" phase of Figure 4-1. The
microorganisms are oxidized to water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia in accordance
with:
C,H,NO,(Cells)+SO, = 5C0,+2H20+NH,.
I
Stationary
phase
A
Time
The ATAD process can effectively produce biosolids that exceed EPA Class A
pathogen reduction criteria. It can also consistently meet the specific oxygen uptake
rate and volatile solids reduction U.S. EPA 503 vector attraction reduction
requirements. Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion is a Process to Further Reduce
Pathogens (PFRP), as defined in the U.S. EPA 503 regulations. The ATAD process
can meet the PFRP definition [ 11.
ATAD digestion systems are typically two-stage processes with mixing, aeration
and foam control equipment. Single stage systems can provide similar volatile solids
destruction but cannot destroy pathogens to the same degree. Figure 4-2 illustrates a
typical ATAD system configuration. Pre- and post- thickening is usually employed.
The Fuchs system (Germany) is the most common system and design and operational
parameters discussed below are generally based on this process configuration. Typical
design parameters are listed in Table 4-1 [2].
EXHAUST AIR
BlOSOLlDS
t
1 1 /
TO THICKENER/
DEWATERING
Parameter Range
The reactors typically are conical with flat bottoms.If grit is not removed in an
upstream process, it may accumulate in the reactor and it may be necessaq to provide
a conical bottom or other means to facilitate cleaning or prevent deposition.
The method of operation of the ATAD system dictates performance, especially
with respect to pathogen destruction, and establishes sizing criteria for biosolids feed
pumps and gravity flow lines. Biosolids are fed in batch once per day. The solids feed
volume, typically ane third of a single reactor volume, should be delivered in less than
1 hour.This allows about 23 hours per day of undisturbed digestion needed to attain
high pathogen destruction.
The sequence of batch feeding is as follows:
s Stop aerationhmag and transfer digested solids fiom the second reactor to the
storage/thickenertank.
r Transfer solids fiom the first to the second reactor.
r Transfer feed solids into first reactor and start aeratiodrnixing.
The above sequence prevents parually treated biosolids fiom reinoculating the
final stabilized product.
The ATAD process generates foam during digestion. It has been speculated that
foam provides some insulating value, improves oxygen utilization, and enhances
Digestion 171
biological activity. Cuyent designs provide for foam control as opposed to elimination.
The foam bubbles are reduced in size, using foam cutters, which provides a denser
foam. A freeboard of 0.5 to 1.0 m in the reactors should be allowed for foam.
Thickening of the digested biosolids is generally desirable prior to transport for
ultimate reuse. It should be noted that the sludge must be cooled (possibly in a storage
tank) prior to using gravity thickening since thermal convection currents result in poor
performance.
Normally, some storage of the digested biosolids will be needed to accommodate
removal and disposal fi-equencies. Uncovered tanks equipped with mixers but with no
aeration will not result in objectionable odors if mixing occurs daily for at least an
hour and ifthe biosolids are fully stabilized. Reactivation of pathogens or reinfection
has not been a problem using the above equipment and procedures.
Experience has shown that some odors are generated from the ATAD process
and may, depending on receptors, require treatment. Odors will be more objectionable
should the process be overloaded resulting in incomplete stabilization or if storage
tanks are not mixed daily as previously mentioned.
In general, aerobic digestion can, depending on design and equipment selection,
have the following advantages over anaerobic:
Disadvantages:
Does not produce methane which is a useful by-product.
Supplying oxygen generally results in higher power cost.
2. Anaerobic Digestion
hydrogen to methane (CH,) while the second type converts acetate to methane and
carbon dioxide. Refer to Figure 4-3 for a schematic description.
The thrd stage is generally considered to be rate limiting since methane-forming
bacteria grow more slowly than the acid formers. In addition, the methane formers are
also more sensitive to pH. The pH must range between 6 and 8, otherwise, un-ionized
volatile acids (below pH 6 ) or un-ionized ammonia (above pH 8) is toxic to methane
formers.
The operation of a typical two stage anaerobic digester is somewhat more
complicated than an aerobic digester. A number of parameters must be monitored:
COMPLEX ORGANICS
LIPIDS
LIGNINS
PROTElNS
CELLULOSE
ORGANlC ACIDS
ALCOHOLS
AMMONIA
CARBON DIOXIDE
~
1
HYDROGEN
CARBON DIOXIDE
ORGANIC ACIDS
ACETATE
I
CH,COOH
acetate
HO
- Alkalinity
PH
Temperature
Volatile solids loading
Gas production
Volatile acid concentration
C. Equipment Review
1. Aerobic Digestion
Equipment used for aerobic digestion of biosolids must be able to provide thorough
mixing and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Tank geomehy, aeratodmixer location, and
suspended solids concentration are factors which affect oxygen transfer and mixing
efficiencies. Scum removal, foam control, decanting of supernatant and off gas control
must also be considered.
Static aerator
Mechanical aspirator
Venturi aspirator
Digestion 175
Static aerators are rigidly mounted, usually in a grid pattern, across the floor of
the digester. Static aerators are usually cylindrical tube-shaped, vertically mounted and
air is introduced into the bottom to the tube. A series of baffles and the current induced
by the rising air draws the liquid into the base of the tube, mixes it, and discharges
from the top. U x i n g and aeration are controlled by adjusting air flow to the static
mixers.
Mechanical aspirator type mixeiherators are manufactured in a variety of
configurations and are selected bascd on digester geometry, location within the
digester and the size and shape of the effective mixing zone. Generally, the equipment
consists of an impeller mounted on a hollow shalt which rotates at high speed. The
rotation ofthe impeller creates low pressure which draws in (aspirates) air.
The venturi type mixerherator employs a pump which directs the liquid through
a venturi device. Air is drawn in to localized low pressure, and the discharge stream
is directed such that the force of the stream promotes mixing. The discharge can be
submerged or discharge above the liquid level, depending on the application.
Conventional aerobic digesters typically use plant water sprayed through a series
of nozzles across the top of the liquid. The spray breaks up the foam but has the
disadvantage of adding "dilution" water to the biosolids.
Decanting is typically conducted by shutting off the mixing and aeration
equipment and allowing the solids to settle. The relatively clear supernatant is then
drawn oE. Telescopic valves, submersible pumps that can be raised and lowered into
the liquid, and multiple draw off lines at various elevations along the tank wall are
some of the more common configurations used to decant and thus thicken biosolids
before or after digestion.
In some cases the digesters are covered and the off gas is directed to some type
of treatment such as intake to blowers providing air to aeration basins, scrubbers, or
activated carbon canisters. Off gas treatment is usually to control odors.
ATAD digesters are relatively new and equipment types in use are limited. The ATAD
reactor installations are usually insulated cylindrical aboveground steel tanks which
are fully enclosed. Steel is cumently less expensive than concrete but retrofitting
existing concrete tanks may be desirable.
The efficiency of aeration and mixing equipment is of particular concein in the
thermophilic process in order to minimize the heat loss from the reactor through air
exhaust. The Fuchs ATAD system, which is one of the more common, uses the
aspirator type mixer/aerator described above. The CBI Walker, Inc. system employs
the ventun type mixedaerator with exteinal liquid recirculation. The biosolids are
pumped from the top third of the reactor through a venturi where air is drawn in and
discharged back into the reactor near the bottom. This system also has the ability to
176 Snow
recirculate air from within the reactor head space to the venturi aspirator which can
be used to slow down the biological oxidation should temperatures become too great.
Foam is generated in ATAD reactors. As previously discussed, foam control, not
elimination, is desirable. Foam cutters are typically set at a specific height above the
liquid level. An impeller, which can be mounted horizontally or vertically, rotates and
the blades “cut”the foam, reducing the bubble size, making it more dense and less
voluminous.
Various foam control, mixing and aeration equipment are available from several
manufacturers, some of which are proprietary. Babcock, CBI Walker, Fuchs, Limus,
and Thieme are some of the manufacturers. Odor control equipment to treat the off
gas from the reactors will, in many situations, be needed. Depending on state
regulations, air peimits may be required.
2. Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion must take place in reactors which are sealed from the atmosphere.
Covered cylindrical concrete tanks have been the most frequently designed. More
recently, egg-shaped digesters are being designed and installed and offer improved
efficiency and reduced maintenance. The digester equipment must provide for mixing,
scum and grit removal, foam control, off gas handling and heating.
Conventional cvlindrical dipesters employ a variety of covers to seal the contents
from the atmosphere which maintains anaerobic conditions, collects useful gas,
minimizes odors,provides insulation, and prevents explosive mixtures of air and gas
from forming. Covers are either floating or fixed. Floating covers offer several
advantages; prevention of the formation of excess pressure or vacuum or drawing of
air into the digester during transfer of digester contents and, in some instances,
minimizes scum/foam accumulation because the cover rests directly on the liquid
surface. There are a variety of cover types available.
Conventional anaerobic digesters are equipped with a variety of mixing devices
including gas recirculation and mechanical mixing methods [3]. The major gas
recirculation mixing systems include:
sometimes through a draft tube, and discharges through nozzles at the digester wall.
The nozzles direct the flow to induce a circulation pattern.
Convention digesteis are not typically equipped with grit, scum or foam removal
devices. Mixing is usually relied upon to prevent accumulation. Many digesters
experience problems as a result and must be cleaned every 3 to 8 years [3].
Anaerobic digesters generate methane which can be used as fuel to provide heat
to maintain proper operating temperatures of the digester contents andor building
heat. External hot water heat exchangers are frequently used to heat the digester
contents. The gas is commonly used to fire hot water boilers or as a primary fuel for
reciprocating internal combustion engines. Gas collection equipment includes flame
traps, pressure relief valves, check valves, waste gas burners, accumulators and
compressors.
k - s h a D e d digesters (ESD) have eliminated the shaip transition along the
digester wall and reduced the liquid surface area at the top. The ESD offers a number
of advantages over conventional digester configurations which are primarily a result
of the modified shape and combination of mixing methods:
Figure 4-4 illustrates a ESD in schematic form which is based on the CBI
Walker, Inc. design. The mixing system shown utilizes a jet pump with a.draft tube
assembly. The valves and heat exchanger are not shown for simplicity. The jet pump
can discharge into either the top or the bottom of the draft tube. This promotes
blending of either floating or settled materials with the remainder of the digester
contents. The jet pump directs the motive fluid into one end of the draft tube which
draws in additional liquid. This mixes liquid which is taken from different locations
within the digester, resulting in a more homogeneous mixture. This pump system
eliminates moving parts from within the digester. In place of the jet pump, a
178 Snow
I
DIGESTER W
1
COLLECTION
SCUM FUNNEL
I
\
-D M TUBE
DIGESTER
VESSEL
\ \
DIGESTED
BlOSOLlDS
1 1
FEED
BlOSOLlDS
mechanical mixer (propeller) can be located near the top portion of the draft tube. This
mixer also mixes the contents fiom top to bottom. Compressed gas is not used in
either configuration which minimizes foaming problems.
D. Economics of Digestion
One of the primary factors in selecting a digestion process is the ultimate disposal or
use of the biosolids, i.e., production of Class A or Class B end products. This must
be determined first so the appropriate methods of digestion can be compared on an
economic basis.
Conventional aerobic digestimcannot reliably meet Class B pathogen and vector
attraction reduction criteria when digesting primary and secondafybiosolids at typical
retention times [7]. In some cases, achieving Class A or B end products is not
requued, yet it still may be economical to do so as illustratedby the study conducted
by the Grand Chute-MenashaWest Sewerage Commission [5].
In 1993, the Grand Chute-MenashaWest Sewerage Commission conducted a
cost comparison between conventional anaerobic digestion with gas mixing and
ATAD. The upstream wastewater process included primary cl&ers followed by
activated sludge at an average design flow of 5.2 MGD. The schematic arrangement
fop the two digestion process is shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6 located in the following
section The cost for the digestion process, excluding thickening, dewatering, and odor
control, are as shown below.
CONVENTIONAL
ANAEROBIC ATAD
CAPITAL $2,455,000 $1,270,000
AnnualO&M
Power $ 5,000 $ 60,Ooo
Labor $ 52,500 $ 35,000
Parts & Supplies $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Digester Heat $ 15,000 $
TOTAL 0&M $ 87,500 $ 110,Ooo
For Class B product, the cost to digest biosolids from wastewater facilities
treating between three to five million gallons per day (MGD) is about the same for
ATAD and anaerobic ESD. Digestion costs at smaller facilities will generally be
lower using the ATAD process. This is primarily due to capital cost of some
equipment, such as gas monitoring and safety, in anaerobic systems which change very
little with changes in digester size.
Life cycle costs are very important when conducting a comparison between
processes. Labor cost associated with operation are about the same for all three
processes. However, energy costs are about half the cost for systems which utilize
anaerobic digestion. The reduced energy cost combined with the energy production
potential makes the anaerobic digestion process more attractive for the larger facilities.
Utilization of the ATAD system with anaerobic digestion hrther enhances the energy
producing characteristics of the anaerobic system.
Capital cost comparison between methods of digestion presented below will be
limited to the more advanced processes, i.e., autothermal thermophilic aerobic
digestion (ATAD), anaerobic digestion utilizing Egg-Shaped Digesters (ESD), and
aerobic thermophilic followed by anaerobic ESD. Biosolids characteristics and
volume generated from a typical municipal secondary treatment facility will be a
common basis of comparison.
The capital cost information on the following pages has been provided by CBI
Walker for their AutoThermm (ATAD), ESD, and AeroThennTM(ATAD followed
by ESD) systems [S].
In developing the three different designs and associated capital cost, a new
facility is assumed. Each of the costs are based on the same design information and
assume a site in the Midwest with open shop construction forces for the field erection.
The cost estimates provided for the three designs were developed by comparing
information from recent (1995) projects with an accuracy of about 10% to 15%.
Other factors which have an impact on the cost estimates are the site location, time of
year in the field, final design of the system and its components, system layout and the
existing facility.
Regardless of the system preference, one should consider life cycle costs when
malung a final selection of a system. The ATAD ( AutoThermTM)system is the least
capital cost for the design example. However, as an aerobic digestion process, the
ATAD system is an energy consuming process. The ESD system is an anaerobic
process and therefore is an energy producing process. While the ATADESD
(AeroTheimm) system includes an aerobic process, it is utilized with anaerobic
digestion to produce a two stage digestion process. This results in a net energy
production similar to the anaerobic digestion process.
Digestion 181
MIDWEST WWTP
APRIL 1995
MIDWEST WWTP
APRIL 1995
- Control Building
Excavatiodl3ackfYl
Concrete Foundation
3. Tankage: $ 880,000.00
- Vessels
Insulation System
Stair Tower
Access Walkway & Platforms
Mixing System
- Air Injection
Pumps & Valves
Process Piping
Instrumentation & Control
Process Engineering
Start-up Service
6. Miscellaneous $ 245,000.00
MIDWEST WWTP
APRIL 1995
MIDWESTWWTP
APRIL 1995
ControlBuilding
Excavation5acldill
Concrete Foundation
3. Tankage: $1,540,000.00
Vessels
Insulationsystem
StairTower
0 Access Walkway & Platforms
Mixing system
Heating System
pumps & valves
Process Piping
Gas Safely Equipment
Instrumentation & Control
Process Engineering
start-up service
6. Miscellaneous $ 280,000.00
MIDWEST WWTP
APRIL 1995
3. Tankage: $1,460,000.00
ATAD Vessels
Anaerobic DigesterIStorage Vessels
Insulation System
Stair Tower
Access Walkway & Platforms
7. Miscellaneous $ 300,000.00
When developing the life cycle costs, the following should be addressed:
1) Manpower Both systems will require about the same manpower for operation
of the process.
Many times there will be other factors to consider which may be more or less
tangible for a given project. Some things worth considering include the type of
wastewater facility and location. Northern climates with low volatile waste sludge
may require additional heat for the ATAD system. This will drive up the capital cost
and make the process less attractive for a given project. Warm climates may also be
more favorable to the ATAD system due to little need for heat in the winter and no
desire to use cogen as a means for reducing electrical costs.
Several studies have been conducted which compare conventional anaerobic digestion
to the more recent aerobic and anaerobic thermophilic processes. More specifically,
the ATAD and thermophilic anaerobic processes were evaluated during two studies
summarized below [5][6].
projected biosolids from the primary clarifiers and waste activated sludge process
assume 50% suspended solids removal as the primary clarifier, 0.6 kgkg BOD
removed in the activated sludge process and a 30 mg/l dosage of fenic chloride.
- To OWATERING
DIGEST€
rn iuir
I 1 AERATION
SLUDGE
/ & MIXING
WITHDRAWAL
In this study, the ATAD process for solids treatment was selected over
conventional anaerobic digestion. The ATAD process was evaluated to be less
expensive for both capital and operation and maintenance, safer, mechanically simpler,
less odorous, smaller with respect to tank sizes and able to qualify for PFRP. Table
4-4 presents the advantages and disadvantages.
D = 50,070,000/10 0 ~ 1 4 L
where:
Using the above formula, only 1 .O days retention time is required at 55°C.
No provisions were made to cool the biosolids between the first and second
digester. Consequently, the temperature of the second digester rose to 47°C which
resulted in poor pei-foimance. To correct this problem, the temperature of the second
digester was raised to 55°C. The process then stabilized and concentrations of fecal
colifoim in the second stage digester were sustained below Class A levels of 1,000
MPN per gram total solids for several months. The fecal coliform concentrations in
the first stage digester were not below Class A levels.
Several important conclusions andor observations can be identified based on
this study:
Digestion 191
REFERENCES
L INTRODUCTION
Biological decompontionis as ancient as the existence of organic matter on the earth.
With division of the firstcell and germination of the first seed, amino acids making up
proteins and glucose links in cellulosic chains initiated the first step toward chemical
and biological breakdown, returning to the earth nutrients and energy for other life
forms. This natural process of cleansing the surface of the earth enabled life as we
h o w it to exist today. It is the first step in the process of composting.
Without the natural decomposition of dead organic materials, recycling of the
nutrients and the biochemical energy in the carbon contained in organic matter would
be slowed dramatically. While periodic fires could rapidly release such energy and
nutrients, organic matter production vastly exceeds the scale of the land area for
decomposltimof organic matter involved in fires. Without this natural decomposition
process, dead organic matter would accumulate at the rate of about 15 feet of depth
each millennium. Human beings have walked the earth for a million years or so,and
plant life has existed much longer. Thus,just since humans began to walk the surface
of the earth, dead organic matter in the absence of decomposition would have
accumulated to a depth of nearly 3 miles.
Cornposting is a natural process of aerobic, thermophilic microbiological
de@m of organic wastes into a stabilized, useful product that is free of odors and
pathogens, w ill not attract rodents and insects, and can be used beneficially for
horticultural and agricultural purposes. During this process the waste is stabilized
biologically. This means that the readily biodegradable components of a mixture
193
194 Naylor
Beginning in the 1950’s and continuing through the 1960’s enthusiasm exceeded
the reality of operations and the demand for mediocre quality compost in the
United States. The chief problems were unrealistic economic expectations, poor
compost quality, and process failure. Facilities started up with a notion that the
value of the finished compost would pay for operations and capital cost of the
system. Alas, neither the demand nor the price of the compost met expectations
and nearly all facilities from that era failed, or at least hesitated severely. This
rough start placed a gloomy shadow on composting as a viable, economic
alternative to landfilling and combustion. However, in the last 10 years or so the
industry has matured and composting is perceived as a legitimate, engineered
technology with wide scale opportunities for recycling organic residuals.
We can get a notion of the growth of the composting industry, chronicled
annually since 1985 by BioCycle, Journal of Composting and Recycling. In
December of each year BioCycle publishes a summary of composting activities in
the United States. Data show that in the decade since 1985, the number of compost
facilities in all stages of development has grown from 173 to 3 18 [7][8]. Of these
facilities, the number in construction, desigdpermitting, planning/consideration,
pilot operation, and those shut down has remained relatively constant. The
remarkable growth has been in the number of operational facilities, their number
having grown from 79 to 20 1.
Of the operational facilities in the United States, the largest growth in terms of
number of facilities is the aerated static pile, growing from 49 to 99. In terms of
the percentage increase, the in-vessel facilities have grown by a factor of 15. In-
vessel type systems can be divided into vertical silo type reactors, agitated bed
systems, tunnel reactors, and rotary drum units. In 1985, there were 3 operating in-
vessel composting systems, all of the silo type, with an additional 11 silos or
Composfing 195
A. Chemical Quality
lo 1
xv;
Fig. 5-2 The potcntial high value market for compost. [ 151
Composfing 197
B. Biological Quality
C. Customer Requirements
The final standard the compost manufacturer must meet is the one established by
the customer. For the most part, such standards are not reviewed by regulatory
bodies, but they are equally important to marketing the finished compost.
Customers have requirements that relate both to their perception of what compost
ought to be, such as color, texture, and aroma, as well as how the compost performs
in a growing medium, e.g. pH, salinity, and nutrient levels. The compost must
meet such requirements, which will vary enormously between customers, or the
compost will not be readily marketable.
Thus, the three goals of compost quality are to meet chemical quality,
biological quality, and client requirements. When these goals are achieved, the
composting process will be effective and the compost will be readily marketable.
Composting is a living process and proper care and feeding of the active microbial
community is essential to good composting.
198 Naylor
A. Microbial Community
The microbial community does not consist of a single type or even a single group
of organisms. Rather, many different types of bacteria and fungi play important
roles in the decomposition of the organic matter. The conditions produced by one
population of organisms establish the character of the food and the working
environment of a subsequent group.
The formation of compost is a natural, but extremely complex biochemical
process in which cellulosic materials, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are
decomposed and transformed into a humus-like material. The vast and immensely
diverse population of fungi, protozoa, and bacteria initiating this process grow,
reproduce, and die as environmental conditions in the composting materials
change. Cell contents and cell walls of these organisms are decomposed by
successive generations of microbes, contributing to the humus content of finished
compost, along with the non-degradable or slowly degradable fraction of the input
feed-stock. This is the final stage in the production of the finished compost, a
living fertilizer and a marketable product.
Complex carbohydrates and proteins are degraded into simple sugars and
amino acids by bacteria and fungi. Temperatures rise into the thermophilic range
in the moist composting environment, cooking and softening organic matter
particles and enabling physical break-down of the material. With physical
degradation, new surfaces are exposed expanding the available food and supporting
a larger microbial population. As the most easily degradable materials decompose,
woody materials remain in predominance. These materials which consist of layers
of cellulose bound by glue-like lignin are degraded by fungi. As the intense
biological activity diminishes, temperatures gradually decrease and the composting
materials begin to dry, forming conditions suitable for increasingly complex groups
of fungi. While the composting process never grinds completely to a halt, the
process is so slow that physical and chemical changes in the materials become
noticeable only over months. The compost at this stage is ready to use, and with
plant growth the recycling of nutrients and energy continues.
Four general physiological groups of microorganisms are active within the
temperature range found commonly in well-managed composting processes. As
illustrated in Figure 5-3, these groups are psychrophiles, mesophiles, facultative
thermophiles, and thermophiles. Psychrophiles grow or tolerate in temperatures
found in a northern climate, -5 to 35°C. Mesophiles thrive on temperatures found
in the tropics, about 15 to 45°C. Facultative thermophiles tolerate temperatures
from room temperature, 25"C, to that of scalding water, 60°C. Finally,
thermophilic organisms tolerate very high temperatures ranging from 45 to 75 "C,
well into the range at which food can be cooked and milk pasteurized. In general,
growth rate increases with temperature, as illustrated in Figure 5-4. However, the
relationship is not linear within any one physiological group over its entire
Cornposting 199
temperature tolerance range. Each group can survive throughout its temperature
tolerance range, but thrives within its preferred range.
80
70
60
50
'z
-$
E
0)
40
Thermophiles
30
s
0.
I-
20 Facultative
thermophiles
10 Mesophiles
0
Psychrophiles
-1 0
Physiological groups
Regremion line:
Rate, Ill,hr = 0.0438 + 0.016 x T.C
0.4
-2x
0 5 10 15
-
20 25
Temperature, .C
B. Environmental Conditions
Conditions which a compost facility operator must pay close attention to are
temperature, oxygen levels, and moisture of the cornposting materials.
The optimum temperatures for composting are in the range of 35 to 65°C.
Microorganisms that efficiently drive the composting process will be most active
within this temperature range. As noted previously, mesophilic and thermophilic
bacteria and fungi predominate at various stages within the composting process.
The growth dynamics of celluloyticbacteria and fungi (those microbes which break
down cellulose) during composting of organic waste is shown Figure 5-6. As the
composting and curing process continues, more and more microbial activity must
be directed at decomposition of the lignin and cellulose in the relatively non-
biodegradable woody products. Since fungi tend to be more proficient at lignin
decomposition their population continues to increase, whereas the bacterial
numbers decline.
V I I I . ~~ I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, days
C. Nutritional Considerations
All living organisms have fundamental nutrient needs: carbon (C), nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P), sulfur ( S ) , trace nutrients, and minor amounts of vitamins. Water
discussed above is likewise a nutrient solvent and carrier as well as an
environmental requirement.
The basic raw materials or feed-stock used and metabolized during composting
are composed of cellulosic materials (polysaccharides), proteins (sources of
nitrogen and sulfur), and sugars, fats and carbohydrates (energy sources).
Polysaccharides are essentially polymers or long chains of glucose sub-units with
the formula (-C6H,205-). Proteins are composed of various amino acids, also
linked to each other in long chains. A common chemical form of an amino acid is
(R-CH(NH,)-CO-NH-). Some of the amino acids also contain sulfur. These
materials make up the diet of the composting organisms which must be balanced
nutritionally for optimum composting.
Cornposting 203
The operator can evaluate the C:N ratio of his compostingmaterials reasonably
well hthe weight and percentage composition and once the blended feedstock has
begun to compost. Unforhmately, at this point adjustingthe mix is nearly impossible.
As mixtumlow in carbon, e.g. C:N < 20,begin to compost, the compostingprocess
is likely to be accompanied by the loss of excess nitrogen as ammonia because of the
proportionally large amount of nitrogen. Conversely, mixtures deficient in nitrogen,
e.g. C:N > 40, tend to compost slowly, and have poor heat generation. From an
operator’s perspective, some ammonia aroma should be evident during composting
and the mix should heat up well. However, if very high concentrationsof ammonia
are released, causing eye irritation or breathing difliculty, then the operator should
know that the C:N ratio is too low and adjust the proportion of biodegradable
carbonaceous materials in subsequent batches. Experiencx is a pow& teacher of
compost process managers.
A. Types of Solids
Materials to be composted consist of dry matter and water. The dry matter, or dry
solids @S), consists of organic matter and minerals. The organic matter is
combustible and can be burned off or volatilized, leaving the mineral fraction or ash,
Figure 5-7.
The ash or fixed solids (FS) consist of minerals including calcium (Ca),
magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), iron (Fe), manganese (Mu), and trace metal
compounds. The anion moiety of the metal compounds include carbonates (CO?),
bicarbonates (HCO;), sulfates (SO:-1, phosphates (PO:- ), nitrates (NO; ), and other
auions. The carbonates and bicarbonates help buffer the acidity and alkalinity of the
cOmpOShng materialsby reacting reversibly with the carbon dioxide produced during
the composting process.
The combustible fraction or volatile solids (VS) is correlated highly with the
organic matter cunteslf and reliably indicates the organic matter content of a material.
A portion of the volatile solids is biodegradable (BVS). This ffaction can be further
broken down into thosematerials that are readily biodegraded, e.g. biosolids and food
waste, and those that are slowly biodegraded such as woody materials.
For many operators, little clarity exists regarding biodegradability of
206 Naylor
carbonaceous materials and fibrous materials. In fact, even at the research level
there is much to be learned and taught regarding biodegradability and factors
influencing biodegradability of organic wastes. As a consequence, operators use
their best judgment until corrected by experience. In general we can judge several
high nitrogen, fairly biodegradablematerials, Table 5-1, to include biosolids, spring
and early summer grass clippings, and certain fresh animal manures without
bedding. Highly biodegradable, carbonaceous materials include shredded leaves,
fruit and vegetable waste, and apple pomace. Two practical approaches to
assessing the biodegradabilityof organic materials are to consider their digestibility
by animals and humans and to recall their disappearance in garden compost piles
or when worked into the soil and broken down by soil microorganismsand macro-
invertebrates. Respirometry has been used to experimentally judge
biodegradability. In this experimental method, a substance is allowed to
biodegrade under known conditions of temperature and pressure, and either oxygen
absorbed or carbon dioxide evolved is measured during a specific time period. The
oxygen absorbed or carbon dioxide evolved is a function of the conversion of
bound carbon to carbon dioxide.
B. Particle Size
Particle size is one of the most important physical properties of the composting
materials. Both the physical size and distribution of the particle sizes are important
to porosity of a compostablemix. The more uniform in size the materials in a mix,
the greater the porosity of the mix. Conversely, as the heterogeneity of particle
sizes widens, the porosity decreases. Small particles fill the voids between larger
particles, Figure 5-8, restricting the flow of water and gaseous exchange.
Most composting technologies now include mixing of the composting mass
because developing a uniform particle size is difficult to achieve under even the
best of conditions for most composting facilities. Grinders and shredders, unless
followed by screens to grade the product, produce a very heterogeneous material
with coarse particles and chips to fine dust and grit. Regular mixing of a blended
feedstock with a broad particle size range ameliorates some of the negative effects
of low porosity by exposing the entire pile of material to the atmosphere.
1. Porosity
Reduced porosity can have a number of undesirable effects during the composting
process. To maintain an aerobic composting environment, thorough exchange of
oxygen and carbon dioxide must take place. As the porosity increases, exchange
becomes more efficient. Heating and cooling are likewise important control
parameters. In active compost piles, heat generated can produce temperatures
too high for efficient composting. Air flowing through the composting materials
Cornposting 207
will absorb moisture and heat energy, cooling and drying the material. If the air
flow is restricted, cooling may be non-uniform leaving hot spots in the composting
materials which could also become deficient in oxygen. Such hot, poorly aerated
pockets are ripe for odor production when the compost is prepared for use.
2. Biodegradability
V. PROCESS ENERGETICS
Living organisms convert food into energy for growth and synthesis of new cells.
This process is not 100% efficient. As a consequence waste energy is produced.
Within the composting process the waste energy appears as sensible heat and is the
basis for warming the composting materials.
