United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency
Water Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
 Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-86/102 Feb. 1987
                                                                  i i
Project  Summary
Costs  of  Air  Pollution
Abatement  Systems for
Sewage  Sludge  Incinerators

Gopal Annamraju, Yatendra Shah, and M. L Arora
  Capital and operating costs were cal-
culated for applying six different air pol-
lution control systems to  municipal
sewage-sludge incinerators  that were
using multiple-hearth furnaces.  The
systems involved three principal types
of air pollution equipment—wet scrub-
bers, fabric filters, and electrostatic pre-
cipitators—applied to three different
plant sizes (plants incinerating 36, 72,
and 300 tons of dry sludge  per day in
one, two, and eight multiple-hearth fur-
naces, respectively). The six options
were (1) venturi/tray scrubber with a
40-in. pressure drop, (2) fabric filter sys-
tem operating at 500°F and equipped
with an upstream temperature control,
(3) fabric filter system operating at
500°F and equipped with a heat ex-
changer and a scrubber for SO2 reduc-
tion, (4) electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
with upstream limited temperature and
humidity control, (5) same as Option 4
but with an additional downstream wet
scrubber for SO2 reduction, and (6) ESP
with upstream temperature control and
an SO2 scrubber.
  Results indicated that all three types
of controls could achieve a total partic-
ulate removal efficiency of 99 percent
but that the venturi/tray scrubber op-
tion entailed the lowest capital cost and
the highest annual costs.
  This Project Summary was  devel-
oped by EPA's Water Engineering Re-
search Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
  In the United States, wet scrubbing
devices are normally used to control
particulate emissions from multiple-
hearth furnaces designed for incinerat-
ing sewage sludge from municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Fabric fil-
ters and electrostatic  precipitators
(ESP's) offer possible alternatives to
wet scrubbers. This report evaluates the
feasibility and associated costs of using
these three control devices.
  Budget estimates were made for six
different system configurations involv-
ing three primary control devices, a sul-
fur dioxide (S02) scrubber, and ancillary
devices (e.g., heat exchangers) for ap-
plication at three different sizes of mu-
nicipal sewage sludge incineration
plants (i.e., plants processing 36, 72,
and 300 tons of dry sludge per day and
using  one, two, and eight multiple-
hearth furnaces, respectively).
  The  report presents the feasibility of
using each of the three control devices,
the process for selecting a control sys-
tem, cost data, and detailed costing
methodology.
Emission Control System
Characteristics
  The following factors must be consid-
ered when judging the practical appli-
cability of an emission control system
for sludge incinerators:
  • The high degree of particulate re-
   moval required  (99 percent in this
   study).
  • The presence of condensable
   fumes (requires that gas be cooled
   as much as practical).

-------
  • The temperature of the gas enter-
    ing the control equipment.
  • The high moisture content of the
    gas.
  • The presence of acid gases (such as
    chlorides).

Wet Scrubbers
  Wet  scrubbers (generally venturi or
impingement type) have  traditionally
been used to control particulate emis-
sions from multiple-hearth incinerators.
Though they have achieved compliance
with emission standards at many incin-
erators and have reduced odor prob-
lems,  their power requirements are
high.

Fabric Filters
  Fabric filters are used widely for par-
ticulate control  in the metallurgical in-
dustry, where hot gasses  and fine
fumes  are encountered. A large fabric
filter system could  be used at sludge
incinerators if emission gasses could be
cooled to  at least 500°F. Cooling could
be accomplished by water spray or air
dilution. A smaller system  could be
used if the gas were cooled to 200° to
SOOT,  but some moisture condensation
might  occur. Fabric filter  systems are
rather  large, however, and they do not
remove odors.

Electrostatic Precipitators
  High-voltage ESP's have successfully
collected both solid and liquid particu-
late matter from smelters, steel fur-
naces, petroleum  refineries, cement
kilns, acid plants, and many other oper-
ations. These devices can be operated
in the  wet or dry mode (i.e., above or
below  the gas  dewpoint). Power con-
sumption  is low on dry ESP's;  but corro-
sion resulting from acid gases can be a
problem, and the system does not re-
duce odors. Wet  ESP's also have low
power consumption. In  addition, they
remove acid gases and soluble material
and reduce odor problems.

