PB-211 323
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
Environmental Protection Agency Task Force
Wa shington, D. C.
March 1972
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
PB 211 323
E»**2ftt*0*0
August 1*72
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
EPA Task Fore*
for tha
Office of Research and Monitoring
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460
Program Eleaent B120«t
March 1972
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report hat been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
The guidelines and recommendations contained herein
are the result* of an internal Task Force prepared
for consideration by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Therefore, publication of this report at
this time is for information purposes only and does
not reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
ii
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
4. Title
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION,
7 Auth-'(.-i)
Environmental Protection Ag«
Task Force of Bewage Sludge
fr* j
icy, Washington, D. C.,
incineration
10. Project itt>. EPA Pro-
gram Element B 12043
.'/. Contract /Grant No.
>i. sut>i-'ne^'-TyUotc-i Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-R2-72-
040, August 1972, 89 p, 2 fig, 10 tab/, 5 ref, 9 append
16. Abstract . • •• ..... . ,,...--•< •
•A Task Force,was/established;) within the Environmental Protection Agehcy
•to evaluate sludge incineration as an acceptable alternative t(J--»«*o<.' i
disposal. Multiple-hearth and fluidized bed furnajlces, containing
stubbing devices for particulate removal, were selected for performance
evaluation. The sludge^ particulate, stack gas, scrubbing liquid, and
ash were sampled^ and analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, and oxides of
nitrogen and sulfur. The results indicated that incinerators are capable
of achieving low emission concentrations for the common pollutants.
Particulate samples showed a measurable concentration of lead. The ash
samples normally showed a higher concentration of the heavy metals .wjxen.>
•WMHB9jP^SCn«KbB»>JMqg)MMtaaeaeeaB*^ /Compared
with the sludge samples^however, mercury was one of the exceptions and
was not detectable -in tfie ash sample and assumed ar lost to the stack
gases, -the pesticides and PC^V^pjresent in the sludge, were not detectable
in either the ash or the scrut)Ding~~wat^Ty~fwkl;j>indicated complete destruc-
tion.^ .The study demonstrated that well designed and operated municipal
sewage sludge incinerators can meet the Most stringent existing
particulate emission control regulation.
17a. Descriptors . ' \
*Incineration, *Ultimate /disposal, *Sludge Disposal, *Waste treatment,
Air pollution effects , ^Sludge, Pesticide ifemoval, Heavy metals,
Polychlorinated biphenyls
17b. Identifiers
*Multiple hearth furna/ces, *Fluidized bed incinerators, Stack
emissions, Ocean disposal, Partictlate removal /T fraB tt, |.ti.^ii - \
Mowfe Sjrvke j
' "
/7c. COWRRFiet! £ Croup
IS. Availability
-*V '• • ji» -,; : ;'£•
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O24O
Abstractor
I Ins*i
ttution
n -
-------
ABSTRACT
A Task Force was established within the Environmental Protection
Agency to evaluate sludge incineration as an acceptable alternative
to sea disposal. Multiple-hearth and fluidized bed furnaces,
containing scrubbing devices for particulate removal, were selected
for performance evaluation. The sludge, particulate, stack gas,
scrubbing liquid, and ash were sampled, and analyzed for heavy metals,
pesticides and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. The results indicated
that incinerators are capable of achieving low emission concentrations
for the common pollutants. Particulate samples showed a measurable
concentration of lead. The ash samples normally showed a higher
concentration of the heavy metals when compared with the sludge
samples, however, mercury was one of the exceptions and was not
detectable in the ash sample and assumed as lost to the stack gases.
The pesticides and PCB, present in the sludge, were not detectable in
either the ash or the scrubbing water, and indicated complete destruction.
The study demonstrated that well designed and operated municipal sewage
sludge incinerators can meet the most stringent existing particulate
emission control regulation.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Task Force Observations & Conclusions 1
II Introduction & Summary 3
III Plant Survey and Sewage Sludge Incinerator 11
Test Program
IV Effect of Incineration on Metals, Pesticides 23
and PolychloHnated Blphenyls
V Justification of Incinerator Design Criteria 36
for PCB and Pesticide Destruction
VI, References 38
VII Appendices 39
-------
FIGURES
1 Particulate Emissions from Sludge Incinerators 21
2 Schematic Representation of Incinerator Types 35
vi
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Sewage Sludge Incinerator Log 15
2 Plant A - Summary of Results 16
3 Plant B - Summary of Results 17
U Plant C - Summary of Results 18
5 Plant D - Summary of Results 19
6 Plant E - Summary of Results 20
7 Pesticide and PCB Content of Sludges 31
8 Concentration of Metals in Sludges 32
9 Metal to Fixed Solid Ratio for Sludge and Ash 33
10 Concentration of Metals in Particulates 34
vii
-------
REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TASK FORCE ON SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
January 1972
NAME
James Basilico
Sidney Beeman
Joseph Parrel1
Kenneth Johnson
(Chairman)-
John Newbrough
E. Timothy Oppelt
D. E. Oyster
Donna Kuroda
Robert Schaffer
Robert Stenburg
ORGANIZATION
Office of Research $ Monitoring
Office of Water Programs
Office of Research § Monitoring
Region II
Office of Air Programs
Office of Research $ Monitoring
Office of Research § Monitoring
Office of Research § Monitoring
Office of Research § Monitoring
Office of Research § Monitoring
viii
-------
SECTION I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TASK FORCE ON SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
Task Force Observations and Conclusions
1. When operated properly, today's sludge incinerator systems, which
have been designed to meet existing air quality standards, have been
shown by test to produce acceptable stack emissions of particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and odors. This was true for both fluidized
bed and multiple hearth type incinerators. Most sludge incinerators
which are in existence today, however, do not incorporate high efficiency
particulate matter control devices.
2. Small, but measurable, quantities of specific metals which are known
to accumulate in the human system, and which are known to be toxic at
certain levels, were found in the input sludge, stack emissions, scrubber
water, and residue of those incinerators which were subjected to compre-
hensive testing under Task Force supervision. These same metals were
also found in each instance where only the sludge alone was analyzed.
3. Small, but measurable, quantities of specific organic chemical compounds
including various pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls, which are
known to accumulate in the human system, were found In all of the sludge
samples analyzed. It should be expected that, under conditions of poor
combustion, such compounds could be emitted from the stacks of sewage
sludge incinerators.
1
-------
u. It was impossible for the Task Force to accurately establish the
potential for health effects which might be associated with sewage sludge
incineration because:
a. There are insufficient health effects data relating to low
atmospheric concentrations of suspected pollutant materials including
certain elements such as Cadmium, Arsenic, Beryllium, Nickel, Copper,
Lead Chromium, Vanadium, and Mercury, Organic Pesticides, and Poly-
chlorinated Biphenyls.
b. There are insufficient stack gas sampling and analysis methods
sophisticated enough to produce accurate information regarding the
quantity, size distribution, and constituent quality related to size,
of the particulate matter emitted by sewage sludge incinerators.
-------
Section II
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
More and more, as action is taken to solve environmental problems,
it is discovered that the solutions chosen have produced new and different
problems. Such is the case concerning the ultimate disposal of sludge from
sewage treatment plants.
Primary sewage treatment is designed to remove the bulk of the solids
present in the sewage. The removed solids, in the form of sludge, are
s
either disposed of directly from the primary process or receive their
final disposal after combination with sludges from secondary treatment
processes.
In certain areas, particularly on the East Coast, the practice has
been to barge sewage sludge to sea, for ultimate disposal into the ocean
depths. It is this form of disposal which has, over the past year, been
the subject of official concern and action because of its apparent adverse
affect upon life on the ocean floor.
In October 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality recommended, in
its "Ocean Dumping - A National Policy", that ocean dumping of sludge
should be phased out as an ultimate disposal practice. The State of New
Jersey has taken strong legal steps to curtail sludge dumping at sea and,
at last count in September 1971 , 39 House of Representatives and 4 Senate
bills, to restrict ocean dumping, were under consideration by Congress.
If, as appears likely, unrestricted disposal at sea will not continue
to be an acceptable practice for sludge removed in sewage treatment plant
operations, what alternatives exist? In order to give searching considera-
tion to this question, the Environmental Protection Agency established two
-------
separate task forces in the spring of 1971. Each task force included
representation from all fields of environmental control, with special
involvement from the Office of Water Programs, Office of Air Programs,
and the Office of Research and Monitoring.
One EPA' Task Force was set up to examine all of the alternatives
for sewage sludge disposal, and to recommend those methods which will not
result in an objectionable impact on the environment. The second Task Force
was charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not the
sludge incineration alternative is acceptable at this time. This question
is immediately important because incineration will become the likely choice
for sludge disposal by communities presently barging their sludge to sea
if ocean dumping is prohibited outright.
Incineration of sludge, of course, has an inherent potential for air
pollution; it is this potential which has dominated the thinking of the
Environmental Protection Agency Sewage Sludge Incineration Task Force.
At the first meeting of the Task Force, in June 1971» it was agreed that two
basic questions must be answered by the group: (1) Can the environment
tolerate the expected impact upon it resulting from the incineration of
sludge?, and (2) If the answer to the first question is affirmative, what
can be recommended as the best available sludge Incinerator technology?
To provide information upon which answers to the basic questions could
be formulated, the following Task Force program was established:
1. Develop data regarding emissions into the atmosphere from existing
sewage sludge incinerators. Qualitative and quantitative information
would be gathered from a variety of incinerator types handling a variety
of sludge types.
-------
2. Develop data regarding potential emissions into the atmosphere, based
upon analyses of sewage sludge content entering existing incinerators.
The analyses would be made for major pollutant materials of concern, with
special emphasis upon health-effects-related pollutants.
3. Examine characteristics of incinerated sludge residue to provide in-
formation for ultimate disposal of the ash.
4. Review anticipated technology involving combustion processes for sludge,
in order to make recommendations for pilot plant efforts which go beyond
existing incinerator types.
It was decided by the Task Force that sampling analyses at existing
incinerator sites should include the major metals and such materials as
PCB (Polychlorinated Byphenyls) as well as the more common air pollutants.
This decision was made because of the importance that must be given to
health-effects-related compounds.
As the Task Force study program got underway, 16 existing sludge
incinerators across the country received preliminary investigation. Of
these 16, 5 were of the fluidized bed type and 11 were multiple hearth
incinerators. All of the incinerators incorporated scrubbing devices for
control of particulate matter. As a result of this initial examination,
3 incinerators were chosen for detailed sampling and analysis. These
3 were at Barstow, California, South Lake Tahoe, California, and Lorton,
Virginia. The Barstow incinerator input included only raw sludge from
primary treatment; this installation utilized the fluidized bed principle.
The South Lake Tahoe unit burned both sludge from the primary process and
residue, from an activated sludge unit; a multiple hearth incinerator was
used. The Lorton, Virginia incinerator was also multiple hearth; it
5
-------
handled primary sludge and grease.
A summary of the information which has resulted from the sampling
program conducted at the three sites can be given as follows:
A. Stack Gas Analyses for Particulates, NOY, S02» and Visible Emissions
Analyses of the stack gases indicated that none of the incinerators
exceeded an overall dry filterable particulate average concentration of
t
0.07 grains per standard cubic foot for all test runs inclusive. In the
case of the largest incineratbr, handling a dry solids feed of approxi-
mately 1225 Ibs/hour, as a gross average during three test runs, the mass
per unit time emission did not exceed an overall average of 2.0 pounds per
hour.
Oxides of nitrogen emissions were obtained only at South Lake Tahoe'
and Barstow, California; the higher overall test average emission concen-
tration of the two did not exceed 175 ppm.
Sulfur oxides, again, were measured only at the California sites;
measured concentrations did not exceed 13 ppm as an average emission during
the test period.
Visible emissions, at all three test incinerators, were less than
10% opacity.
These test results indicate that well designed and operated sludge
incinerators are able to achieve acceptably low emission concentrations
for the common pollutants. It should be stated here, however, that the
three test incinerators handled essentially domestic (residential) sewage
loads.