The source of the heat energy within the composting process is the metabolic
oxidation of organic matter into carbon dioxide and water. The heat generated by
the intense biological activity of the organisms is the driving force of the compost
processes. Conceptually,the composting process could be considered a bioLogical
$re. Biodegradable volatile solids are the fuel for this biological fire. Oxygen is
consumed, and metabolic water, carbon dioxide, heat energy, and compost are
produced. The compost produced represents the materials that do not biodegrade
within the time frame of the managed compost process.
Heat energy is the capacity to do work, such as warm the composting mass or
evaporate water. Temperature is a sensory measurement. On a personal level, hot
and cold are relative and judged differently from one person to the next. To
increase our objectivity and eliminate personal bias, temperature is measured
against a standard using a thermometer or other recording instrument.
By way of illustration, temperature is comparable to the speed of an object.
Following the same analogy, heat is similar to the momentum of the object: the
speed times the weight of the object. A bird in flight and a moving truck may have
the same speed, but the momentum of the two objects and their relative effects
when they bump into a window of a house is enormously different.
Thus, temperature is not a good basis on which to judge the heat energy
possessed by an object. Heat energy is a function of not only the temperature of
212 Naylor
an object, but also its mass. For example, a bathtub full of warm water contains
more heat energy than a cup of hot tea even though the temperature of the tea is
much higher. Heat energy is quantified by:
capacity of water to absorb heat energy. For a given amount of heat generated, a
smaller temperature increase will be observed. As will be noted later in this
Chapter, this has important implications for the compost process manager since he
is interested in achieving specific minimum temperatures during the composting
process.
C. Temperature Control
1. Feedstock Adjustments
It is evident that for a given weight of material, a larger amount of heat produced
will result in a greater temperature rise. One question the compost process
manager must consider is how can the character and composition of that weight
of material be managed to result in the greatest temperature increase. Conditions
influencing temperature change of composting materials include:
g.
TABLE 5-2 (CONT.) (Q
1 Element Bibb Fried Liver 2.0% Milk Salad Oil Frozen Peas Boiled Raw Spinach White Sugar I
Lettuce Potato
g/100 g dry weight of food, or YOdry basis
Y
cn
216 Naylor
caloric intake and potential weight gain most. Certainly it is not high fiber
vegetables such as celery or lettuce, Table 5-2. Rather it includes sugars, meats,
fats and oils. These have a high digestibility and fats and oils have a high caloric
density. This is not to imply that the process manager should add disproportionate
amounts of fats and oils to the blended feedstock. It does suggest that one can use
common sense in developing a blend of materials of diverse nature so as to enhance
the overall biodegradability and heat output of a compostable mix.
Temperature increases within a composting mass are also a function how the
heat produced is absorbed by the individual components of the feedstock, and
conserved or lost from the composting mass.
Heat energy produced by the biological fire of the composting process is
absorbed by the materials that make up the blended feedstock. Since temperatures
within a well-managed composting mass will be in the range of 40 to 60"C,
everything mixed into the pile will have to be brought to desired composting
temperature, i.e. 55 to 60°C. This includes not just the solid ingredients, but also
all of the air that is added to the mix to maintain aerobic conditions. During hot
weather when ambient temperatures approach 30°C. However, as ambient
temperatures drop, additional energy will be absorbed just to warm up the
composting mass to the operating temperature. For cold weather composting,
particularly in the northern climates where temperatures can fall to - 10 to -2O"C,
considerably more care and thought must be given to blending the compost
ingredients to maximize biodegradability and minimize extraneous heat losses.
Thus, under these cold weather conditions, air used to ventilate the compost may
have to be warmed by 50 to 80°C. The input ingredients will need to be warmed
by 30 to 50°C. If the energy output from the composting process is unable to
match these heat demands, temperatures mandated for pathogen destruction will
not be achieved.
The blend of materials is also important from the perspective of the
proportion of water in the composting materials. As the proportion of water in the
mix increases, the potential temperature rise will decrease because of the greater
heat capacity of water relative to the compost dry matter. With a larger proportion
of water, the ratio between the heat producing fraction (the biodegradable material)
and the heat absorbing fraction (the water) decreases. As a result, during cold
weather the compost process manager should develop mixes that are drier and more
biodegradable than would be needed during warm weather.
Heat loss and conservation is also related to the size of the composting mass and
to the compost technology. In contrast to the desirability of a larger surface to
volume ratio to enhance biodegradability,best heat conservation is obtained with
the lowest surface to volume ratio. For example, in a small compost pile a portion
Composfing 217
of the heat energy will be radiated to the atmosphere and lost, reducing potential
temperature increases in the composting materials. Such would be observed in
many backyard compost piles which tend to be fairly small and not well-insulated
fiom the outside temperature. Larger compost piles a have smaller, heat radiating
surface area per unit of volume than do small piles. In a well-managed composting
facility, heat energy will be conserved within larger compost piles. Compost
within an enclosed composting container or vessel is engineered to minimize heat
loss. Pile depth is managed and container walls can be insulated to optimize
temperature increases.
D. Aeration
1. Temperature Control
homogeneity of the material and keep the compost mix open and porous to good
air movement.
2. Moisture Removal
Aeration not only sweeps heat from the composting materials, but also removes
water vapor. Removal of water vapor has two effects. First, the removal of the
water vapor begins the compost drying process. Second, the evaporation of water
and removal of the vapor cools the compost.
The heat that develops during composting warms the composting materials,
but it also evaporates water. This water is derived from two sources: 1, moisture
in the feed-stock (biosolids, wood chips, sawdust, etc.) and 2, metabolic water from
microbial oxidation of the feed-stock carbon or volatile solids.
The incoming feed-stock generally contains about 40 to 45% dry matter, or
about 55 to 60% moisture. During composting, aeration sweeps out a portion of
this moisture which has vaporized, leaving the drier product with only 40 to 50%
moisture. This amounts to removal of a substantial quantity of water in vapor
form. For example, for each 100 tons of raw material composted daily, its weight
after composting will have diminished to about 67 tons, assuming no changes in
the weight of the dry matter. Thus, 33 tons of water will be evaporated and
removed from the composting materials each day. On an annual basis, this 33 tons
surges to nearly 12,000 tons of water, equivalent to approximately 3,000,000
gallons of liquid water. Ignoring the management of this water vapor, and
potentially corrosive liquid water condensate, has caused untold pain and suffering
among compost process managers and engineers.
The second source of water removed by aeration is metabolic water which is
derived from the composting materials. If we consider, as an example, that the fuel
for the biological fire is the cellulose monomer glucose, we may estimate the
amount of water that will be produced by the metabolic processes of the
composting organisms by degradation of volatile solids. From the following
equation, and the associated formula weights of the materials:
water. On an annual basis, the formation of this water amounts to about 1,200
tons, or approximately 292,000 gallons. A portion of this water will also be
evaporated by the aeration process.
While aeration cools the composting materials as the air absorbs heat,
evaporation of water is the major cooling factor. As noted earlier, air has a heat
capacity of 0.25 caVg/"C, as contrasted with water which is 1.00 caVg/"C. Cool
air moving through the hot compost will increase in temperature by 4°C for every
calorie of heat energy absorbed. However, evaporation of water absorbs
substantially larger quantities of heat energy. To evaporate one gram of water at
100°C will require 540 calories of energy. At a temperature of 70", about 560
cal/g is required to evaporate a gram of water, over ten times more than the 50
calories that would be required, for example, to increase the temperature from
20°C to 70°C. As is evident, evaporation of water is the greatest heat
absorbingkooling force within the composting material.
While adequate aeration is required to control temperature and remove water
vapor, over-aeration of the composting materials can prove detrimental to the
composting process. Over-aeration can remove so much heat and moisture that the
composting materials cool excessively,reducing the metabolic rate of the microbes
and, as a consequence, the composting rate. Over-aeration can also dry the
composting materials excessively so that metabolic activities of the microbes is
reduced, or in some cases, stopped altogether due to lack of moisture in the
materials. Thus, careful control of aeration, and process monitoring is important
to good composting.
3 . Oxygenation
percent dry solids (%DS) is probably the number one consideration, followed
closely by the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N). Then would follow biodegradability,
porosity, and finally a host of characteristics related more to marketing a well-
composted material than operating the compost process successfully. Since
materials used to adjust such properties amend the physical and chemical character
of the blended feedstock, they are often called amendments. Thus, the process
manager must know his ingredients,how they impact the composting process, and
how they will ultimately influence the marketability of the finished compost.
Guidelines for selection of amendments are suggested in Table 5-3.
A second, though no less important basis for developing a blended feedstock
is that the compost process manager must be guided by the initial purpose for
developing and operating the compost facility. Operational objectives for a
composting facility range from being a solution to a waste management problem
to manufacturing compost for an identified compost market. Such objectives may
set fairly narrow constraints on the ingredient options by the process manager. For
example, many compost facilities are developed to help solve a problem with
biosolids, leaves, and yard wastes. For such facilities, the goal is to develop a
blend that 1) composts all of the targeted wastes within a timely fashion, and
2) produces a marketable product. So long as the identified blend of wastes
produces a readily compostable mixture the process manager’s daily activities are
straightforward. However, when that blend of materials no longer produces a
readily compostable mix under the prevailing conditions, then the operator will
need to seek out and evaluate other ingredient options.
Ingredient options for increasing the dry solids content are listed in Table 5-4,
along with some comments on their use. The materials include both organic and
mineral products, not all of which will be appropriate at each composting location.
For example, use of shredded pallets as a source of dry matter and bulkiness may
222 Naylor
Wood chips, shavings, can be dusty, avoid nails in all woody shredded
woody construction waste materials, very dry
I Shredded pallets
I very dry, course finished product, coarseness will
improve porosity I
Shredded brush & leaves, dryness will vary, coarseness will improve porosity,
bark, plant fibers such as some limitation on availability, leaves & grass are very
shredded hay biodegradable
~~
From time to time, porosity needs may be less important than increasing the
dry solids content of a mix. In such cases, additional options are available. Several
very dry materials that happen to be fairly fine are available and sometimes may
be obtained at little or no cost. These would include sawdust, either kiln-dry or
green, wood ash, ground dry wall (gypsum), and perhaps coal fly ash, if allowed
by regulation. Some materials that may be available locally in selected areas
include ground corn cobs, dust from grain storages, animal bedding such as wood
shavings from horse stables, and shredded papers. Each of these has specific
benefits, but also handling problems. For most of the very fine materials such as
kiln dry sawdust, dustiness is a problem the operator must be prepared to contend
Naylor
with. For a few, such as grain dust or animal bedding, rapid biodegradability or
odors may need to be considered. However, these problems are not insurmountable
and the process manager should consider broadly all ingredient options available
as tools to manage the composting process.
2 . Porosity
In general, bulky, woody materials, one-inch and smaller in diameter, make good
amendmentsto increase dry solids content as well as porosity. Such materials are
also called bulking agents for obvious reasons: they increase the bulkiness or
porosity of a mix. Post-process screening can be used to remove and reuse the
larger pieces, enabling the operator to get multiple-duty from the chips. This can
be particularly important if the chips must be purchased, or their procurement cost,
e.g. chipping, grading, and transport, is higher than their cost of simple disposal.
However, in some cases the porosity lending materials were considered in the
original design to be included in the fmished product as a means of their disposition
and beneficial use. In such instances, the process manager must give additional
thought on how the materials will impact the marketability of the fmished product.
3 . Particle Size
The particle size distribution of a dry amendment will influence the porosity of a
mix. A uniform particle size will result in many voids between the particles, just
like a stack-up pile of oranges. However, if there is a wide range of particle sizes,
the smaller particles will plug the voids between the larger particles. While the mix
may be drier, the porosity may not be appreciably improved. See Figure 5-8.
4. Bulk Density
Bulk density of a material can be important in terms of the finished weight and
transportation economics of the marketable compost, transportation cost of the
amendment, ease of turning the composting mixture. Materials can vary from
extremely light for Styrofoam beads sometimes added to the finished product for
marketing purposes to relatively dense in the case of wet wood chips.
5 . Moisture Absorptivity
water) has almost none. If the objective of adding a dry amendment is to absorb the
free water within a mix, then the absorptivity of that material is important.
Shredded rubber tires have from time to time been used as an amendment. Such
material would surely provide porosity, but would have no impact on free water.
In contrast, shredded paper would absorb a great deal of water, but would not
increase porosity appreciably.
6 . Stickiness
7 . Adding Moisture
B. Chemical Composition
The main purpose of adjusting the carbon to nitrogen (C:N)ratio is to assure the
compost microorganismsa balanced diet. As discussed earlier, the carbon provides
the energy and the nitrogen furnishes the protein for growth and reproduction.
Materials that are rich in carbon include woody materials, paper, sugar, and certain
types of wood ash. However, these materials do not all have the same proportion
of carbon that would be available to a microbe during the time frame of a typical
two to four week composting period.
A common notion is that the amendment is added to adjust the C:N ratio as
well as the dry solids content of a blended feedstock. While this is not an incorrect
strategy, it is certainly not an adequate picture of the true situation. The dry solids
adjustment can be made with all sorts of dry materials that may or may not have
any impact whatsoever on the C:N ratio. Obviously, an amendment such as kiln
dry sawdust will adjust the dry solids content of a mix, and will have some effect
on increasing the C:N ratio since the sawdust is very fine, with a high surface to
volume ratio. In contrast, wood chips that are one-inch diameter by a quarter inch
thick will have almost no impact on the C:N ratio. Microbes have relatively little
access to the bulk of the carbonaceouscomponent buried within the interior of the
chip. Likewise having no effect on C:N are materials such as wood ash with
chunks of carbon which are virtually non-biodegradable and ground up gypsum
(calcium sulfate) board which is very dry,but contains no carbon at all. Sometimes
non-woody materials make the best carbon sources. These may or may not be dry.
Examples include sugary wastes, fruit wastes, and shredded leaves which have high
C:Nratios and are very biodegradable. Thus, as the operator evaluates the overall
blend, consideration must be given to the biodegradabilityof the materials as well
as their C:N ratio to effectivelyjudge their ability to adjust the C:N of the blended
feedstock.
2 . Regulated Chemicals
All ingredients incorporated into the blended feedstock contain all ofthe chemicals
regulated by environmental agencies, although for many their concentrations are
of no significance. There is a notion on the part of some that certain materials are
clean whereas others represent potential risk as a consequence of the presence of
such chemicals. In reality, presence equals neither toxicity nor hazard. All
materials represent a continua of chemical compositions and concentrations.
Beneficial use of a material is possible because the composition is known, the
appropriate rate of use to achieve some beneficial end is understood, and a use rate
is identified that makes negligible any potentially harmful effects due of the
Cornposting 227
3 . Non-regulated Chemicals
While the regulatory community has a set of chemicals that it is concerned with,
this set does not overlap very much with chemicals of concern to the users of the
finished compost. Where such chemicals do overlap the concern tends to be
sufficiency rather than excess. Users are interested primarily in macro-nutrients
and trace minerals, pH, organic matter, salinity, along with physical characteristics
such as porosity, water holding capacity, and bulk density.
The macro-nutrients consist of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. These
nutrients are of interest in the blended feedstock for several reasons. Nitrogen in
the materials will influence the C:N ratio, and have some effect on the nitrogen
content of the fmished product. Phosphorus and potassium content will influence
the finished product quality. Phosphorus is often listed as soluble phosphoric acid
on description sheets of the nutrient content of materials with a guaranteed or
approximate fertilizer value. What is meant is not that the material contains
phosphoric acid, but that the water soluble phosphorus concentration is expressed
as phosphoric acid, usually as P,O,. This formula gives a P205concentration about
2.29 times higher than the concentration listed as P. The reason is that the formula
contains oxygen. A similar situation exists for potassium which is usually listed as
soluble potash, K,O. In this case the value as K 2 0 is about 1.21 times higher than
for K. The following two formulas show how the proportion of K (eq. 5-5) and of
P (eq. 5-6) in the respective oxide forms is calculated:
2xK-
-- 2x39 --- 1
K,O (39x2+16) 1.21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (5-5)
228 Naylor
--2xP - 2x31 - 1
-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5-6)
P,O, (2x31 +5x16) 2.29
neutral alkaline
NH,+ C-> NH, + W . ............................ (5-7)
non-volatile volatile
TABLE 5-5 COMPOSITION OF FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS [171
quor). 3. Dewaiere
N
5:
230 NayIor
This chemical reaction is reversible and ammonia, along with carbon dioxide,
(eq. 5-8) buffer the pH of the composting materials. Ammonia will react with
volatile acids and other acidic compounds, such as acetic acid, formed during
composting, neutralizing the acids.
Since the reaction tends to reduce the content of the volatile, odorous
components, this reaction may reduce or at least change the odors evident at a
composting facility. However, balancing the pH of the composting materials so as
to neutralize all odors by this strategy is not practical.
Within the composting process, a pH increase is generally temporary. The
enormous quantity of carbon dioxide, a weak acid, produced during the composting
process buffers changes in pH. The buffering reaction is reversible, but tends to
depress the pH of the composting materials by reaction of carbon dioxide with
alkalinity:
C02+OH-c->HC03- o C O , ” + H + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5-9)
As a consequence of the buffering action of ammonia and carbon dioxide,
well made compost tends to have a pH in the range of 7.5, even though the initial
pH of the blended feedstock may vary from pH 5 to pH 10.
Aluminum and iron are frequently added to slurries to aid in dewatering, or
in some cases to water or wastewater to react with soluble phosphate
(orthophosphate). Aluminum forms a very insoluble precipitate which can be
settled out with biosolids or other sludge to produce a very low phosphorus
effluent. When unreacted aluminum is present in a waste it will react with
phosphorus from other components in the composting feedstock, and can reduce
the water soluble or plant available proportion of the phosphorus in the finished
product. This will not be evident, however, from the analysis of the total
phosphorus (strong acid soluble) present in the finished product but will be shown
in certain tests for plant available phosphorus. Aluminum is not an essential plant
nutrient, but is phytotoxic at low pH. Iron has a similar effect on available
phosphorus, although not so strong as aluminum, plus the advantage that the iron
is an essential nutrient.
Reaction of soluble aluminum with soluble phosphorus in materials to be
composted is not usually desirable. One approach to judge the extent to which the
aluminum has reacted with the phosphorus is to compare the percentages of each
in a material. The formula for aluminum phosphate is AlP04. The molar ratio of
Composfing 231
A1:P in the formula is 1:1. Since the atomic weight of A1 is 27 and that of P is 32,
an A1:P percentage ratio of 27:32 could theoretically precipitate all the phosphorus.
However, soluble aluminum can react with other cations. As a practical matter a
molar ratio of I .4:1 was observed experimentally to precipitate only 75% of the
soluble phosphorus from wastewater [23]. Thus, it can be shown that 1.2% A1 in
a material will precipitate 1.O% phosphorus. From the perspective of the compost
process manager reviewing an analysis report, we can say that the percentage
phosphorus in excess of the percentage aluminum will approximate the unreacted
and potentially plant available phosphorus. So if a waste contains 5% A1 and 2%
P, then the manager could expect the waste to react with other sources of P in other
materials in a blended feedstock. If the %P exceeds the %Al, then most of the A1
will have reacted and should not be a problem due to reactivity with soluble
phosphorus.
C. Ingredient Selection
One of the problems compost facility managers face is lack of ready information
on the composition of common materials. Balancing ingredients from materials
received at a composting facility is always a challenge because analyses of such
items are not always available prior to receipt or in some cases at the time of
delivery. Dry solids can be tested rapidly using a microwave drier, but other
elements are not so straightforward. Data are presented for various foods and food
processing residuals (Tables 5-2 and 5-5 ), wood processing by-products and fiber
residuals (Table 5-6), and various types of animal wastes (Table 5-7). Analyses
furnish data that would help answer questions related to dry solids content, C:N
ratio, concentrations of regulated or non-regulated elements. While not as good as
an analysis of the actual material, these data are useful as a guide for preliminary
evaluation and selection of amendments and other ingredients in a blended
feedstock.
Source separated organic wastes and various residuals fiom food processing (Table
5-8) are ideal materials to blend with biosolids in a blended feedstock. The wastes
derived from the processing of fruits and vegetables are highly biodegradable,
lower in C:N than biosolids, and as a result can supply a readily biodegradable
source of carbon. Pallets, corrugated boxes, and slip sheets can be shredded and
used as a source of dry matter in the blend. In a highly controlled composting
facility, a compostable blend of certain meat packing wastes can be specially
formulated. Not all wastes fiom the food processing facility are appropriate. To
Jute Sawdust Primary Wood Pulping Wood White Colored Chip
Fiber KilnDry Sludge Ash Liquor Bark Tissue Tissue Board
Totalnitrogen 1.1 0.11 0.29 0.12 0.18 0.99 0.28 0.3 3.17
Ammonia --- 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 3.17
Potassium 0.34 0.11 0.02 1.ti6 0.28 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.05
Calcium 5.03 0.1 0.15 12.8 0.18 1.12 0.16 0.16 0.11
Magnesium 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.81 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.13
TABLE 5-7 COMPOSITIONOF SOME ANIMAL WASTES r7i
Magnesium 0.44 1.09 0.75 ,043 3.19 0.80 0.21 0.2 I .030
Sodium 0.05 0.59 0.69 0.08 0.1 1 0.08 0.2 I 0.21 0.30
Iron 0.34 0.06 0.18 0.10 .046 1.94 0.15 0.07 0.05
Aluminum 0.15 0.04 ___ 0.06 0.24 --- 0.21 0.02 0.05
Cornposting 235
be avoided are salty residues, metal and glass contamination, plastic strapping and
sheeting, and in general slurries from treatment of cooling water or boiler
blowdown.
Cornposting is an art and a science. To learn the art takes a good deal of
experience, whereas working with blended feedstock recipes based on science can
furnish even the novice with the correct starting point. For the experienced, the
scientific approach can at least help the process manager know why the mix did or
did not compost well. This section discusses the science of developing a good mix.
The process manager is a chef, and for the preparation of a good product he must
know his ingredients and understand how these ingredients interact during the
composting process, their effect on the finished product, the process biology, and
the specific composting technology used. Understanding the art will come with
time.
The simplest compostable mix will consist of two ingredients: biosolids and a dry
amendment. For example, biosolids and sawdust, biosolids and shredded yard
waste, or biosolids and wood chips are compostable mixes. Literally hundreds of
such mixes are prepared daily in all sorts of composting facilities throughout the
238 Naylor
world. The single objective of the recipe is generally to develop a mix with the
correct dry solids content, about 40 to 50% dry solids, depending on the
composting technology. As it turns out, such mixes have a C:N ratio of about 20
to 40, which is appropriate. The mixes usually have adequate porosity. And the
mixes usually compost well. Thus, for ordinary day-to-day composting balancing
the dry solids content is a good approach, and certainly a good first step, to
developing a compostable mix.
Obtaining the correct dry solids content at the time the blended feedstock is
prepared is important to successful composting, not to mention low frustration
levels by the staff. Once the initial mix has been prepared, wetting is inconvenient,
if not very difficult, and drying a too wet mix is nearly impossible without
completely starting over and adding more dry material.
Weight basis mix ratios. The proportion of biosolids and amendment in a mix
wet weight waste x YoDS, + wet weight amendment x %DS, = %DS, wet weight
waste + wet weight amendment
are a function of the dry solids content each of these two ingredients and the target
dry solids content of the blended feedstock. The derivation of mathematical
equation, shown below, for calculation ofthe amendment quantities (weight basis)
is given in Table 5-9.
Using this equation, the amendment weight varies the greatest when in the
range of 50 to 60% as shown in Figure 5-9. For example, the quantity of
amendment required, weight basis, at 50% DS to achieve 40% DS in the input mix
is double that required at 60%. But the amount of amendment required at 60% is
double that required at 80%. Similar differences are noted in the effect of the dry
solids in the biosolids on the amendment requirements. Thus, dry solids content
U
Ic
0.5
.-
Weight ratio6
50 55 60 65 70 75 130 85 90
Amendment, %DS
Flg. 6-9 INFLUENCE OF DRY SOLIDS CONTENT OF BIOSOLIDS AND AMENDMENT
ON THE WEIGHT RATIOS OF THE TWO INGREDIENTS TO ACHIEVE 40% DS
IN THE BLENDED FEEDSTOCK.
240 Naylor
of the available amendments and of the biosolids are very important considerations
as the compost process manager evaluates the supply of dry materials available
to be used in a biosolids-amendment input mix. This ratio is important to
transportation costs, truck traffic, finished product handling and post-processing,
quantity of finished compost to be marketed, and capacity of storage facilities. It
is also an important consideration in evaluating the quantity of a dry waste material
such as yard waste that can be absorbed by the composting facility.
Volume basis mix ratios. Mixing materials on a weight basis provides the
most accurate, reproducible, and generally most successful approach. However,
materials are mixed from time-to-time on a volumetric basis, especially once the
bulk density of the material is well-known fiom practice. To develop a mix based
on the volume of the ingredients their bulk densities must be known. Bulk
densities were calculated from weight of a cubic foot of material for various
samples of sawdust, a common amendment, and the data are plotted in Figure 5-10.
As is clear from the graph, considerable variation exists in the bulk density of
sawdust samples, even samples with the same dry solids content. Sawdust is a
relatively homogeneous material as contrasted with, for example, yard wastes,
leaves, and even wood chips. The latter materials are non-uniform, and pack
tightly or loosely depending on the particle size, moisture, and stiffness (green vs.
dry). Developing mixes based on volume ratios for such non-homogeneous
materials is not very accurate, but experience operators have had reasonable
success. Nonetheless, mix ratios based on weights of ingredients are always more
accurate than those based on volumes.
As the dry solids of a homogeneous amendment such as sawdust decreases,
i.e. the material becomes wetter, the bulk density increases (Figure 5-10). Water
has filled openings in the material that were previously filled with air. From Figure
5-9, a decrease in the dry solids of an amendment will increase the quantity
required to achieve a desired dry solids content in the blended feedstock. This
requirement for a larger weight of an amendment when combined with an increase
in bulk density as amendment moisture increases would seem to be self-
compensating. But these two factors do not quite compensate for each other
volumetrically, as shown in Figure 5- 1 1. Roughly half as much amendment by
volume is required at 65% DS as at 50% DS.
It should be noted that the mix ratios shown in Figure 5-9 (weight basis) and
Figure 5- 1 1 (volume basis) are specific to the conditions represented on the graphs.
Those conditions are 40% DS in the blended feedstock, amendment bulk density
as represented by the curve in Figure 5-10, and a biosolids bulk density of 59 lb/cu
ft. Volumetric ratios are particularly sensitive to variations in bulk density of the
2 1 Volume ratios
Biosolids, % dry solids
5
+12% DS
--A-18% DS
-+-24% DS
-0- 30% DS
..
C
al
E '
0
v 0
.-0
c
U
m
K 01 I I I I I I I 1
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Amendment, % DS
Fig. 5-11 INFLUENCE OF DRY SOLIDS CONTENT OF
BlOSOLlDS AND AMENDMENT ON T H E VOLUME
RATIOS OF T H E T W O INGREDIENTS TO ACHIEVE
40% DS IN THE BLENDED FEEDSTOCK.
242 Naylor
amendment. If the conditions change from these assumptions, the curves become
less representative and should be redrawn for better accuracy.
the material could also be used as an amendment, leaving a blank for the yard
trimmings box. In other words, the example shows a weight of 10 for the yard
trimmings, and a weight of 14 for amendment. We couldjust as easily use a weight
of 24 for the yard trimmings.
How to eplcnlntethe weight of amendment to nchleve the dealred % dry r o ~ d aha the blended
feedstock:
1. Add up dry weights of in@enta. Add up weights of ingredients. Keep all Units the same, for
example, all weights in tons, Mg, kilograms or Ibs.
2. Divide total weight by the tdal wet weight to give percent dry solids of the compositemix
3. Calculate amdment guantity to achieve the desired percent solids in the blended feedstock
Amendment wt = -
(wet wt wastes x feedstodc DS %I 100 drv wt wastes)
-
(amendment DS YO feedstock DS %)I 100
wetweieht x feedstockDS.%+ 100 =
Depencllng on the actual materials, their weights, and their dry solids content, it
is possible for the calculated amendment weight to be negative value. When this is the
case,the dry solids content of the mixture of the wastes will be higher than that desired
in the blended feedstock In such cases, a material wetter than the blended feedstock
will be used to balance the dry solids content. For example,
100
1. Add up dry weigMs of ingredients. Add up weights of ingredients. Keep all units the same, for
example, all weights in tons, Mg, kilograms or Ibs.
2. Divide total dry weight by the total wet weight to give percent dry solids of the composite mix
3. Calculate amendment quantity to achieve the d e s i percent solids in the blended feedstock
-wt= -
(wetwtwastes X feedstock DS %I 100 drvwtwastes)
-
(amendment DS YO feedstock DS YO)I 100
wetweight X
n1 - + TI=
dryweightwastes =
Composfing 245
food waste or biosolids could become the amendment if a wet material is needed
to lower the percent dry solids of the waste materials.
5. Energy Balance
As discussed earlier, the energy output as heat during composting is the driving
force of the process. Energy generated is used to increase temperatures into the
pathogen killing range, to increase the microbial rate of decomposition, to elevate
the temperature of the feedstock and air, and to evaporate water. When a mix has
inadequate energy, one of these uses suffers, usually moisture evaporation.
Occasionally it is useful to be able to estimate the energy content of various
components in a compostable mix and the blended feedstock. This is especially
helpful if an input mix contains a high proportion of inert (non-biodegradables such
as sand or ash) or slowly biodegradable materials (lots of paper or wood chips).
Composting 247
Energy can be estimated from the percent biodegradabilityof the volatile solids and
the amount of energy obtained from degradation of those solids. Oxidation of
volatile solids may be estimated from the energy output during combustion of a
material. For organic matter the common value used is 10,000 BTU's per pound.
While this value may not be exactly correct for each ingredient, it will furnish an
approximation of the relative heat output from a mixture of ingredients.
A protocol for calculatingthe estimated energy from ingredients and for the
blended feedstock is presented in Table 5-12. This energy is considered to be
released during the three to seven week composting period plus curing time.
Weights and solids data for this calculation can be obtained from Tables 5-10 and
5- 1 1. Estimates for biodegradability are shown in Table 5- 1. Tables 5- 10 to 12
developed as computer spreadsheets can be linked to automatically update data
transfers and make the blended feedstock recipe (materials balance), C:N ratio, and
energy output interactive. Data calculated from Table 5- 12 also enables estimation
of the dry weight and wet weight of the finished product.