Cost Estimates
  Table 1  summarizes the capital and
annual costs for all six options at the
36-, 72-, and 300-mgd plants. The costs
are based on an arrangement in which
each incinerator has its own captive air
pollution control  equipment (i.e., two
identical systems are required at a plant
with two incinerators, and eight identi-
cal systems are required at a plant with
eight incinerators). The capital cost
evaluations  reflect the cost savings of
having more than one identical system
installed.
Conclusions
  Technical feasiblity studies indicated
that all three types of controls (wet
scrubbers, fabric filters, and electro-
static precipitators)  could theoretically
achieve the goal of 99  percent particu-
late removal.
  The venturi/tray scrubber option en-
tailed the lowest capital cost, but annual
costs were highest  for this option be-
cause of the pressure  drop (40 in. of
water) thought to be necessary  for 99
percent particulate removal resulted in
high energy costs.  The advantages of
the wet  scrubber are that it cools gas to
120°F, achieves compliance with emis-
sion standards, removes acid gases and
other soluble material,  and reduces or-
ganics and odors. The venturi/scrubber
has been used for most sewage sludge
incinerators and has a history of suc-
cess.
  The fabric filter with the sulfur dioxide
scrubber system has a capital cost dou
ble that of the venturi/scrubber systerr
and an annual cost nearly as high. This
system  is known to provide excellen
particulate removal;  however, the higf
moisture content  and temperature
changes associated with a multiple
hearth sewage sludge incinerator coulc
easily cause a mud  pack to be formec
on the bags and make the bags inopera
ble.  Also,  other research on  a sid<
stream  from an incinerator indicatec
particulate  material  was not removec
by the shaker system used to clean th(
bags, and it was necessary to brush th(
fly ash from the bags before returning
the bags to service.
  The electrostatic precipitator pre
ceded by a sulfur dioxide removal sys
tem had a capital cost double that of thi
scrubber system, but had a lower an
nual cost than the venturi/scrubber sys
tem. Although this system (wet ESP) ap
pears to have the same capability as thi
scrubber/venturi system, it does no
have a proven record of performance.
  Both the wet ESP and fabric filter syj
terns should require a backup scrubbe
system (in both cases, the sulfur dioxid
scrubber system) to ensure that the ir
cinerator can be operated with a polk
tion  abatement system  if the primar
system  fails.
  The full report was submitted in fulfil
ment of Contract No.  68-03-1821  b
James M. Montgomery  Consulting Er
gineers. Inc. under  the sponsorship  c
the  U.S. Environmental  Protectio
Agency.
 Table 1.   Capital and Annual* Costs for Plants with One, Two, and Eight Multiple-Hearth Furnaces"1" (in thousands of mid-1985 dollars)
Option 1 —
venturi/tray
scrubbers
Option 2—
fabric filter
Option 3—
fabric filter
and SO2
scrubber
Option 4 —
ESP
Option 5 —
ESP followed
by SO2
scrubber
Option 6—
ESP preceded
bySO2
scrubber
 Plant size
  tons dry    Number of  Capital  Annual  Capital  Annual  Capital   Annual   Capital   Annual   Capital   Annual  Capital   Anni
sludge/day  incinerators  costs   Costs    Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs   Costs    Cos

    36          1       $1,007   $ 595  $1,484  $ 547  $ 2,062  $ 547   $  1,850  $ 404   $ 2,055  $484  $2,112  $4
    72          2        1,757    1,141   2,598    781    3,613   1,018     3,243    740    3,601    881     3,701     8
   300          8        6,448    4,452   9,531   2,463   13,247   3,895    12,074   2,828    13,408   3,375   13,781   3,4

 "Consists of direct operating and maintenance costs and indirect costs including capital recovery.
 + Options 3, 5, and 6 have an additional scrubber for SO2 control. Gas flow from each incinerator is 19,053 scfm or 94,469 acfm at 1142°F. Avers
  moisture content is 39.72 percent Capital recovery costs are based on 10 percent interest rate and a useful fife of 10, 20, and 20 years for vent
  scrubbers,  fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators, respectively.

-------
    Gopal Annamraju and  Yatendra M.  Shah are with PEI Associates, Inc..
      Cincinnati. OH 45246; and Madan L Arora is with James M. Montgomery.
      Consulting Engineers, Inc., Pasadena, CA 91109.
    Howard Waft is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
    The complete report, entitled "Costs of Air Pollution Abatement Systems for
      Sewage Sludge Incinerators," (Order No. PB 87-117 743/AS; Cost: $13.95,
      subject to change) will be available only from:
           National Technical Information Service
           5285 Port Royal Road
           Springfield, VA 22161
           Telephone: 703-487-4650
    The EPA Project  Officer can be contacted at:
           Water Engineering Research Laboratory
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES
       EPA
  PERMIT No. G-
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA/600/S2-86/102
                                        0063240    UERL
                                        LOU  M  TILLEY
                                        REGION V  EPA
                                        LIBRARIAN
                                        230  S  DEARBORN  ST
                                        CHICAGO               IL
                                     60604

-------