-------
B. Stack Gas Analyses for Major Metals
Measurable concentrations of metals were found in the stack gas
material collected from both California sites. Measurable emissions on a
mass per unit time basis included .06 pounds per hour, as a gross average
of three test runs, for lead at South Lake Tahoe. Such an emission, to
laymen, may seem inconsequential on an absolute basis, but lead and other
elements such as cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and vanadium are said
by Environmental Protection Agency physicians to be biologically non-
degradable and toxic at certain concentrations in human tissue. All of
these metals were measured in the particulate matter analyses.
C. Input Sludge Analyses
As would be expected from the stack gas samples, an examination of
the input sludge showed measurable quantities of 'the heavy metals and
other important pollutant compounds. The elements cadmium, beryllium,
nickel, copper, lead, chromium, vanadium, and mercury are said by physicians
to be toxic and accumulate in the human body; all, with exception of
beryllium, nickel, and vanadium were found in input sludge analyses made
at Barstow, South Lake Tahoe, and Lorton. Vanadium was found only at
Barstow.
In addition, analyses were made for major pesticides in the input
sludge at the 3 incinerator locations. At Barstow, measurable concentra-
tions of PCB, dieldrin, Chlordane, and DDD were found. At Lorton, measur-
able concentrations of all of the above were uncovered. At South Lake
Tahoe, only PCB was analyzed for, and was found.
-------
D. Analyses of Incinerator Ash
For South Lake Tahoe, Barstow, and Lorton, metal analyses were also
made of the ash remaining after incineration of the sewage sludge. The
data showed that all of the mercury in the sludge is apparently lost in
the stack gases, and that lead compounds are apparently carried off in
the fly ash.
A comparison of sludge ash composition with a coal fly ash Showed the
sludge ash to have concentrations of copper, zinc, chromium and lead one
or two orders of magnitude higher than coal fly ash.
No" pesticide or PCB materials were found in the ash or scrubber water.
It was the opinion of the Office of Research and Monitoring solid
waste representative on the Task Force that ash resulting from the
incineration of sewage sludge would constitute no significant threat to the
environment if ultimate disposal of the ash was by acceptable sanitary
landfill practice as outlined by "Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation",
a United States Environmental Protection Agency report.
Because of the importance which was given to the measured presence
of various metals found in samples taken at South Lake Tahoe, Barstow, and
Lorton, sludge samples were taken at additional sewage treatment plants,
and analyzed for metals content. The added test sites were at Monterey,
California, and at the Middlesex County, Joint Meeting, Passaic Valley, and
Bergen County sewage treatment facilities in New Jersey. The New Jersey
plants included units with significant industrial inputs.
-------
Again, tests at the additional plants indicated the presence of
biologically non-degradable metals. Quantitative results of these tests,
however, were available only in raw data form When this report was
written and are included as an appendix item. Based upon relationships
developed during the comprehensive sampling program carried out 3.t
South Lake Tahoe, Barstow, and Lorton, it can be expected that quantities
of certain heavy metals could be found in the incinerator effluent of
the sludges analyzed from Monterey and the New Jersey plants.
The Monterey plant was also tested for stack effluents. Basic
results were similar to those obtained from South Lake Tahoe, Barstow,
and Lorton.
-------
Section IH
PLANT SURVEY AND SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATOR TEST PROGRAM
The Office of Air Programs undertook a survey and test program for
sewage sludge incinerators in order to obtain information both for the
setting of new source performance standards and, also, for the purposes of
the EPA Task Force on Sewage Sludge Incineration. The following material
provides basic information with regard to this program.
A. Background
The plant survey and test program of sewage sludge incinerators was
undertaken for two purposes:
1. To survey a number of existing sludge incinerators selected
from a list of installations supplied to the Office of Air Programs
by the leading contractors who design and build incinerators.
Based on a plant survey, a number of plants that demonstrated best
emission control technology would be tested to obtain quantitative and
qualitative analyses of emissions from these sources. This information
in conjunction with other data would subsequently be used as a datum
plane for the establishment of performance standards limiting the
emissions to levels consistent with the current state of the art of
control technology.
2. To satisfy the EPA Sludge Disposal Task Force requirements to
identify time urgent problems in current and imminent sludge
incineration activity. Since the use of incinerators as a means of
disposing of sewage sludge is increasing, there is an urgent need to
determine if this is a viable disposal method as far as its total
environmental impact is concerned.
11 Preceding page blank
-------
To satisfy these two requirements an approach to establish a test
program was planned in twg phases.
Phase I involved inspection visits to sixteen existing incinerators
that were reported to be capable of consistently meeting the most stringent
particulate emission limitations (0.1 grains/ scf) . Based on this
inspection survey, three giants which incinerate primarily residential
sludge were selected for testing to provide preliminary data to the
Environmental Protection Agency Sludge Incineration Task Force.
<
At each of the sixteen sites, samples were collected of the feed
sludge, scrubber water in|et and outlet, and ash residue. The samples
were sent to the Taft Wateir Research .Center for analyses with particular
emphasis on heavy metals.
Phase II was to consist of a minimum of three additional tests on
plants selected af^er a more thorough review of existing incinerators
and examinations of the analytical results of the Phase I study.
An additional fourteen incinerator sites were visited during Phase II.
Only one of these plants, the N.W. Bergen plant at Waldwick, New Jersey,
was deemed to be adequately controlled and suitable for testing. The
State of New Jersey had tested this plant using the EPA test method.
Particulate emissions measured during the State agency test ranged from
0.02 - 0.048 grains/cu. ft. (total catch).
B. Details
Source tests have been completed on four of the five incinerators
selected for study. South Tahoe, California, was tested July 14-16,
12
-------
Barstow, California on July 21-23, Fairfax County, Virginia on August 4-7,
and Monterey, California on October 13-15, 1971. Samples of the sewage sludge
residue (ash), and stack gas were collected and sent to the Ultimate
Disposal Section, Office of Water Programs, Cincinnati, Ohio, for chemical
analysis with particular emphasis on heavy metals.
The air samples were collected and analyzed by the source test con-
tractor, York Research Corporation. The analysis was for NOX and S02 con-
centrations and particulate grain loading. The results are reflected in
the Test Data Summary, shown in Tables 2, 3, H, 5 and 6.
All of the sewage treatment plants that have been source tested
by the Office of Air Programs, have been plants that incinerate municipal
or residential type sludge. To obtain data to aid the EPA Task Force in
evaluating the environmental impact of sludge incinerators that burn a
high percentage of industrial waste, a program was instituted by the OWP
Ultimate Disposal Section. Sludge samples were collected from a number
of plants that treat industrial waste and analyzed to determine composition
and heavy metal content. Preliminary analyses of industrial type sludge
indicates that the heavy metals found in industrial waste are basically
the same as in residential waste, varying only in concentration. Using
the sludge feed and stack emission analytical data collected from tests
of residential type sludge incinerators, heavy metal concentrations in
the stack gas of industrial sludge incinerators can be calculated when
the concentration of a particular heavy metal in the sludge feed is known.
13
-------
C. Conclusions
Based on the survey and tests of existing well-controlled municipal
sewage sludge incinerators:
1. It has been adequately demonstrated that existing well-designed
and operated municipal sewage sludge incinerators are capable of
meeting the most stringent particulate emission control regulation
existing in any State or local control agency.
2. Most incinerators that have been built in recent years are
designed for greater throughputs than required for present municipality
populations. Many operate either on a partial workweek, at reduced
feed rates or both. Therefore, a practical air pollution emission
standard for municipal sludge incinerators should be based on
operation at less than 100 percent of design capacity.
14
-------
TABLE 1'
Sewage Sludge Incinerator Log
Plant Location
A So. take Tahoe,
California
Barstow,
California
Fairfax County
Lorton, Virginia
Northwest Bergen
County, Waldwick,
N.J. '
Monterey,
California
Multiple Hearth (6) Herreshoff Incinerator.
Design capacity 900 #/hr dry solids. Operated
at 35% capacity during test. Control device
W. W. Sly single cross flow perforated plate
type impinjet scrubber. 6.0" HpO pressure
drop.
Fluo-Solid (Fluidized Bed) Reactor. Design
capacity 500 #/hr.dry solids. Operated at
95% capacity during test. Control device
ARCO single cross flow perforated plate type
impinjet scrubber. 4.0" H~0 pressure drop.
Two Multiple Hearth (7) Herreshoff Incinerators.
Design capacity 2500 #/hr dry solids, each
unit. Unit #1 which was tested, operated
at about 50% of capacity during test. Control
device Nichols Cyclonic Inertial jet scrubber
2.5" HpO pressure drop.
Fluo-Solid (Fluidized Bed) Reactor. Design
capacity 1100 #/hr dry solids. Operated at
100% capacity during test. Control device;
Peabody Five Plate impinjet scrubber. 20.0"
HpO pressure drop.
Multiple Hearth (6) Herreshoff Incinerator.
Design capacity 750 #/hr dry solids. Operated
at 89% capacity during test. Control device;
W. W. Sly single cross flow perforated plate
type inpinjet scrubber. 6.0" H90 pressure drop.
15
-------
Run Number
Date
Stack Flow Rate-SCFM
% C02 - Vol % dry
% Excess air @ test
point
SOo Emission - ppm
SC>2 Emission - Ibs/hr
NOX Emission - ppm
HC1 Emission - ppm
Particulate Emission - Fil
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/hr
Table
Plant
SUMMARY OF
1
7-15-71
1170
10.0
54.3
13.64
.1596
271.63
3.06
ter
0.0097
0.0127
0.127
1.15#/ton
2
A
RESULTS
2
7-15-71
1300
10.1
49.8
14.28
.1856
82.81
2.47
0.0474
0.0616
0.686
4.8#/ton
Particulate Emission - Total
Gr/CF @stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lbs/hr
0.0150
0.0195
0.196
0.0532
0.0692
0.771
Process Conditions
3
7-16-71
1350
10.2
51.0
13.63
.1840
67.48
2.62
0.0152
0.0196
0.227
1.56#/ton
0.0201
0.0260
0.301
Sludge Feed to Furnace-lbs/hr 221.8 298.6 292.0
dry solids
16
-------
Table 3
Plant B
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run Number 1 2 3
Date 7-21-71 7-21-71 7-22-71
Stack Flow Rate-SCFM 1190 1170 1230
% C02 - Vol. % dry 8.8 9.9 9.1
% Excess Air @ Test
point 38.7 50.7 59.4
S02 Emission-ppm
S0£ Emission -' Ibs/hr
NOX Emission - ppm
HC1 Emission -. ppm
Parti cul ate Emission - Filter
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFU
Lbs/hr
Parti culate Emission - Total
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lbs/hr
10.71
.1274
161.64
1.64
0.0468
0.0551
0.562
2.2#/ton
0.0565
0.0665
0.678
14.10
.1650
42.18
2.78
0.0650
0.0766
0.768
3.24#/ton
0.0729
0.0859
0.861
13.16
.1619
173.20
2.15
0.0464
0.0545
0.574
2/84#/ton
0.0556
0.0653
0.688
Process Conditions
Sludge Feed to Furnace 510.0 474.0 403.0
Ibs/hr - dry solids
17
-------
Table U
Plant C
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run Number
Date
Stack Flow Rate-SCFM
% C02 - Vol . % dry
% Excess Air @ test
point
SOg Emission - ppm
NOX Emission - ppm
HC1 Emission - ppm
1
8-5-71
9840
4.2
225
1.97
62.9-46.2
11.9
2
8-5-71
8510
4.3
226
2.02
83.5-76.0
6.83
3
8-5-71
10290
2.2
366
1.98
44.4-54.8
10.9
Parti culate Emission - Filter
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lbs/hr
Parti culate Emission - Total
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lbs/hr
0.0196
0.0260
2.19
3.18#/ton
0.0252
0.0335
2.83
0.0099
0.0136
0.99
1.16#/ton
0.0159
0.0221
1.61
0.0101
0.0134
1.18
4.07#/ton
0.0128
0.0170
1.5
Process Conditions
Sludge Feed to Furnace 1378 1710 580
Ibs/hr - dry solids
18
-------
Table 5
Plant D
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run Number , 123
Date | 5-3-71 5-4-71 5-4-71
Stack Flow Rate-SCFM 3650 3788 3513
% C02-Vol. % dry 4.0 5.1 4.0
% Excess Air @| test point
Particulate Emissions - Filter
Gr/CF @ stack 'conditions
Gr/SCFD !