Examining the thermodynamicsof the composting process can lead to a better
understanding of energy output during the composting process, how that energy is
used, and the inter-relationship of biodegradability, volatile solids lost, metabolic
water formed, and the weight of the finished compost.
To produce a dry, high quality product, the composting process must generate
enough energy to not only heat the compost to pathogen-killing temperatures, but
also to evaporate moisture in the composting materials. This energy is produced
by the microbial oxidation of biodegradablevolatile solids, the biological fire. This
discussion assumes an energy yield of 10,000 BTU per pound of volatile solids
destroyed, and the energy to remove the moisture (latent heat of evaporation) is
considered to be about 1,000 BTU per pound of water evaporated at 140°F.
For the purposes of this example, the biosolids dry matter is considered to
contain 60%volatile solids, of which 35% is considered to biodegrade within the
active composting period. While the amendment contains a greater concentration
of volatile solids, 90%, this material is known to be less biodegradable because of
the lignin in the wood. The amendment is considered to be 25% biodegradable
assuming it to be primarily ground up wood mixed with some leaves and/or grass
clippings.
The example data in Table 5-13 illustrates a case in which 30 wet tons of
biosolids are composted with 40 wet tons of amendment. The blended feedstock
contains 70 wet tons or 28 dry tons at 40% DS. Of the dry material in the
feedstock, 3.60 tons of VS is derived from biosolids and 19.8 tons from
amendment, for a total of 23.4 tons. During the cornposting process, 1.26 tons of
biosolids VS plus 4.95 tons of amendment VS for a total of 6.21 tons VS are
biologically burned releasing about 124.2 million BTU of energy, eq. 5-1 1 .
248 Naylor
2.70 0.5
1 ::: 1 1 1 :I 1
Paper 5.0 4.5 60%
-I
Totals 71.0 28.4 22.0 42.6
Paper
Yard Trimmings
Food Waste
Dry IC&I
Amendment
Totals
39.6 wet tons - 21.8 dry tons = 17.8 tons water in the finished compost
a+b d e fie f g
x 100% x 100%
Food Waste
Amendment
I + k x 100%
.Y BTU's = Ib VS lost x 10,000 BTU per Ib. Data shown here assume weight units are in tons.
The calculation is:
M BTU's = (tons Vs lost x 2000 Ib/ton x 10,000BTUllb) + 1,000,000
t Biodegradability of volatile solids.
tt Ib VS lost = Ibs VS x % biodegradability
Composting 251
Adding the 57.2 M BTU for evaporation of water to the 6.86 M BTU to warm
the compost gives a total energy absorption of 64.1 M BTU. This leaves 60.1
million BTU in excess that will be absorbed by the air used to cool the compost or
lost to the environment.
Odor ranks number one of all the pollutants that may get the public's immediate
attention. Complicating the odor problem is the highly subjective nature of odor.
What one person finds acceptable, another many find extremely objectionable.
Odors are produced on the farm, during rendering and food processing activities,
and by a variety of waste management activities, including composting.
Agricultural areas have organized into political agricultural districts with legal
right-to-farm laws supporting normal farm operations including the spreading of
manure with any associated odors. Thus, odors are not specific to biosolids or
composting, but are common in all areas of life from the home to the farm. The
key to being a good neighbor, whatever the odor source, is to keep the odors
separate from the noses. For a composting facility to be successful and continue
operations, this objective must not just be a goal, but an accomplishment.
In recent years the science and technology of odor control has greatly
improved. Odor control can be provided using a number of strategies including the
following:
* Control of composting process
c Enclosure of composting areas
'I. Treatment of odorous pollutants
c Locating composting site at safe distance from receptors
252 Naylor
A. Origins of Odors
Attempts at odor control have included masking agents (covering up the odor with
another, more acceptable odor); oxidation of the odorous material with ozone,
potassium permanganate, or chlorine containing compounds in commercially
available wet scrubbers; adsorption using activated carbon filters; thermal
oxidation using afterburners; and absorptiodbiological oxidation using biofilters.
All of these technologies can be successful in removing odors. However the chief
benefit of the biofilter is the simplicity of this technology matching the simplicity
of composting.
Although biofiltration is accepted to varying degrees within the compost
science and engineering community, biofilter use is growing. Major benefits of
biofiltration relate to its simplicity.
Odor removal is reasonably effective even under poor management, and very
effective under average to best management.
A broad spectrum of chemicals and concentrations can be removed.
Biofilter media materials are readily available through local landscaping
supply yards. Piping and blowers to distribute air to the biofilter are readily
available at many equipment supply houses. Virtually no chemicals are
required for successful operation.
Moisture flowing through the biofilter contains mostly soluble salts (nitrates,
carbonates, and sulfates). This liquid can be captured in a sump and may be
returned to the composting materials as a source of moisture.
The biofilter is resilient to varying environmental conditions such as heat and
cold, snow and rain, although much less so to drought.
Relatively simple and infrequent maintenance is required for satisfactory odor
removal.
While there are a number of benefits, the long term biofilter efficiency is
dependent on the maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological condition
of the biofilter media.
Nay/or
A properly operating biofilter is, at its most fundamental level, a forced air,
unmixed, very high C:N ratio compost pile. In most cases heat build-up is
negligible, though fieezing is uncommon in northern climates. Components of the
media must furnish porosity for good air flow and low head loss through the media,
physical structure to support the media and minimize collapse during the life of the
biofilter, an active biological population, and moisture for support of this biological
community. To function efficiently, the biofilter must be maintained to sustain
both the physical structure and the biological population.
The success of a well-maintainedbiofilter to control odors is a function of the
efficiency of two processes: sorption and regeneration.
1. Sorption Processes
The biofilter's odor removal capability is due initially to interaction with particle
surfaces, the active sites. This takes place by adsorption onto particles of the
media, absorption or dissolution into water, chemisorption, catalytic contact on
particle surfaces, and ion exchange on particle surfaces. Odorous compounds in
an air stream flow through the biofilter media matrix and become attached through
adsorption or absorption onto particle surfaces, removing the odors from the air
stream. Since removal occurs onto surfaces, the surface area of the media is fairly
important. Thus, odor removal efficiency is a function the strength of the
physicaVchemica1 sorption processes and the surface area of the sorptive particles
in the biofilter.
For example, hydrogen sulfide can be precipitated onto particles as sulfides of
iron or other metals. Hydrogen sulfide is first dissociated into HS- and H'and then
precipitated as the metal sulfide. In the case of ammonia, the ammonia is dissolved
in water, dissociating into m' andOH with sorption of the ammonium ion, and
neutralization of the hydroxyl ion by soil acidity. Volatile, long-chain, lipophilic
organic molecules are sorbed most effectively by moist organic matter. However,
the sorption capacity of the particles is limited, and regeneration of the medium's
sorption capacity must be achieved by chemical and microbial oxidation of the
odorous compounds. When the biofilter is in long-term use, the sorption-
-regeneration processes reach steady-state conditions.
2. Regeneration Processes
3 . Steady-state Operation
The capacity of the biofilter media to remove odorous chemicals depends on the
simultaneous operation of both the sorption processes and the regeneration
processes. As a result, the biofilter's odor removal potential can be exceeded by
overloading the system through excessive air flow rates, so that sorption rates are
lower than the rate at which the chemicals pass through the filter. Once all the
sorption sites are occupied, odor removal is rapidly diminished. A second limiting
factor is the microbial regeneration rate of the sorbed chemical which must equal
or exceed the sorption rate. Toxic chemicals can interfere with microbial
processes until a microbial population develops which can metabolize the toxic
chemical. Soil acidity may reduce the removal efficiency due to an inhospitable
environment for soil bacteria. Soil acidity may also increase removal by reacting
with ammonia to form the non-volatile ammonium ion. In most cases of biofilter
failure, however, the limiting factor is simply overloading of the filter rather than
impairment of microbiological processes because of the great diversity and
numbers of soil bacteria.
4. Design Suggestions
D. Biofilter Challenges
While there are a good many positive aspects of biofiltration, there are also many
challenges that must be taken care of during design, construction and operation.
Biofilter media are considered to possess uniform porosity and uniform moisture.
These properties are important to uniform air flow and efficient odor removal, but
are seldom achieved throughout the filter.
1. Construction
2. Operation
Short circuiting of odorous air through the biofilter reduces odor absorption
efficiency. Short circuits can be caused by tap roots of plants allowed to grow in
the media, by dry zones which possess more porosity than adjacent moist areas, and
Cornposting 257
On a weekly basis, record the pressure drop through the media, check for dry spots
on the surface, remoisten as necessary, and remove weeds and grass from the
surface. Increases in static head pressure indicate plugging or media collapse,
while decreases may indicate leaks. Variation from week to week is normal when
induced by rainfall or other temporary changes. What is important are pressure
changes that persist, or trends over time. Graphing the data is often helpful to get
a visual presentation of changes in head pressure within the biofilter. Each month
make an extensive survey of the media surface and correct any problems. These
include surface porosity, moisture in the media, rodent holes that could develop
258 Naylor
into short-circuits, and any odor leaks. On an annual basis, chemically test samples
of the biofilter media to check pH, and concentrations of nitrogen compounds.
Screen the media at one inch, and measure the C:N ratio on the finer materials.
Excavate and examine the media from surface to base to assess its physical
condition.
will generate heat that tends to keep the materials fairly dry on the inside. Because
the piles do generate heat, periodically monitoring their temperature is essential to
avoid overheating, charring, or worse. If heat builds up beyond 60 to 70"C, the
piles should be turned and aerated to release the heat.
The dry materials will be processed to uniform particle size by shredding using
a tub grinder, a slow speed auger shredder, or other type of grinding or shredding
technology. The particle size should be guided by the composting technology
selected and the requirements of the customer for the finished compost. Once the
dry materials to be used as amendments are received and ground, these materials
will need to be stored until blending into the composting feedstock.
The purpose of post-processing is to prepare the finished compost for
marketing. Preparation will include conveyance of the finished compost from the
active composting area to the curing, screening, and preparation areas. Trommel
screens and belt shredders are frequently used. Shredding can precede or follow
curing. In some cases, double screening is preferable, especially for the
horticultural market where price opportunities and product quality required enable
somewhat more time to be spent on product quality control.
The compost will need to be cured and stored for 30 days to up to 6 months or
more. The length of curing and storage is a function of the composting process,
regulatory requirements, marketing strategy, and customer requirements. One
benefit of screening before curing is that the quantity of material stored is smaller,
reducing the size of the curing area. On the other hand, the presence of coarser
materials in the curing compost tends to keep the static pile more open, enabling
some exchange of air and heat release. Compost can be cured and stored outside.
Heat generated by this product tends to dry the piles on the inside. The piles will
become wetted on the surface to a depth of 6 to 12 inches. The site should be laid
out to avoid surface water run-on to the storage area. In most cases, site runoff
control is required. Surface water from the area can be collected and used as a
moisture source in the process in many cases.
IX. MARKETING
diverse group of trace elements such as copper, zinc, iron, and boron. These
elements as well as the bulk provided by the organic matter in compost can
improve the humus content of soil and contribute greatly to the chemical and
physical properties of a fertile soil. However, once the finished compost is
prepared, the necessary next step is distribution and marketing of the product to the
consumer.
Composted biosolids are marketed to a large extent for the establishment and
maintenance of turf-grass, garden and horticultural use, production of nursery
crops, and as a source of organic matter in bedding plant mixes. This practice
saves customers money while yielding excellent horticultural and floricultural
results. These markets depend on readily available sources of consistent quality
and supply of organic matter for production of high quality plants. Compost
derived from an effective composting process guided by a quality assurance
program is a good competitor in such markets.
A. Marketing Issues
Issues that can influence marketing fall into two general areas: (1) consistent
composition and assured delivery, (2) quality concerns: physical, chemical, and
biological.
must achieve assured delivery of the quality and quantity of the material ordered
at a competitive price.
2. Quality Concerns
amount of nitrogen that may become available as the organic nitrogen mineralizes
(biodegrades into the mineral or inorganic form) is not described by either test.
While there are no tests to determine precisely the proportion of this organic
nitrogen that may become available from a specific compost during a growing
season, the results of many laboratory studies of nitrogen release from composts
suggest that about 10 to 15% of the organic nitrogen will be released during the
growing season. The residual nitrogen is retained in the soil and continues to
provide nitrogen for plant growth for several years.
Compost is a living fertilizer. Because some the nutrients in the compost are
combined with organic matter, these nutrients, especially nitrogen, are released as
this organic matter slowly breaks down through biological activity of living micro-
organisms. This biological activity is moderated by the same environmental
conditions that influence plant growth: moisture and temperature. Thus, as with
many organic fertilizers, the plant nutrients tend to be released gradually, and in
response to the conditions that also stimulate plant growth. Such a release pattern
tends to result in more efficient use of the nutrients. Because of this slow release
nature of compost nitrogen, a second, but equally important, benefit is that nutrient
loss through leaching is greatly reduced or eliminated.
Specific parameters. While environmental regulators show a great deal of
interest in metal concentrations in compost, potential customers, i.e. growers, have
much simpler analytical interests once the compost has passed the regulatory
standard. Thus, a quality assurance program should focus on the grower’s
interests. Analyses of interest are typically pH, soluble salts, organic matter
content, C:N ratio, and odor.
The pH of a growing media strongly influences the solubility of minerals in
the root zone of the plant and the hospitably of the root zone to plant pathogens.
As the growing media becomes more acidic or lower pH, the solubility of
aluminum, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and macro-nutrients such as calcium,
potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus increases [4]. For ericaceous plants such
as azaleas, gardenias, rhododendron, or laurel a growing media pH of 4.5 - 5.5 is
necessary. On the other hand, non-ericaceous plants prefer a media pH of 5.5 to
6.8. Turfgrass recommendations suggest a soil pH of 6 to 7, but can use higher pH.
Most composts have a pH of 6.8 to 7.5, although some composts can be lower
(Table 5-14). Thus, testing the pH of compost or other material intended for use
is important so that the pH can be adjusted, if necessary, for the intended crop.
Concentrations of soluble salts tends to be higher in compost than that present
in common media such as peat, bark, soil, or sand. For example, biosolids can be
rich in calcium, potassium, magnesium and sodium. These elements contribute to
the soluble salts or salinity of a compost. While such minerals are essential for
plant growth, excess can damage plant roots and inhibit germination, especially in
container crops.
The carbon to nitrogen ratio of a compost, usually shown as C:N, is important
TABLE 5-14 COMPOSITION OF BIOSOLIDS COMPOSTS
3b. Fairfield, Conn. (leaves); 4. Dartmouth, Mass. (brush); 5. Guilderland, N.Y. (brush); 6. Holyoke, Mass. (sawdust);
7. Lockport, N.Y. (pallets); 8. Plymouth, N.H. (sawdust, woodash); 9. State College, Penn. (sawdust); 10. Rochester, N.H.
(woodash, sawdust, brush). IPS Cornposting Facilities
* Total concentration after strong acid digestion
** Volatile solids = organic matter content
266 Naylor
because it indicates generally whether a compost will compete with plants for
nitrogen. The C:N ratio should be in the range of 15 to 25, i.e. the carbon content
should be 15 to 25 times greater than the nitrogen content. Extra soluble nitrogen
can be added to a growing media to prevent nitrogen deficiencies, provided the
problem is known ahead of time. Alternatively, if the problem is discovered after
planting, a soluble nitrogen source can be added during watering.
Odor is a very personal sensation and one that can influence compost sales.
Compost produced fiom wastes tend to have some odor associatedwith them. The
odor often reflects the material being composted. For example, some ammonia
may be noted in compost produced fiom manures. Biosolids-based composts tend
to have a musty aroma. While such odors may be of some concern initially, they
usually dissipate once the material is mixed with the other ingredients or
incorporated into field soils. Odor in composts applied to the soil surface as a
surface mulch or top-dressing dissipates after watering or exposure to sun, air, and
rain.
The public and compost customers often have questions regarding the
biological condition of compost, particularly biosolids derived compost. These
questions center on pathogens. Compostingtime and temperature very effectively
destroy pathogens: bacteria, viruses, protozoans, and helminths. State and federal
regulation of these conditions have been in effect for many years, and experience
indicates that where these regulations have been followed, pathogens are
effectively eliminated fiom compostedbiosolids. However, human pathogens may
not be the problem grower customers are most interested in.
Weed seeds in compost are devastating to a landscaper who has invested
hundreds of hours in developing a beautiful garden only to discover after the first
rain a blanket of weeds. The compost facility will effectively destroy weed seeds
if the time and temperature requirements are met. However, that is only the first
step. The next step is protecting the compost fiom being infected with wind-blown
weed seeds during storage or curing outside. Protection can be achieved by
covering the material, or pushing aside the surface layer into a pile allowing it to
reheat and destroy the weed seeds. Weed control around the storage site can also
be effective in isolating the compost fiom weeds.
A property of compost that has long been suspected by organic gardeners, and
is now being investigatedand proven scientificallyis the ability of some composts
to control plant pathogens. Homick, et al. reported that as early as 1974, composts
were thought to control some root rots and plant pathogens, and that in 1983
research suggested that plant nematodes would also be controlled [12]. Kuter, et
al. found that specific h g a l populations colonizing compost were responsible for
suppression of Rhizoctonia damping-off [14]. Nelson has continued this work
focusing on pythium blight and dollar spot control on turf and has found that
bacterial populations can also play an important role [ 181[ 191. Much of the current
understanding of the widespread mechanisms of disease suppressing effects of
Cornposting 267
3. Quality Compost
In the past decade composting has developed from a fledgling art into an
engineered technology. The science of the composting process is increasingly well
understood. Mechanical composting technologies are improving in reliability and
ease of operation. Process control has become computerized to enhance the
environmental conditions for the compost microbial community and improve
process efficiency. Best of all, the quality assurance of the finished product is
increasingly being guided by customer requirements and process knowledge,
improving the marketability of the compost.
While substantial strides have been made, there is opportunity for
improvement. Continuing efforts must be directed toward economical and
effective odor management strategies. Because of the potential growth within the
industry, effort is needed to expand even further opportunities for beneficial use of
composted biosolids. Public acceptance of biosolids products varies from place to
place. While we have supportive regulations guiding biosolids use backed by a
sound technical understanding of risks and benefits, the societal aspects need
W e r work. Perhaps it is time to request the assistance of the social scientists in
moving forward on this front.
Technically the priorities for guiding biosolids composting are to know the
qualities of the biosolids and the amendments used in developing the blended
feedstock, and to know the expectationsof the market. Compare the quality of the
compost produced with that likely to be expected by the compost market. Once
268 Naylor
the inputs and the markets are known then decisions can be made regarding
selection of the most appropriate composting technology whether in-vessel or
windrow type. Selection of pre- or post-processingtechnologies will be guided by
the characteristics of the ingredients, the quality of the fmished compost, and the
composting technology.
In short, with a sound understanding of the art and the science of composting
a quality product can be produced. A quality product is the foundation of readily
marketable compost.
REFERENCES
Mark J. Girovich
Heat (thermal) treatment in biosolids processing has been used for several
purposes, such as a) promoting separation of solids from liquids by releasing bound
(cell) water to improve dewaterability; b) meeting pathogen and vector attraction
reduction requirements (i.e., sterilization and disinfection), c) enhancing waste-
activated biosolids digestibility; d) incineration; and e) drying and production of
biosolids-derived fertilizer.
To meet current U.S. EPA 503 Regulations pathogen and vector attraction
reduction requirements, the biosolids heat treatment processes should meet certain
time-temperature requirements depending largely on the solids content
(Subparagraphs C & D of §503.32(3)(ii), [l]). These requirements are typically
applied for direct thermal treatment of liquid biosolids (1. 7% TS), aerobic
thermophilic stabilization (ATS) processes and pasteurization. This chapter’s
focus, however, is on biosolids heat drying for production of beneficial use
products.
I. BIOSOLIDS DRYING
Production of dried beneficial use products from municipal solids offers a viable
management solution for many municipalities. Open air solar drying has been
practiced for many years using fiee, nonpolluting, renewable and abundant energy
271
272 Girovich
source. However, using a solar radiation is not an applicable method for the
overwhelming majority of municipalities in the U.S. where more reliable sources
of energy must be used.
Air (solar) drying is only feasible at favorable climate conditions (significant
percent of sunshine, rate of precipitation, air temperature, wind velocity, etc.).
Biosolids are dried to a level of dryness which depends upon largely uncontrollable
circumstances and, therefore, the establishment of a standard operating procedure
is impossible.
For air drying, biosolids are typically placed on an open surface (lagoons,
sand drying beds, etc.) and left there until they have dried to a desired solids
content.
Biosolids should be stabilized prior to air drying to prevent odors and vector
attraction. Air drying can be enhanced by a vacuum or mechanical agitation, with
the latter possible only if biosolids initial dryness is at least 12-15% TS. Another
solar drying method tested in Florida is to dry biosolids by air heated in solar
panels; however, this technology has not developed beyond a pilot plant.
Air drying is a low cost alternative but it requires large parcels of land and
cooperating weather. It has been practiced primarily in the Southern United States,
however, some installations have been as far north as Chicago, Illinois. Air dried
biosolids are Class B products with respect to the pathogen and vector attraction
reduction requirements and as such they can be land applied on the agricultural
sites specifically permitted for this purpose.
The rapidly growing biosolids treatment option for beneficial use is heat drying.
Heat drying and production of biosolids-derived fertilizer has been in use in the
U.S. since 1925 when the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin produced Milorganite, a
fertilizer made from municipal solids.
Biosolids heat drying in general provides the following major advantages:
eliminates pathogens and sterilizes the end product, fully satisfying the U.S.
EPA "Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge" (40 CFR Part
503)
reduces the volume and weight of the biosolids considerably
preserves and recycles valuable organic and inorganic nutrients found in
biosolids
converts biosolids into a valuable end product with revenue potential
(fertilizer, soil amendment or fuel)
improves transportability, storability and social acceptance of biosolids
derived products
Thermal Treatment 273
a) dried biosolids pellets with no less than 90% TS for marketing as a fertilizer;
b) partially dried biosolids for land application and landfilling (typically 40-60%
TS); and
c) dried biosolids for incineration, i.e. fuel production (40-90% TS).
1. Moisture Content
Pellet moisture content should not exceed ten percent (10%) since a higher
moisture content encourages microbiological regrowth and product overheating.
The finished product with minimum dryness of 90% is a Class A product and as
such it can be used as fertilizer with no site restrictions provided its heavy metal
and synthetic organic compounds content is in compliance with the limits
established by federal and local regulations.
2 . Nutrient Content
3. Physical Quality
The pellets must comply with the Class A standards for pathogen and vector
attraction reduction requirements contained in the 503 Regulations. In order to do
so, the biosolids heat drying should meet either the direct microbiological limits
(see Chapter 2) or the following process-based requirements:
biosolids are dried in direct or indirect contact with hot gasses to reduce the
moisture content to 10% or lower (290% TS)
either the temperature of the biosolids particles exceeds 80°C (176°F) or the
wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with biosolids as biosolids leave
the dryer exceeds 80°C (176°F).
standards with respect to trace metals and synthetic organics, they may be sold
without restriction for use on all crops.
The pellets must also comply with federal, state, and local standards
governing marketing and distribution of biosolids as a fertilizer.
Depending upon the desired outlet, other qualities will determine pellet
marketing success. A very important characteristic is odor, which is largely
dependent upon the type of biosolids processed (e.g., raw, primary, secondary,
digested, etc.).
Heat drying with pelletization generates so far the most acceptable, safe, often
revenue-producing product.
Pellet fertilizer qualities which can be assigned a value, depending upon the
application, include:
5. Markets
Typically, biwlids fertilizer prices in Florida range from $1 5 to over $100 per
ton at the point of use and depend largely on nitrogen content (up to $15.00 per
percent point of nitrogen for a good quality product). Products with established
reputation and guaranteed nutrient composition, such as Milorganite, command
signilicanehigher prices in the fertilizer market ($90 - $120 per ton). Future price
dynamics will depend upon supply-demand relationship with a possibility of
si@cant price decrease due to flooding of the prime Florida market. New markets
must be developed, especiallynear production plants to Sustain reasonable price.
The production of a fertilizer from the municipal biosolids offers a viable
management solution for many municipalities with sufficient biosolids generation,
especially those located in densely populated areas. This option is stimulatedthrough
s i m c a n t improvement in biosolids quality throughout the U.S. and it grows quite
rapidly. At present, large biosolids heat drymg facilities operate in New York, New
York; Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Boston, Massachusetts; Tampa and Largo, Florida,
Baltimore, Maryland; Houston, Texas, and other locations with total annual design
capacity of over 350,000 dry tons. A list of heat drymg and pelletizing facilities
producing commercial fertilizer in the U.S. is provided in Table 6-1.
By the end of the 1990's, heat dried bimlids production for fertilizer application
in the U.S. is projected to increase from the current 0.3 million tons approximatelyto
in excess of 0.5 million tons per year with the majority of this amount being utilized
in the South. This production level will still comprise only a small portion of the total
U.S. chemical fertilizer consumption (approximately50 million tons annually).
Bimlids can be dned partially, i.e. to less than 90% TS, (typically in the 40% - 70%
TS range), in order to reduce volume prior to land application or landfilling. Partially
dried biosolids are used also for subsequent autogeneous incineration.
Landfilling of partially dried biosolids is typically practiced when they contain
trace metals and other pollutants in excess of the limits established by the 503
Regulations and could not be used as a fertilizer. Other requirements of landfilling
should also be met.
Partial drymg of biosolids makes economic sense mainly because it reduces the
volume and cost of disposal.
Heat +g is alsoutilized to reduce or eliminate the amount of external
energy required for biosolids incineration (i.e., to reach an autogenous
Thermal Treatment 277
Pollution Control
2. A portion of biosolids is dried to no less than 90% TS and mixed with wet
biosolids feed to arrive at an autogenous level prior to feeding an incinerator.
A portion of the dried biosolids can also be diverted for marketing as a
fertilizer.
Diversity of materials to be dried and relatively high capital cost of drying systems
resulted in the evolution of many dryer and drying process designs. Drying is
essentially the process of thermally removing volatile substances (above all,
moisture in case of biosolids) to yield a dry product. All dryers are evaporators,
i.e., they convert water to vapor which expands the volume about 1500 times thus
expelling the vapors. Moisture in biosolids may be either free (unbound) or
biologically and chemically bound. During the first stage of drying, the drying
(evaporation) rate is constant. The biosolids particle surface contains free moisture
which evaporates at constant rate. At the end of the constant rate period moisture
has to be transported from the inside of the particle to the surface by capillary and
diffusion forces and the drying rate begins to fall. As the dry surface develops on
the particles and as the free moisture content is lowered by drying, the rate of
internal movement of this moisture decreases and the drying rate falls continuously.
The bound moisture evaporation proceeds even more slowly for it requires
breaking the biological cell structure or chemical structure of compounds having
bound water in their composition. As a result, the drying rate falls even more
rapidly.
This is of course the mechanism of all solids drying processes but it is
considerably complicated by many other factors, such as mechanical agitation,
mixing, etc. In the direct rotary drum dryers, for example, biosolids cascade
through the dryers with the cascading interrupted by the "resting in flights" periods.
In indirect drying, the solids are agitated and mixed by paddles, discs, stationary
bars, etc. These mechanical motions are design-specific: and, therefore, the process
is extremely difficult to describe in mathematical equations of heat and mass
transfer.
280 Girovich
WATER
VAPOR
WATER VAPOR
BlOSOLIDS
PARTICLES
INDIRECT
(CONDUCTZVE) DRYING
1. Indirect (conductive) drying uses a heat medium such as steam, thermal oil or
hot gas to heat a metal surface over which biosolids are transported. Conduction
transfers heat from the hot metal surface to the cooler particles and then between
the particles. It is the principal heat transfer mode for indirect dryers. Indirect
drying is a solid-liquid-vapor system and the process is nonadiabatic, i.e., heat is
added from outside to the dryer.
In indirect drying, solids and water can be heated above the water's boiling
point. Indirect drying is more efficient and uniform when agitation brings cooler,
wet particles into contact with the heating surface.
Heat transfer fluids in the indirect drying may be of either the condensing
type (e.g. steam) or the liquid type (e.g., hot water, oils). Indirect drying has
several distinctive features: 1) cross contamination is avoided since the product
does not contact the heating medium; 2) since a very small amount of air is
introduced, air handling, cleaning and odor control is considerably less expensive;
and 3) fire and explosion potential in the dryers is reduced significantly.
Examples of indirect dryers are horizontal "en masse" (hollow disc, paddle,
screw, etc.), vertical multi-tray, rotary, mechanically fluidized bed dryers, etc.
Direct dryers may use hot air, combustion products, inert gas, and superheated
vapor as the heating medium. Examples of direct dryers are rotary drum,fluidized
bed, flash, spray and conveyor dryers. Direct rotary drum dryers are the
workhorses of biosolids drying; they are the least expensive of all dryers and have
high unit capacity.
However, all direct dryers have a common disadvantage: the amount of
heating medium (usually hot air mixed with products of combustion) is large which
results in energy loss in the exhaust and requires expensive air handling and
poilution control equipment to clean the gas prior to its discharge to the
atmosphere. This serious disadvantage can be neutralized to a certain degree by
using drying air recirculation as described in the following sections.
Both drying processes are complex. Drying involves a number of physical
and chemical processes such as heat and mass transfer, mixing, combustion,
conveying, size separation, psychrometry,evaporation, etc. So far, however, there
is very little help and transfer from the theoretical studies to the drying practice.
Drying is still more art than science and more so for biosolids drying.
Numerous dryer designs have evolved for drying of various products including
biosolids. Table 6-2 depicts dryer design availability and use for biosoiids drying
in the USA (1995).
A = commercially available
NA = commercially not available
Thermal Treatment 283
The following dryer designs are currently used in the U.S.A. for commercial
production of biosolids-derived fertilizer (Table 6-2):
Rotary drum, single and triple pass, direct drying (9 operational installations,
over 30 dryers)
Horizontal "en masse", indirect drying (6 operational installations, 8 dryers,
including partial drying for autogenous incineration)
rn Flash dryer, direct type (4 operational installations, 9 dryers)
Multi-tray, indirect drying (one operational plant, 3 dryers)
There are also a few pilot installations in the U.S.A. using radiation heated
dryers and directly heated fluidized bed dryers. Dielectric heating has not yet
developed beyond the experimental phase.
A. Direct Dryers
In the rotary drum dryers, drying air supplies the heat and carries off the evaporated
moisture. Volume of drying air is the most important factor which determines the
dryer and the drying system cost. The best drying energy efficiency is achieved at
the highest air inlet and the lowest air outlet temperatures. These temperatures are
limited by various factors (fire hazard, type of fuel, design of the heat generator,
sensitivity of the end product, water condensation at the downstream equipment,
etc.).
Direct rotary drum dryers typically use cocurrent air flow which allows high
inlet temperature, up to (900°F) for biosolids. Exit temperature varies
within 85"- (180"-200°F). In cocurrent flow with high inlet temperature
the moisture does not protect the small particles from over-heating and potential
fire; however, the drying is fastest in this case. Most drying takes place as the
solids cascade off lifting flights (or get fluidized) and the air passes around them.
The dryer shell also heats the solids.
In rotary dryers, solids are moved through the shell by the combined effect
of air flow, gravity, internal flight design, speed of rotation and the shell slope.
Baffles and dam rings are also used to retard the forward motion of the solids and
to increase their residence time. Evaporation of free water typically occurs in
minutes. The smaller particles dry faster and are carried off more readily and often
are overdried. Their removal and return to the process may be troublesome for it
requires special air-solids separation and transport techniques.
The end product physical characteristicsimportant for biosolids beneficial use
are moisture content, particle size distribution, density and amount of dust. Due
to rapid evaporation in cocurrent rotary dryers, a particle's density often decreases
284 Girovich
and particle sue distribution widens. Significant amounts of fine particles (dust)
are produced by abrasion and overheating.
Typical rotary drum speeds are between 5 and 25 rpm depending upon the
drum's diameter. The percent of the shell loading is typically 10 to 20 percent and
the solids retention time is 10 to 25 minutes. Drying air retention time is only
several seconds. Single pass and triple pass direct rotary dryers are used to dry
biosolids.
At low capacities and low gas temperatures, direct drum dryers lose their cost
effectiveness.
The biosolids fed into the dryer must be a post glue-like phase, granular (i.e.,
50 - 60% TS) material, therefore, dry material recycling and backmixing is
required to avoid sticky biosolids inside the dryers and to generate a pelletized
product. Dry,fine material recycling and backmixing in the upstream mechanical
mixer is extremely important because it forms wet pellets (50-65%TS) in the mixer
which are subsequently dried in the dryer resulting in high quality pelletized
product with 90-95%TS.
Two types of direct rotary drum dryers are used in biosolids drying: single
and triple pass. The triple pass dryer (Figure 6-2, courtesy Baker-Rullman, Inc.)
technical data is provided in Table 6-3. Fourteen single pass and nineteen triple
pass rotary drum dryers are currently (1995) used in the USA for biosolids drying
and pelletizing.
1. Biosolidsfeed at 20% TS; product at 2 90% TS; dry recycle; 24 hour day.
2. Dry air inlet = 480°C (900"F), outlet = 85°C (180°F).
3. MBH = million BTU/hr; ACFM = actual cubicfeet per minute; dmtd = dry
metric ton per day.
MHAUST
TO APC
COM
AIR
-----
Numerous other single and triple pass dryers are used in Canada, Europe and
Japan for biosolids drying. The rotary drum dryer is the most widely used design
with the lowest capital cost.
Disadvantages of direct rotary dryers, especially ones without drying air
recirculation (so called open-cycle system), include: heat losses in the dryer's
exhaust; use of expensive systems to clean large amounts of air from particulate
and gaseous pollutants including odors often with application of costly
afterburners; potential for dust fire and explosion,
Flash Drver (FD) is a direct type, cocurrent unit that is essentially a long
vertical tube with no moving parts (similar to pneumatic conveyance). The FDs
have short solids residence time (0.5-3.5 seconds) and high unit evaporation rate.
Good mass and heat transfer rates are obtained due to high relative velocity
between the feed and drying air.
Typically, @/wet biosolids mixture is fed in a cage mill where hot gas is also
introduced. Drying occurs in the mill, ductwork and partially in the cyclones.
Dried material is separated from drying air in the cyclones. Vapors are burned in
the heat generator ( h a c e ) . The FD do not produce high quality pellets. The FDs
are used in biosolids drying in the USA by the City of Houston, Texas (nine flash
dryers by C-E RaymondCombustion Engineering Co.). Houactinite, a biosolids
derived product produced in Houston is marketed primarily in Florida.
Disadvantages are: complex operation and potential for fire.
Fluid bed h e r s fFBD) are also direct, cocurrent units. The FBD involves the
suspension of solid particles in upwardly moving hot air, which is introduced
through a distribution plate. The FBD are usually of direct type, however, in recent
years indirect FBD have been introduced. The biosolids feed must be granular and
backrnixing and feed grinding before drying is typically required; particles should
not be so heavy that they drop out. Retention time is very short (few seconds)
because air velocity must be kept above a certain minimum. The FBD do not
produce a high quality pelletized product; however, the end product is marketable.
Numerous fluid bed dryer designs are available (stationary, vibrated fluid bed,
continuous fluid bed, mechanically agitated, etc.) However, only a few
experimental FBDs for biosolids fertilizer production are in operation in the USA.
Disadvantages include: poorly granulated product; potential for dust
fires/explosions and complex operation.
Convevor Drvers use steel belt, screw or vibrating trough to carry the
biosolids through a directly or indirectly heated chamber. Depending upon the
design, hot air may or may not pass through the bed of biosolids on the conveyor.
Indirect conveyor dryer may use radiation as a means of heating.
Thermal Treatment 287
B. Indirect Dryers
Indirect dryers also come in a variety of designs. The most popular design is
horizontal, "en-masse" (i.e., moving, mixing and drying biosolids in a plug or semi-
plug flow fashion) type. In this design, biosolids are simultaneously heated, dried
and transported horizontally from the feed to the discharge end. Other types of
indirect dryers include multi-tray, fluidized bed, rotary drum and conveyor designs.
Indirect "en masse" dryers come in a variety of shapes and forms. Some units
have single rotors while others may have two or more. Flights may be fully
circular (disc), helical (heated screws), blade-like (paddles) or circular segments.
Flight cross sections may be tapered, parallel, or wedge shaped. The stator
(housing) is horizontal and it may be cylindrical, U-shaped or ox-bow in section.
The indirect dryers use very little or no drying air and as a result they are
generally more energy efficient than direct ones. The energy required to operate
dryers is delivered by an external energy source, typically steam boiler or thermal
oil heater. The heat is transferred from hot metal surface to biosolids.
A significant number of proprietary horizontal "en massel' designs have been
developed by various manufacturers (Stord, Bepex, BUSS, Blaw-Knox,
Tsukishima Kikai, Nara Machines, Komline-Sanderson, and others).
Indirect disc dryer (Figure 6-3, courtesy of Stord, Inc.) data is provided in
Table 6-4.
In the disc (flight) dryer, the external surface of the discs (flights) provides
85 to 100% of the total heat transfer surface of the dryer. The heat transfer
medium, usually steam, flows into the discs (flights), and is discharged as
condensate after transferring its latent energy to the product. Other thermal
mediums, such as hot water or hot oil, may be used as well.
The filly circular, hollow discs of the Stord dryer (Figure 6-3) provide a
smooth heat transfer surface, which reduces fouling, product accumulation in
"dead" spots and wear. The rotor rotates at a constant speed [7].
The discs are fabricated of carbon or stainless steel, or a combination of both.
The stator is filled with biosolids so that the rotor is submerged and the heating
surface is almost fully utilized. Agitator (scraper) bars are mounted fiom the stator,
ending just above the rotor shaft at the base of the discs. Large paddles are
mounted on the tips of the discs and each disc has a combination of neutral and
adjustable paddles.
A portion of the upper part of the stator extends into a plenum to form a vapor
dome. The vapor exits from the dome near the product inlet where the evaporation
rate is the greatest.
Wet biosolids enter the dryer near the top of the unit on one end and the
finished product exits the dryer at the opposite end. The dryer is operated as a
'lclosedl' unit. No air is deliberately allowed to enter and the exhaust is nearly pure
h)
00
00
EXHAUST
/ I
;I 1
Heating Surface
1. Feed: 22% - 30% TS; product: 25% - 95% TS; no recycle, constant rate
heat transfer.
2. Product at 95% TS. SER increases to 16.0 ifproduct is at 35% TS. Lower
values of STR and SER are for higher product dryness. 100% surface
utilization.
3. SER - Specific evaporation rate, STR - Specific Thermal Rate, see Section IV
of this Chapter.
vapor. It is intended that biosolids co-rotate with the rotor. However, simultaneous
co-rotation is prevented by the agitator bars. The disc tip paddles aid the
progression of the product in both rotational and longitudinal directions. The
biosolids travel through the dryer in a plug flow fashion, and they must pass
through the annulus formed between the inner wall of the stator and the tips of the
discs. Heat is transferred from the heat transfer surface to the biosolids by contact
and by internal distribution of the heat in the product.
Disc dryers manufactured by Stord, Inc. are used in the USA primarily for
production of partially dried biosolids for landfilling, land application or
subsequent incineration. In order to produce biosolids pellets, mechanical
pelletizing equipment is added to the dryer. Twelve Stord disc dryers are currently
used to dry biosolids in the USA. Five of them produce dried biosolids for
subsequent incineration (Buffalo, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Los Angeles, CA).
F’ig.6-4 SOLID PADDLE DRYER (Courtesy of Tsukishima Kikai Co.)
1 ) 4 I R T E W INLET, 2)STEAM INLET, 3)EXlUUST OUTLET, 4)SOLID PADDLES,
5)CONDENUTE OUTLET, 6 HOLLOW ROTOR, 7)MTERI.U OUTLET. 8)HOLLOW 0
STATOA. @)SUPPORTS, 1 OLRIVE
Thermal Treatment 291
4
Weight
Horsepower
tons,
metric
kw
1-50
2-95
I
I
40 - 70
45 - 95
5 Specific Thermal Rate kcal 650 - 680(')
(STR) kg H2O
Specific Evaporation 10 - 16")
Rate (SER) m2 8 hr.
(30 - 45 rpm) which ensures good mixing and heat transfer. Typical product
dryness is in 45 - 60% TS; SER is 10 - 20 kg H,0/m2 -hr. Granulation is poor (5
- 40 mm, with lumps). These dryers are also used in Japan for drying prior to
incineration or for volume reduction.
Advantages of the en masse horizontal dryers include: compact, horizontal
arrangement; effective utilization of heating surface; relatively high energy
efficiencyand low cost of environmentalcontrol. Disadvantagesare: end product
is poorly granulated, dusty with lumps. Production of high quality pellets is not
feasible without additional processing ( e g , mechanical compaction, milling,
screening, etc.).
Indirect multi-tray drver (Figure 6-6, courtesy of Wheelabrator Clean Water
Systems, Inc.) is a vertical multi-tray dryer to which biosolids are fed via the top
inlet and moved by rotating arms equipped with adjustable scrapers from one
hollow, oil heated tray to another in a zigzag motion until they exit at the bottom
as a dried, pelletized product with dryness in excess of 90% TS. The rotating arms
are installed on a vertical shaft rotated by a variable speed drive. The dryer's
doughnut-shaped trays are heated by recirculating thermal oil.
The dryer's scrapers move and tumble biosolids over the tray's heated metal
surface in small windrows and thin layers (30-60 mm) constantly exposing new
surfaces for heating and thus improving heat transfer. Only top surface of the tray
is in contact with biosolids.
Multi-tray dryers are typically fed by a biosolids mixture with 55-75% TS to
avoid glue-like plastic phase inside the dryer and, therefore, they require dried
material recycle and backmixing. The biosolids mixture is prepared upstream of
the dryer by mixing dry fine recycled material (2 90% TS) with wet biosolids
(20-30% TS).
In the upstream mixer, dry particles, which form a nucleus of hture pellets,
are coated with wet biosolids-forming pellets with a dry core and thin wet coat. In
the dryer, only the outside thin (0.1-0.2 mm), wet layer has to be dried. In the
drying systems based on the multi-tray dryer this process is repeated several times
until the pellets grow to a predetermined size and then removed for beneficial use.
As a result of this "pearling"process, water evaporation is more effective and heat
transfer rates are higher than in the "en masse" dryers. Pellets produced by this
process tend to have higher bulk density and less dust than other dryers.
Indirect multi-tray dryers are licensed from Seghers Engineering Company
(Belgium) and marketed under a trade-name PelletechO by Wheelabrator Clean
Water Systems, Inc., Bio Gro Division [ll], 11141. Major multi-tray PelletechB
technical data are provided in Table 6-6.
Advantages of the multitray dryer are: low cost of environmental control;
high heat transfer rates; low power consumption; high quality of pellets with
narrow particle size distribution and minimum dust; small footprint due to vertical
arrangement.
294 Girovich
A. Evaporation Capacity
Biosolids quantity is expressed in either dry or wet weights. Dry and wet weights
are related as follows:
D = dry weight
W = wet weight
d = biosolids dryness, TOTS
296 Girovich
20 25 30
FEED DRYNESS, X TS
E =D (k i)-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6-2)
For example, if the biosolids input dryness is 22% TS, the end product
dryness is 92% TS, and dry biosolids throughput required is 1.O dry tonhour, then
the evaporation rate needed is E = 1.0(1/.22 - U.92) = 3.46 tons of water.
Evaporation rate more than any other process parameter determines the size and,
therefore, cost of the dryer and drying system.
Biosolids feed dryness is the most significant process parameter which
determines the dryer energy requirements. Figure 6-8 illustrates that at the
biosolids feed dryness of 30% TS the evaporation rate and amount of energy
required to dry one ton (2,000 lbs.) of dry biosolids is almost two times less than
at the feed dryness of 18% TS.
Assuming the cost of energy at $4.50 per million BTU, the feed dryness
increase from 18% TS to 30% TS will save approximately $34 per dry ton of
biosolids.
Figure 6-8 also illustrates that the higher feed dryness increases the drying
system's evaporation rate or, in other words, the same system can process more
biosolids if the feed has higher solids content.
For indirect dryers, it is also useful to express the dryer's evaporation capacity
as amount of water evaporated per unit of heating surface per unit of time, i.e., by
using Specific Evaporation Rate (SER). The SER indicates how efficient the
indirect dryer heating surface is utilized.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6-3)
Where:
SER = specific evaporation rate, kg/m**hror BTU/ft2*hr
E = total dryer evaporation capacity, kg (lbs) of water evaporated per hour
S = indirect dryer heating surface, mz (ft2).
Heat transfer in the indirect dryers occurs typically in several zones: heating,
constant rate drying and falling rate drying. For each zone, the SER will be
different.
The SER can be obtained from a dryer's manufacturer. The SER allows one
to quickly estimate the amount of heating surface for a required evaporation
capacity.
All dryers, direct or indirect, require an external source of heat energy. Usually
dryers are fired on natural gas or oil. Digester gas or other sources of heat energy
can also be utilized.
298 Girovich
The average STR for modem dryers is typically in the 640 - 780 kcal per kg
of water range (1,150 - 1,400 BTU/lb) depending on inlet and outlet temperatures
of drying and heating mediums, dryer's throughput, design, etc. As with the SERs,
the STRs are different for different heating zones. The STRs are provided and
must be guaranteed by a dryer's manufacturer.
The overall drying system's STR is higher than that of the dryer proper. Mass
and energy balance calculations are performed to determine the dryer's heat
Thermal Treatment 299
requirements, heating surface, heating medium flow, evaporation rate, and other
dryer parameters. The following input data are typically required:
Major calculating needs are associated with determination of heat needed for
evaporation and, for direct dryers, amount of drying air. Calculations alone do not
complete a design. Experience, manufacturer's data and tests are essential
components of dryer and drying process design.
a. Indirect Dryers
Heat transfer in the indirect dryers occurs typically in three zones: heating,
constant rate and falling rate drying.
In the first zone, wet biosolids are heated by hot metal surface of the dryer
and the heat transfer coefficient is initially high due to high temperature differential
and abundance of free water. As biosolids temperature rises, the heat transfer
begins to fall. In the second zone, the entire mass is heated almost to a boiling
point (100°C) and evaporation of ffee water is essentially completed at the end of
the zone. This zone is characterized by an approximately constant heat transfer
coefficient. In the third zone, water bound in the biosolids is evaporated, and as the
biosolids dryness increases it becomes more and more difficult to evaporate the
remaining water. The heat transfer coefficient falls sharply.
Figure 6-8 illustrates an indirect drying process in the horizontal steam heated
dryer. Moisture content of the feed and heat transfer rates are plotted against
dryer's length [7]. Typically, about 15 percent of dryer length (heating surface) is
used to reach the boiling point, 25 percent of the length is at the constant and 60
percent is at the falling heat transfer rates.
For each zone, amount of heat energy transferred from the heating surface to
the product is defined as follows (heat losses are not included):
. . . . . .. . . . 05-71
Indirect dryer calculations are based on mass and energy balance using heat
transfer coefficients obtained experimentally for various drying zones. These
calculations are quite straightforward and center around determining evaporation
capacity, heat energy and amount of heating medium flow needed, taking into
account feed and product moisture and temperature, heat medium type (steam, oil)
and temperatures, heat sources and losses, etc.
F aoo - 20 60
3
8
0
E
8
!l
I-
a
n
v
400 - 5 10 80
I
v
8 1
3
I I 1 I
0 I 20 40 1 60 a0
___t
100%
PERCENT OF DISTANCE THROUGH DRYER
HEATING1 CONSTANT RATE L FALUNG RATE
ZONE ZONE ZONE
Petroleum-based thermal fluids are flammable, and some of them are toxic,
so precautions have to be taken. Accidents have happened, but very few in
chemical plants with good maintenance. Care must be taken in using thermal
fluid systems because any leakage may have serious consequences.
Temperature control is more complex than in a condensing system (like
steam) though temperature control of 2 to can be achieved.
The heat transfer coefficients on the thermal fluid side are lower than steam
condensing coefficients. But the higher temperature of thermal fluid
increases the overall heat transfer rate. In practice, the heat transfer rate is
always equal to or more than that of steam.
When the process needs a cooling cycle, design of heat exchanger for cooling
the thermal fluid is quite complex.
Measures must be taken to prevent oil leakage, to avoid water in the system
and maintain the system's tightness and cleanliness. Only high temperature closed-
cell insulation should be used in leakage-prone areas; the system's equipment
(pipes, pumps, expansion joints, strainers, gaskets, packing seals, flanges, etc.)
must be in accordance with pertinent standards and best engineering practice.
The amount of thermal oil or steam flow for indirect drying can be
determined using formulae (6-8), (6-9) and (6-10) below. Formulae (6-9) and (6-
10) are used for noncondensing heating medium (thermal oil, hot water) and
formula (6-8) for the condensing medium (steam).
Thermal Treatment 303
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6-8)
.............. (6-9)
F =
QT . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6-10)
T0)*60
CD*d*(Ti-
Where:
m = mass flow of heating medium, kg/hr (lbhr)
Q T = total amount of energy required, kcaVhr (BTUhr)
C, = specific heat, kcaVkg."C or BTU/lb*"F
Ti, To= heating medium temperature, inlet and outlet, "C ( O F )
hi, h, = heating medium enthalpies, inlet and outlet, kcaVkg (BTU/lb)
d = density of thermal oil at operating temperature, Ib/gal
F =thermal oil flow, gpm
For example, to evaporate four (4.0) tons of water per hour in an indirect
dryer with the STR = 1,260 BTU/lb, the amount of heat energy required is:
QT= STR x 4.0 x 2,000 = 1,260 x 4.0 x 2,000 = 10 million BTU/hr, approx.
(STR, Specific Thermal Rate, can be obtained kom the dryer's manufacturer data).
Using formula (6-lo), (thermal oil with C, = 0.65, d = 6.2 lb/gal; Ti = 450°F;
To= 410°F) flow of thermal oil through the dryer:
b. Direct Drvers
Calculations for direct dryers with hot air as a drying medium are quite different
from those for indirect dryers. They are also based on mass and energy balance but
involve the psychrometric relations of moist air.
304 Girovich
In the direct dryers, as soon as wet biosolids particles come into contact with
drying air, evaporation begins from the saturated vapor film which is quickly
established at the particle's surface. The temperature of the biosolids particle
surface approximates to the wet-bulb temperature of the drying air. At fust, there
is sufficient moisture within the particle to replenish that lost at the surface.
Unbound moisture transport from within the particle maintains saturated surface
conditions and, as long as this is possible, evaporation proceeds at a constant rate.
After a dried shell forms at the particle's surface, evaporation is dependent largely
upon the moisture diffusion through the dried surface and, as a result, evaporation
rates begin to fall.
The addition of heat to a wet particle is insufficient by itself to dry a particle.
Removal of moisture in the direct drying depends upon humidity (moisture
content) of the drying air. To maintain high drying rates, cool humid air around a
particle must be moved away and replaced with hot, low humid air.
Humidity (amount of water vapor or absolute humidity) defines the moisture
content of the air and it depends upon the air temperature and is independent of air
pressure. Absolute humidity is expressed as weight of water vapor per unit weight
of dry air (kgkg DA). Absolute humidities for air-water mixtures (i.e., drying air)
are read directly from psychrometric charts (enthalpy/temperature--humidity).
Relative humidity is water vapor content expressed relative to water content at
saturation at the temperature of the mixture. The mixture relative humidity at
saturation is designated 100%. Saturation temperature (dew point) is the
temperature to which wet air must be cooled at constant pressure to cause
condensation. The dry bulb temperature of air-water mixture can be recorded by
an ordinary thermometer. Wet bulb temperature is recorded by a thermometer
whose surface is saturated with liquid water and exposed to an air-water vapor
mixture. The wet bulb temperature is lower than dry bulb temperature. The wet
bulb temperature corresponds to the temperature at which the air would be
saturated without any change in its heat content. For the saturated mixture wet and
dry bulb and dew point temperatures are the same.
Air-water mixtures are unique in that for all practical purposes, wet bulb and
adiabatic saturation temperatures can be considered identical and wet bulb and
adiabatic cooling lines coincide on psychrometric charts. Psychrometric charts
allow determination of important direct drying process parameters such as
evaporation rates, energy demand and efficiency, drying air parameters, wet bulb
temperature, particle temperature, etc.
Psychrometric charts are often used to illustrate or calculate direct drying
operations. Several forms of psychrometric charts are used.
Mollier charts plot moisture against enthalpy (in metric units) and are widely
used in Europe and elsewhere outside the US. (In the US, Mollier diagram refers
to an enthalpy-entropy chart). The most common US psychrometric chart plots
temperature and enthalpy on the ordinate (Y-axis) against humidity in kgkg of dry
Thermal Treatment 305
A. System Components
Dryers comprise an important,but not the only part of a heat drying system (HDS).
Each HDS contains the following major components:
(1) Dryer
(2) Heat Generator (Furnace)
(3) Feed Preparation and Handling
(4) Dried Product Preparation and Handling
(5) Air Pollution and Odor Control
U
E
0
Fig. 6-9 DRYING AIR FLOW AND ENERGY DEMAND IN DIRECT DRYERS
Thermal Treatment 307
All HDS require an external source of energy to heat the drying air (direct drying)
or heating medium (indirect drying) such as thermal oil or steam. Typically,
natural gas is used by a majority of the existing HDS; however, digester gas and
waste heat from other sources (e.g., incinerator flue gas, steam, gas turbine exhaust,
etc) is utilized also.
For direct HDS, the heat generator (furnace) fired on natural gas is usually a
cylindrical refractory lined chamber with a natural gas or dual fuel burner installed
at the front end. Combustion air fan, burner controls and necessary ductwork are
also part of the heat generator. The burner combustion products reach high
temperature of 1700-1800°C (3 100-3250°F). For direct drying this temperature
is reduced to an acceptable level of 37W50"C (700-850°F) prior to introduction
in the dryer by addition of ambient air or air vented from other parts of the HDS,
other equipment, housing building, etc.
In indirect drying, high temperature combustion products produce steam in
a boiler or heat thermal oil, water or air indirectly.
Each HDS requires that the feed (mechanically dewatered biosolids or mixture of
DWB and dry recycled product) be prepared prior to entering the HDS. Commonly
DWB is either conveyed into the dryer without mixing with dry recycle or
DWB/dry recycle mixture is prepared in a mixer (e.g., rotary drum, multi-tray,
fluid bed, flash dryers, etc.). Formation of wet pellets occurs in the mixer and
selection of the mixer's design is very important. Single shaft, high speed pin
mixers or dual shaft relatively slow speed ( 2 W O RPM) paddle mixers (pug mills)
are typically used. Measures must be taken to reduce wear of pins or paddles using
abrasion resistant alloys. Wet pellets should be preserved from deterioration as
much as possible prior to their introduction into the dryer.
In the modem HDS which produce pelletized biosolids, dry product (290%TS)
exiting the dryer typically undergoes the following treatment:
(4) cooling the "on-spec", commercial size pellets prior to storage to no less
than 30°C (90°F) to avoid problems in storage;
(5) storing the commercial pellet fertilizer in silos provided with
overheating and fire and explosion prevention devices.
Like the dryers, the HDS can be classified based on the methods of heat transfer
(direct, indirect, radiation, etc.) as described in previous sections. The HDS can
also be classified in accordance with methods of handling and treating their drying
and heating mediums.
1. Direct HDS
Three major groups of direct HDS can be identified depending on the drying
medium flow arrangements: a) open, b) semi-closed and c) closed cycles (Figure
6- 10).
ODen cvcle HDS (Figure 6-10, a) bum fossil fuel (natural gas being most
common) in a furnace. Combustion products are diluted by ambient air or by air
vented from other parts of the HDS, from the housing building, etc. Hot mixture
of combustion products and dilution air (hot drying medium) is then ducted
directly into a dryer (rotary drum,fluid bed, spray or any direct type) at appropriate
temperature and volume.
The drying medium exits the dryer laden with water vapor, particulate and
gaseous matter, including odor pollutants. After removing particulate matter (PM)
in a dry air-solids separator (usually cyclones) the drying medium is cooled to
condense the water vapor. The liquid condensate is then returned to sewer.
Condensation of water vapor is typically accompanied by a wet scrubbing which,
if designed properly, is also capable of removing some fine PM and scrubbing
some gaseous pollutants, such as ammonia, and to a much lesser degree, hydrogen
sulfide, mercaptants, etc. from the drying medium. However, the above mentioned
treatment of the drying medium is often insufficient because it does not completely
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including odors and fine submicron
particles from the gas stream to the levels presently required. New stringent air
pollution and odor control regulations require that PM and VOCs be reduced below
the levels normally achieved by the dry PM removal devices and wet scrubbers,
especially with respect to malodorous organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides, etc. As a result, the drying medium needs to be treated either by
"chemical" scrubbers which should be designed to oxidize malodorous compounds
or by high temperature "afterburners"to thermally destroy malodorous compounds
and burn fine dust. In order to comply with stringent VOC removal requirements,
the open cycle HDS should be equipped with an afterburner.
In this case, no drying air is released into the atmosphere without
complete treatment, including efficient PM removal, water vapor condensing,
wet scrubbing and high temperature thermal treatment.
Open cycle HDS (also called once-through air flow) are relatively simple,
however they have the following disadvantages:
310 Girovich
- Mi%%
.,15% m
I
FURHPCE
FURNACE
Open cycle HDS, also known in the USA as an ESP process since the 1970s, are
now marketed by Wheelabrator Clean Water Systems, Inc. (WCWS). The ESP
process utilizes either "chemical" scrubbers or afterburners and it is protected by a
number of USA patents [8], [9]. Afterburners with heat recovery, called RTO or
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers, which reduce energy consumption sigruiicantly, are
employed by the modem ESP process. A principal flow diagram for a direct open
cycle HDS based on the ESP technology with the RTO and triple pass dryer is shown
in Figure 6-1 1. Similar open cycle HDS without the afterburner @TO) is used in
production of Milorganite by the City of Milwaukee. Currently, there are eight (8)
operational open cycle HDS in the USA (1 995).
In order to reduce disadvantages of the open cycle HDS, the drylng air
recirculation is used. The drymg air recirculation can be accomplishedby:
Semi-closed cvcle: Partial recycle of drying air with direct heating, i.e.
recirculating part of the drymg air flow after condensingwater vapor.
Closed cvcle: Recycle of drymg air with indirect heating and separating drymg
air fiom the heating medium.
Figures 6-lob and Figure 6-1Oc depict these two arrangements. Both methods
increase energy efficiency and reduce amount of air emissions although to Werent
degrees.
The semi-closed HDS using partial recycle of drymg air with direct heating
burns fossil fuel in a furnace (Figure 6-10.b). Combustion products diluted by
ambient air or by air vented fiom other parts of the HDS are ducted directly into the
dryer similarlyto the open cycle HDS. The dqmg air exiting the dryer is treated in the
air-solidsseparation devices (typically cyclonehaghousecombination)to remove PM
and then the drymg air is cooled in a condenser to remove water vapor. After the
coladenserthe nonmdensable portion of drying medium (air with some moisture) is
divided into two gas streams: 1) 15%-25% of the total flow is released into the
atmosphere without further treatment, and 2) 75%-85% of the flow is recycled back
to the furnace.
The recycled portion of the drying air serves as a dilution air and its particulate
and gaseous pollutants (malodorousorganics, dust, etc.) are thermally destroyed by
high temperatureof the furnace. Thus the heat generator (furnace) is used also as an
"afterburner." However, certain portion (up to 25%) of dqmg air is not thermally
treated in the furnace.
Advantages of the semi-closed system are: 1) higher energy efficiency as
compared with the open cycle system with the afterburner, 2) si@cant reduction
Fig.6-11 DIRECT OPEN CYCLE HDS WITH TRIPLE PASS ROTARY DRYER
1)LIQUID BIOSOLLDS, 2)DEWATRRED BIOSOWDS (D WB), 3)FEED MXTURB, 4)DRIED PRODUCT,
S)COMRCL4L G W E PBLGBTS (FBRTI.LJZER), 6)DRY PRODUCT RECYCLE, 7)DRyBR E . U S T ,
8)CLEANED AND COOLED DRITNG RLR 9)COMBUSTION AND DILUTION AlB, lO)FUEL, 1l)EOT
D R m G AIR, 12)COOUNG WATER, lS,kONDBNsdTE
Thermal Treatment 313
of stack gas volume, 3) reduction of oxygen content in the drying air which reduces
potential for fires (but does not totally eliminate them).