Lb/hr ;
Particulate Emissions - Total
Gr/CF @ stack! conditions
Gr/SCFD
1
Lb/hr
0.020
0.61
0.031
1.0
0.048
1.45
Process Conditions
Sludge Feed to Furnace 650 650 650
Lbs/hr - dry solids
19
-------
Table 6
Run Number
Date
Stack Flow Rate -
SCFM
%CO^ - Vol. Dry
% Excess air @
Test Point
SO Emission - PPM
NOX Emission - PPM
HC1 Emission - PPM
Particulate Emission - Fi
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/Hr.
Plant
SUHMARY OF
1
10-31-71
3310
3.8
469.2
2.23
35.39
.624
Her
.0187
.024
.680
E
RESULTS
2
10-14-71
2950
4.7
183.6
2.51
19.45
1.33
.0155
.020
.505
3
10-14-71
2120
2.7
268.8
3.22
11.47
.621
.0132
.017
.309
Particulate Emission - Total
Gr/CF @ stack conditions
Gr/SCFD
Lb/Hr
.0289
.037
1.049
.0287
.037
.935
.0348
.045
.818
20
-------
FIGURE 1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SLUDGE INCINERATORS
&
fO
o
O
oo
o
2
00
1
0.
0.080;—
0.060
0.040
0.020
A - EPA Test
a - Contractor
test
Maximum
Average
Minimum
KEY
r
I I
U
.L.
B
I _J
E e
-------
Section IV
THE EFFECT OF INCINERATION ON METALS. PESTICIDES AND POLY-
CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS PRESENT IN SEWAGE SLUDGE
The Office of Research and Monitoring accepted the responsibility
for detailed analyses of the material obtained during the sampling program
discussed in Chapter II. The following material reports on these analyses.
A. Conclusions and Recommendations
Concentration of pesticides and PCB's in sludge are occasionally
quite high. They may be hazardous if sludge is carelessly discarded in
the environment. Incineration very likely destroys these materials,
but positive evidence is lacking.
It is recommended that:
1. More data be collected on sludges. A regular analysis
program should be instituted at a few plants.
2. Means be developed for determining trace amounts of chemicals in
incinerator off-gases.
3. Advice should be obtained on the hazards of the concentrations
of pesticides and PCB's encountered in sludge.
4. Experiments should be carried out which clearly demonstrate the
fate of pesticides and PCB's upon incineration.
5. Analytical methods development for potential hazardous chemicals
in sludge should be accelerated.
Some metals appear in the ash in lower proportion than they appear
in the sludge (fixed-solids basis), and they are higher in the stack gas
particulates. All of the mercury in the sludge apparently is lost in the
stack gases. The residue from burning sludge is higher in certain poten-
tially hazardous metals than the residues 6f fly ash from burning of coal.
These metals originate in both industrial and domestic wastes.
23
Preceding page blank
-------
It is recommended that:
1. More particulate sampling and analysis be carried out to
establish a reasonably accurate way for predicting the composition
of stack-gas particulates from a knowledge of the sludge composition.
2. Particulate sampling methods be improved.
3. Long-term tests be carried out on a versatile pilot-scale in-
cinerator to accurately determine the material flows and compositions.
4. Communities analyze their sludges and sewage for metals on a
regular basis so that high concentrations, which would appear in
proportionate mass in the fly aeh from incineration, would be fletected.
B. Introduction
One of the tasks taken on by the Taft Water Research Center repre-
sentatives to the Sludge Incineration Task Force was to provide analytical
\
information as needed for incinerator tests being conducted by the Air
Pollution Division of Compliance. Samples of sludges and incinerator ash
were sent by Air Pollution staff from numerous potential incinerator test
sites, to be analyzed by emission spectroscopy for a variety of metals.
During the actual tests at incinerator sites, central coordination of
analytical work was provided with analytical tests being conducted at the
Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory and the Analytical Quality Control
Laboratory of the Taft Water Research Center, and at North Carolina State
University (coordinated through the Office of Air Program's Source and
Emission Testing Division). The data obtained for the incinerator tests is
insufficient to draw broad conclusions on the contents of sludges. It has
been supplemented by data collected on sludges from locations with widely
differing populations and industrial mix.
24
-------
C. Results and Discussion
General Experimental Plan
The incinerator testing was limited to two incinerator types: the
multiple-hearth incinerator, and the fluidized bed incinerator. These
incinerators are represented schematically in Figure 1. With respect to
process flows, the most significant difference is that the major part of
the ash leaves from the bottom of the multiple hearth furnace, whereas
in the fluidized bed incinerator, all the ash is carried overhead and is
removed from the bottom of the scrubber.
The tests at the various sites followed methods developed previously
by the Office of Air Programs for air pollution source testing. Standard
methods for particulate sampling and gas sampling were followed. These
procedures were designed for determining particulate loading and for
analysis of the commonly encountered gaseous pollutants. The analytical
work was designed to collect as much additional useful data as possible in
order to optimize the information obtained from the testing program.
Sludge, ash, scrubber water in, scrubber water out, and particulates
v
carried overhead were analyzed for metals. Except for the particulates,
these same streams were analyzed for pesticides and PCB's. The tests on
each incinerator were divided into three six-hour testing periods. Within
the limitations of manpower available at the test site, samples were taken
in as representative a fashion as possible. Tests were run on a multiple
hearth incinerator at South Lake Tahoe, California, a fluidized bed in-
cinerator at Barstow, California, and at another multiple hearth unit at
Lorton, Virginia.
25
-------
Pesticides and PCB's
The intent of the study of pesticides and PCB's was to determine their
levels in sludge, and to determine what happens to them during incineration.
Data are presented in Table 7 which indicate the levels of pesticides
which can be found in a random selection of sludges. The data are summarized
below:
Compound Range (ppm)
Aldrin 16 (in one sludge only)
Dieldrin 0.08 to 2.0
Chlordane 3.0 to 32
ODD not detected to 0.5
DDT not detected to 1.1
PCB's not detected to 105
The wide range of concentrations indicate that pesticides and PCB's
could be a minor problem in some cases, and severe in others. It
is not likely that there will be an easy way to judge "a priori" where
a problem will exist.
Pesticide and PCB determinations were made on sludges collected during
the incinerator tests at Lorton, Barstow, and Tahoe. These data are also
presented in Table 7 PCB's were found in all of these sludges, but con-
centrations were low (1.2 to 2.5 ppm). Barstow showed an unusually high
concentration of chlordane. Pesticides were not determined for the Tahoe
sludges.
A major gap in our study is the lack of analyses of pesticides and
PCB's in the gas stream. Since the pesticides (and even some varieties of
the PCB's) have a significant vapor pressure at room temperature, they may
not be captured in the particulate sampler.
26
-------
Pesticides and PCB's were found only in the sludge. They were not
found in the ash from either type incinerator, nor in the inlet or outlet
scrubber water. Ash can be analyzed for these materials to the same
degree of sensitivity as in sludge. A level of 0.1 microgram/g(ppm)
could have easily been detected. It is quite certain that these materials
are not being carried out in the ash.
The mass flow rate of water to the scrubber is about 400 times the
dry solids flow rate to the incinerator. Consequently, the concentration
at which these materials can be detected in water must be sufficiently
low to be sure that they are not escaping in the scrubber water. For--
tunately, analytical techniques are such that these materials can be
detected in water to the nearest 0.1 nanogram/g (ppb). Consequently, it is
reasonable:to believe that they are not in the scrubber water. The possibility
that low concentrations of PCB's could be adsorbed by the ash or the walls
of the sample container do not allow us to be absolutely certain of this
i
statement.
Since the PCB's do not appear in ash or scrubber water, they are
either destroyed by incineration or remain as vapors in the water-scrubbed
(and cooled) gas stream. Since all of these materials have some solubility
in water, it is unlikely that no trace would be present in the scrubber
water. Consequently, their escape as vapors from the incinerators seems
unlikely.
It is suggested that the pesticides and PCB's are destroyed
by incineration. Eventually, direct experimental evidence that this is the
case should be obtained.
27
-------
Metals
The intent of the study of metals was to determine their levels in
sludge, in ash, and in the particulates entrained in the gas stream leaving
the incinerator.
Concentrations of metals in sludges are shown in Table 8,. It is clearly
difficult to predict the composition of a sludge. Lake Tahoe sewage is
largely domestic, yet its cadmium level is higher than three of the plants
with a much higher proportion of industrial waste. Dayton and Mill Creek
(Cincinnati) have a high proportion of industrial waste; however, except for
aluminum, the Dayton sludge is much higher in metals than the Mill Creek
sludge.
The metal concentration in sludge ash can be estimated from the sludge
analysis. Except for mercury (see"below), metals remain in the ash or the
fly ash If the sludge is about 25% fixed solids after ignition, this ash
will have approximately four times the concentration of metals as did the
dried sludge. A comparison of sludge ash composition with a coal fly ash
shows the sludge ash to have concentrations of copper, zinc, chromium, and
lead one or two orders of magnitude higher than coal fly ash.
The tests in the incinerators at Tahoe, Barstow, and Lorton revealed
that the ratio of a metal to fixed solids in the sludge was not always the
same as its concentration in the ash. This indicates that some disproportion-
ation (or classification) was occurring. For example, if the ash stream
showed a lower concentration of a metal than its concentration in the sludge
on a fixed solids basis, this indicates that the particulates (or fly ash)
should have a higher concentration of the metal than either sludge or ash.
28
-------
A comparison of metal content of the sludge (fixed-solids basis) with
the metal content of the ash is shown in Table 9 for the three incinerators
tested. The data show that all of the mercury is classified into the
combustion gas stream, probably as mercury vapor or as a volatile mercury
compound. The evidence is strong that lead compounds are being classified
into the fly ash Stream and carried off by the combustion gases. Silver,
barium, chromium, and copper may show a similar effect, but more substan-
tiating data are needed.
This result indicates that for some metals it is not adequate to
estimate the composition of the fly ash stream from a knowledge of the
sludge analysis,. The analysis of the particulates which leave the
incinerator stack is of primary importance. Analyses were made on the
particulate samples collected at Tahoe, Barstow, and Lorton. These data
are shown in Table 10. The particulate analyses are presented as well as
the ratio of metal concentration in the particulates to the metal concen-
tration in the 'sludge (fixed-solids basis). The three 6-hour particulate
samples were analyzed for Tahoe and Barstow, but only one sample was
available for Lorton.
The data in Table 10 show reasonable agreement between samples, but
i
the agreement is not good enough to establish any precise quantitative
relationships. Sample size was too small to permit anything but the
emission spectrograph analysis, so no results were obtained for mercury,
selenium, and antimony. It is presumed with a fair degree of certainty
that no mercury is present in the particulates.
29
-------
The ratio of metal concentrations in particulates to the concentra-
tion in sludge shows consistently high value for zinc. This is unexpected
from the ash results discussed above and is in fact due to gross zinc
contamination from the glass fiber filter used to collect particulates. The
ratio for lead Is high for the two multiple hearth incinerators but not
for the fluidized bed incinerator (Barstow). This could be a real affect
caused by differences in the two types of furnace. The loss of lead
from the Barstow ash was so pronounced (see Table 9 that this low level
in the Barstow particulates leads one to speculate that somehow a portion
of the lead in the stack gas sample is not being deposited in the par-
ticulate sampler.
The investigation of particulate composition indicates that except
for mercury and possibly lead, the off-gas stream and the particulates
will not be enriched in metals over the amount indicated by concentration
/
in the sludge (fixed-solids basis). More definitive data are clearly
desired. Longer-term testing at an incinerator site would be desired.
Particulate sampling should be improved to give larger samples free of
contaminants. A pilot plant study of emissions from incineration, where
all stream flows could be rigidly controlled and metal concentrations
of feed set at desired levels, would be of great value.
30
-------
Table 7
PESTICIDE AND PCB CONTENT OF SLUDGES
(micrograms/gram dry solids)*
Sludge Source Aldrin Dieldrin Chlordane ODD DDT PCB
Mt. Washington
Activ. 5/19/71 16.2
Shayler Run :
Activ. 3/20/71
Sample 1 n.d.
Sample 2 n.d.
Lebanon
Digest. 6/3/71
Sample 1 n.d.
Sample 2 n.d.
Barstow, Composite
of Three Samples
7/21/71
Lorton, Composite
of Three Samples
8/5/71
Tahoe, Composite
of Six Samples
7/15/71
Mill Creek
Digest. 8/20/71
Little Miami
Digest. 8/20/71
Dayton
Digest. 8/25/71
Indianapolis
Digest. 8/27/71
Sludge 1 '
Filter Cake
0.6
1.3
1.4
0.3
0.2
2.0
0.08
32.2
18.2
18.6
9.8
9.1
26.5
3.0
(Arochlor 1254)
n.d. 1.1 n.d.
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
3.2
3.2
2.5
2.5
0.2 n.d. 1.4
0.1 n.d. 1.2
2.5
12.7
32.0
105.0
4.0
3.3
* Date reported in this table were obtained by H. Boyle and C. Mashni,
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, National Environmental
.Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
31
-------
Table 8
CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN SLUDGES
Ag
Al
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sr
V,
Zn
, Silver
, Aluminum
, Barium
, Beryllium
, Cadmium
, Cobalt
, Chromium
, Copper
, Iron
, Mercury
, Manganese
, Nickel
, Lead
, Strontium
Vanadium
, Zinc
Tahoe
7/15/71
0.27
13.2
3.0
n.d.I/
0.18
n.d.
1.0
1.3
8.7
4.5*
0.6
n.d.
2.8
0.51
n.d.
1.6
Dayton
8/25/71
0.36
12.5
3.0
n.d.
0.8
n.d.
5.9
6.0
20.4
n.a.i/
1.1
n.d.
6.9
n.d.
n.d.
8.4
(mg/g)
Little Miami Mill Creek Lorton
Cincinnati Cincinnati Va.
8/20/71
0
8
0
n
n
n
1
2
16
n
1
n
2
n
n
7
.03
.8
.7
.d.
.d.
.d.
.7
.3
.0
.a.
.2
.d.
.0
.d.
.d.
.8
8/20/71
n
32
n
n
n
n
1
1
13
n
0
n
2
n
1
4
.d.
.2
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.8
.6
.2
.a.
.6
.d.
.7
.d.
.6
.7
8/5/71
n.d.
4.4
0.7
n.d.
0.17
n.d.
0.4
0.9
27.4
3.0*
0.5
n.d.
1.1
n.d.
n.d.
0.4
Indianapolis Barstow
Plant 1
8/23/71
n
5
1
n
0
n
2
2
15
n
0
n
2
n
n
1
.d.
.2
.3
.d.
.24
.d.
.6
.0
.3
.a.
.6
.d.
.8
.d.
.d.
.2
7/20/71
0.05
16.2
1.5
n.d.
0.58
n.d.
0.5
1.7
10.6
5.5*
0.18
n.d.
0.8
n.d.
2.1
1.4
* - micrograms/g
1 - n.d.: not detected
2 - n.a. : not analyzed
Analytical determinations on these sludges were carried out by J. Kopp,
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center.
32
-------
Table 9
METAL TO FIXED SOLID RATIO FOR
SLUDGE AND ASH FOR INCINERATOR TEST SITES (mg/g)
Element
Ag, Silver
Al, Aluminum
Ba, Barium
Be, Beryllium
Ca, Calcium
Cd, Cadmium
Co, Cobalt
Cr, Chromium
Cu, Copper
Fe, Iron
Hg, Mercury
K, Potassium
Mg, Magnesium
Mn, Manganese
Na, Sodium
Ni, Nickel
P, Phosphorus
Pb, Lead
Sb, Antimony
Se, Selenium
Sr, Strontium
V , Vanadium
Zn, Zinc
Lake Tahoe, Calif. Barstpw, Calif.
Lorton, Va.
Sludge Ash.
0.6
27.
6.0
n.d.l/
62.
0.37
2.0
2.6
18.
9.0*
1.4
12.1
1.1
1.8
y
81.
5.8
1.3*
12.3*
1.0
n.d.
1.6
d.i'
i
24.
1.1
n.d.
290.
0.20
0.2
0.3
1.3
8.9
n.d.
1
16
0
1.8
i.d.
84.
0.7
I/
.3
.2
.5
1.
12,
3*
3*
0.7
0.4
1.6
\
Sludge
0.14
16.
4.1
n.d.
46.
n.d.
n.d.
2.9
2.5
12.
20.*
3.3
2.8
0.18
n.d.
7.0
n.d.
n.d.
2.4
Ash
0.05
16.
1.5
n.d.
73.
0.58
n.d.
0.5
1.7
11.
n.d.
0.18
n.d.
0.85
n.d.
2.1
1.4
Sludge
0.15
8.1
1.2
n.d.
0.31
n.d.
0.7
1.6
50.
6.*
1.8
7.0
0.9
1.1
n.d.
45.
2.0
n.d.
n.d.
0.8
Ash
0.05
16.
0.9
n.d.
235.
0.22
n.d.
0.6
1.6
43.
n.d.
2.3
6.6
0.9
1.4
n.d.
57.
1.0
n.d.
n.d.
0.7
(1) i.d. - insufficient data
(2) blank - not determined
(3) n.d. - not detected
* micrograms/gram
Data on most elements were determined by emission spectrograph by J. Kopp,
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory. As, Sb, and Se were determined by neutron
activation analysis at North Carolina State University (coordinated by D.
von Lehmden, Analytical Branch, Division of Air Programs).
33
-------
Table 10
CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN PARTICULATES (mg/g)
CO
Location
Sample
South Lake Tahoe
1
2
3
Ri/
1
Barstow
2 .
3
R
Lorton
1
R
Elements
Ag,
As,
Be,
Cd,
Co,
Cr,
Cu,
Fe,
Mn,
Ni,
Pb,
Sr,
V,
Zn,
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.2
<0.5
i.ol/
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
0.5
0.4
20.
0.4
<0.2
40.
n.a.!/
<0.3
o.sl/
1.0
0.05
0.1
0.04
28.
0.4
0.2
7.
n.a.
<0.05
50.
<0.3
o.sl/
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
11.
0.3
0.3
15.
n.a.
<0.05
55.
0.4
<0.3
n.s.i.
2.6
n.s.i.
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
n.s.i .
2.6
^0.4
n.s.i .
30.
0.05
<0.3
o.sl/
0.1
n.lX
0.5
2.0
5.0
0.1
4Q. 1
1.0
0..2
•
2.5
n.a.
<0.3
o.sl/
0.08
0.4
0.4
1.8
12.
0.1
0.05
0.3
n.a.
<0.05
8.
n.a.
<0.3
o.sl/
0.1
0.05
0.6
2.5
16.
0.2
0.1
0.9
n.a.
0.1
12.
0.4
<0.3
n.s.i.
n.s.i.
n.s.i.
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.6
n.s.i.
0.1
n.s.i.
n.s.i.
36.
n.a.
n.a.
-------
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF INCINERATOR TYPES
A DISCHARGE TO ATMOSPHERE
INCINERATOR
SLUDGE — »"-
AIR-*-
1
•*- WATER IN
"*••" WATER OUT
ivnikii wwi
\
^.FUEL SCRUBBER
I
ASH
(la) Multiple Hearth Incinerator
INCINERATOR
SLUDGE
FUEL
AIR
DISCHARGE TO ATMOSPHERE
«- WATER IN
[""[-•-WATER OUT
W i
SCRUBBER
ASH
(1b) Fluidized Bed Incinerator
35
-------
Section V
JUSTIFICATION OF INCINERATOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PCB
AND PESTICIDE DESTRUCTION
Studies of the thermal decomposition of pesticides and PCB's in
sewage sludge incineration have not been conducted to date. Instead,
research has been directed toward incinerators designed strictly for the
combustive destruction of concentrated amounts of waste PCB's and pesticides.
Multiple hearth, fluidized bed, and rotary kiln incinerators have been
employed in this context. In addition, some information is also being
generated through studies of the regeneration of activated carbon used to
remove chlorophenolic wastes from solution.
While the intent of current incineration work is not in terms of
sludge incineration, it is felt that the information generated may be
applicable to the decomposition of PCB's and pesticides in sewage sludge
incinerators. Rapid thermal degradation of most pesticides has been shown
to begin at approximately 500°C with near total destruction at 900°C,
(1652°F lii/. In many instances, however, these materials volatilize before
burning, thus forcing the use of afterburners on incinerators to provide
complete destruction. The Rhodia-Chipman Chemical Company achieves near total
destruction of pesticides in its multiple hearth carbon regenerator by pro-
viding an afterburner using a 0.23 - 0.80 second retention time at 1600 -
1800°F — . Similar figures were generated in a University of Texas at Austin
study where 1400 - 1800*F at 0.30 - 0.50 seconds was required for thermal
destruction.!.'
The PCB's are even more thermally stable than most pesticides, as one
would suspect. The primary manufacturer of these materials, Monsanto
Chemical Company, offers an incineration service to customers for disposing
36
-------
of waste RGB's. The incinerator at St. Louis, Missouri achieves
total destruction of concentrated PCB's at 2400°F with a retention time of
2.5 seconds.—' Experiments have shown, however, that 99% destruction
is possible at 1600 - 1800°F in 2.0 seconds.I/
37
-------
Section VI
REFERENCES
1. Basic Research on Equipment and Methods for Decontamination
and Disposal of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers, Annual Report
(June 1968 - June 1969), U.S.D.A. Grant Number, 12-11-100-9182 (3U),
Mississippi State University.
2. Organic Pesticides and Pesticide Containers—A Study of Their
Decontamination and Combustion, Final Report (1970), Bureau of Solid
Waste Management Contract Number CPA-69-110, Foster D. Snell, Inc.
3. Personal Conversation, January 19, 1972, Mr. Thomas Henshaw, Rhodia-
Chipman Chemical Company, Portland, Oregon.
**. The Pesticide Manufacturing Industry - Current Waste Treatment and
Disposal Practices, Project Number 12020 FYE-01/72, University of
Texas at Austin.
5. Personal Conversation, January 20, 1972, Mr. Arthur Pier, Monsanto
Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
38
-------
SECTION
VII
A. Metal Concentrations in Sludges [Monterey, Middlesex County9
Joint Meeting* Passaic Valley, Bergen County]. 40
B. North Carolina State University Report - Neutron Activation Analysis 41
of Sludge Incinerator Samples at South Lake Tahoe for Selenium and
Antimony.
C. North Carolina State University Report - Neutron Activation 43
Analysis of Sludge Incinerator Samples at Barstow and Lorton
[Fairfax] for Selenium and Antimony.
D. North Carolina State University Report - Neutron Activation Analysis 43
of Sludge Incinerator Samples at South Lake Tahoe, Barstow8 And
Lorton [Fairfax] for Arsenic Content
E. Preliminary Report - The Impact of Sludge Incineration on Air 47
and Land, by B. V. Salotto and Jo F. Farrell. July 12, 1971
F. Report of Emission Tests Made Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the 69
few Jersey Air Pollution Control Code—N.W. Bergen Sewage
Authority, Waldwick, N« J.
G. April 7, 1971 Memorandum t© DP. John T« Middleton—Subjects 81
Disposal of Sewage Sludge
H. April 1, 1971 Letter from Interstate Sanitation Coswissioa 82
I. Memorandum from Dr. Carl Shy, Deputy Director,, Division of 89
Health Effects, Environmental Protection Agency
39
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE; QOWJEHTRATIOTrS OF METALS IN SLUDGES
(Me/e)
Monterey,
ill fomi a
10/13/71
O.P3
2.40
0.76*
N. D.
0.70
W. D.
0.26
N. D.
0.60
2.60
A. P.
0.07
N. D.
0.22
0.60
7.20
N. D.
N. D.
1.95
Middlesex County
New Jersey
10/27/71
N. D.
3.00
0.38
N. D.
0.70
N. D.
N. D.
N. D.
0.60
4.20
A. P.
N. D.
N. D.
N. D.
N. D.
7.00
N. D.
N. D.
1.90
Joint Meet.
. N. J.
10/25/71
0.08
3.20
1.42
. N. D.
1.30
N.. D.
0.34
1.80
2.50
10.4
A. P.
0.80
N. D.
0.38
0.80
15.6
N.-D.
0.26
2.20 .