Disadvantages are: 1) relatively low PM removal efficiency, especially for
fine particles below 10 microns (PM,,); 2) some gaseous pollutants including
malodorous organics and fme PM escape thermal treatment and are released into
the atmosphere.
The semi-closed HDS is marketed in the USA by Andritz Co. and some
others. Currently (1995), there are two semi-closed system under construction in
the USA (Figure 6- 12).
Further improvements in the drying air handling and treatment are provided
by the closed cycle HDS (Figure 6-10 c).
In closed cvcle HDS fuel is also burned in the furnace but the combustion
products heat the drying air indirectly via a heat exchanger so the combustion
products and drying air are separated and as a result, the combustion products do
not come in contact with biosolids and are not contaminated.
The drying air indirectly heated in the heat exchanger is ducted into the dryer.
After exiting the dryer, the drying air is treated in an air-solids separator (typically
cyclones and a baghouse) with high PM removal efficiency, including PM,,
removal. After the PM removal, the drying air is divided into two gas streams: 1)
15%-25% of the total flow is constantly drained to a condenser and then, after
cooling and substantially removing water vapor it is preheated and recycled back
to the furnace; and 2) 75%85% of the drying air flow is recycled back to the
drying also after being reheated in the heat exchanger. Air vented from certain
process equipment (conveyors, screens, etc.) is cleaned in a separate baghouse to
remove PM and ducted to the furnace for thermal treatment. No drying air is
released into the atmosphere without complete treatment, including efficient
PM removal, water vapor condensing, wet scrubbing and high temperature thermal
treatment.
Advantages of the closed cycle HDS are: 1) increased energy efficiency as
compared with other direct HDS, 2) separation of combustion products from
biosolids and drying air and reduction of oxygen content in the drying air, which
considerably reduces fire potential, 3) significant improvement in air emission and
odor control, 4) decrease in the stack gas volume released to the atmosphere as
compared with other direct HDS.
Disadvantages are: 1) more complicated equipment and controls with the
increased cost as compared with other direct HDS, 2) still uses more air than
indirect HDS.
The closed cycle HDS are marketed in the USA by Wheelabrator Clean Water
Systems Inc. under a license agreement with Swiss Combi, Inc. (Switzerland). The
process is protected by the US patent [ 101. Currently (1995), there is one closed
cycle HDS under construction in the USA; over a dozen closed cycle installations
are operational in Europe and Canada.
U
[ MIXER
I
I
RECYCLE
90-95m
Fig.6-12 SEMI-CLOSED HDS WITH SINGLE PASS ROTARY DRYER (Courtesy of Andritz, Co.)
BIOSOLlDS (U), 2)DWATERED BIOSOUDS (DlVB), S)FEBD MDTURE, 4 ) D m D PRODUCT8 6 ) G O ~ R C L A LCRdDB P E U T S
%)DRY PRODUCT RECYCLE, 7)aoT D R m G dlR. 8)DRyBR EXE4UST. 8)COMBUSTlON AMD DILUTION AlR, IO)FUEL,
COOLED DRZWC ALR, 1.2)CUOKUC WATER, IS)COhDENSAlT, 14)DRWt'C AIR RBCYCU
Fig.6-13 DIRECT CLOSED CYCLE HDS WITH N I R E C T HEATING (Courtesy of WCWS/Swiss Combi)
1)LIQUID BIOSOLIDS (D). 2)DEWATERED BIOSOLIDS (D WB), 9)FEED MlXl'UR& 4)DRLED PRODUCT,
6)COMIvBRCU GRADB PELLETS (FERTILIZER), 6)DRY PRODUCT RECYCLE, 7)DRYXR E m U S T ,
8)RECIRcuWITINc DRnNG AIR, 9)CLEANED DRYING AIR, lO)FUEL, 1l)COMBUSTION PRODUCTS,
12)COMBUSTION AIR, 1 S)COOLING M TER, 14)CONDENU TE
316 Girovich
2. Indirect HDS
The indirect HDS use very little air and only to facilitate removal of water vapor
from the dryer. The air used in the indirect HDS is not the heating medium. It is
called "sweep" air and it plays insignificant role in the overall energy balance.
Typically the %weep'' air comprises from 10% to 30% (by volume) of the total
indirect dryer exhaust with the remainder being water vapor with small amounts
of PM and gaseous pollutants including malodorous compounds.
As an example, the amount of sweep air required for an indirect drying with
evaporation capacity of 4.0 metric tonhour is only 3 0 4 0 cubic meterdmin (1200
-1500 cubic feet/min approximately), while the amount of drying air required for
the same size direct rotary drum dryer is in the 700 -900 cubic meter/min. range.
As a result, handling and treatment of the sweep air is significantly less expensive
than in the direct HDS.
However, even this small amount of the "sweep" air unless properly treated
can cause odor problems. Similarly to the direct HDS the sweep air handling and
treatment can be accomplished in open and closed cycles. In the closed cycle
arrangement, which is used by almost all indirect HDS, the dryer exhaust is first
cooled to condense water vapor and then scrubbed to remove PM and gaseous
pollutants. A relatively clean noncondensibleportion (mainly air with some VOC,
submicron PM,,, organic malodorous compounds, etc.) is treated typically by a
condenser and wet venturi-scrubber and then it is ducted to the high temperature
zone of the HDS furnace (or boiler) for thermal destruction and deodoration
(Figure 6-14 and 6-15). The furnace serves as a built-in afterburner. No dryer
exhaust is released into the atmosphere without complete treatment, including
efficientPM removal, water vapor condensing,wet scrubbing and high temperature
thermal treatment.
Advantages of the indirect closed cycle HDS are: 1) high energy efficiency
due to heat recovery as compared with direct HDS; 2) separation of heating
medium (steam, thermal oil) from biosolids and reduction of oxygen content in the
dryer exhaust, which considerably reduces fire/explosion risks; 3) significant
improvement in air emission and odor control; 4) substantial decrease in the stack
gas volume released to the atmosphere as compared with direct HDS.
Disadvantages are: 1) higher cost of indirect dryer, and 2) indirect HDS with
horizontal en-masse dryer produce low quality product (inconsistency of particle
size, low durability, etc.)
The indirect HDS based on horizontal en masse (Figure 6-1 5) dryer typically
require additional mechanical pelletizing and classification equipment to produce
an acceptable pelletized product (fertilizer).
The indirect HDS with multitray PelletechB dryer are marketed in the USA
by the Bio Gro Division of WCWS under a license agreement with Seghers
Engineering Co. (Belgium).
Fig.6-15 INDIRECT CLOSED CYCLE HDS WITH MECHANICAL PELUTIZING
(Courtesy of Stord, i n c . )
5 COMMERld C d D E PELLETS FERTILIZ6R , 6 D 1Y PRODJCTAIR#
LIQUID BIOSOLIDS LB , 2 DEWATERED BIOSOLIDS DWB), FEED, 4 D R m D
d7RODUCT,
1
) D R m R E&UST,
9
8)CLEMED AND COOLE6 SWEEP Ad#!&OMBUSTION
RECYCLE,
4
10 FUEL, 1 1 STEAM# 12 CONDENSATE RETURN, 1S)COOLING WATER, I4)CONDENSATE.
lt&OMBUS ION PRODU TSd
Thermal Treatment 319
The process is protected by the U.S. patent [ll]. Currently (1995), there are three
operational systems of this type in the USA (City of Baltimore, Figure 6-14).
The multitray indirect dryer can be used in conjunction with an incinerator in a
dual purpose heat drymg-incineration system to produce pellets for beneficial use
andor incinerate biosolids (Figure 6- 16). Such an HDS will have the advantage of
producing a beneficial use product (pellets) in Bccordance with seasonal market
demand and incinerating biosolids when demand is down while maintaining full
processing capacity. Currently, there is no dual use HDS in the USA, one similar
system operates in Belgium [141.
Early biosolids HDS operatedin the 1970s in Europe and the USA had only primitive
partidate matter (PM) control devices such as mechanical cyclones with low
pressure drop (6 - 8" WC). With gradual introduction of en~onmentalregulations
throughout the industrialized nations of Europe and the USA, the biosolids HDS
enviramnental control has been evolving toward the use of more efficient and costlier
air anissianand odor control technologies to comply with ever tightening regulations.
New limitshave been established for particulate and gaseous pollutants including total
suspended partidate (TSP), PM,, (particulate matter smaller than 10 ym), SO,, NO,,
CO, chlorides, total hydrocarbons(THC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), toxic
and hazardous air pollutants (TAP, HAP)and metals (lead, mercury, beryllium).
The U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for six "criteria pollutants" (SO,, NO , PM, CO, ozone and lead). Until
early 1990, most air quality regulations focused on control of the criteria pollutants.
The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) requires also that major VOC sources in
w t areas be quantiiied and reduced. Nonattainment areas are geographic
regions where ambient air concentration of one or more of the criteria pollutants
exceeds the established limit. The US.EPA is also scheduled to propose new
standards for control of HAP from the POTW in late 1994. Subpart E of the 503
Regulations specifically regulates the operation and emissions fiom the biosolids
incinerators.
The regulatory air permitting process for a HDS can be complex especially in
the states that regulate toxic (hazardous) air pollutants as well as criteria pollutants.
It is almost certain that these pollutants as well as odors will be of public concern
during the HDS permitting. Public relations and possible opposition may be in fact
time-consumingand difficult process.
In addition to air quality approval the HDS will be required to obtain other
permits and approvals in order to construct and operate the system. These will
include biosolids utilization permits, water and sewerage construction permits,
W
h)
0
1. Criteria Pollutants
In many states now a HDS will also be subject to review of TAP (HAP) emissions.
For example, under Maryland TAP regulations, the HDS construction
permitting will require that the applicant for a new source:
- quantify TAP emissions from the proposed project,
322 Girovich
more complex modeling and risk assessment techniques to prove that although
emission levels produce impact above screening levels, the projected off-site
ambient concentrations will not unreasonably endanger the public health.
Pollutants regulated under the federal NESHAPs program (or pollutants for
which the EPA is proposing to regulate under the NESHAPs program) are exempt
from the T-BACT and Ambient Impact Analysis portions of the TAP regulations.
EPA has currently promulgated NESHAPs governing emissions of eight pollutants
from a specific set of sources. One NESHAP governs mercury emissions from
facilities that incinerate or dry wastewater treatment plant solids (40 CFR 61SO).
A biosolids dryer is defined as "a device used to reduce the moisture content of
sludge by heating to temperatures above 65°C (- 150°F) directly with combustion
gases" (40 CFR 61.50(m)). Thus the EPA recognizes the direct drying technology
as a potential source of hazardous mercury emissions and would regulate it under
NESHAPs. The indirect drying system, on the other hand, does not appear to be
covered by NESHAPs, and would be regulated under the Maryland TAP program
only.
NESHAPs limit mercury emissions from HDS to 3,200 grams of mercury per
24 hours (or approximately 7 pounds per 24 hours, or 1,820 lbs/yr (assuming
operations at 5 daydweek, 52 weekslyear)). The NESHAPs also require applicable
sources to test mercury emissions within 90 days of start of operations. By
contrast, allowable mercury emissions under TAPS would be a function of facility
design and may be less than or greater than the NESHAPs limit.
3. Odor Emissions
Under air quality regulations practiced by many states, sources are prohibited from
discharging odors "beyond the property line in such a manner than a nuisance or
air pollutant is created." There are no quantitative limits placed on odor emissions
as there are on other air emissions; however, sources are, by regulation, prohibited
from generating any emissions that can be detected outside the property boundary.
In general, regulators are reluctant to specify odor concentrations or BACT
for odor control. These parameters will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking
into consideration the economics and effectiveness of the control technologies.
Some states (Virginia, Pennsylvania) require afterburner technology on the
biosolids HDS if biosolids have a high VOC content.
Indirect and closed cycle direct HDS have a lower overall potential for
emitting pollutants, primarily because their air flows are considerably lower than
that of direct open cycle HDS. The reduced air flow allows the incorporation of
higher performance emission controls and BACT into the HDS at a low cost.
Even with the same control efficiencies, pollutant loadings from the open
cycle direct HDS would be still higher due to the order of magnitude difference in
the gas volume discharged.
324 Girovich
For the PM removal, modern HDS use mechanical cyclones, fabric filters, wet
venturi-scrubbers and afterburners. In the direct open cycle HDS (Figure 6-1 1)
mechanical cyclones are used to remove biosolids pellets and coarse PM from the
dryer's exhaust. Mechanical cyclones are generally inefficient for the removal of
PM,,. The PMloremoval is largely accomplished by a wet venturi followed by an
impingement or packed bed scrubber and the afterburner. The venturi
agglomerates fine PM which enhances PM removal in the downstream wet
scrubber.
The wet scrubber also serves as a condenser and a gaseous pollutant removing
device. Venturi-wet scrubber is well suited as a condenser and as a coarse PM
removing device but it is not effective for removal of water insoluble organic and
inorganic species and submicron PM. Venturi-wet scrubber removal efficiency
(RE) for hydrocarbons is generally 5% to 30% only and for the submicron PM is
usually less than 60% unless high pressure drop venturi is employed.
In the closed cycle HDS with indirect heating (Figure 6-13), a combination
cyclone-fabric filter has been used to effectively remove coarse and fine PM. Use
of fabric filters should be carefully analyzed to avoid water condensation and
blinding of the filter bags.
In the indirect HDS, the PM removal is effectively accomplished by a wet
venturi-scrubber followed by a built-in afterburner due to small air flow and ability
to use high pressure drop (Figure 6-14). Usage of a fabric filter in this case is not
recommended because of the small air flow and high humidity of the gas.
The modem HDS with well designed furnaces fired on natural gas do not emit
carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides and chlorides (as HCI) above limits established for
this gaseous criteria pollutants and no control devices are usually employed to
remove them.
A totally different situation is observed with respect to total hydrocarbons,
ammonia, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide, organic sulfides, amines, mercaptans
and some other volatile organic compounds.
Thermal Treatment 325
Regulations now establish strict stack limits for total hydrocarbons (THC) or
VOC and nitrogen oxides. The BACT for the THC (VOC), organic sulfides,
mercaptans, etc. removal is afterburning or thermal oxidation. However, some
HDS especially at the low capacity end may still use "chemical scrubber" to
remove NH,, H,S, THC (VOC), mercaptans and other organic, often malodorous
compounds. In this case, removal of ammonia and H,S is typically accomplished
by wet scrubbers using acid (H,SO,) or caustic (NaOH) respectively. Removal of
organic species is achieved by wet scrubbers using strong chemical oxidizers such
as sodium hypochloride (NaOC1) and hydrogen peroxide. Sufficient gas residence
time and the amount of scrubbing medium and chemical oxidizing agents should
be incorporated into the chemical scrubber design to ensure that organic species
will be oxidized and deodorized. Removal efficiencies of the chemical scrubbers
vary significantly for different organic species.
Separate or built-in afterburners (RTO) operating at 700-800°C with 0.5-2
seconds of retention time provide 90-95% removal efficiency for all organic
species. (Figures 6-1 1,6-12,6-13 and 6-14) Operating the afterburners at higher
temperature is not recommended due to increase in NOx emission.
Potential source of NOx emission is the release of gaseous ammonia from
biosolids with an elevated pH during drying and subsequent partial conversion of
ammonia into NOx in the afterburners at high temperatures. To reduce or
eliminate this phenomenon, ammonia must be substantially removed from the gas
stream in the wet scrubber prior to its entering the afterburner. The wet scrubber
should be designed to perform as an ammonia and PM removal device with
sufficient liquid to gas ratio and pressure drop and injection of sulfuric acid to
convert ammonia into ammonia sulfate salt which is removed with the scrubber
blowdown.
availability and cost of all utilities, including process water, wastewater discharge,
fuel, electricity, etc.; traffic patterns and access roads, proximity of residential
areas, zoning, etc.; and 8) public acceptance or opposition to the project.
a. Labor
Modem, well-designed HDS are automated and usually run 3 shifts, 24 hours a
day, 6-7 days a week. Typically, a single dryer HDS employs two operators per
shift. Supervisory, maintenance and clerical personnel depend on the overall
facility design, mode of operation, etc.
Fuel (usually natural gas) comprises the major 0 & M expense (between 20% and
25%). Natural gas cost varies from $3.0 to $4.5 per million BTU. If the overall
STR for HDS is known (or better, guaranteed by the system's supplier), the fuel
cost per hour of operation can be calculated as follows:
C, = STR E k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6-11)
To calculate the fuel cost per dry ton of biosolids processed, the following formula
is applied:
C, = fuel cost, $ k r
C, = fuel cost, $/dry weight unit
STR = specific thermal rate, kcalkg (BTUAb) of evaporated water
E = system's evaporation capacity, kg/hr (lbhr) of evaporated water
k = cost of fuel, $ per unit of energy
di, do= biosolids and product dryness respectively
Thermal Treatment 327
For example, using formula (6-12) for a natural gas fired HDS with the STR
= 1,500 BTU/lb of evaporated water; incoming biosolids dryness of 22% TS and
product dryness of 92% TS; k = $4.5 per million BTU (2,000 lbs = 1.O dry ton):
C, = 1,500 x 2,000 (1/.22 - 1/.92) x $4.5 x lo6 = $46.7 per dry ton
The fuel cost (per unit of dry weight) depends greatly on the incoming
biosolids dryness (Figure 6-8 and Figure 6- 18) so that at the dryness of 30% TS the
fuel cost drops to $30.3 per dry ton.
c. Electricity
A single train HDS with evaporation capacities between 1.O and 4.0 metric ton per
hour requires electrical power in the 200 - 300 kw range depending upon the HDS
type. Electricity consumption per dry ton will depend on the HDS capacity and its
utilization, mode of operation, etc.
Typically, 180 - 320 kilowatt-hours per dry ton of biosolids processed is
required, or $12.6 - $22.5 per dry ton approximately (at $0.07/kwh).
The HDS require substantial amount of water for purposes of exhaust gas cooling,
condensing, scrubbing, washing, etc. Potable water is also required for personnel.
f.
g. ;
The biosolids fertilizer produced by a HDS can be sold to various consumers.
Expenses associated with this activity may include transportation, promotion and
marketing, etc. Revenue from the biosolids fertilizer sales help to reduce the cost
of production.
328 Girovich
405
z
0
I-
>-
DL 360
c2
2
3
315
-t
cn
8 270
Z
zz
6
3
225
a
0
lr
a 180
. .
2
I-
135
CT
w
L
0 90
a
1
0
8m 45
+
5,000( 15) 10,000(30) 20,000( 60)
PRODUCTION CAPACITY, DRY TONS PER YEAR (PER DAY)
Labor - 15 -25%
-
Fuel 20 - 30%
Electricity - 10%
Maintenance and repair - 15 - 25%
Overhead and administrative expenses - 15 - 25%
Miscellaneous - 5%
For nearly 70 years, biosolids generated at the City of Milwaukee's Jones Island
WWTP were dewatered and dried in direct rotary drum dryers to produce
Milorganite, a popular biosolids fertilizer product with 6% nitrogen, 1%
phosphorus and 4% iron. In 1994 the facility was retrofitted to dewater, dry and
pelletize 200 tons (182,000 kg) of biosolids per day [ 131.
Liquid biosolids from different sources are blended to maintain consistent
composition and conditioned by ferric chloride to maintain a guaranteed 4% iron
and to facilitate coagulation; by cationic polymer to assist in flocculation, and by
hydrogen peroxide to control odor.
Twenty-four (24) two meter wide belt filter presses (BFP) dewater biosolids
to 16-1 8% TS. Each BFP is capable of dewatering up to 10 tons (9,000 kg) per
day of liquid biosolids ranging from 4% to 5% TS.
The drying and pelletizing plant uses an open cycle HDS and employs twelve
8 ft. by 50 ft. direct rotary drum dryers, each with evaporation capacity of 9,000
Ibs. (4,100 kg) per hour. Assuming 16% TS in the biosolids feed, it amounts to a
total production capacity of a minimum 10.5 dry t o n s h .
Heat sources for the drying include waste heat from the turbine exhaust and
natural gas firing. Turbine exhaust at 900°F (482°C) from two natural gas fired
15 MW turbines which provide electrical power for the entire WWTP is conveyed
to the dryers. The turbine exhaust is augmented by firing natural gas.
The dryer's exhaust is first cleaned in cyclones to remove coarse PM from the
gas stream and then further treated by an impingement quench chamber and a wet
electrostatic precipitator (WESP) prior to its release to the atmosphere via 350 ft
(107 m) stack.
The WESPs are permitted to release less than 0.005 grainshcf of particulate
matter.
The greater Milwaukee area is a nonattainment area for sulhr dioxide under
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Consequently,the air permit contains
stringent pollutant emission limitations. The regulated pollutants include PM,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and volatile organic
compounds, cadmium, lead and mercury. Testing is required for these pollutants
plus nickel, chromium, chloride as HCI, and opacity.
Thermal Treatment 331
Dried product handling system separates oversized, fine and on-spec dried
products. The oversized material is reduced in size and recycled as required. Dry
fine biosolids are separated, recycled and mixed with wet biosolids feed in the
mixers.
The on-spec pellets are cooled to 32°C (90°F) to prevent heat generation
during storage and fire potential. After cooling, Milorganite is pneumatically
transported to and stored for long periods (up to three months or 18,000 tons) in 14
silos. Due to seasonal changes in nitrogen content, Milorganite with substandard
nitrogen level is stored separately for later blending with high nitrogen content
product to maintain the guaranteed 6% nitrogen.
Due to relatively large generation of fines (over 40 tons per day), a special
fine material processing system is included. The fines are mixed with hot water
and extruded to form pellets. The pellets are cooled by air, reduced in size and
returned to the dried product handling system. Fine material collected from the
cyclones (so-called chaff) is treated by an outside contractor which converts it into
a product similar to standard Milorganite.
The world's largest direct heat drying and pelletizing facility was put into operation
in 1993 in the City of New York (Bronx). The facility uses an open cycle direct
HDS (ESP process) (Figure 6-1 1) with regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). The
New York facility is capable of processing up to 270 dry metric tons a day (300
dtd) and it employs six (6) independenttriple pass rotary dryer process trains. The
facility, privatized by Wheelabrator Clean Water Systems Inc., processes dewatered
biosolids from New York City's dewatering plants (Figure 6-18, photo courtesy of
WCWS).
Trucks dump dewatered biosolids (DWB) into large holding pits in an
enclosed tipping area. A series of screw conveyors located at the bottom of the pits
move the DWB to conveyor belts. The belts move the DWB into hoppers which
feed the material into mixers at a controlled rate. In the mixers, the DWB are
mixed with recycled dry product to produce a wet granular feed for the triple pass
rotary dryers. The DWB are dried fiom approximately25 - 30% TS to 95% TS in
the rotary dryer. Upon leaving the dryer, dry pellets are separated by size.
Oversized pellets are reduced to fines before being mixed with the undersized
pellets in a recycle bin. The fine pellets are fed into the pin mixer to begin the
process again.
"On spec", market size pellets ( 1 4 mm) are pneumatically conveyed after
cooling to 30°C to storage silos before being loaded into closed-hopper rail cars
and shipped for beneficial reuse. The entire process is controlled by computers in
a centrally located control room.
332
Thermal Treatment 333
The world's first and the largest indirect heat drying and pelletizing facility was put
into operation in 1994 in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. The facility is located
on a 1.5 acre site at the 466 acre Back River WWTP. The 180 mgd plant serves 1.3
million people living in Baltimore City and Baltimore County. The facility uses
a closed-cycle indirect HDS (Figure 6- 14) based on the Bio Gro-Seghers patented
process [ 113. The process was developedjointly by Seghers Engineering Company
(Belgium) and the Bio Gro Division of Wheelabrator Clean Water Systems Inc.
The facility is designed to process 55 dtd (230 wtd) with 100% redundancy (total
capacity 110 dtd). The facility normally receives liquid biosolids and its three
centrifuges dewater them from 2 4 % TS up to 26% TS. The dewatered biosolids
are conveyed to the HDS. Biosolids dewatered by the City's centrifuges can also
be received and processed. The facility is privatized by WCWS. The City pays
approximately $96 per wet ton of biosolids processed which includes cost of
financing.
Three (3) independent Bio Gro-PelletechO multitray dryer process trains are
used to simultaneously dry and pelletize the biosolids (Figure 6-19, photo courtesy
of WCWS). Each dryer (Fig. 6-6) is capable of evaporating not less than 4.0 metric
tons of water per hour (35 dry tons per day approximately). The PelletechO dryer
uses thermal oil heated to 260°C (500°F) in the natural gas fwed thermal oil heater.
Thermal oil (heating medium) circulates through the dryer hollow trays. A small
amount of sweep air is used in the dryer. The dryer's exhaust is first cooled by
liquid biosolids to recover energy and to improve the dewaterability (Figure 6-14).
The liquid biosolids are preheated up to 140°F (60°C) which improves the overall
system thermal efficiency by approximately 3 4 % .
Thermal Treatment 335
In addition to drying and incineration, several other heat treatment processes are
used in the biosolids management. Some of them are employed to thermally
condition liquid biosolids prior to dewatering [ Z h p r o process, Envirotech
(formerly Porteous) process, Nichols (formerly Dorr Oliver Farrer System), Zurn,
etc.)]. Multi-effect evaporation process (Carver-Greenfield System) is also
employed as biosolids thermal processing prior to dewatering. Numerous
innovative thermal processes have been developed in the last decade, the majority
of which have not yet been proven in a full-scale municipal plant project (e.g.
gasification, oil from sludge (OFS) processes; bricks and tiles from sludge, etc.).
A description of some of these innovative processes is provided in [ 151.
336 Girovich
The C-G process uses a solvent (oil) to disperse a wet material (e.g., liquid
biosolids) and evaporate water out of the suspended oiVsolids emulsion. The C-G
technology started in the mid 1940's and the frst commercial C-G plant was built
in Philadelphia to dry rendering plant waste. In 1964 a C-G plant was constructed
for the Hershey Corporation sludges. Numerous C-G plants are operational
worldwide treating food, dairy, pharmaceutical, oily and other sludges [12].
In 1984, the U.S. EPA evaluated the C-G process and declared it as
"innovative and alternative," thereby permitting municipalities to obtain federal
grant subsidies for C-G process plants under the Clean Water Act of 1977. As a
result, four municipalities were contracted to build C-G process plants in the U.S.:
the City of Los Angeles (Hyperios WWTP), the County Sanitation District of Los
Angeles, Mercer County Utility Authority (NJ) and Ocean County Utilities
Authority (NJ). All USA C-G biosolids processing facilities have rather troubled
history.
The City of Los Angeles built and started up the first light solvent C-G plant
for municipal sewage sludge in 1987. Dried biosolids generated by the C-G
process are incinerated in the fluid bed furnace producing 11 MW of electricity.
However, the Los Angeles C-G plant experienced serious operating problems.
Following a number of changes to the C-G plant, the City of Los Angeles has
been operating one train at a time at a rate of about 50 dry tons per day [1995].
The City plans to make further improvements to the plant and to operate two trains
for a combined capacity of 160 dry tons per day some time in the future. Other
changes are also being implemented (e.g. installation of Stord indirect steam dryers
as a back-up).
The Ocean County Utilities Authority (OCUA) build their C-G plant in 1990
at the cost of approximately $23 million. This plant was designed at about the
same time as the other U.S. municipal plants, but differed from the others in two
important ways. First, a mechanical vapor recompression system was used instead
of a four-effect evaporation system. Second, the feed contained only 7 percent dry
solids, compared with 20% TS at the other plants. As a result, three times as much
water had to be evaporated (per dry ton of solids) compared with the other plants.
The OCUA operated the plant at up to 30 dry tons per day (design rate-50 dtd) and
sold the dried and mechanically pelletized biosolids in Florida. The plant
experienced severe downtime problems and cost of treatment was very high
(approximately $600/dt). Consequently, in the fall of 1992, the OCUA shut the
plant down.
The other two U.S. C-G plants, owned by the County of Los Angeles and
Mercer County, New Jersey, have been built but have not yet been started up
(1 994).
Fig.6-20 SIMPLIFIED CARVER-GREENFIELD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
t)UQlIID BIOSOLIDS. 2)BIOSOLIDS-OIL SLURRY, 3)FLUIDIZING OIL, 4)WATER FREE
SLURRY, 5 PROCESS S T E M , 6)RGCOYERED OIL, 7)OIL AND CONDENSATE, 8)LOW OIL
SOLIDS, 9IkENl' GAS, f0)OIL VXPOR AND S T E M
338 Girovich
\z t'
HEAT
EXCHANGER lf 6)
BOllER
* DEWATERING-@+
I
REFERENCES
I. INTRODUCTION
343
344 Girovich
The early use of lime is lost in the antiquity of civilization. The fvst
(unrecorded) use of lime to treat human wastes was perhaps in pit latrines to reduce
odors in Roman camps. Diseased animal bodies were buried in quicklime to
reduce the danger of infection.
2. I Hydrated
Lime I Ca(oH)2 I pH modification, stabilization,
conditioning
Dolomitic 1 CaO-MgO I Odor and pH control
Edmund Ruffin, called the "Father of Soil Chemistry in the U.S.," presented a
paper in 1818 stating that southern soils, through single cropping and other bad
farming practices, had become too acidic to retain fertilizer. With application of
burned lime, soil acidity was reduced and enhanced yields of corn and wheat were
experienced.
Farmers in southeastern Maryland and in New York regularly followed the
practice of liming with burned lime (CaO). Prior to the 1900's, mechanical
equipment did not exist to grind limestone (CaCO,) into the agricultural limestone
we know today. Consequently,the limestone was burned, which resulted in a soft,
porous material that could be used directly on soils. Pulverized limestone became
more available around 1909. Exaggerated claims from the producers led to
considerable conhsion concerning agronomic benefits of different forms of lime.
Pulverized limestone, due to its low cost and broad availability, became the
preferred form of lime used in agriculture. However, numerous studies conducted
since 1912 revealed that "the value of any form of basic lime used in soil
treatments is dependent upon the calcium and magnesium oxide content. If applied
to the soil on the basis of equal lime oxides of similar fineness, the various forms
of basic lime compounds have the same crop producing value. There are no
significant differences between the nitrogen and organic matter content of the
untreated soil, the limestone, and the burned lime treatments. There is, however,
a significant difference in favor of burned lime when used with manure" [9].