Pacoaic Valley
W. J.
n/i/71
N. D.
3.40
0.48
N. D.
0.90
N. D.
0.20
0.86
0.62
2.40
A. P.
0.32
N. D.
0.32
1.60
7.60
1T.-D.
N. D.
2.20
Bercen Co.
H.J.
10/26/71
0.08
12.6
1.20
R. D.
l.ltf
N. D.
0.40
7.60
1.52
11.8
A. P.
9.40
N. D.
0.38
1.70
34.2
N. D.
0.28
2.80
). Not Detected.
'. Analysis .pending.
«*0
-------
APPENDIX B
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
AT RALEIGH
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES
ENGINEERING AND EXPERIMENTATION DIVISION
Box 5636 ZIP 27607
DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
September 27, 1971
Report
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden
Environmental Protection Agency
Source and Emission Testing Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Dear Mr. von Lehmden:
Enclosed are the results of the neutron activation of sludge
incinerator samples for the South Lake Tahoe facility which have been
analyzed for Se and Sb content. Table 1 shovs the values found.
Table 1
South Lake Tahoe Sludge Incinerator
Sample Description
Sb Content
Experimental Parameters:
Sample size: 1/3 gram and 1/2 ml
Irradiation time: h- hours
Flux: 3 x lO1^ n/cm2 sec.
Decay time: Approx. 7 days
Se Content
#71 Scrubber 1^0 Inlet 3: 30 p.m. 7-15-71 <
#72 Scrubber H20 Inlet 7:^5 p.m. 7-15-71 <
#73 Scrubber H20 Inlet 9:^5 a.m. 7-16-71 <
#7^ Scrubber H20 Outlet k:QO p.m. 7- 15-71 <
#75 Scrubber H20 Outlet 7:20 p.m. 7-15-71
#76 Scrubber H20 Outlet 9:50 p.m. 7-16-71 <
#77 Sludge Cake 3:^5 p.m. 7-15-71
#78 Sludge Cake k:k$ p.m. 7-15-71
#79 Sludge Cake 7:20 p.m. 7-15-71
#80 Sludge Cake 7:50 p.m. 7-15-71
#8l Sludge Cake 9:Uo a.m. 7-16-71
#82 Sludge Cake 10:20 a.m. 7-16-71
#63 Incinerator Ash k:QO p.m. 7-15-71 <
#8U Incinerator Ash 7:35 p.m. 7-15-71
#85 Incinerator Ash 7-16-71
0.01 ug/ml
0.01 ug/ml
0.01 ug/ml
0.01 ug/ml
0.02 ug/ml
0.01 ug/ml
0.66 ppm
1.01 ppm
0.36 ppm
0.75 ppm
0.72 ppm
0.19 ppm
0.20 ppm
1.15 ppm
1.17 ppm
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.17 ug/ml
0.22 ug/ml
< 0.08 ug/ml
8. ^9 ppm
6.05 ppm
< 6.00 ppm
6.lU ppm
3.^6 ppm
< 6.00 ppm
7.^5 ppm
22.99 ppm
6.59 ppm
SEP 2 9 1971
THI- llNivr.nsrrv or NUKTU CAROLINA. Willium Friday, 1'ri-siilvMl. ounpriM-,: Nmi/i (\irnliiui Stale Um'irrsiiv
-------
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden Page 2 of 2
Detection system: Ortec 10 mm Low Energy Photon Detector
coupled to a RIDL ^00 channel analyzer.
i
If you have any questions about this report, please call (919)
755-2323.
'Jack Weaver
JW:lpe NAA and Isotope Specialist
-------
APPENDIX C
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
i
AT RALEIGH
ENERGY SERVICES
GINEERTNC AND EXPERIMENTATION DIVISION
Box 5636 ZIP 27607
DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
September 28, 1971
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden
Environmental Protection Agency
Source and Emission Testing Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Dear Mr. von Lehmden:
Report #26794-D
Enclosed are the results of the neutron activation analysis for
Hg in sludge incinerator samples from Barstow, California and Fairfax,
Virginia. Table 1 and 2 snow the results respectively.
TABLE #1
Barstow, Calif. Sludge Incinerator
Mercury Content
Sample Description
EPA #86 Scrubber Inlet - Test 1
EPA #87 Scrubber Outlet - Test 1
EPA #88 Scrubber Inlet - Test 2
EPA #89 Scrubber Outlet - Test 2
EPA #90 Scrubber Inlet - Test 3
EPA #91 Scrubber Outlet - Test 3
EPA #92 Sludge - Test 1
EPA #93 Sludge - Test 2
EPA #9U Sludge - Test 3
Antimony
< 0.01 ug/ml
< 0.01 ug/ml
< 0.01 ug/ml
< 0.01 ug/ml
< 0.01 ug/ml
< 0.01 ug/ml
4.87 ppm
2.k& ppm
2.60 ppm
TABLE #2
Fairfax County, Virginia
Sludge Incinerator
Sample Description
EPA #95 Incoming Sludge
EPA #96 Filtered Sludge
EPA #97 Incinerator Ash
Selenium
< 0.03 ug/ml
0.11 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
< 0.03 ug/ml
10.66 ppm
6.9^ ppm
9.21 ppm
Antimony
< 0.32 ppm
1.6l ppm
< O.lU ppm
Selenium
< 2.92 ppm
< 2.92 ppm
< ^.39 ppm
HE UNIVI.HSII v "H NIIIITII CAIUU.INA, \Villi:iin l-riilav, Prrsidfnl. dnii|iii\<-s: \r«ri/i Cinnliini Sidle (/imrr.M/v at /{n/ri^/i, tin' Universit
North (.'.arnlinii ill i'.liiijirl Hill, tin- t/iiirrrMly
-------
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden Page 2 of 2
Experimental Parameters;
Sample size: 1/3 gram and 0.3 ml
Irradiation tine: k hours
Flux: 3 x lO1^ n /cm sec.
Decay time: Approx. k days
Detection procedures: Instrumental NAA using a 10 mm Ortec
Low Energy Photon Detector coupled to a RIDL ^00 channel
analyzer.
Data evaluation: Quantitative analysis was performed using
the 80.25 KeV photopeak of Hg-197.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call (919)
755-2323.
Sincerely,
Jack Weaver
JWrlpe " NAA and Isotope Specialist
-------
APPENDIX D
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
AT RALEIGH
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES
ENGINEERING AND EXPERIMENTATION DIVISION
Box 5636 ZIP 27607
DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
October 4S 1971
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden
Environmental Protection Agency
Source and Emission Testing Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Report #26794-E
Dear Mr. von Lehmden:
Enclosed are the results of the neutron activation of sludge incinera-
tor samples analyzed for arsenic content. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the values
found.
Table 1
South Lake Tahoe Sludge Incinerator
Sample Description
#71 Scrubber HO Inlet 3:30 p.m. 7/15/71
#72 Scrubber H«0 Inlet 7:45 p.m. 7/15/71
#73 Scrubber H^O Inlet 9:45 a.m. 7/16/71
#74 Scrubber H.O Outlet 4:00 p.m. 7/15/71
#75 Scrubber 1O) Outlet 7:20 p.m. 7/15/71
#76 Scrubber 1O> Outlet 9:50 p.m. 7/16/71
#77 Sludge Cake 3:45 p.m. 7/15/71
#78 Sludge Cake 4:45 P.m. 7/15/71
#79 Sludge Cake 7:20 p.m. 7/15/71
#80 Sludge Cake 7:50 p.m. 7/15/71
#81 Sludge Cake 9:40 a.m. 7/16/71
#82 Sludge Cake 10:20 a.m. 7/16/71
#83 Incinerator Ash 4:00 p.m. 7/15/71 •
#84 Incinerator Ash 7:35 p..m. 7/15/71
#85 Incinerator Ash 7/16/71
Arsenic Content
<0.05 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
21.69 ppm
40.64 ppm
21.67 ppm
27.82 ppm
21.52 ppm
15.65 ppm
27.48 ppm
25.47 ppm
23.50 ppm
Table 2
Barstow, California Sludge Incinerator
EPA #86 Scrubber Inlet - Test 1
EPA #87 Scrubber Outlet - Test 1
EPA #88 Scrubber Inlet - Test 2
EPA #89 Scrubber Outlet - Test 2
EPA #90 Scrubber Inlet - Test 3
EPA #91 Scrubber Outlet - Test 3
EPA #92 Sludge - Test 1
EPA #93 Sludge - Test 2
EPA #94 Sludge - Test 3
t'rid:iv, President. ciiin|iiivs:
1*111- UNIVI'IIMIV 01 Nmirii (,'AHOI.INA, \\'<\
Nurlli ('uKi.'i'ini (II C'lujM1/ Hill, tin1 (/uiri'r\ilv n\ \inllt (.'.uniliiiii ul liwii\l"nii i//i
(In1 HnivKT\ity nj fs'url'; Curiiliuti ul Asficri/Ir, mul lln' llnnfi\n\ nj ,'
<0.05 ug/ml
0.40 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
0.79 ug/ml
<0.05 ug/ml
0.31 ug/ml
15.27 ppm
8.51 ppm
6.59 ppm
(..'.IP
i\(ir(/i C,ur
-------
Mr. Darryl von Lehmden Page 2 October 4, 1971
Table 3
Fairfax County, Virginia Sludge Incinerator
Sample Description Arsenic Content
EPA #95 Incoming Sludge 41.26 ppm
EPA #96 Filtered Sludge 55.56 ppm
EPA #97 Incinerator Ash 17.68 ppm
Experimental
Sample size: Approximately % gram and \ ml
Irradiation Time: 3 hours
Flux: 2 x 10 "n/cm - sec
Decay Time: 36 hours
Detection System: 10 minute count on GB (li) coupled to an RIDL 900 channel
analyzer.
^
If you have any questions, please call me at 919-755-3347.
Sincerely,
'Jack Weaver
NAA and Isotope Specialist
JW/lrt
U6
-------
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY REPORT
THE IMPACT OF SLUDGE INCINERATION
ON AIR AND LAND
B. V. SALOTTO
J. B. FARRELL
Prepared for EPA Task Force on Sludge Incineration
July 12, 1971
-------
THE IMPACT OF SLUDGE INCINERATION ON AIR AND LAND
As more or larger sewage treatment plants go on stream, the quantities
of sludge to be disposed of will increase in the coming years. Incineration
of sludge will receive more attention as a method of disposal particularly
if future regulations make ocean disposal more expensive or prohibitive.
Before a true assessment of the impact of sludge incineration can "be made,
it is necessary to have as much information as possible on the characteristics
and production of sewage sludges to be incinerated. This report is a pre-
liminary document which provides information on the components of sludge and
the effects these may have on air and land if incineration is used. It has
been prepared without an in-depth review of the literature and should not be
considered the state-of-the-art.
I. Material Removed by Sewage Treatment
Primary treatment settles out most of the suspended solid material in
sewage as primary sludge, which is 65 to 75 percent combustible. The ash
contains stable inorganic constituents. Primary effluent contains soluble or-
ganic and inorganic materials plus some suspended solids. Purpose of secondary
treatment is to oxidize soluble organics by action of microorganisms. In the
process, the mass of microorganisms increases and a portion must be wasted,
generally as a dilute sludge. Final effluent from the clarifier contains
from 2 to 15 percent of the original BOD or COD of the waste stream. Major
dissolved inorganic ions are RHr, Ca, Mg, Na, K, SOi , HOO and Cl.
Nutrients such as.ai^rogen and phosphorus are partly removed by the sludge
produced by the treatment process. The degree of removal is never uniform. In-
formation on suspended solids, COD, nitrogen and phosphorus removals occurring
-------
in conventional treatment has been culled from various sources' ' '^' ' and
is listed in Table I.