The term "stabilized" or "stable" biosolids has been defined in different ways
in the literature and criteria for assessing biosolids stabilization have not been
universally accepted. Pathogen contents, volatile solids content, and odor intensity
(putrescibility) have often been used as an indicator of "stability". Anaerobic and
aerobic digestion, composting and alkaline (lime) treatment are stabilization
processes commonly used in practice. The U.S. EPA 40CFR Part 503 Regulations
promulgated in February, 1993 established quantitative criteria for biosolids
"stabilization"by setting up standards for pathogen and vector attraction reduction.
An alkaline stabilization process can meet the U.S. EPA Part 503 Class A
(PFRP) pathogen reduction requirements by using either pasteurization (Appendix
B) or pH, time, temperature and dryness standards as specified in paragraph 503.32
(a)(4). For example, N-Viro Soil process meets the Paragraph 503.32 (a)(4)
requirements. The BIO*FIX and RDP EnVessel Pasteurization processes meet
pasteurization standards. (The temperature of the sewage sludge is maintained at
70°C (158°F) or higher for 30 minutes or longer.")
To meet Class B (PSRP) requirements an alkaline (lime) stabilizationprocess
should add "sufficient lime... to the sewage sludge to raise the pH of the sewage
sludge to 12 after 2 hours of contact". Additionally, vector attraction reduction
requirements are imposed on both Class A and B alkaline stabilization processes.
Alkaline Stabilization 347
1. Pre-Lime Stabilization
* pounds
I Anaerobic 6-7 0.19 12.4
Alkaline Stabilization 349
With the passage of the 503 Regulations new pathogen and vector attraction
reduction requirements should be met for pre-lime stabilization (Table 7-3).
A number of additional restrictions apply (public access, monitoring and
record keeping, type of crops, etc.). The pH of the pre-lime stabilized biosolids
reduces gradually depending upon the lime ratios. At high dosages (lime ratio of
0.3) a pH of 12 can be maintained for days and possibly weeks; but it drops quickly
(hours or few days) at lime ratios below .O. 15. Other alkaline materials have been
tried for pre-lime stabilization (e.g. fly ash), however there is no sufficient data
concerning environmental and health compliance or economics of the alternative
materials. Pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements for Class B
alkaline stabilized biosolids are shown in Table 7-3.
2. Post-Lime Stabilization
practice. (Middlesex Co., NJ; Bergen Co., NJ; Howard Co., MD; South Essex
Sewerage District, MA; Toledo, OH; etc.)
Significant development work and regulatory attention was initially focused
on alkaline treatment of industrial rather than municipal sludges with special
attention given to the disposal of industrial and nuclear wastes. Earlier
developments and related patents were made by Chemfut, Roediger Pittsburgh Inc.,
N-Viro, RDP Company, Dravo Lime Co., Envirotech Corp., Hazcon Inc., F. B.
Leopold Co. lnc., Soliditech, Inc., Lodige, Rhenuslager, and Albert Klein KG
(Germany).
The purpose of the post-lime stabilizationis to reduce (Class B) or to eliminate
(Class A) pathogenic organisms, to comply with vector attraction reduction
requirements, minimize odors and nuisance conditions and, last but not least, to
produce a marketable beneficial use product with minimum cost. Majority of the
post-lime stabilized biosolids are beneficially land applied or used as a substitution
for landfill cover material. Post-lime stabilizationtypically produces the following
beneficial use products:
a) Class B (PSRP) material to use as a soil fertilizer for specifically permitted sites;
b) Class A (PFRP) material to use as an agricultural liming agent;
c) Landfill cover material in compliance with physical properties required by
landfill operation; it can be either Class A or B material.
1 A
v)
0 Dosage to Achieve Class
3.0
0
3,OOt- A (Pasteurization) Only
CA
i2
n 2,SO t
2.5 0
v)
P
d
-
0
2.0 g=.,
2800 t-
c
0)
.-*0 04
2 1.5
li
.C1
-P
-El 1,50[-
.-
%
1-
d a
0
1.O "0 l,OO[-
Class B Stabilization
a"E
2
0.5 -& 500-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60'
Disadvantages are:
. Limited markets for alkaline stabilized biosolids especially for the pre-lime
stabilization of liquid biosolids;
*
Substantial storage is required due to seasonal and market variations.
. Re-lime stabilization (i.e. alkaline stabilization of liquid biosolids) can meet
only Class B (PSRP) requirements.
B. Process Fundamentals
Hydration of one pound of quicklime ties 0.32 pounds of free water available
in biosolids to produce 1.32 pounds of dry hydrated lime approximately. Hydrated
lime is sparingly soluble in water and disassociatesto produce an equilibrium pH
of 11.3 to 12.53 as follows [12]:
1. Heat Generation
Exothermic reactions between lime and silica, aluminum and ferric oxides also
occur when these oxides are present:
CaO + Fe,O, + Al,03 + H,O = Ca(OH),~A1203~Fe,03~nH,0
Ca(OH), + H,O + A1,03 = CaOmAl,O,mCa(OH),mnH,O
Ca(OH), + S O z = CaO*SiOpnH,O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.2)
The term pH expresses the hydrogen ion activity, i.e. intensity of the acid or
alkaline condition of a solution and it is defined as follows:
p H = - log [H'] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(7.4)
Pure water disassociatesto small degree yielding hydrogen ions (H') equal to
l o 7 moldliter; thus pure water has a pH of 7. It is also neutral since lo-' mole/liter
of hydroxide ion (OH-) is produced simultaneously,(H,O = H' + OH). Addition
of an alkali such as Ca(OH), reduces the number of free hydrogen ions causing an
increase in pH, because additional OH- ions unite with K ions. The pH scale is
acid from 0 to 7 and basic (alkaline) from 7 to 14. The pH adjustment by lime is
a two step process: first the CaO reacts with water in biosolids to produce calcium
hydroxide [Ca(OH),] and then the calcium hydroxide raises the pH of biosolids.
The hydration of calcium oxide is a quick process (approximately 1 to 1.5 minutes)
provided water is available. Availability of free water in biosolids is an important
factor: generally, the wetter the dewatered biosolids, the quicker the reaction will
be. If biosolids are dry (L 30% TS) then more retention time is required for lime
354 Girovich
hydration and temperature to rise. Other factors are the lime reactivity and particle
size. Generally the smaller the particles the better lime utilization can be achieved.
Alkaline materials used in the biosolids stabilization may also contain other
base forming compounds such as calcite (CaCO,, limestone), 5 0 , dolomite
(CaMg(CO,),), N&CQ (in cement kiln dust), silicates (in fly ash) and metal
oxides. Reactions of these compounds with water in biosolids effect the pH
adjustment and heat release.
The chemistry of the lime stabilization of biosolids has not been completely
understood and described in detail. The following reactions between lime and
organic and inorganic ions in biosolids possibly occur [ 1 11:
Ca2' + 2HC0,- + CaO = 2CaC0, + H,O ..................... Q
2POi3 + 6H' + 3Ca0 = Ca, (PO,), + 3H20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06)
Organic Acids (RCOOH) + CaO t+ RCOOHCaOH . . . . . . . . . . v.3
Fats + CaO 4 Fatty Acids ............................... V.8)
Ammonia
3. Odors
PH
Fig. 7-3 EFFECT OF PH ON SPECIATION OF
HYDROGEN SULFIDE [ I 13
356 Girovich
The higher the pH, the more gaseous ammonia (NH,) is released from the
alkaline stabilized biosolids. Figure 7-2 illustrates the effect of pH on ammonia
release at various pH levels. At the pH of 11, all ammonium ions are converted to
ammonia gas which if not controlled, can cause considerable odor problems.
On the other hand, high pH levels essentially eliminate odors due to hydrogen
sulfide and possibly other sulphur-containingodor pollutants such as mercaptans
and organic sulfides. Figure 7-3 illustrates that as pH increases, the gaseous
hydrogen sulfide (H,S) decreases while water soluble H S and S- increase. At pH
of 9, gaseous H,S release is essentially at 0% [l I].
This phenomenon explains why alkaline stabilized biosolids exhibit
predominantly ammonia-based odors while other severe odor pollutants are
generally eliminated or inhibited [13]. High pH levels typically reached in alkaline
stabilization inactivate or destroy microorganisms involved in decomposition of
biosolids, thus contributing to odor suppression.
However, it was observed that odors due to nitrogen-containing organic
compounds which are products of organic matter decomposition continue to persist
even at the high pH. These include amines, and more specifically trimethylamine
(TMA) and possibly cadaverine, indole, etc. (Chapter 1, Table 1-8).
In both reactions, two hydrogen ions in the soil are exchanged for one calcium
ion thus reducing the hydrogen ion concentration and raising the soil pH [ 151.
Hydrated lime is 100 times more soluable than lime and as a result, the 7.10
reaction is significantly quicker than the 7.1 1. Hydrated lime is generally more
effective in reducing soil acidity than limestone [9].
The acid neutralizing capacity of a liming agent is determined by acid titration
to a pH of 7. This is then expressed as calcium carbonate equivalence (CCE)
which is the acid neutralizing capacity of the material relative to that of pure
CaCO,. A CCE value of 50% means that it would take two times more of the
Alkaline Stabilization 357
Metal hydroxides precipitate from the soil solution and become largely
unavailable for the plant's uptake. Metal mobility is greatly reduced as well. Metal
immobilization is a complex process which also involves absorption to mineral
surfaces, precipitation as carbonates, complexation by organic matter, etc.
C. Alkaline Materials
1. Lime
Lime in its various forms, as quicklime and hydrated lime, is the principal, lowest
cost alkali. It is the second (after sulfuric acid) greatest basic chemical in tonnage
produced. It is manufactured by approximately 80 plants in 29 of 50 US states.
Over 18.7 million tons of lime are consumed annually (1993) in the United States
and over 137 million tons worldwide.
Lime is the greatest tonnage chemical consumed in water treatment, in sewage
and industrial waste treatment. In recent years lime has become a major chemical
for desulfurization of stack gases at power plants and industrial boilers.
Lime (calcium oxide or burned lime) is produced by burning limestone
(CaCO,). Burned lime was manufactured from limestone as early as 1661 in
Providence, R.I. Lime is a general term but by strict definition it only embraces
burned forms of lime: quicklime, hydrated lime, and hydraulic lime. The two
forms of particular interest to biosolids treatment, however, are quicklime and to
a lesser degree hydrated lime. Limestone (calcium carbonate) is occasionally but
erroneously referred to as "lime".
358 Girovich
Angle of Repose 70 70
Limestone, calcium oxide and hydrated lime have been used extensively in
agriculture to neutralize acidic soils. When pulverized limestone became a
competitor on the agricultural lime market about 1909, a competition arose
between the producers of various types of lime products. Exaggerated claims led
to considerable confusion concerning agronomic values of the different forms of
lime. Numerous studies performed since 1912 proved that there is no principle
difference between different forms of lime with respect to their agronomic value.
If applied to the soil on the basis of equal lime oxides of similar fineness, the
various forms of basic lime compounds have the same crop producing effect [9].
Various types of lime are used for acid neutralization in waste treatment
processes. Basic data on the properties of the common types of lime products are
provided in Table 7-4.
Quicklime's ability to raise the temperature over time (reactivity) and percent
of available CaO in commercial quicklime are important factors for an alkaline
stabilization process involving temperature-time. Particle size distribution is
another factor effecting lime usage. These factors should be specified when
purchasing quicklime.
a. Quicklime
Quicklime (burned lime) is the product resulting from the calcination of limestone
and to a lesser extent shell in rotary or vertical kilns at temperatures of 2000" -
2400" F. It consists primarily of the oxides of calcium and magnesium. On the
basis of their chemical analyses, quicklimes may be divided into three classes:
1 . High calcium quicklime - containing principally calcium oxide (CaO) and less
than 5 percent magnesium oxide (MgO).
2. Magnesium quicklime - containing 5 to 35 percent magnesium oxide.
3. Dolomitic quicklime - containing 35 to 40 percent magnesium oxide.
Magnesium quicklime is relatively rare in the United States and is only available
in a few localities.
Quicklime is available in a number of more or less standard sizes, as follows:
1. Lump lime - the product with a maximum size of eight inches in diameter
down to two to three inches, produced in vertical kilns.
2. Crushed or pebble lime - the most common form which ranges in size from
about 2 to '/4 inches, produced in most kiln types.
3. Granular lime - the product that has a particulate size range of 100% passing
a # S sieve and 100% retained on a #SO sieve (a dustless product).
360 Girovich
4. Ground lime - the product resulting from grinding the larger sized material and
screening off the fine size. A typical size is substantiallyall passing a #8 sieve
and 40 to 60% passing a #lo0 sieve.
5. Pulverized lime - the product resulting from a more intense grinding than is
used to produce ground lime. A typical size is substantially all passing a #20
sieve and 85 to 95% passing a #lo0 sieve.
6. Pelletized lime - the product made by compressing quicklime fines into about
one-inch sized pellets or briquettes.
in bags and are almost universally shipped in bulk. The finer sizes of quicklime,
ground, granular, and pulverized, are readily handled in either bulk or bags.
Quicklime storage must be designed to avoid any accidental contact with
water.
Lime Reactivity
Availability of active quicklime and its reactivity level are important factors for
alkaline stabilization processes. Reactivity of CaO varies in limes from different
suppliers. The quicklime used in alkaline stabilization process, especially when
heat of its exothermic reaction is important (i.e. pasteurization), should be of the
quality known as "quick slaking" and shall slake easily, readily disintegrating into
a suspension, while producing a required temperature rise of 40°C (72°F) in
predetermined time.
Three major types of CaO are defmed as follows (ANSVAWWA B202-93
"Standard for Quicklime and Hydrated Lime"):
1) A high reactive lime will show a temperature rise of 40°C (72°F) in 3
minutes or less and the reaction will be complete within 10 minutes.
2) A medium reactive lime will show a temperature rise of 40°C (72°F) in
3-6 minutes and the reaction will be complete within 10-20 minutes.
3) A low reactive lime will require more than 6 minutes to raise temperature
to 40°C (72°F) and more than 20 minutes to complete the reaction.
Quicklime will deteriorate in storage at a much more rapid rate than hydrated
lime. Under good storage conditions, with multiwall moisture proofed bags,
quicklime may be held as long as six months, but in general should not be stored
over three months.
b. Hydrated Lime
2. Other Materials
a. Kiln Dusts
which use hazardous waste as a fuel will be required to test their CKD to prove
that it remains unaffected.
No 200 mesh
I I
Total Solids 1 100 I Silver
YO
Strontium
Millions of tons of fly ash and flue gas desulfurization(FGD) ash are produced
as a result of intensive use of coal for electrical power generation. These ashes
contain some essential plant nutrients. Numerous studies have been conducted to
evaluate the effects of ash application on properties of soil and its use in biosolids
treatment. Composition of ash varies considerably. In general, fly and FGD ashes
are rich in Ca and Mg and therefore can be used as a liming agent either alone or
in alkaline treatment of biosolids. Application of fly and FGD ash mixed with
biosolids increases soil moisture-holding capacity. Its effect on soil microbial
activity if applied at low rates is negligible.
364 Girovich
scrubber ash. Calcium based scrubber ash which contains sizable amounts of
active CaO can be used as a source of heat and as a bulking agent. Scrubber ash
heavy metal content should be strictly monitored and controlled.
The principal form of lime and other dry alkaline materials transportation is
pneumatic trucking. Pneumatic (blower) trucks are available with compartmented
tanks varying from 700 to 1300 cu. ft. capacity (the latter delivers up to 20 tons of
hydrate and 24 tons of pebble lime). Air for blowing is provided by a blower
mounted on the trailer. The largest size of pebble lime that can be pumped
efficiently from blower trucks is 1 '/s in., although 1 in. top size is preferred.
Pebble lime may be blown as much as 100 ft. vertically and 150 ft. on a combined
vertical and horizontal run. Hydrated lime can be blown readily up to 300 ft.
combined vertical and horizontal run. Normally a blower truck can be unloaded
in about 60 minutes.
Airslide trucks are also used for lime delivery, particularly for the finer lime
products (hydrate and pulverized quicklime). In these trucks the lime is fluidized
by low pressure air and conveyed in a slightly inclined trough to the discharge end
of the truck. A separate conveyor system then transfers the lime to storage. A
separate fan mounted on the truck provides the air for fluidizing.
Covered rail hopper cars haul up to 100 tons of quicklime or 50 tons of
hydrated lime. The lime is discharged to an undertrack hopper, then taken by
screw conveyor and bucket elevator to plant storage, or pneumatically unloaded.
The newest type of rail car for lime is the pneumatic, either the pressure
differential or the airslide car, comparable to the blower and airslide trucks,
respectively.
containers are removed and stored at the plant until use. In addition to pneumatic
conveyance there are two other means of transporting bulk alkaline materials to
storage: mechanical and vacuum.
With mechanical handling the lime and similar materials are generally
discharged into a hopper, then transferred by conveyor to a bucket elevator, then
elevated to storage. Pan and drag conveyors are preferred for larger sized
quicklime, and for long runs. Belt conveyors are not recommended for transferring
lime because of dusting.
Data on screw conveyor and elevator capacity which can be used for
estimating purposes are given in Tables 7-8 and 7-9; however for final design
purposes, the equipment manufacturer should be consulted.
Lime and other alkaline materials are not corrosive and carbon steel or, less
often concrete bins and silos are used for storage. The silos must be watertight and
airtight. Basic data for a popular 12 ft. diameter silo are provided in Table 7-10
and Figure 7-4.
collection, etc. The flow of lime varies from good for pebble and granulated
quicklime to erratic for pulverized quicklime, hydrated lime and fine materials.
Quicklime tends to absorb moisture readily, forming an adherent soft cake
which can cause bridging in storage. Hydrated lime tends to form rat holes, craters,
or chimneys due to its fluffy texture and also possibly to electrostatic charges.
Because of the inherent problems with lime's flowability, several methods of
design have been developed to facilitate unloading. These include special design
considerations in silo construction, the use of external vibrators and air pads, as
well as internal anti-packing and anti-bridging devices and live bin bottoms. The
interior silo walls should not be painted, and should be kept as smooth as possible,
fiee from projections like bolt heads, welding ridges, offset joints, etc. which could
restrict material flow. In some cases plastic materials have been used to coat the
hopper bottoms to reduce fiiction and improve flowability. Height to diameter ratio
of 2.5 - 4.0 is most desirable. Hopper silo bottoms should have a minimum slope
of 60" fiom the horizontal; for hydrate lime a greater slope angle is desirable. An
electromagnetic vibrator, attached to the outside of the silo, is the most popular
device to improve flowability. It is more suitable for quicklime than hydrate,
because vibration tends to pack the hydrate. With pebble quicklime the vibrator
can be operated continuously during discharge. Best results are achieved with
vibrators attached to a cone which is connected to the silo via a flexible joint
(vibrating bin activators). Vibrators should only be operated while the hopper is
open to flow to prevent packing.
Several internal devices have also been developed to prevent bridging. One
such internal device is a double-ended cone which is mounted near the base of the
conical hopper. The cone decreases the downward pressure of material above the
368 Girovich
discharge opening, thus helping to prevent packing and minimize rat-holing. There
are other designs to prevent bridging.
D (12')
X X-
-0
--Q
ToFeeder -
Fig. 7-4 TYPICAL STORAGE SILO
1. Support Structure; 2. Activated Suspended Cone;
3. Pneumatic Feed Pipe;4. Fabric Filter; 5 . Safety
Valve; 6. High & Low Level Indicators; 7. Vibrator
Alkaline Stabilization 369
Air jets and pulsating air pads are also used on silos to facilitate flow of
hydrated lime. Normally, air activation is not recommended for quicklime since
any moisture in the air would cause air slaking. Each silo should be vented and
equipped with a dust collection device.
In earlier designs a small cyclone collector may suffice, however at present the
more efficient bag-type collector is required to clean air expelled during truck
unloading. Normally 1 sq. ft. of cloth area per 2 cu. ft. of air is recommended,
indicating 375 sq. ft. of cloth area for a large truck rotary blower of 750 cu. ft.
capacity. Additional cloth area of 100-300 sq. ft. may be justified, however, to
accommodatethe final clean-out period. An air permit is required for each storage
silo equipped with a dust collector.
The lime feeders are usually located beneath the silos, with the lime simply
flowing by gravity directly to discharge conveyor. With multiple silo storage,
either mechanical or pneumatic conveyors are used to transfer lime to the feeder
hoppers.
Pneumatic transfer systems comprise pressure (high and low), vacuum (low,
medium, and high) and combination. The most popular pneumatic system used for
lime transfer is the low pressure system.
A. BIO*FIX Process
Vector attraction reduction requirements for the BIO*FIX Class A product are
met either by compliance with the 503.33(b)(6) (pH2 12 for more than 2 hours and
pH2 11.5 for 22 hours) or by compliance with the 503.33(b)(l)(at least 38%
reduction in volatile solids). Vector attraction requirements for the BIO*FIX Class
B product are met by compliance with the 503.33(b)(6) or 503(b)(10). (Chapter
2, Table 2-8)
The major process difference between production of Class A and Class B
products is related to the different lime ratios used during the treatment process.
The lime ratio is expressed as tons of quicklime per ton of dry biosolids used
during treatment. A higher lime ratio is required to produce a Class A product than
to produce a Class B product.
Disadvantages are:
. increase in product weight/volume (15 - 30% by weight as compared with
incoming dewatered biosolids)
. relatively high cost of lime when producing Class A product
BIO*FIX Class A product remains stable over months and generally does not
cause odor problems or attract vectors even after extended periods of storage. This
stability results fiom residual alkalinity and significantly reduced levels of volatile
solids [14]. Trace (heavy) metals present in sludge become insoluble at the high
pH levels attained by the BIO*FIX process. The alkaline nature of the end product
immobilizes and prevents trace metals plant uptake or movement to groundwater.
The addition of clean alkaline material dilutes the trace metal concentration of the
end product by 2 to 2.5 times which is important for biosolids with marginal heavy
metal concentrations [ 131.
Studies have confirmed that quicklime is a cost-effective additive in
production of a marketable Class A and especially Class B products as compared
to other alkaline materials such as cement and lime kiln dust, fly ash, etc. [ 16][171.
BIO*FIX Class A product is are a soil-like, practically odorless material
containing organic matter, calcium and micronutrients. The product is reasonably
dry (50-60%TS), light grey in color, has a crumbly texture and is easily
I
I
I
Lime & Alkaline I
Additive Storage I
Process
Water
to Sewer
p Ventilation Point
spreadable by common means. Major BIO*FIX product data are provided in Table
7-1 1.
BIO*FIX products with sufficient dryness and spreadability are successfully
used as a landfill cover material substitute [ 18][19].
As an agricultural liming agent, BIO*FIX Class A product has been used with
very few site restrictions. BIO*FIX Class B product is typically utilized on
I
5. Calcium (%, dry basis) 30 - 40 0.5 - 1.0
6 . Trace Metals Concentrations are As in feed
mg/kg, dry reduced by a factor
of 2 - 2.5. Metals
are immobilized,
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
,
8. CaCO, Equivalent, 70 - 95 5 - 10
(CCE), %
9. Bulk Density, lb/cf 52 - 58 5 8 : 60
10. Physical characteristics soil-like, near moist, dark brown;
odorless, crumbly good spreadability
material with very
good spreadability
and storability
I 1. Application Liming Agent, Soil amendment &
Landfill Cover fertilizer
Alkaline Stabilization 373
agricultural lands, land reclamation projects and similar sites specifically permitted
for this purpose.
At present (1995) there are over a dozen operational BIO*FIX installations in
the U.S.A. processing over 70,000 dry tons of biosolids annually, the majority of
which are owned and operated by the Bio Gro Division of Wheelabrator Clean
Water Systems Inc. The largest BIO*FIX facility producing Class A material is
located at the Bergen County Utility Authority (BCUA) WWTP in New Jersey.
The BCUA BIO*FIX facility currently processes 40 dry tons per day of
dewatered biosolids (at 20 - 24% T.S.) and generates approximately 235 tons per
day of BIO*FIX Class A material for beneficial use, largely as a landfill cover
material at several MSW landfills. The facility design capacity is 105 dry tons per
day.
1. Process Description
to ensure consistent quality of the end product and its compliance with regulatory
standards.
The control system monitors and records alkaline material and biosolids feeds,
temperature of the end product, status of all system components and historic trends.
All process records are stored electronically and are available for review and
inspection [ 13][20].
Typical BIO*FIX facility data utilizing a medium capacity mixer (2.0 dry
tonshour) are provided in Table 7-12.
2. Environmental Control
some organic nitrogen is also mineralized and is partially converted into gaseous
ammonia.
During the process liberation of ammonia occurs primarily in the enclosed
process equipment. This provides BIO*FIX operations with an opportunity to
ensure that odors are contained, minimized and controlled before they become a
problem. Other odor pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide (H,S), organic sulfides
and mercaptans are largely suppressed due to the high pH environment.
The primary odor concern during Class A production is ammonia. Typical
uncontrolled ammonia release is in the 8 to 25 pounds per dry ton range (before
scrubbing) depending on the type of biosolids. Ammonia is contained and is
treated by the wet multistage packed bed scrubber to a removal efficiency of no
less than 99% with typical ammonia stack concentration in 5 - 10 ppm range.
(Human detection concentration is typically 3 - 15 ppm.) Odors due to m i n e s
(nitrogen containing organic compounds) can also occur.
Some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are generated at the process
temperature involved (80DC). These VOCs, if present in the incoming biosolids
should be controlled by oxidizing chemical scrubbers. Metals are not expected to
volatilize at the process temperatures maintained during BIO*FIX processing [ 131.
To remove ammonia and particulate matter (PM) two types of wet scrubbing
systems are used: 1) once-through and 2) recirculating scrubbing medium (water)
flows. If an inexpensive source of water is available the first type of scrubbing
system is used. If water is unavailable or expensive, a recirculating scrubber
system is recommended to minimize water consumption and waste water discharge.
In this case, sulfuric (phosphoric) acid is typically used to facilitate ammonia
removal by controlling pH in the scrubbing medium.
Post-lime stabilization using lime and kiln dusts called the N-Viro Soil Process was
developed and patented in the late 1980's by N-Viro Energy Systems, Inc. (Toledo,
Ohio). It is a combination of relatively low temperature, high pH and drying
("curing") steps to achieve compliance with the U.S. EPA Class A (PFRP)
requirements. The final product is reasonably dry,practically odorless, granular
material. Beneficial uses for the N-Viro products are: liming agent, landfill cover
material and top soil supplement. There are three alternatives of the N-Viro Soil
process [21]:
. Alternative 1: The dewatered biosolids, lime and kiln dust mixture is dried
while the pH remains above 12.0 for at least seven (7) days. The product must
be held for at least thirty (30) days and until solids content is at least 65% by
376 Girovich
weight. Ambient air temperatures during the first seven (7) days of processing
must be above 5°C. Alternative 1 is presently not popular due to the
significant space and time required for processing.
- Alternative 2: The dewatered biosolids, lime and kiln dust mixture is heated
while the pH exceeds 12.0 using exothermic reactions fiom the quicklime and
alkaline materials in the kiln dust. The material must be stored in such a way
(e.g., in a bin) so as to maintain uniform minimum temperature of 52°C for at
least twelve (12) hours. The heat pulse (raising the temperature to 52°C) is a
function of the CaO content. Variation in the CaO content of the kiln dust(s)
will require adjustment to prevent under- or over-heating of the product.
Following the heat pulse, the product is air dried (while pH remains above
12.0 for at least three (3) days by windrowing until the solids content is > 50%
by weight. This alternative has no ambient air temperature requirements.
Alternative 3: Same as Alternative 2, but instead of windrow drying, a
thermal drying is offered as an alternative (1 995).
Alkaline materials used in the N-Viro process are stored in silos and can be
blended to produce the end product. Alkaline materials are normally conveyed
from the silo(s) to the mixer pneumatically or by a screw conveyor(s). The
conveyors are to be enclosed to prevent release of dust and odors.
The blended material must be "cured" for at least 12 hours in heat pulse
containers, storage bins or enclosed piles while the temperature is maintained
above 52°C and below 62°C (pasteurization). After the heat pulse the material is
transported and discharged into long piles forming windrows. The material is
aerated and intermittently windrowed for 3 - 7 days and is complete when the
solids content of the material is above 50% TS, while the pH remains above 12.
Further windrowing may be desirable to reduce volumes of material to bring the
solids content to 60 - 65% TS. Drying is performed on an asphalt or concrete pad,
outdoors or inside a building, typically using a SCARAB turner or similar
windrowing equipment. The product is easily handled and can be stockpiled. As
in other alkaline stabilizationprocesses, odor control is extremely important. Large
space and relatively long time required for curing, windrowing and air drying of
the N-Viro Soil allow for more odor pollutants to be released. Long term odor
control is maintained by degradation and stabilization of organic materials by the
remaining heterotrophic microorganisms. The mesophilic (relatively low) process
temperatures and other stresses are claimed to be enough to kill the pathogens
without destroying the more ubiquitous heterotrophic microorganisms which
continue to degrade organic matter making the N-Viro Soil more stable with time.
Serious odor problems have been observed during the N-Viro Soil windrowing and
air drying due to the release of ammonia and certain mines such as trimethylamine
(TMA) [21]. To control the odors the heat pulse bins and curing (windrowing)
facility should be enclosed and serviced by an odor control device (scrubber). N-
Viro Soil product properties are depicted in Table 7-13 [21].
The N-Viro Soil process is typically licensed by N-Viro Energy Systems, Ltd.
to a private fm or a municipality to utilize the process. Royalty and management
fees related to the CKD quality control are usually charged in addition.
Disadvantages are:
. Increase in product weightholume 50% - 70%by weight as compared with
incoming dewatered biosolids.
. Large space required for windrowinglair drying
379
8. CaCO, Equivalent, % 50 - 80
I 9. CKD Content, % b y weight 35
The largest (190 dry tons per day) N-Viro installation in the U S A . is located
at the 147 mgd Middlesex County, New Jersey WWTP. The facility uses
Alternative 2 AASSAD process to generate N-Viro Soil for beneficial use primarily
380 Girovich
as a landfill cover material. The facility capital cost was $16.8 million (1992)
including $8.6 million for air pollution control.
D. Chemfix Process
The Chemfix Process uses lime, Portland cement and proprietary pozzolanic
compounds based on soluble sodium silicate, This technology was patented in the
1970's for use in treatment of industrial and municipal wastes. Chemfix-stabilized
biosolids under a trade name NATUFUTE were marketed from several plants in
the 1980's. However, the first Chemfuc installationsexperienced serious problems
(odors, low solids content, etc.). In the early 1990's an improved process was
introduced (ChemPost System) with the end product called ChemPost [24][25].
Through the use of lime and specially designed chemical reagents (Chemset
reagents) ChemPost System heats and raises the pH to comply with the Class A
(PFRP) requirements. It produces alkaline stabilized biosolids within three to six
hours.
A process flow diagram of the new ChemPost System is shown in Figure 7-8.
Dewatered biosolids are fed via a variable speed feeder into a first mixer where a
proprietary dry reagent(s) is added from a silo(s). A proprietary liquid reagent
from a storage tank is also added. The first mixer discharges into a second mixer
where the dry and the liquid reagents are added as well. The mixture is then
conveyed to a storage vessel-conveyor (Thermoveyor) where it is held for some
Electrical
T Emission Point
U
Mixer 2
To Beneficial Use
T Emission Point
Conveyor
1. alkaline additive@);
2 . transportation of the end product from the facility to beneficial use site(s);
3. beneficial use (land application, landfill cover, etc.);
4. transportation of the biosolids to the facility;
5. labor; and
6. utilities and maintenance.
alternative for treatment and production of beneficial use products fiom wastewater
sludges.
The costs of an alkaline stabilizationprocess should be evaluated with respect
to the total costs of the option over its useful life, using the present worth,
equivalent annual cost, tip fee, or a similar method. In addition, the costs of a
privatized option, if that is the preferred procurement method, should be compared
to alternative management options that involve ownership and operation by the
municipality. The privatized facility is designed, operated, constructed, krnished
with all the necessary equipment, and eventually operated as a commercial
enterprise by a private firm.
Flexibility of the alkaline stabilizationprocess and the use of existing facilities
are also important factors when evaluating potential sludge management options.
Alkaline stabilizationprocesses are not labor- or equipment-intensive,and they can
be a cost-effective option, depending on the product market and end-use program.
Site preparation is generally minimal. An additional advantage of these processes
is the ability to start up operations in a short time period. Because of their low
capital cost, flexibility, and ease of start up, alkaline stabilization technologies can
be effective biosolids management options.
Some f m s have mobile equipment which can be used for backup or
emergency situations or demonstration programs to explore the end product
marketability and encourage public approval.
REFERENCES
Jane B. Forste
I. INTRODUCTION
The treatment of wastewater fiom modem urban society produces a rich resource:
biosolids. Some eight million dry metric tons of biosolids are produced annually
in the United States in 1995, a significant growth from the five million tons
generated in 1990 [ 11. Of the technologies currently available to use this natural
resource, the most direct and most commonly employed is land application-the
term used to describe the application of biosolids to land for purposes of
agricultural production, production of other non-agricultural crops (e.g., forest
application) or use as a soil amendment/fertilizerto reclaim areas which have been
disturbed by mining or other activities.
In light of the significant benefits which biosolids can provide for the above
uses, it remains somewhat surprising that such uses frequently encounter
apprehension and even strong opposition fiom the general public. The reasons for
such attitudes have not been fully identified but are becoming recognized as a
significant impediment to the development of land application programs for
biosolids. With the improvement in terminology which "biosolids" represents, the
opportunity exists for better communicating the true nature of the product of
modem wastewater treatment. For better understanding to result, biosolids must
be dealt with in arenas other than the conference rooms of sanitary engineers and
contractors who design and build bigger and better treatment plants. These
390 Forste
A. Historical Background
Even before the development of modem wastewater treatment facilities, the solids
from household sewage were recognized as a potential resource. As far back as the
Roman Empire, human wastes were used as fertilizers, and the practice continued
for centuries throughout the world in Europe, North America and the Orient. These
practices were vastly different from the regulated, managed methods developed in
the last several decades for land application of biosolids. Perhaps the most
important distinction centers on the obvious health hazards associated with using
raw wastes to fertilize farmlands. The pathogens contained therein represent a very
real concern unless the foods are boiled during their preparation to destroy the
organisms which can cause amoebic dysentery, salmonella poisoning or other
diseases. Unfortunately, the potential for illness which results from the
indiscriminate use of raw sewage may be misperceived by many people as a
potential danger to them if they eat any foods from crops grown in soils fertilized
with processed biosolids. This misconception must be addressed head-on and
dispelled in order to change public attitudes towards land application.
In the United States throughout the 19th and into the 20th Century, fanners
and scavengers collected human wastes from urban cesspools to use as a fertilizer
on a wide variety of crops. They were often sold to neighboring farmers who used
them as a fertilizer or, if the city had a farm, they were used there. The 1880
census contained a compilation by one of the leading sanitarians in the U.S. which
reported that 103 of the 222 cities listed reported that their wastes were applied to
the land to grow crops. The New England and middle Atlantic states followed this
practice more widely than did southern and western areas of the country [2].
Several maj0rU.S. cities, including New York, Baltimore, Cleveland, Philadelphia
and Washington, D.C., marketed a fertilizer material derived from cesspooVprivy
wastes. Regulations focused mostly on allowing the emptying of the cesspools and
privy vaults only at night and prohibiting the use of this night soil on farms within
the gathering ground of the city's water supply. The City of Baltimore, which was
without a system of municipal sewers until 1912, continued to fertilize garden
crops with urban night soil until the sewers were constructed. Farmers in Maryland
and Virginia purchased over 12 million gallons of such waste from Baltimore
annually, using it to grow crops such as cabbage, kale, spinach, potatoes and
Land Application 391
tomatoes which were then sold in the Baltimore market. Baltimore was the only
major city in the nation that continued this recycling of urban wastes on
neighboring farms into the 20th century.
Three factors led to the disappearance of such agricultural use of urban
wastes: increasing urban population, technology changes, and increasing concern
for public health.
By the mid- 19th century, the method of having farmers and scavengers empty
urban cesspools became increasingly inefficient with rampant urban growth. The
deficiencies and imperfections in the system were exacerbated in the cities' densely
packed slums which were often neglected by the scavengers. Water-carrying
systems for removing human wastes were urged by health officials and sanitarians
as a means of better addressing the problem.
During the same time period, a number of the largest U.S. cities installed
piped-in water supplies as did a number of smaller cities. Running water was a
necessity because of the pollution of local water sources and the need for large
quantities of water for fire fighting. This greatly increased water consumption was
too great a volume to be handled by the existing cesspools and street gutters and
urban residents soon demanded sewers to handle household and human wastes.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the substitution of sewers for the old system
was necessary to address the concern for cholera and yellow fever epidemics that
plagued American cities throughout much of the 19th Century.
By the 1SSO's, most large and many small American cities were building or
planning to build sewerage systems. The advent of this water carriage system led
most cities to dump their sewage in streams and rivers, thus creating serious
pollution problems, particularly for the downstream cities which drew their water
supply from rivers into which upstream cities discharged. The development of
centralized wastewater treatment plants began in the early 20th Century and was
accelerated significantly by the increasing concern about water pollution in the
mid-20th Century, culminating in the Clean Water Act passed by the U S . Congress
in 1972. Until the 1960's, most local wastewater treatment plants employed only
primary treatment. The federal funding programs which resulted from the Clean
Water Act provided virtually all U S . cities with the opportunity to provide
secondary and, in many cases, advanced wastewater treatment. With these
increased levels of treatment, the amount of solids generated also increased to reach
its present estimated level of over eight million metric tons.
As noted in Chapter 2, the US.EPA developed policies for encouraging the
beneficial use of wastewater solids and continues to prefer, wherever possible, well
managed beneficial uses to disposal practices [3]. The key to implementing such
beneficial uses is to develop application systems which take advantage of the
beneficial properties of biosolids while ensuring that environmental and health
considerations are also addressed.
Forste
A. Nitrogen Considerations
I Component I Range* I
I Organic nitrogen I 1% - 5% I
Ammonium nitrogen 1% - 3%
Organic nitrogen is estimated as total nitrogen (TKN) minus NO,-N and NH4-
N. Both of these latter forms of N are inorganic and therefore more readily
available for the various processes of transformation in the soil N cycle (see Figure
8-1). Organic nitrogen must be mineralized to these inorganic forms through a
biological decomposition process in the soil in order to become more available to
plants. These processes occur in various combinations depending upon
environmental conditions. For example, nitrification converts NH,-N to NO,-N by
means of an aerobic process. Conversely, the anaerobic denitrification process
converts NO,-N to gaseous N forms (N2 or N,O), and occurs to a significant degree
in water-saturated soils. Immobilization occurs when soil microorganisms use
inorganic N in such a way that it is no longer available for plant uptake. Nitrogen
may also be lost through volatilization of NH,. The calculations which are
Gaseous Gaseous
NH3 N,O, N,
De-
Nitrification
Minera ization
Organic NO,-
Nitrogen
A
Soil Leaching
adsorption
F
a
3
Land Application 395
Unstabilized Aerobically
Time after Primary and Digested and Anaerobically
Application Waste Activated Lime-Stabilized Digested Composted
(Years) % of No % of No % of No Yo of N.
0- 1 40 30 20 10
1-2 20 15 10 5
2-3 10 8 5 3
Applying organic matter in the form of biosolids can exert significant influence on
soils' physical, chemical and biological properties. In general, organic matter (the
non-living, heterogeneous mixture of organic components from the microbial and
chemical transformations of organic debris) have long been recognized as
contributing greatly to soils' productive capacity [8]. When incorporated into the
soil, organic matter can affect its structure (porosity, aggregation and bulk density)
as well as altering the content and transmission of water, air and heat and soil
strength. Nutrients such as nitrogen are mineralized during decomposition of
organic matter as described above. This results in an increase in carbon, nitrogen
and cation exchange capacity following biosolids additions. Changes in other soil
chemical properties, such as pH, electrical conductivity and redox potential, also
occur with the addition of organic matter. Since this organic matter represents new
energy sources for organisms, changes in biological populations will also occur, in
turn influencing synthesis and decomposition of humic substances produced by
Land Application 397
microbial population from biosolids may broaden the spectrum of soil microbial
activity and increase the potential to decompose organic contaminants added to
soils.
The microfauna present in soils (e.g., earthworms, mites, nematodes) can alter
the magnitude and pathways of biosolids organic matter decomposition by their
feeding activities. The relatively scarce information on these effects indicates that
earthworms may accelerate decomposition and stabilization of biosolids in the soil
as well as mechanically mix and change the distribution of organic and mineral
matter. At the same time, labile constituents of biosolids are converted to
earthworm biomass and respiration, thus reducing odors and pathogens.
Addition of biosolids to soil decreases root penetration resistance (as related
to the physical properties described above) and results in improved root:shoot
ratios as compared to inorganic fertilizer additions. Increased yields from biosolids
application have been well documented in numerous research studies; however, it
has been suggested that the most interesting effects of biosolids was not the direct
short-term fertilizer effects, but the longer term effect of soil organic matter (i.e.,
an increase in soil productivity which cannot be explained by the mineral nutrients
alone). These increases are probably attributable to increased soil moisture
resulting from higher organic matter levels as well as from the slow release of N
and P from biosolids. Substantial amounts of N, P and K as well as micronutrients
and organic matter can be recycled through harvested drops and provide benefits
in both yield and quality.
When biosolids are considered in the context of a recycling rather than a disposal
mode, the environmental problems associated with trace elements become much
less critical. After applying biosolids, chemical and physical reactions begin to
affect elemental availability. The accumulation, volatilization, translocation and
removal of these elements will largely be controlled by the soil and crop
management practices on land application sites. By understanding the mechanisms
involved and evaluating the data on the chemical, physical and microbiological
properties of the biosolids, as well as application site characteristics, land
application systems can be developed which optimize the recycling of these
elements.
Biosolids additions to soils increase the total soil N content (as discussed
above) due to the addition of both inorganic and organic nitrogen sources from
biosolids. Transformations of nitrogen from biosolids encompass the whole
spectrum of the soil N cycle. The ability of biosolids to supply N for crop growth
decreases as the biosolids decompose over time.
Land Application 399
A. Site Selection
For land application of biosolids, yield of vegetation or crop rather than disposal
of the material, is the primary objective. Probably the most useful single source of
information for initially determining site suitability for land application is provided
by soil surveys. These are generally available for the soils used most intensively
(i.e., in agricultural production). They provide detailed soil maps on a
photographic background, a general soil map, soil description by series and
mapping unit, data on drainage and agronomic properties of soils and interpretive
tables. Soil surveys are prepared by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation
with agricultural experiment stations and local government units. Experienced
agricultural professionals (e.g., soil scientists, agronomists) use soil surveys
extensively to identify potential sites that meet regulatory and agronomic
requirements for land application of biosolids.
A significant advantage of the agronomic application of biosolids is the
minimal need for detailed site investigations. Since the application is a low
analysis fertilizer constrained by nitrogen requirements of the crop and with
appropriate quality standards or cumulative limits imposed with respect to metals,
a combination of soil survey maps and site visits generally will provide enough
information on the site characteristics to identify appropriate areas for land
application. Routine soil tests which are conducted to develop recommendations
for crop-specific fertilizer application provide the basis for nitrogen-limited
application rates. Soil characteristics which lend themselves to agricultural
production also provide the necessary characteristicsfor using biosolids in a land
application program.
Most states have guidelines or regulations for separation distances between
the areas receiving biosolids and adjacent site features such as developments,
dwellings, surface water, wells, roads and rights-of-way. The primary reason for
these setbacks is a potential for surface runoff of liquid biosolids. Immediate
incorporation or injection into the soil generally requires reduced setback distances.
Some representative setback distances are shown in Table 8-3.
These setback requirementsshould be taken into account when evaluating site
suitability-they may represent constraints which render a site unusable from a
practical standpoint; in any case, they alter the net acreage available for biosolids
application.
When potential sites are identified, the soil survey reports provide a basis for
preliminary selection; field inspections and investigations are necessary to c o n f m
these selections. Quadrangle maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey may
also be useful during preliminary planning and screening to estimate slope,
topography, depressions or wet areas, rock outcrops, drainage patterns and water
Land Application 401
table elevations. Because of their scale, neither of these two types of maps can be
relied upon for evaluating small parcels and do not eliminate the need for field
investigation of potential sites.
Feet (Meters)
1 Public road I 0-50 I (0 - 15)
The location of sites will vary depending upon the location of the treatment
plant, the amounts of biosolids to be land applied and the fanning practices within
a given radius of the treatment facility. Obviously the closer the land is to the
treatment plant, the more cost effective the program will be. Soil characteristics
which affect operations (e.g., drainage, texture) will also have a significant impact
on site suitability seasonally.
After identifying potential sites and discussing the potential for land
application with the landowner/farm operator, a more detailed site survey should
402 Forsfe
be conducted. A drive or walk through of the proposed land application areas will
verify or provide additional information on:
topography
drainage
distance to surface water
distance to water supply wells
availability of access roads
cropping cycles or existing vegetation
B. TOPOGRAPHY
Relief (sharp, flat, etc.)
Slope Estimate
Drainage Patterns
- Open/Closed
- Drainage Class**
- Any Underdrains
C. DISTANCE FROM SITE BOUNDARY TO:
Surface Water
Water Supply Well
--Area
Natural Boundaries
Fences
E. AVAILABLE ACCESS
Road Types
Other
G. SOIL
Texture
Variability
* Adaptedfiom Reference 7.
** Soil Conservation Service Drainage Classes: very poorly drained, poorly
drained, somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained, well drained,
somewhat excessively drained, excessively drained.
404 Forste
-. - for reclamation:
existing vegetation, if any
- cause of site disturbance (e.g., strip mining or coal)
- previous attempts at reclamation, if any
- need for grading
- existence of approved reclamation plan, if any, for site
Reviewing this type of information will further refine the site selection process.
When sites are determined by the above procedures to be suitable, soil test
data should be obtained for each field. For agricultural purposes, soil testing
should include pH, cation exchange capacity, nutrient status and, as appropriate,
background trace metals analysis (i.e., metals regulated by federal and state
requirements as well as important micronutrient trace elements). Soil physical
properties such as profile depth and texture may be helpful but are generally
assumed suitable for agronomic purposes if the site is currently being used in
agricultural production. For forests or reclamation sites, more extensive
investigationof groundwater characteristicsand underlying geologic features may
also be appropriate. These physical properties are much less critical for sites used
for agricultural application at agronomic rates.
Final site selection is often a decision based on availability of the most
suitable sites, particularly for small communities. For large scale projects, it is
imperativethat many sites be selected and be permitted by state agencies to provide
a variety of sites to which biosolids can be applied throughout most, if not all, of
the year.
The basic design approach for agricultural land application is to optimize crop
yields on privately owned land which has been permitted for land application. One
advantage of the agronomic option is the minimal site investigation required. The
application rates typically employed for agriculture range from 5 to 20 dry metric
tons per hectare. These rates are designed to match the crop uptake for nitrogen
and provide assurance that excessive nitrogen will not be made available for
movement to groundwater.
Use of appropriate application techniques and runoff control measures for
different slopes will also minimize any potential for contamination of surface
waters. Conservationtechniques (e.g., strip cropping, terraces, grassed waterways)
and reduced tillage (e.g., chisel plowing, no-till planting) are agricultural practices
designed to prevent soil erosion which also prevent surface runoff from soils
treated with biosolids. Vegetative cover or crop residue is also effective in
reducing runoff, even from steeply sloping soils. Incorporation into the soil is
another means of reducing the potential for loss of biosolids constituents. Selecting
the appropriate application method in conjunction with currently recommended
practices for controlling soil erosion will essentially eliminate potential
contamination of surface water or adjacent land by biosolids.
Land Application 405
these negative soil sorption sites in a complex system which is one of the major
differences between soils and other plant rooting media.
Nitrogen transformations depend on photosynthetic energy which gives rise
to a soil carbon:nitrogen ratio typically around 1O:l on a mass basis. When N
uptake by plants or the addition of organic matter low in nitrogen changes this
ratio, the microbial actions work to return the ratio to its normal amount in that soil.
The soil solution concentrations of ammonium in well aerated soils are
normally less than 1 ppm. The amount of exchangeable ammonium is nearly
always small in comparison to other exchangeable cations. Compared to NO,,
ammonium ions are much less mobile and thus much less subject to leaching to the
crop root zone. Ammonia volatilization occurs fairly readily particularly from the
surface of alkaline soils while denitrification is much less likely to occur.
Because the nitrogen forms and uptake mechanisms occur in
oxidationheduction reactions which occur in the aqueous component of the soil
system, redox reactions govern the nitrogen chemistry of agricultural soils. While
the transformations of nitrogen are usually described in terms of the microbes
which carry out the various oxidation and reduction steps, these microbes and the
enzymes involved in the reactions are only catalysts for carrying out the essential
redox reaction that is determined by electron availability.
The oxidation reduction range in soil systems is the range of water stability,
which in turn is pH dependent [9]. Nitrogen has many oxidation states which can
be stable within the stability range (Eh) of water. By comparing electrode
potentials of possible redox combinations, the stable oxidation states can be
determined. As one example, reduction of nitrate to nitrite (NO,- ) occurs at Eho
= 0.95V and reduction to N, at EhO = 1.25V as long as the redox reaction is
reversible. Given that reversibility, adding a reducing agent to a nitrate solution
will reduce all of the nitrates to N, before the electrode potential is low enough to
reduce nitrate to nitrite. Therefore, nitrite ions are unstable and will spontaneously
decompose to N,. While this does occur, it is a slow decomposition due to the
irreversibility of nitrogen redox reactions.
Given the many possible redox reactions for nitrogen, the stable oxidation
states within the stability range for water are nitrate, N,, and ammonia. The
relationships are dominated by N, since nitrate is stable only under oxidizing
conditions and at pH greater than 3, and ammonia is stable only under reducing
conditions. The organic forms of nitrogen (e.g., amino acids) are generally more
stable to oxidation than is ammonia. Presumably proteins are more stable than
amino acids, as confmed by the more common presence of proteins in nature.
Most of the nitrogen in the world exists as N,, some as amino nitrogen in
reduced carbon compounds in living organisms and dead organic matter. Only a
very small fraction occurs as nitrates. The general irreversibility of nitrogen
reactions prevents the formation of nitrates which, if it were to occur, would
consume virtually all atmosphericoxygen and would result in surface waters which
Land Application 407
would be dilute HNO,-a reaction which now occurs only to a very limited extent
when lightning provides the necessary activation energy to overcome the general
irreversibility of nitrogen reactions. Unstable compounds such as nitrite and
nitrous oxide (N,O) would not be produced if soil microbial actions were only
based on optimal use of chemical energy. Warming temperatures can bring about
temporary nitrite accumulation in soils because the specific organisms responsible
for reducing nitrite are less responsive to increased temperature than are those
reducing nitrate to nitrite. Fertilizing with a nitrate source or adding water to a dry
soil will also stimulate N,O production so that up to 50% of the nitrogen may be
lost by denitrification. Both these microbial conversions are temporary and related
to rapid microbial activity following a sudden environmental change.
Potential problems associated with N additions to soils from biosolids relate
primarily to the potential for high concentrations of nitrate in crops or drainage
water, however, there is no evidence that N in biosolids is any more of a hazard
than equivalent amounts of nitrifiable or plant available N supplied by inorganic
sources. To address this issue, the mineralization factors and other N
transformations which are applicable to a particular site or method of application
must be considered in developing a land application program.
Nitrogen management for biosolids application has the goal of calculating the
amount of N in the biosolids that will be available to the subsequent crop
(potentially available N or PAN). PAN is generally calculated assuming 100%
availability of NO,-N and NH,-N if the biosolids are injected or incorporated into
the soil. For surface application, a 50 percent availability is generally calculated
for NH4-N to allow for volatilization losses. Mineralizable N prediction is
somewhat more difficult and variable. Incubation procedures which estimate
mineralized N as a percentage of organic N have been developed, as has use of a
chemical extractant to be used as a substitute for these incubation procedures.
None of these have gained widespread acceptance,probably because the potentially
mineralizable nitrogen will vary with soil type, temperature and soil moisture
content as well as the type of biosolids and the method of processing.
Values commonly used for first year mineralization are: 40% for biosolids
fiom a waste activated or primary process, 30% for lime stabilized, or aerobically
digested, 20% for anaerobically digested and 10% for composted biosolids. Using
this information, the concentration of PAN can be estimated as follows:
Where:
X is fraction of NH,-N that does not volatilize
Y is fraction of NoRGthat is expected to mineralize based on the representative
values shown above
408 Forste
Site Management
As a land application program is developed, the permitting process must be
initiated for the amount of land (the land base) required to sustain the project.
Depending upon the state in which the permit is obtained, the timeframe for
obtaining permits ranges from six months to two years. A continuing permitting
effort will provide a suitable land base to conform to regional agricultural
operations and specific agricultural practices. As permits are obtained they must
be evaluated for their immediate suitability and included in the overall operational
management of the project.
Before applying biosolids to a given field, it is important to perform an
evaluation of the available land base permitted for a particular generator’s
biosolids. Application must be scheduled to coincide with each farmer’s
agricultural practices, the time of the year that the application will occur, the type
of crop that the farmer plans to plant, the physical characteristics of the biosolids
to be applied, and many other permit and regulatory requirements that affect
operations. It is advisable to develop a checklist for each state or area in which
operations are proposed that includes all the regulatory requirements that must be
performed at each specific site. Pre-application checklists should verify and
identify such requirements as:
While most regulatory and technical experience in land reclamation relate to such
efforts on land which has been surface mined for coal or sand and gravel, the
principles involved may be modified to apply to other types of marginal or
disturbed sites. Roadway and other construction, depositing of dredge materials
and fly ash, as well as forestry related activities can result in large areas which are
frequently difficult to reclaim conventionally with inorganic fertilizers and other
soil amendments. The potential for biosolids use on such sites is significant, and
combining the use of such sites with agricultural land application can also provide
sites during periods of the year when agricultural or some other crop production
land alone would not be available. Thus reclamation, while conducted using
somewhat different methods and application rates than those for agriculture, is a
significant opportunity for the beneficial use of biosolids in land application.
Application on construction sites and roadways, as well as areas drastically
disturbed (e.g., copper mines, oil shale mine areas, zinc and lead smelters and
landfills), provides an opportunity for using biosolids to stabilize and revegetate
eroded, unproductive soils and man-made disturbed land. The environmental
benefits achieved by providing a medium for the re-creation of a soihegetation
system cannot be measured in terms of dollar value alone. Areas which are now
a biological desert due to high metal contamination (e.g., zinc, lead and copper)
have been successfully reclaimed using biosolids when virtually no other
reclamation effort could succeed on such a site [lo].
Since the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act established
regulations for the revegetation of currently mined land, reclamation efforts have
been focused on the requirement to establish a diverse, effective and permanent
vegetative cover of the same type of plants native to the area where the mining
activity occurred. The stringent requirements of the Act are difficult to meet using
conventional reclamation techniques and the use of biosolids represents a very
effective option for meeting the regulatory requirements.
410 Forste
Extensive research has been carried out in the United States on the practice
of reclaiming disturbed land with biosolids. This research, along with large-scale
projects, have demonstratedthat biosolids provide an excellent soil amendment and
chemical fertilizer substitute for reclamation purposes. Many state regulations and
guidelines include provisions for application rates higher than those established for
agronomic crops in order to establish growth on these infertile sites. Such
applications may not exceed cumulative loading limits under 503 (and most state)
regulations and still qualify as land application.
The use of biosolids for reclamation provides the most dramatic evidence of
the benefits of using biosolids to enrich soils and enhance plant growth. The
organic matter content which is valuable in agriculture is critically important in
disturbed sites where topsoil is inadequate or on sites where topsoil does not exist.
While organic matter is the most important single factor in the improvement of soil
physical properties which are achieved using biosolids, the fertilizer elements and
neutralizing compounds that improve soil fertility and pH are also of great value
for reclamation purposes. The increasing number of successful reclamation
projects using biosolids across the U.S. is a further demonstration of the value of
biosolids as a recyclable resource rather than a waste product.
The use of biosolids for reclamation purposes has been most prevalent in the
Midwest, Northeast and mid-Atlantic areas of the U.S. These projects resulted in
excellent growth of forage and cover crops on a variety of research, demonstration
and full-scale operations. Many sites are seeded with a mixture of grasses (to
provide quick vegetative cover) and legumes (which eventually predominate as
permanent vegetative cover). The application of biosolids has also helped in the
establishment of tree seedlings on reclaimed areas, by improving growth rates,
particularly for the hardwood species when they are seeded simultaneouslywith the
grass legume mixtures.
The potential for disturbedmined sites to receive biosolids is enormous, both
on sites which have been abandoned and are not subject to the reclamation law
requirements (“orphaned lands”) and on active mine sites which are required to
reclaim areas as the mining operation proceeds.
Since reclamation sites which are operated as land application projects are
subject to the same regulatory requirements for trace elements as are agricultural
sites, the application of biosolids at reclamation rates will not adversely affect the
ability of reclaimed areas to support agricultural production or any other land use
which is appropriate to the site. The research results from such sites have
paralleled the results found for agricultural crop production and have demonstrated
clearly that the usability of the site has been significantly improved by the
application of biosolids. Most research results have shown that trace element
concentrations in biosolids-reclaimed mined areas are within the range considered
normal for such metals in unpolluted and unamended soils.
Land Application 41 1
Distance to groundwater
Guidelines suggest that forest application sites have an average groundwater
table distance of one meter (0.7 meters minimum) below the soil surface.
Land Application 413
control still will probably be necessary and plant nitrogen uptake is less than that
of a well established forest cover.
Returning organic wastes such as biosolids and animal manures to the land is part
of a natural cycle in which the soil decomposes these residues, thus recycling and
decontaminating them of any disease agents they may contain. Any system of
biosolids management which is to succeed must neither avoid nor abuse this cycle.
Land application systems must strike an acceptable balance between the benefits
derived fiom using this material and the potential risks to human and animal health.
Each disease agent has a life cycle that usually includes a saprophytic or non-
host stage during which transition fiom one host to another occm. This is also the
stage in which the greatest destruction of pathogens occurs and survival away fi-om
the host is so rare that millions of pathogen propagules usually are required for a
successful infection. Survivability of pathogens in the outside environment
(particularly soil, air and water) varies greatly with only a few of the hundreds of
disease agents having high enough survival rates in soil and water that they need
to be addressed in a biosolids recycling program [ 121.
Land application programs and restrictionsfor biosolids (which have not been
treated to Class A pathogen reduction levels, thus eliminating the concern) focus
on making sure that pathogens do not escape the destructive action of the soil or
survive it long enough to complete the cycle back to man. For land application,
this recycling to hosts would be most likely to occur by direct contamination of
food crops, as exemplified by the use of raw sewage in truck crop production
practiced in some parts of the world. This route back to the host is the most direct
and also the easiest to block as has been done in the site restrictions imposed by
federal and state requirements as described in Chapter 2.
Exposure potential from viable pathogens diminishes over time as these
organisms are destroyed by heat, sunlight, drying and competing microbes in the
environment. Protecting public health and animals fi-ombiosolids-bornepathogens
is accomplished by:
E. Agronomic Considerations
Microelement Considerations
Because nearly all biosolids contain levels of microelements higher than those
naturally present in soils, agronomistshave studied the short- and long-term effects
of land applying these microelements through biosolids recycling. Some
microelements(Zn, Cu, B, Fe) may serve to correct plant deficiencies. Excessive
use of high levels of biosolids with elevated concentrations of Zn, Cu, Ni or B
might lead to phytotoxicity effects and crop yield reductions. As noted in Chapter
2, the non-nutrient microelements (Cd, Pb, Hg) have also been addressed by
research and research-based regulatory constraints. These limits have been
described in the discussion on risk assessment contained in Chapter 2.
Since biosolids, like most organic by-product materials, simultaneously add
several microelements, as well as phosphorus, and may influence soil pH, the plant
uptake of biosolids-bornemicroelements is complex. In general, elements such as
Mn, Zn, B, Mo, and Se can move readily to plant tops when applied to soil. Others
are intermediate (Ni, Co, Cu), and still others seldom reach plant tops (Cr, Pb, Hg).
In addition, other soil and plant factors strongly influence the movement of
microelements to edible plant parts. Soil pH is predominant among soil factors
which affect microelement uptake because it controls the degree to which these
elements react with the soil. In general, metal uptake decreases linearly with
increased soil pH; an exception is Mo which becomes more plant available in
neutral to alkaline soils.