The fate of heavy metals such as copper, chromium, nickel, and zinc
through sewage treatment process has been reported^ . Four plants were
selected vhere the receipt of these metals vas thought to be high. Incoming
and outcoming concentrations of these metals are shown for the four municipal
plants in Table II. The receipt of these metals did not significantly affect
the treatment efficiency, but it is interesting to note that the sludges
captured and Immobilized appreciable amounts especially of chromium and zinc,,
II. Quantities and Major Components of Sludge
Sewage sludge is a brc^wn to blackish, amorphous, heterogeneous, non-
I
newtonian liquid containing dissolved, colloidal, and suspended solids „ Its
physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics are largely dependent
on source of waste, type of treatment producing the sludge, and subsequent
sludge treatment. Depending on its origin, sludge is designated as primary,
waste activated or filter humus. It is called "raw" sludge unless it has been
stabilized by processes such as digestion or heat treatment. Water content
ranges from about 85 to 99.9 percent. It contains humus-like organic material
nitrogen and phosphorus (Compounds, sulfides, and such major elements as Si, la
K, Ca, Mg, Al, Fe, NH, , SO. and Cl. It contains a host of minor elements sueh
as Cr, Mn, Cu, Ni, Hg, Pb, Cd, Zn.
The quantity of domestic sludge produced in the United States has been
estimated from information given in Fair et al^ '. The calculation is illus-
trated in Table I£I and given in condensed form below:
Basis; 1 million gallons of sewage (10,000 capita)
Raw* Digested*
primary 1190 Ib. 576 Ib.
waste acjtivated(W.A.S.) 660 Ib.
primary & W.A.S. 1850 Ib. 890 Ib.
i
*dry solids basis
-------
Ibr estimating purposes, approximate sludge production is about
one ton per million gallons of sewage. Based on the estimate that the
per capita production of sewage is 100 gallons per day, 10,000 people will
produce one million gallons of sewage and one ton (dry basis) of sludge
per day. If the sludge is digested throughly, the sludge mass will be
reduced to 1000 pounds per day.
The Federation of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association - Manual
(7)
of Practice No. 2X provides information given in (Dable IV on the content
of major components of various type sludges. As the table shows, sludges
contain about 70 percent volatile matter before digestion. This figure
drops to about 50 percent after digestion. Ash content of sludge is higher
than might be expected, mostly because of the presence of particulate mineral
matter (sand and clay). Digested sludge is very high in ash because the sludge
loses only volatile matter during digestion. Grease and fat are highly vari-
able. Protein content of waste activated sludge is high because the sludge .
contains a large proportion of bacterial cells.
The heat of combustion of sludges depends largely on the proportion of
/Q\
volatile solids. Table V, which has been taken from Burd^ ' , shows the range
of values encountered. Heat of combustion is best determined by measurement
in a bomb calorimeter. However, it can be calculated from the elemental analysis
A .?'* -or estimated from the volatile solids content • .
HI. Metals and Other Elements in Sludge
Characteristics of sludges vary from plant to plant and from region to
region. As to be expected, the metals content of sludges vary greatly. Analy-
ses are summarized in Table VI. A more complete form of this table, showing
50
-------
sources of the data as veil as range and number of measurements averaged,
is given as Appendix Table A-l. These analyses represent samples taken
from treatment plants mostly from the Midwest with a few from the West Coast.
Much more data yet remain to be collected. Analyses were found for 31 ele-
ments, many in trace amounts and determined by emission spark spectrograph.
Not surprisingly, the major elements are calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium, aluminum, iron, zinc, sulfur, and silicon. Sodium and potassium
do not form precipitates under the conditions of wastewater treatment. They
very likely were present in the aqueous phases and precipitated as the sludge
was dried for analysis. Titanium is an unexpectedly major element found in
sludge.
The Rockford, Illinois sewage treatment plant is located in a metal
fabrication industrial area^' and the following table illustrates what
metal content can be expected in the types of sludge produced by the plant:
Metal Content of Sludges at Rockford
Sludge Type
Primary (mg/g)
Secondary (mg/g)
Trickling Filter (mg/g)
Digesting Sludge (mg/g)
Filtrate from Digesting Sludge,
thru 0.1*5 ^ filter (mg/l)
Concentration in Sludge (mg/g)
Chromium Copper Zinc Nickel
5 2 11 0.5
7 k 8 0.8
18 13 IT 3
8 2 10 0.5
0.8
1.0
0.7 nil
A comparison of the concentrations of the metals in this table with the data
for the same metals in Table VI, indicate that a concentration of metal-working
or electroplating industry can increase the content of certain metals in the
51
-------
sludge by two or threefold. The low concentration of the metals in filtrate
from digesting sludge indicate that the metals are present in insoluble form.
IV. Air Pollution From Sludge Incineration
Table VI shows the presence of metals which could be very toxic, such as
lead, cadmium, beryllium, arsenic, mercury, vanadium, nickel, manganese, and
chromium. Unfortunately, very little information is on hand with respect to
amounts of metals being discharged into the atmosphere as a result of inciner-
ating sludge. Cross, Drago, and Francis/ ' reported the following mass emission
rates of 7 metals per ton of mixed sludge plus refuse burned:
BOESSION RATE: GRAMS/TON OF MATERIAL INCINERATED
[ncinerator
joading
Condition
Refuse Wt. Ratio
and 3.5 to 1
Sludge
Total
Barticu-
lates
3282 g/ton
% 100.0
Cu
25-9
0.79
Ni
2.2
.061
Zn
81.7
2.5
Fe
3^.0
1.0
Fb
1*3.6
1.3
Cr
U.I
0.12
Cd
0.26
0.008
The data show that, although the particulate loading is low relative to the totai
charge, metals probably originating from industrial waste or sludge are present
in noticeable quantities in the particulates. The data do not permit a reliable
estimate to be made of the contribution of the sludge to the metal found in the
particulates.
Mercury is an example of a substance which presents special problems during-
incineration. High temperatures during incineration decompose mercury compounds
to volatile mercuric oxide or metallic mercury. Fortunately, the quantity of mer-
(12)
cury involved is small. Dean obtained an estimate from an incinerator
manufacturer that approximately UOOO tons per day of sludge, are incinerated. If
the average Hg concentration in the sludge is 0.01 mg/g, eighty pounds of mercury.
would be expelled into the atmosphere over the United States. This amount is
insignificant, particularly in light of the estimated 3000 tons per day of mer-
cury which is discharged into the atmosphere from the burning of coal over the
52
-------
earth*"'.
The forms in which metals are found in sludge will influence their
behavior on incineration. For example, if cadmium is present in the sludge,
in solution as cadmium chloride, it could volatilize upon incineration. If
it is present as a precipitated hydroxide, it would probably decompose to
the oxide, but would not volatilize at the temperatures of incineration.
Die chemistry of the metals in sludges needs investigation. However, it
is felt that most of the toxic metals with the exception of mercury will not
disproportionately appear in stack gases because of volatilization, but will
be converted to oxides and appear in the particulates removed by scrubbers
or electrostatic precipitators and in the ash.
Gaseous pollutants which could be released by sludge incineration are
hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide.
Carbon monoxide i's no threat if the incinerator is properly designed and
operated. Hydrogen chloride, which would, be generated by decomposition of
certain plastics, is no problem at all, because the plastics are not presently
discharged into severs. Consideration of the possibility of S0_ and NO
£. X
pollution is aided by examination of the sulfur and nitrogen content of sludges.
(lU)
Unterberg, et alv ' give the following average analyses of four sludges:
% Ash 22.6
£ C 50.3
#H 5.7
% S 0.6?
# N 3.07
Sulfur content is relatively low. In addition, much of this sulfur is
probably in the form of sulfate, which originated in the wastewater. Sulfur
dioxide is not expected to be a serious problem.
The temperature in sludge incineration is typically less than l800°F.
ohese temperatures, formation of oxides of nitrogen from the nitrogen in
53
-------
the air is lov. However, sludge typically has a high nitrogen content,
probably from proteinaceous compounds and ammonium ion. Data are not ,
available for predicting whether a high proportion of these materials will
be converted to oxides of nitrogen on combustion. larrell^ ' has examined
limited data available and noted that concentration of oxides of nitrogen
from sludge incineration were less than 100 ppm. Considering this low con-
centration, the much higher concentrations obtained in coal burning, and
the small amount of sludge incinerated relative to coal, he concluded that
the production of oxides of nitrogen will probably not limit the use of in-
cineration for disposing of sludges.
In addition to the major air pollutants resulting from the burning of
sludge, toxic substances can arise due to the content of pesticides or other
organic compounds in the sludge^ . Very little information is available
on specific organic compounds in sludge. Ihere is, however, a limited amount
.of information on pesticides in sludge. Sludge samples from two wastewater
treatment plants were subjected to electron-capture gas chromatographic
analysis by EPA chemists, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory,
(17)
Cincinnati, Ohio, who reported the following resultsv ":
Insecticide
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDD
PCB-Arochlor 125U
Little Ferry,
New Jersey
ppm
0.30
9M
0.97
6.2 to 6.6
Madison - Chatham,
New Jersey
Sample #1
ppm
0.21
6.56
o.Us
1.5 to 1.7
Sample -^2
ppm
0.17
7.26
O.Us
3.1 to 3.3
T-? fate of these substances during incineration is not known. Despite their
r'r Biological activity, they are stable to oxidatibn and could possibly be vapor-
ized rather than decomposed during incineration.
5U
-------
V. Pollution of Land or Water
As mentioned before, the ash remaining from incineration amounts to
15 to U5 percent1 of the total dry mass of the sludge, depending on the type
of sludge being Incinerated. The disposal of the ash could pose a pollutional
threat to land or water. Consequently, physical and chemical characteristics
of the ash and solubility of its salts need to be known. Dr. D. H. Gray of
/-.ox
the University of Michigan*1 ' reports the chemical and physical analysis
of sludge ash from six waste treatment plants around the country. These
i
data are shown in Tables VII and VIII.
Dr. Gray's data show that the major components of ash, reported as
oxides, are silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, and phosphorus. The ashes
are moderately tiasic, and have water solubility under about 2,0 weight percent
i
when the ash is leached with about 20 times its mass of water. The silicon,
aluminum, iron,.phosphorus, and>most of the calcium are probably fixed in
highly insoluble form. The sodium, potassium, and some of the calcium could
probably be leached avay as hydroxides.
VI. Future Information Needs
Characteristics of sludges to be incinerated vary a great deal. Con-
sequently, information on properties of sludges should be obtained from local-
ities throughout the country. Availability of analyses of various type sludges
should aid in development or planning of an incineration program. Analysis of
sludges should be complete and especially extended to determinations of minor
•
trace elements, pesticides, mercury, and the like. Much more information on
sludge analyses; than here presented is scattered throughout the literature.
A literature survey or personal inquiries should unearth a multitude of facts.
Informatioh is needed on properties of the ash that is produced as a result
... incineration. Ash should be exposed to simulated or actual landfill conditions
55
-------
to determine the degree of hazard it presents to the environment. Bie
landfill disposal of a sludge ash would be a meaningless gesture if the
leachate from the landfill area polluted a nearby stream.
Die chemistry of the potentially hazardous substances in sludge should
be investigated by literature study arid experimentation so that predictions
can be made of their behavior upon incineration. Material balances on major
and minor constituents of sludge should be made on existing incinerators to
provide badly needed empirical knowledge and to check validity of predictions.
As an ultimate goal of our informational needs, it should be possible
to predict accurately the fate of toxic metals, pesticides, and other hazard-
ous substances in wastewater treatment including ultimate disposal of residues.
The proportion of these substances that is removed as sludge in various types
of vaste treatment processes should be known, as well as their behavior on
incineration.
B. V. Salotto
Dr. J. B. larrell
56
-------
1. Barth, E. F., Mulbarger, M. C., Salotto, B. V., and Ettinger, M. B.,
"Removal of Nitrogen "by Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants," JWPCF
1208 (July 1966) .
2. Barth, E. P., Jackson, B. N., Lewis, R. F., and Brenner, R. C., "Phosphorus
Removal from Wastewater by Direct Dosing of Aluminate to a Trickling Filter,"
JWPCF Jn(n), 1932 (NOV. 1969).
3. Barth, E. F., and Ettinger, M. B., "Mineral Controlled Phosphorus Removal
in Activated Sludge Process," JWPCF 22(8), 1362 (Aug. 196?). *'
U. Barth, E. F., Brenner, R. C., and Lewis, R. F., "Chemical-Biological
Control of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wastewater Effluent," JWPCF *4O(l2),
2<&0 (Dec. 1968).
5. Barth, E. F., English, J. N., Salotto, B. V., Jackson, B. N., and Ettinger, M.
"Field Survey of Four Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Receiving Metallic
Wastes," JWPCF 37(8), 1101 (Aug. 1965).
6. Fair, G. M., Geyer, J. C., and Okum, D. A., Water and Wastewater Engineering,
Vol. 2: "Water Purification and Wastewater Treatment and Treatment and
Disposal," pp. 36-6 to 36-8, J. Wiley and Sons, N.Y. (1968).
7. Federation of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association — Manual of Practice
No. 2, p. 26 (Oct.
8. Burd, R. S., "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal," U. S. Dept. of
Interior, FWPCA Water Poll. Control Research Series WP-20-U (May 1968) .
9. Balakrishnan, S., Williamson, D. E., and Okey, R. W«, "State of the Art
Review on Sludge Incineration Practice," U. S.Dept. of Interior, FtfQA,
Water Poll. Control Research Series 17070DIV Oh/JQ.
10. Niemitz, W., "The Heat of Combustion of Sludge and Its Relation to Other
Sludge Parameters," Wasser-Abwasser (German) 106(50), 1392 (Dec. 1965).
11. Cross, F. L., Jr., Drago, R. J., and Francis, H. E., "Metal and Particulate
Emissions from Incinerators Burning Sewage Sludge and Mixed Refuse,"
Proc. of the 1970 National Incinerator Conference, ASMS, Cincinnati, Ohio
(May 1970) .
12. R. B. Dean to R. Schaffer, Internal EPA memo, "Quantity of Mercury Produced
by Sludge Incineration," (Jan. 22, 1971).
13. Joensuu, 0. I., "Fossil Fuels As a Source of Mercury Pollution," Science
172, 1027 (4 June 1971).
57
-------
14. Unterberg, W., Sherwood, R. J., Schneider, G. R., "Computer Subroutine
for Design and Cost Estimation of Multiple Hearth Furnace Sewage Sludge
Incinerators," Draft Report FWQA Contract llt-12-5^7 (Dec. 1970).
15. J. B. Farrell to R. B. Dean, Internal EPA memo, "Oxides of Nitrogen in
Stack Gases from Incineration of Sludges," (Nov. 18, 1970)*
3£. National Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association, Air Pollution
Primer, New York (1969).
17* H. W. Boyle to R. T. Williams, Internal EPA memo, "Analysis of Sludge
for Chlorinated Insecticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls," (Kay 12, 1971).
18. Gray, D. H., Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Progress
Report, USPHS Grant No. ROl-EC-00317-01 (July 1970).
-------
SABLE I
MATERIALS REMOVED BY CONVENTIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
Treatment
Plant
Bryan, Ohio
Richmond, Indiana
Rockford, Illinois
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Fairborn, Ohio
Archbold, Ohio
Pilot Plant *
Pilot Plant *
Percent Removals
Suspended
Solids
87
86
58
56
61
85
95
92
COD
9k
90
61
6l
69
83
89
81
Nitrogen
61
16
13
30
38
53
l»0
33
Phosphorus
0*
-
-
-
-
IT
to
25
* Facilities at R. A. Taft Water Research Center.
59
-------
II
JME OF METALS THROUGH SEWAGE TREATMENT PROCESS
Bryan , Ohio (5 -Day Com
Metal
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Influent Sevage, mg/1
Average
0.8
0.2
0.05
2.2
Range
0.6-1.1
0.2-0.3
0,03-0.1
1.4-3.0
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
3.6
1.4
2.0
.1.5
0.7-5.6
0.7-2.4
1.3-3.4
0.6-2.5
positing Period).
Final Effluent, mg/1
Average
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.2
Range
0.2-0.3
0.04-0.1
0.03-0.1
0.2-0.3
Percent
Immobilized
in Sludge
•
(14-Day Compositing Period)
2.5
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0-3.3 .
0.4-2.9
1.0-2.5
0.6-1.2
40
16
12
58
Richmond, Indiana (14-Day Compositing Period)
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
0.8
0.2
0.03
0.3
0.2-2.1
0.1-0.4
0.01-0.1
0.1-0.5
0.2
0.07
0.02
0.1
Rockford, Illinois (13-Day Compos^
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
1.8
1.4
0.9
2.7
0.5-2.9
0.6-3.3
0.2-1.9
1.2-3.4
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.3
0.01-0.5
0.04-0.2
0.01-0.03
0.1-0.2
82
T3
78
85
iting Period)
0.6-1.5
0.5-3.6
0.5-1.4
0.8-1.7
37
23
8
53
60
-------
III
Basic: 1 nillion gallons of domestic vastewater
Quantities Before Direction
1 ng of .
vastevratc-r
Pricary Settling
Activated Sludge Clarifier
y
Primary Sludge
1190 Ib. solids.
If $£ solids, 2830 gal.
Waste Activated Sludge
660 Ib. solids.
If !.:# solids, 5250 52
Quantities After Anaerob?.c Bisection
If primary only
is digested,
«
If primary and W.A.S. are coibij-.ei,
1850 Ib. solids.
If h.yfr solids, U8SO gal.
Digestion J
576 Ib.
If 15^ solids, 673
Digestion
8$£ Ib.
If YP eolids, 1930 gal.
-- Wier;e quantities vere taken fron an example ir. Fair, G. M, , Gcyer, J. C.
- jir.i OlrtTj, l)t A., "VJater and V^ast-jv-ater J^igineerins, Vol. 2: V?ater Purifica-
tion ?r
-------
OABLE IV
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF SLUDGE*
Constituent
Volatile Matter
Ash
Insoluble Ash
Greases & Pats
Protein
NH^NO
?2°5
K20
s±o2
Fe
Cellulose
types of Sludge
Raw
Primary
60-80
20-40
17-35
7-35
22-28
1-3.5
1-1.5
10-13
Digested
45-60
40-45
35-50
3-17
16-21
1-4
0.5-3.7
0-4
20-22
5.4
10-13
Waste
Activated
62-75
25-38
22-30
5-12
32-41
4-7
3-4
0.86
12
7.1
7.8
Filter Cake
Raw
55-75
25-45
15-30
5-30
20-25
1.3
1.4
8-10
Digested
40-60
40-60
30-45
2-15
14-30
1.3-1.6
0.5-3.5
8-12
*A11 data are presented on a dry basis.
62
-------
TABLE V
HIGH HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF SLUDGES* (TOTAL DRY SOUPS BASIS)
Material
Grease and scum
Raw sevage solids
Pine screenings
Ground garbage
Digested sevage solids
and ground garbage
Digested sludge
Grit
Combustibles
(«
88.5
74. 0
86. 1*
84.8
49.6
59.6
33.2
Ash
ai
11.5
26.0
13.6
15.2
50.4
40.4
69.8
B.t.u. /Pound
16,150
10,285
8,990
8,245
8,020
5,290
4,000
*Source: Burd, R. S., "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal",
U. S. Dept. Int., JVPCA, p. 248, WPG Research Series
WP-20-4 (May 1968).
63
-------
TABLE VI
Element
AlimHrniTn
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Gallium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
SUMMARY OP MAJCR AND MINOR ELEMENTS
(mg/g
Primary
Sludge
5.1
n.a.*
< 1.2
2.2
0.0025
0.10
< 0.19
n.a.
2.0
0.22
2.0
0.06
16.1
1.0
10.6
0.78
0.005
0.36
0.52
3.8
n.a.
n.a.
0.2U
1*.0
0.13
n.a.
0.95
1U.8
2.1
6.9
1.7
dried sludge)
Activated
Sludge
10.0
n.a.
1.2
1.2
0.0035
0.070
0.35
13.0
*.3
0.002
1.1
0.05
k). 5
1.5
7.0
0.31
0.02
0.20
0.38
19.9
h.2
Uo.o
0.15
k.k
0.16
10.1
0.50
11.8
0.7
3.3
10.0
IN SLUDGE
Digested
Sludge
17-9
0.9
n.a.
1.1*
0.0025
0.01(6
0.26
33.5
2.3
n.a.
1.6
0.05
30.6
1.9
7-5
0.98
n.a.
0.25
0.38
12.8
2.8
162
0.20
6.2
0.26
12.3
0.60
lk.2
5.2
U.O
2.0
*n.a. - not available.
-------
TABLE VII - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SEWAGE SLUDGE ASHES
Source of Ash
Pontiac (Mich.)
St. Paul (Minn.)
Kansas City (Mo.)
Saginaw (Mich.)
South Tahos (Cal.)
Cromwell (Conn.)
Chemical Composition - per Cent By Weight
Si02
32.54
24.87
57.67
28.18
23.85
14.39
A12°3
9.60
13.48
15.00
4.63
16.34
4.73
Pe;2°3
j
9.47
10.81
8.50
8.68
3.44
24.40
MgO
2.07
2.61
0.85
2.20
2.12
1.35
Cao
36.92
33.35
8.64
29.86
29.76
26.39
Free
Cao
1.12
1.06
0.03
1.62
1.16
0.26
Na20
0.41
0.26
0.45
0.32
0.73
0.13
K20
0.66
0.12
0.35
0.07
0.14
0.07
B
0.015
0.006
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
P2.°5
7.01
9.88
4.43
3.86
6.87
8.63
so3
0.01
2.71
3.42
2.87
2.79
1.68
Loss
On
Ignition
1.0
1.62
0.31
15.13
2.59
14.67
-------
!EABLE Vlli - SUMMARY OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES' OF SLUDGE ASHES
Source
of
Ash
Pontiac
(Mich.)
St. Paul
(Minn.)
Kansas City
(MO . )
South Tahoe
(Calif.)
Saginaw
(Mich.)
Cromwell
(Conn.)
Cuyahoga
(Ohio)
Ann Arbor
(Mich.)
Natural
Moisture
Content
0.2
1.2
0.2
0.3
0.8
64.7
0.2
0.1
Specific
Gravity
2.95
2.85
2.44
2.87
2.77
2.85
2.96
2.75
Grain Size
Distribution
(M.I.T. Scale)
Sand Si3t Clay
7 93 0
53 47 0 .
24 69 7
14 86 0
17 82 1
15 72 13
6 94 0
25 69 6
PH(1)
11.9
10.7
11.3
12.8
10.7
.11.5
11.5
Water
Soluble
Salts
?(3,
0.22
0.87
*
0
1.52
»
1.16
Electrical (2)
Conductivity of
Ash Leachate
(/#. mho s/cm)
452
1740
831
3615
^094
1696
1492
2252
Notes;
(1) Measured on a settled suspension with an ash to dist. water ratio of 1:5.
(2) 125 gms. of ash leached with 2 liters of dist. water.
(3) Some samples increased in weight after leaching; this may have been caused by
hydration of certain ash constituents such as the free lime..