Other factors which affect metal diffusion include the concentration in the soil
matrix, soil texture, clay and organic matter contents, other nutrients, soil bulk
density and soil moisture content. Growing roots can also cause local pH and bulk
density changes which influence microelement uptake. A number of factors
present in biosolids tend to reduce uptake, particularly as compared to metal salts
and the results of pot studies. These factors, while not completely understood
(particularly with respect to their interactions with each other) have clearly
demonstrated that field studies of microelement uptake in plants provide the only
legitimate basis for evaluating uptake rates from biosolids. Interactions which
influence microelement chemistry in biosolids-amended soils include: temporary
Land Application 417
Na +
SAR = ...................
total salts rather than sodium alone. Compared to animal wastes, biosolids are
usually low in soluble salts because many of them have been removed with the
effluent from the treatment plant. However, the principles developed to reduce the
effects of soluble salts from animal waste apply equally to biosolids.
Part of the salts in biosolids is not present initially but is released through
mineralizationwherein the conversion of organic N to inorganic forms causes a rise
in salinity. Conductivity level found in soils will also vary with soil texture. A fine
textured soil containing 0.1 percent salt (approximately 2200 kgha in 15 cm of
soil) would have a saturation extract EC value of 3mmhos/cm. This amount would
be added with 30 dry metric tonshectare of a material containing 7.5 percent salt.
The same amount of salt in a sandy soil would result in an EC value of over 6
mmhoskm. Thus, soil texture is an important factor in determining whether a
biosolids application is likely to have an adverse affect on soil salinity. By the
same token, coarse textured soils allow more rapid leaching of salts than do the
finer textured ones, a consideration which should be examined if annual
applications of biosolids are contemplated.
The example discussed above is based on a maximum EC of 4 mmhos/cm in
the root zone which allows essentially all crops to be grown without salt
management practices. If higher EC values are allowed, crop selection and salt
management practices should be imposed; however, many crops can be grown
satisfactorily at levels up to eight mmhodcm as shown in Table 8-5.
pH Considerations
Micronutrient availability in soils is highly dependent on soil pH. Therefore, the
addition of biosolids which have been amended or treated with lime is a
consideration which needs to be addressed in planning a land application program.
In particular, the availability of manganese is most sensitive to elevated pH which
results from the application of lime treated biosolids. Manganese availability
decreases as soil pH increases and is the micronutrient which is the most sensitive
to elevated pH. In acid soils, manganese becomes soluble and available to plants
and can even cause toxicity at extremely low soil pHs. Manganese deficiencies can
occur at pHs as low as 6.3, which makes it the primary consideration with respect
to elevating pH by using lime-treated biosolids.
Manganese deficiency commonly occurs in well-drained alkaline or neutral
soils, such as peat and muck soils, and is in direct proportion to the high leaching
potential and lower amount of manganese naturally occurring in these types of
soils. Manganese deficiencies are also frequently observed in poorly drained soils
with low redox potential. This deficiency is caused by the solubility of manganese
under anaerobic soil conditions which leads to manganese leaching from the soil,
thus the potential for manganese deficiency can be inferred from the natural soil
drainage class since those developed under poor drainage conditions will likely
contain less manganese than those developed under good drainage. As one
example, the coastal plain soils of Maryland and Virginia which commonly
experience seasonal high water tables are also subject to manganese deficiencies
at moderately elevated soil pHs.
Because it is a recognized agricultural phenomenon, manganese deficiency
has been examined in considerable detail and recommendations have been
established for both soil and foliar applications to correct such deficiencies. If land
application of a lime-amended biosolids source is conducted in an area where
manganese deficiencies have been experienced, land appliers should consult
agricultural extension sources and include methods for determining when such
deficiencies do occur and provide a means for addressing this issue.
420 Forste
A. Transportation
Biosolids transportation may employ trucks, rail cars, barges, pipelines, and
combinations thereof. Liquid biosolids can be transported by barges, railroad, tank
trucks, and pumping/pipelines, with tank trucks being the most common choice.
Tank trucks are used to transport liquid biosolids either to an application site or to
an intermediate point such as storage lagoon, railroad or barge loading area. Many
tank truck configurations are available (e.g., tank trucks range in size from 500 to
6,500 gallons; tank trucks may be modified for field applications;tank wagons may
be pulled by a farm tractor for short hauls).
Semi-solid (dewatered) biosolids are transported by rail cars, specialized
highway trucks (dump trucks), tractor-trailers, and roll-on containers. Truck
capacities vary from 10 to 25 tons (8 to 30 cubic yards). A truck cover (hard top
or tarped) is typically required to prevent odors and spills. Other specialized
features include leak-prooftailgates with seals and wide anti-splash shields. A hard
top tractor trailer is shown in Figure 8-2.
Many factors influence the type, size, and number of vehicles needed for
biosolids transportation (quantity of biosolids, distance, road conditions, seasonal
variability of land application, equipment utilization considerations, etc).
Generally, truck transportation of dewatered biosolids is significantly less
expensive than transportation of an equivalent quantity of liquid biosolids (by as
much as 30% in some cases). Detailed information on the selection of means of
biosolids transportation is provided in Refs. [16] and [17]. Many municipalities
use private contractors for biosolids transportation and land application; private
contract versus use of publicly-owned equipment and employees is generally
determined by economics.
Pipeline transport of liquid biosolids has limited application due to high
capital cost which can be justified only for high volume. The lack of flexibility of
pipelines limits the selection of application sites for land application.
Rail and barge transport is employed for high volume and long distance
hauling, and rail transport is generally limited to dewatered biosolids.
Land Application
Biosolids Armlicators
Biosolids application is accomplished by either surface or subsurface methods. In
both cases, the biosolids eventually become incorporated into the soil by
mechanical means or naturally over time. Biosolids are applied either in liquid or
in dewatered form. Surface application on tilled land is usually followed by
mechanical incorporation of biosolids in the soil. Standard agricultural discing or
other tillage equipment can be utilized (e.g., discs or disc harrows). Discing is
inappropriate when biosolids are applied to existing pasture or hay fields, crops
which would be damaged by this operation.
Most existing land application programs in the U.S. are on privately owned
land. Such operations require flexible arrangements and a variety of equipment to
conform with local farming practices. Equipment used varies from a simple tank
truck with surface application nozzles (liquid biosolids) or a box spreader drawn
by a tractor (dewatered biosolids) to more sophisticated and high-volume
machinery.
In the latter category, specialized self-propelled biosolids applicators for
liquid and dewatered biosolids are available from many manufacturers (Figures 8-
3, 8-4, 8-5 & Table 8-5).
These machines feature high flotation tires which minimize soil compaction
and can apply liquid biosolids on the surface of the soil or subsurface inject them
up to 17 inches. The machines can be equipped with a tank and a pump for liquid
biosolids or a spreader box for dewatered biosolids applications with a capacity of
up to 17,000 gallons per hour of liquid or 75 wet tons per hour of dewatered
biosolids.
The techniques available for subsurfaceapplication of liquid biosolids include
direct injection beneath the soil surface or injection ahead of plow blades. Another
alternative is spreading of liquid biosolids on land and incorporating them into the
soil by plowing or discing.
In subsurface injection, odors and vectors are effectively controlled, pollution
of surface waters through runoff and loss of ammonia nitrogen through
volatilization are minimized. Subsurface injection of liquid biosolids also has the
advantages of minimal impact on the soil and crops (Figure 8-4), however, it is
often more expensive overall due to higher volume and associated handling cost.
Spray irrigation is used to disperse liquid biosolids on agricultural land or a forest
site. A typical spray application system consists of a rotary sprayer (rain gun),
storage lagoon (tankage), pumps and piping. The system can be stationary (Figure
8-6) or moving.
Storage
Biosolids storage is often required to compensate for changes in production or
application rates, equipment breakdown, seasonal demand (i.e., cropping cycles)
Application 423
424 Forste
426 Forste
and weather conditions. Storage can be provided at either the treatment plant,
land application site, or at other locations. Both short- and long-term (up to several
years) storage of biosolids is practiced. Liquid biosolids can be stored in digesters
(short-term), dedicated storage tanks, and lagoons (impoundments). Dewatered
biosolids can be stored in specializedhoppers (short term), stockpiles, and lagoons
(long term). The storage capacity required is greatly influenced by site-specific
factors and climate considerations. U.S. EPA data indicate that storage capacity
requirements range from 30 days in hot, dry climate areas to 200 days in cold, wet
areas. A simple method of calculating storage capacity is to estimate the maximum
number of days biosolids generation will require storage, factoring in climate and
scheduling. A more sophisticated method is to prepare a mass flow diagram of
Land Application 427
LIQUID
Af'PUCATlON BOOS BIOSOUDS
DELIVERY
SPRAY GUN
Anaerobic lagoons are used for storage and sometimes for pre-treatment of
liquid biosolids prior to land application. The biological processes which take
place in the lagoons are similar to those in an anaerobic digester (reduction of
organic matter and gravity settling), except there is no mixing or heating equipment
and the processes are significantly slower and influenced by weather. In a long-
term anaerobic lagoon, significant amounts of organic nitrogen will be converted
to ammonia and escape to the atmosphere. Organic matter reduction will also be
significant if the biosolids have not already been treated. Serious odor problems
are often associated with anaerobic lagoons.
Aerobic lagoons are either naturally or mechanically aerated lagoons.
Oxygen is provided to control odors and support aerobic microbiological activity.
In naturally aerated lagoons, a relationship is developed between anaerobic or
428 Forste
facultative bacteria degrading organic matter in the bottom of the lagoon and
oxygen production by algae near the surface. The oxygen demand must not exceed
the algae ability to supply the necessary oxygen. Otherwise, the lagoon will
become anaerobic and offensive odors may result. Mechanically aerated lagoons
do not depend on algae oxygen [ 191.
Liquid and dewatered biosolids removal from storage is accomplished by a
variety of means ranging from stationary and floating pumps for liquid biosolids
to front-end loaders, bulldozers, grapple cranes and trucks for dewatered biosolids
removal from storage lagoons and pads. The cost of this removal may be
significant and should be carefully analyzed when planning a land application
program.
Land application cost depends upon numerous factors. The major cost components
are:
0. Transportation
-0 Storage
-0 Site preparation, biosolids application, and incorporation in the soil
0. Permitting, engineering, monitoring, and recordkeeping
As an example, a large volume (up to 1,500 wet ton per day of dewatered
biosolids) agricultural land application program in the Mid-Atlantic region of the
United States is described below (courtesy of the Bio Gro Division of Wheelabrator
Clean Water Systems Inc.).
ml?lGam2
1. Front-end loader (John Deere, 644E/4wd) 1 $140.0
2. Disc (John Deere, Model 555) I $ 15.0
3. Farm Tractor (John Deere 49G0/4wd) 2 $ 90.0
4. Biosolids Applicator (Terra-Gator 2505) 1 $180.0
5. Spreader Box (tractor drawn) I $ 29.0
6. Pick-up Truck -I $ 20.0
Total $564.0
QlYLL2&2!m
1. Front-end loader (John Deere, 644U4wd) I $140.0
2. Disk (John Deere, Model 555) I $ 15.0
3. Farm Tractor (John Deere 485014wd) I $ 90.0
4. Spreader Box (tractor drawn) 1 w
Total $2 74.0
providing the appropriate permitted land base for application activities and
monitoring of field applications;
developing procedures and mechanisms to ensure that operations will
conform to permit conditions and regulations field-by-field; and
collecting, recording and reporting all required information to demonstrate
conformance with permit conditions, regulations and biosolids quality
requirements.
In&mnrw&n Agreement
Landowner Contractor
Date: Date:
quimnents are imposed on biosolids which do not meet one or more of the
preceding requirements to ensure the same level of protection for human
health and the environment is met in all cases. If the applier changes the
quality of the biosolids prior to application, such a change may also influence
the number of requirements with which he must comply. Monitoring data
which establishes and certifies biosolids quality is provided by the person who
prepares the biosolids (often the generator) who is then responsible for meeting
the preparation requirements before the biosolids can be land applied. If the
land applier then alters the quality fi-om that which was received h m
the preparer, the land applier becomes a preparer and assumes
responsibility for monitoring and CerGfYing biosolids quality with respect
to pollutant limits, level of pathogen reduction and level of vector
attraction reduction. If the biosolids have met the three criteria referred
to above and are then mixed with other non-503 regulated substances (e.g.,
434 Forste
fertilizer materials, bulking agents), the person performing that mixing operation
is not required to re-evaluate the product’s final quality. In other instances,
however, where biosolids quality is considered to have been changed, for example
when bulk biosolids from several sources which do not meet the above three
criteria are mixed prior to land application or when a source of biosolids which
does meet these three requirements is mixed with a source which does not, the
resulting quality of the mixtures must be determined in order to correctly land
apply. Detailed information regarding these requirements is contained in Reference
P11.
A. General Requirements of 40 CFR 503.12
Land application of bulk biosolids subject to this section must include the:
If the land applier is not the same person who prepared the biosolids, the
preparer is responsible for providing documentation to the land applier on the
quality of the biosolids before they may be applied to land. The suggested format
providing this Notice and Necessary Information (NANI) is contained in Figure 8-
9.
Before land application, the land applier will need to obtain the following,
independently or from the preparer:
*.
0. pollutant concentrations
nitrogen concentrations
=.
0. class of pathogen reduction level achieved
vector attraction reduction option achieved, if any
The land applier must also provide the landowner/farmer with any
information needed to comply with land application requirements (e.g., site
restrictions). It is also advisable to provide the landowner/farmerwith the biosolids
quality information including nitrogen content and with appropriate documentation
that biosolids have been applied in accordance with all relevant Part 503
requirements.
Land Application 435
As a practical matter, the permitting process for a land base will entail
interaction with the landownedfarmer in obtaining information typically required
by state regulatory agencies (e.g., maps, cropping information, soil test results).
For bulk biosolids subject to cumulative pollutant loading rates (CPLR), the
land applier must notify the permitting authority in the state where the biosolids
will be applied of his intent to apply to a particular site before the initial land
application. Such notification must include the location of each land application
site and the name, address, telephone number and a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit number (if applicable) of the land applier.
In addition, before beginning land application on a site, a land applier must consult
the permitting authority to determine whether past applications of biosolids subject
to cumulative pollutant loading rates (CPLRs) have been made after July 20, 1993.
If no biosolids were applied after that date, the land applier must then begin
keeping records of cumulative pollutant loadings for each of the ten regulated
metals. Multiple land appliers on a single site must make their application data
available to one another and coordinate the tracking of cumulative loadings to
ensure that CPLRs are not exceeded. If biosolids subject to CPLRs were applied
after July 20, 1993,the land applier is responsible for finding out the amount of
each regulated metal that was applied and subtracting those loadings from the
allowable CPLR for each pollutant. If the levels of pollutants were not documented
in a previous application and the applier is unable to take these past loadings into
account, no biosolids that are subject to CPLRs can be applied to the site.
When a land applier determines that bulk biosolids subject to CPLRs is to be
land applied in a state other than that where it was generated, the land applier
should notify the preparer, who is then responsible for notifying the permitting
authority in the state where biosolids are to be applied before initial application to
any site. The land applier should contact the preparer to conform that this
notification has been submitted before beginning application. In the case of
interstate land application of biosolids subject to CPLRs, the land applier as well
as the preparer must send prior written notice to the permitting authority in the state
where the application will occur.
The Part 503 Regulations provide four sets of pollutant limits: ceiling
concentrations, pollutant concentration limits, cumulative pollutant loadings and
annual pollutant loading rates. These limits are contained in 40 CFR Part 503.13,
Tables 1-4as described in Chapter 2.
The ceiling concentrations establish the maximum concentrations of each
metal that biosolids can contain and still be land applied. Each sample analyzed
must meet the ceiling concentration limits (i.e., they are maximum, never to be
exceeded values, not averages). Biosolids not meeting any or all of these specified
thresholds cannot be land applied. After determiningthat biosolids meet the ceiling
concentrations, it must then be determined which of the three remaining sets of
pollutant limits applies to a particular biosolids source.
436 Forste
This/om1 ir 10 ossisi complinnce with the bulk biosolids notflation requirements 503.12@. I/rhe biosolids mccr :he Crccprionnl
Quoliry requirements. howcur. then the norijicniion requirementsdo nor apply.
B. -
Pahopen Reduction (40 CFR 503.32) Pleaw indicate the level achieved
ClnssA ClmB
C. --
Vector AtWaclion Reduction (40 CFR 503.33) Please indicate the option performed
A. Nnme and Oflicial Tille (weorprint) B. Arm Codc and Telephone Number
A If the pollutant lcvcls m the biosolids do not meet the pollutant concentration limits in Table 3 of 40 CFR Part 503, then the
land applier should provlde the landowner with the followmg dormaUon
5 Record the mount of each metal and mtrogcn applied and appropnate units (I e ,kilograms per hectare, pounds per acre)
B If8 Clnss B pathogen reduction alternative was used (see Part I), then the followmg site reslncuons must be met Please check
the boxes for the site restnchons mel, d any
A Food crops that may touch the biosoliddsoil ~XtUrecannot be harvested before the end of the follouing waiting pencd
0 1 If harvested parts nre tolally above the land wmt to harvest for 14 months after the application of biosolids
0 2 Ifharvested parts arc below the land surface and the biosolids mnam on top of the soil for 4 months or longer
before the field WBS plowed. wait lo harvest for 20 months after the uuhal applicallon of biosolids
0 3 Ifharvested parts are below the land surface, and the biosolids werc incorporated into the soil wthin 4 months
of being applied. wait to harvest for 38 montha after the mihd applicauon
B 0 Food crops that do not touch the biosoliddsoil mixwe. feed crops. and fiber crops C D M O ~be harvested for 30 days
nfier biosolids applicauon
C 0 Anlmals cannot be g r d on the land for 30 days after applicauon of the biosolids
D 0 Ifharvested turfis used for a lawn or other purpose where there is a htgh potential for public e\poswe, then Ihc
turf cannot be harvested for 1 year after the applicauon of the biosolids to the land
E 0 Public access to land with a high potential for public expsure (e g ,parts. playgrounds. golf couises) will be
restncted for 1 y e a after the applicauon of the biosolids
F 0 Public access lo land w~tha low potential for public upsure (e g ,pnvate property. remote or reslncted public
lands) will be renncted for 30 days after the applicauon of the biosolids
C If the pnparer did not perform any of the vector atunction reduction Opuons 1-8 (seePan I). then either Option 9 or 10 must be
performed by the land applier Please indicate foption 9 or 10 was performed Check appropnate bo\
0 Option 9 -- Subsurface Injection 0 Opuon 10 -- Incorporated @lowed) Into the Soil 0 NIA
D CERTIFICATION
I m@. under pennlly of law. that this document and all atlachments were prepared under my direction or supenwion in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualliled pmonnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted
Based on my inquiry of the p m o n or pmons who manage the syslcm or these p m o n s directly responsible for gathenng the
information, the informnuon submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, b e . accurate. and complete 1 nm nware that
there are slpllilcant penalties for submilung false mfoormauon. including the possibility of fine and impnsonment for hnowing
violations
A Nnme and Oflicial Title (ypr orpnnr) B Area Code and Telephone Number
438 Forste
B. Pathogen Reduction
prior to harvest and waiting periods must be observed on sites where feed and fiber
crops, as well as turf, are grown and where animals are grazed. The following
summarizes the site restrictions associatedwith application of Class B biosolids in
order to achieve the same level of protection to public health and the environment
as is provided by Class A biosolids treatment:
public access to land with a high potential for public exposure is restricted for
one year after biosolids application
public access to land with a low potential for public exposure is restricted for
30 days after biosolids application
food crops, feed crops or fiber crops are not harvested for 30 days after
biosolids application
food crops with harvested parts that touch the biosolids/soil mixture and are
totally above the land surface (e.g., melons, cucumbers) are not harvested for
14 months after application of biosolids
food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land (e.g., root crops
such as potatoes, carrots, radishes) are not harvested for 20 months after
application when the biosolids are not incorporated into the soil or remain on
the soil surface for four or more months prior to incorporation into the soil.
food crops with harvested parts below the surface are not harvested for 38
months if the biosolids are incorporated into the soil within four months after
biosolids application
animals are not grazed on a site for 30 days after biosolids application
turf shall not be harvested for one year after biosolids application if it is
placed on land with high potential for public exposure or on a lawn unless
otherwise specified by the permitting authority
These site restrictions to control public access or crop harvest and grazing
animals must be implemented by either the land applier or the landowner/fanner.
At a minimum, the land applier must provide the landowner/farmerwith a list of
these restrictions and inform him that they must be met for each site where Class
B biosolids are applied. If the land applier will implement the restrictions, he must
certify that they have been met and maintain this certification in his records for a
five year period. If it is agreed that the landowner/farmer will implement the
appropriate restrictions, the iand applier must provide him with a list of the
restrictions and certify that he was appropriately informed.
The ten vector attraction reduction options specified in 503 are treatment options
(1-8) and barrier options (9 and 10). Treatment options are undertaken by the
biosolids preparer, and in such a case the land applier has no requirements relative
440 Forste
to vector attraction reduction once he has been notified by the preparer that this
requirement has been met. If such a treatment option is not performed by the
preparer, the land applier must implement and certify compliance with one of the
barrier options of injection below the soil surface or immediate incorporation into
the soil following application to the surface.
D. Management Practices
For biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container, the only
management practice required is the provision of a label or information sheet
indicating the appropriate application rate for the quality of biosolids. The applier
is then required to read and correctly follow these instructions.
E S
Bulk biosolids may not be applied to agricultural land, forest or reclamation site
within 10 meters (approximately 33 feet) of any waters of the US. unless otherwise
specified by the permitting authority. This restriction applies to intermittent
flowing streams, as well as creeks, rivers, wetlands or lakes. The permitting
authority (U.S. EPA or a delegated state) may give approval for application within
10 meters of waters of the U.S. for site-specific conditions or to enhance the local
environment. Revegetating a stream bank suffering from severe erosion is an
example of the situation wherein the permitting authority could reduce or eliminate
this requirement. Additional management practices are sometimes required by
states to minimize runoff and ponding of biosolids. These management practices
would be specific to a particular situation and land appliers should familiarize
themselves with state and regional requirements which relate to this issue.
Avronomic Rate
Part 503 requires biosolids application at a rate equal to or less than the agronomic
rate for a particular site. As discussed in more detail earlier in this chapter, the
agronomic rate is the dry weight application designed to provide the amount of
nitrogen needed by the crop or vegetation while minimizing the amount of nitrogen
that passes below the root zone to groundwater.
For reclamation sites the permitting authority may specifically authorize
application of biosolids at a rate above the agronomic. Since such an application
usually occurs only once to improve soil physical properties and supply sufficient
nitrogen, organic matter and other nutrients to establish vegetation, land appliers
should obtain approval for such an application rate from the permitting authority.
After the site has been reclaimed, any future applications of biosolids should be
limited to the agronomic rate discussed earlier in this chapter.
442 Forste
E. Monitoring
The preparer of biosolids must monitor their quality. It is the responsibility of the
land applier to obtain information fiom the preparer or through independent
verification by additional testing on the pollutant concentrations in bulk biosolids.
EPA approved procedures contained in 503 must be used to test biosolids. The
following references provide detailed guidance on the collection and analysis of
biosolids samples:
9
POTW Sewage Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document (EPA,
1989, and updates)
9
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th
Edition (APHA, 1992)
Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA
Publication SW-846 (EPA, 1986)
Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and
Vector Attraction in Sewage Shdge (EPA, 1992)
Beneficial use of biosolids has often been hampered by public concern and
opposition which in turn results in institutional barriers to beneficial use practices.
The attitudes which impose constraints on a community’s use of biosolids may be
an even more important barrier than are formal federal, state or local regulations
governing biosolids [22]. Concerns about health risk, nuisances and environmental
quality are often coupled with political and attitudinal constraints which are not
based on either science or regulation.
Public outreach efforts for biosolids projects must be based on the recognition
that scientific data and information about risk assessment do not necessarily result
in public acceptance for projects. The perceived risk is just as real to the individual
concerned as is scientificallyderived risk assessment and the perception of risk has
444 Forste
repeatedly been shown to vary significantly from the actual or scientific risk
involved. However, perceptions about many subjects can and do change in time
and with accurate, credible communication efforts.
In the case of biosolids, altering the risk perception surrounding beneficial
uses should heavily rely on the extensive, detailed scientific data which has been
compiled during the last several decades and has been codified and documented in
the comprehensive 503 rulemaking. Efforts to communicate with concerned
individuals, groups and institutions should focus on the quality standards for safe,
beneficial use which are based on protective assumptions about the impact of
biosolids on the environment, crops, animals and humans.
The very common and often natural human apprehension of the unknown or
little known represents part of the reason for a negative perception. Since the
average citizen knows little or nothing about wastewater treatment, industrial
pretreatment programs, or the biological and chemical composition of biosolids,
a public outreach effort must include communication about these factors which
protect the integrity of the practice of beneficial use.
In developing a dialogue with communities where biosolids will be processed
or used, it is vital to establish the link between a national commitment to clean
water and the necessity to manage the solids which result from wastewater
treatment. A clear distinction between a waste material (even a hazardous waste
in some cases) and the inevitable production of biosolids from the treatment of
wastewater is a fundamental first step positioning beneficial use of biosolids as a
positive environmental practice.
Detailed discussions of research fmding on attitudes, effective messages and
elements required for an effective communicationsplan form the basis of the Water
Environment Federation’s ongoing effort to achieve public acceptance for
beneficial uses of biosolids [23]. Outreach materials and an ongoing effort to
achieve public acceptance by WEF members incorporate the messages of
environmental benefit, agricultural benefit and protection of health and safety as
embodied in existing practices and regulatory frameworks. Achieving public
acceptance includes both information and outreach efforts to the general public,
and, even more importantly, the development of local acceptance. It is highly
unlikely that a beneficial use project or program can succeed without addressing
potential risk of local negative opinion at the outset.
Both facilities which process and treat biosolids and operating projects such
as agricultural land application require different approaches to achieving local
acceptance. In both cases, open communication and responsiveness are essential
to develop alliances and support.
For land application programs, the farming community is the obvious and first
choice in the public acceptance effort. Agricultural organizations, fanners, and
extension agents can provide a strong local support which makes programs
successfbl. Their alliance is also very helpful in developing the understanding and
Land Application 445
The following activities also maintain and expand agricultural support for
land application programs:
..
0. providing biosolids nutrient information to agricultural extension agents
funding research and extension publications
-.
*. presenting information, organizationalmeetings for the farmer community
providing farmers with the results of soil testing and field application reports
-.
0.
administrators and managers
elected officials
0. state legislative representative
0. environmental organizations
-.
0. community associations
civic groups
wastewater, they can understand that both wastewater treatment and biosolids
recycling benefit the environment and society in general.
A. Communication Channels
Public acceptance efforts must include an ongoing method for maintaining the flow
of information to keep communication lines open among all interested parties.
Concerns about health, odor, groundwater contamination, decline in property
values and other legitimate issues can be anticipated and defused in a well-
managed public acceptance program.
Some or all of the following outreach methods may be included in a public
information program:
REFERENCES
449
450 Index
tCompo4 IDryerSl
composition, 226-232 dmt,281,282
Composting, 2,193 disc, 287
energy balance, 212,248 drum, 282-284
facility design, 217 requirements, 297-300
growth in the U.S.,194 en massc, 287
marketing, 261 evaporation capacity, 295
odors, 253-256 flash, 286
process fundamentals, 197-205, fluid bed, 286
21 1-217 indirect, 281,282,287
Conditioning, 132 multitray, 293-295
chemical, 132-137,140-142 paddle, 291
thermal, 143 SER (specific evaporation rate), 297
copper, 13 STR (specific thermal rate), 298
Criteria Pollutants, 319,321 triple pass, 282,284
Drying gygfems, 27 1,277-279,305
Daily cover, 32 Andritz, 313
Dedicated sites, 33 air pollution, 308
Dedicated sites disposal, 433 Bio Gro-Seghers, 316,333
Dewatering, 146 closed cycle, 311,3 16
bag, 153 economics, 325-329
belt filterp a , 146 environmentalcontrol equipment,
wtrifuge, 147 324
drying beds, 152 ESP process, 311
fkezdthaw lagoons, 153 feed preparation, 307
odor control, 154-157 heat generation, 307
pressure filters, 148 heating medium, 300
rotary press, 151 material handling, 307
screw press, 151 mixers, 284,307
vacuum filters, 150 odor control, 308,323
Digestion, 165 open cycle, 309
aerobic, 167 regulatory issues, 319
anaerobic, 171 semi-closedcycle, 311
ATAD (autothermal thermofdic SwissCombi, 313
aerobic), 168 Wheelabrator Clean Water
economics, 179-187 SystemsInc.,311,313,316
equipment, 173-179
mesophilic, 168 European community, biosolids
process fundamentals, 167 generation, 2
Digesters
ATAD,175 Fecal coliforms, 15
conventional aerobic, 173 Fecal strcptocccci, 16
egg-shaped, 177 FGD ash, 363
Fuchs ATAD, 169 Final cover, 32
Dryers Fly ash, 363
conveyor, 282,286 Fungi, 17
lndex 451
[pathogens] Begulations]
Class B reduction, 36,119-120,438 PCB limits, 50
potential diseases, 18 pollutant limits, 37,105-115
survival times, 21 pollutant selection,64-67,96-101
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 34 Recordkeeping, 127
POW (publicly owned treatment Risk assessment analysis, 6163,71,
works), 47 81,101
Pellets, 273 agregate risk, 63
density, 274 exposure pathways, 75-80,88-94
nutrient content, 273 Rotifen, 17
particle size,274
PFRP (process to Further Reduce Salmonella, 16,17
Pathogens), 50,120,350 Scrubbers,311,316,324
PFU plaque Forming Unit), 22 Scrubber ash, 363
pH, 353,419 Secondary solids, 4
Phosphorus, 10,397 Selenium, 13
Polymers, 133 Septage,dornestic,36,94,115,122
consumption, 139 Solids, 4
dry, 135 concentration,4
emulsions, 135 total (TS), 5
feed and control systems,137,138 total suspended (TSS), 6
inorganic, 140 total volatile (TVS),6
liquid, 135 Soils
mannichs, 135 acidic, 356
manufacturers, U.S, 134 electrical conductivity, 397,416
organic polyelectrolytes, 133 nitrogen, 390
Potassium, 11 organic matter, 394
Primary solids, 4 salinity, 417
Production of fertilizer, 2,272,330 Sulfur, 12
Protozm, 16 Surface disposal, 4
PSRP (Process to SiBnificantly Reduce SyracuseMetropolitanDewatering
Pathogens), 50,120,350 Facility, 157-159