-------
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OF MAJOR AND MINOR ELEMENTS IN SLUDGE*
(MILLIGRAM PER GRAM DRIED SLUDGE)
Elemental
Analysis
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Pe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Mo
Nl
P
K
Si
Ag
m
Sr
S
Sra
Ti
V
Zn
Zr
Ga
Primary Sludge
Average Range No. in
Sample
5.10
< 1.24
2.25
0.0025
0.104
-< 0.188
2.05
0.217
2.00
16.1
1.01
10.6
0.781
0.0046
0.362
0.522
3.78
0.243
3.96
0.13
0.95
14.8
2.09
6.87
1.72
0.063
10.78-1.83
<1.49-<0.83
5.0-0.11
0.0030^0017
0.15-0.07
<0. 30-fl 0034
9.0-0.08
0.5-.05
6.0-Q0083
20.0-2.85
2.14-0.33
15.0-5.0
1.0-.16
0.006-.0030
1.0-.05
2.0-.0014
6.83-1.49
1.0-.08
10. -0.5
0.14-0.12
2.0-0.5
20. -5.0
15. -0.3
35. -.3**
10.9-0.3
0.1-.01
3
3
11
3
11
4
15
6
17
12
3
8
11
2
11
17
3
11
8
3
8
8
11
18
8
7
Activated Sludge
Average Range No. in
Sample
10.0
1.20
1.15
0.0035
0.070
0.35
13.0
4.31
0.0016
1.10
40.5
1.52
7.04
0.310
0.016
0.197
0.378
19.9
4.21
39.5
0.150
4.44
0.155
10.1
0.5
11.8
0.70
3.29
10.0
0.05
17.0-4.35
2. 22-. 101
3.0-.22
.0044-. 0026
.22-. 006
.44-.26
18.0-9.0
17. -0.1
.0016
2. 6-. 372
96.6-4.83
2. 09-. 51
10.9-3.01
.93-. 065
.020=. 012
0.89-.005
200=004
32.2-11.07
1, 16=2., 49
39.5
.22=0.1
7.88=1.0
0.21-.10
11.6=7.6
0.5
20. -.50
0.89=0.51
6. 3-. 13
10.0
.05
3
3
4
2
9
2
7
8
1
1-3
9
3
7
9
2
8
8
8
6
1
3
2
2
6
1
3
3
b
i
i
Digested Sludge
Average Range No. in
Sample
17.86
0.897
1.36
0.0025
o.o46
0.264
33.5
2.28
1.65
30.65
1.89
7.49
10.976
JO. 254
JO. 372
12.75
2.76
162.
jO.195
!6.15
,0.26
12.3
iO.60
14.2
5.20
4.04
2.03
0.05
36-7.75
.984-. 81
4. 01-. 10
.0065-. 0012
.149-. 003
.50-. ooi
112. -4. 9
11.0-.10
16.0-.10
60.6-10.09
7. 52°. 18
13.0-1.0
6. 04-. 06
1.29=. 002
3.0-.03
25.13-1.18
6. 15-. 83
33^. -73-
:50-.08
10. -2.0
.26
32.5-1.64
.70-. 50
20. -1.0
10. -.32
11. -.5
5.0-.10
.05-. 05
4
2
15
11
17
10
15
28
39
19
18
17
17
24
27
15
13
3
4
5
1
14
3
3
4
39
3
3
from the following sources: (See attached reference list)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE A-l
SUMMARY DATA OF TABLE
WERE DERIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
1. U. S. Dept. Health, Education, and Welfare, "Land Reclamation Project—
An Interim Report," Grant No. DO-01-00089 (USPHS)-, 1968.
2. J. F. Kopp to B. V. Salotto, Internal EPA memo, "Spectrographic Trace
Metal Analysis of Dried Sludge Samples," (March 30, 1971)-
3. Anderson, M. S., "Sewage Sludge for Soil Improvement," U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture Circular No. 972 (Nov. 1955)*
4. Balakrishnan, S., Williamson, D. E., and Okey, R. W., "State of the Art
Review on Sludge Incineration Practice," U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWQA,
WPC Research Series 17070 DIV 04/70.
5. Burd, R. S., "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal," U. S. Dept. of
Interior, WPC Research Series WP-20-4 (May 1968).
6. Thompson, R. M., Zajic, J. E., and Lichti, E., "Spectrographic Analysis
of Air-Dried Sewage Sludge," JWFCF 36(6), 752 (June 1964).
7. Anderson, M. S., "Comparison Analyses of Sewage Sludges," JWPCF 28(2),
133 (Feb. 1956).
8. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWQA, "Engineering Feasibility Demonstration
Study for Muskegon County, Michigan—Wastewater Treatment-Irrigation
System," WPC Research Series 11010 FMY 10/70.
9. B. R. Sacks to J. B. Farrell, Internal EPA memo, "Heavy Metal Analyses
of ORB Sediments and STP Sludges," (April 26, 1971).
10. B. V. Salotto to G. Walton, Internal HEW memo, "Heavy Metal Analyses of
Sludge from Quincy, Illinois"STP," (Sept. 9, 1963).
11. Barth, E. F., English, J. 3T., Salotto, B. V., Jackson, B. N., and
Ettinger, M. B., "Field Survey of Four Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants Receiving Metallic Wastes," JWPCF 37(8), 1101 (Aug. 1965).
12. Mather, P., "Experimental Work on the Treatment of Sewage and Sludge
Containing High Concentrations of Zinc," J. Inst. Sew. Purif., Part V,
474 (1964).
3.°,, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, "The Beneficial
Utilization of Liquid Fertilizer on Land," (Sept. 1968).
". , English, J. N., Barth, E. F., Salotto, B. V., and Ettinger, M. B.,
"A Slug of Chronic Acid Passes Through a Municipal Treatment Plant,"
?roc. 19th Purdue Industrial Waste Conf., Series 117, 493 (May 1964).
-------
APPENDIX F
REPORT OF EMISSION TESTS
MADE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
OF
THE NEW JERSEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL CODE
N.W. BERGEN SEWAGE AUTHORITY
WALDWICK, N.J.
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
BUREAU OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
MAY 20, 1971
-------
INCINERATOR EMISSION TEST
N.W. BERGEN SEWAGE AUTHORITY
WALDWICK, N.J.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this test was to determine whether the N.W. Bergen
Sewage Authority's Incinerator Stack emissions were within the
standards as prescribed by Chapter 11 of the Air Pollution Control
Code.
PERSONNEL:
The test was performed by personnel of the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution
Control. Those participating were:
Mark Pollak, Environmental Specialist.
Marvin Makler, Senior Environmental Quality Field Worker
. William Krimson, Environmental Quality Field Worker
Carl Wetterling, Environmental Quality Field Worker
The Department gratefully acknowledges the assistance and
cooperation of the Sewage Authority and expresses its appreciation
in particular to Mr. George Baer, Superintendent.
DATES OF TESTS:
May 3 and 4, 1971.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANT OPERATION:
The plant consists of primary settling, high rate biofiltration,
secondary settling and chlorination. The sludge is disposed
of by a thickening and incineration process.
The sludge is sprayed into a fluidized sand bed reactor (incinerator)
and burned. The ash and gases from this process rise to the top
of the incinerator, pass through a scrubber and are vented to a
stack. The ash from the scrubber is disposed of in a landfill
next to the plant.
PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS:
ant. records indicated that the incinerator was operating normally
r:-:? all test runs. The feed rate of solids to the incinerator
jr.ag the test runs was continuous at 650 pounds per hour. The
i>: u-;i designed burning rate is 1100 pounds per hour.
70
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURE:
Particulate:
The sampling was performed at approximately 13 feet above the
stack inlet from the scrubber.
The sampling train arrangement is detailed in the attached diagram
with the exception that the cyclone was not used. A stainless
steel "hutton-hook" nozzle is attached to a heated glass probe.
Connected in series to the nozzle and probe assembly are a dry
glass (heated) fibre filter, a modified Greenburg-Smith Impinger
(Condenser), a Greenburg-Smith Impinger with 100 ml of distilled
water, a modified G-S impinger (knock-put), a desiccant (Drierite),
a vacuum pump, a dry gas meter and an orifice meter. Prior to
each sampling run a 6 point velocity traverse was made at the
sampling location in order to determine isokinetic sampling rates.
CARBON .DIOXIDE:
Carbon dioxide was sampled simultaneously with the participate
sampling at the scrubber inlet. The sampling rate was set at
0.3 cubic feet per hour.
The sampling train consisted of a 1/8-inch O.D. stainless steel
probe, a condenser, a 14 liter aluminized plastic bag in an
evacuation bottle, a vacuum pump and a rotometer all connected
in series.
In order to determine the C02 concentration from the burning
sludge the auxiliary fuel from the bed guns were turned off and
C02 measurements were taken in the stack gases with a Fyrite C02
Sampler.
RESULTS:
:UN
DATE
5/3/71
5/4/71
5/4/71
S02%
(by vol.)
*
*
*
ODOR
(from S.)
None
None
None
SMOKE
(Ringl.)
< 1
< 1
< 1
C02(% by vol.)
(less aux. fuel)
4.0
5.1
4.0
Particulate
Concentration
(GRS/SCF@12%C02;
0.020
0.031
0.048
*Below detectable limits.
71
-------
CONCLUSIONS:
The test results indicated that the particulate concentration
in the incinerator stack gases were within the allowable
concentration as prescribed under Chapter 11 of the Air Pollution
Control Code.
Bernhardt V. Lind
Supervisor, Technical Services
Bureau of .Air Pollution Control
MP/BVL:jar
72
-------
SAMPLING TRAIN1 KITH EXTERNAL CYCLONE-IMPINGER ARRANCHMLNT
FICURI; s
Part 4, section II
73
-------
fi
Stainless steel probe
Condenser
Tygon tubings
Aluminized plastic
Bag
Leak-proof rigid
bottle
flow meter
vacuum pump
1KAGRAM OF CARBON D10XIDI- SAMPLING TRAIN
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
-------
STATE OP NEW JERSEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
STACK TESTING
FIELD DATA REPORT
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PLANT
STREET
CITY
STACK
N.J. No.
V/J K~<..rs.f, C-,,^~;b,,^^((
^ -_' -^£— 'ClA .^ ' .
O
///-.^Ax-l-sA.
't . - , -I- . - r ~fc -J X7.-£^.-/-
A,^:,,,^:^ x^>
CHAPTER No.
NOZZLE DIAMETER (inches)
DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (°P.)
#ET BULB TEMPERATURE (°P.)
WATER VAPOR BY VOLUME (£)
TEST MADE BY: 0 i .f/^,\
//
Xv
%0
78
^•f
-#2 DATE
RUN No.
TIME: START
FINISH
TEST PERIOD (minutes)
DRY GAS METER READING: START
FINISH
DRY GAS VOLUME ,rt;3)
CONDENSATE (ml.)
THIMBLE No.
FILTER No-
-0/V
/
3 '(» '&
3 /o&£
bo
W3.-?oc
.Qsri-x i^t
YC' ,Y^f
23-
A///?
A3/
DISTANCE FROM PORT TO SAMPLE POINT (inches)
1
%
2
-3/a
3
5"
4
/?-
5
/'•//,
6
/*#
7
8
9
10
11
12
I PORT
r
\
t"P?iT
5c..-rH
^7,
POINT
/
'utr .
3
y
. r
/,
/
2
3
'/
^"
c*
PITOT
AP
,21
. <(,.
.50
.^?
. r.z
, .
L ij 0
'/. /
/, /
/. .'
/, vo
/, 5V
/. -o
•• ^
» TOTAL =
. AVERAGE =
-•.-•4«^i trt..y/G
C-o
— .
b:2
?<*
(, o
L-O
(-.0
(. O
vfi?
. ', / C-'
. (.-.oo
. f'/$
.(. l(c
721
~JL£L
. t /fc
^LLt
. 6 1 (,
L 701
Lz^.
L f 7 -f
^^ II7..77I
S--o
( Ra f t N
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE:
-J£2P (°R.)
Vel = 2.48*V2\P T
m. 3 6.81 fpg
Vol = Vel x Area x 60
_ 3(^5 *^"O »«_
s ^" e? o '— ' f> J'JD
RECTANGULAR STACK OR
DUCT DIMENSIONS:
^ =>)
~^~
/^
7^ 4
-------
STATE 0? NEW JERSEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
STACK TESTING
FIELD DATA REPORT
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
PLANT
STREET
CITY
STACK
N.J. No.
V M & Kt.ru & St»**#Jfit*ti
U^Cofft #!//=
Ufa L £> is /ex
4uuvtKVTOI?.
Vfa
CHAPTER No.
NOZZLE DIAMETER (inches)
DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (°F.)
tfBT BULB TEMPERATURE (°F.)
WATER VAPOR BY VOLUME (#)
TEST MADE BY:
//
'fa
7?
72
/t.fr&AK'
DATE
RUN No.
TIME: START
FINISH
TEST PERIOD (minutes)
DRY GAS METER READING t START
FINISH
DRY GAS VOLUME .ft;3)
CONDENSATE (ml.)
THIMBLE No.
FILTER No.
"ffV/7/
2
9: 5S/IH
/o : IfflM
&0
<£fj^2.o;z.
\3 ? y • ? ^
y/. 7v/9
if
\ t///r
J^o
DISTANCE FROM PORT TO SAMPLE POINT (inches)
1
?/y
2
^
3
r
4
//
5
'y'/i
6
&fr
1
8
9
10
11
12
PORT
k
^
J
Mj
POIHT
/
3
V
. J"
^
/
z.
r»
t ?:
4
f '.
7jt
o
u ^
PITOT
AP
.70
-.30
- V'c?
-6>8
-.S"A
- */y
• yv
. ,2^
- 5-^
•i*4
.40
ORIFICE
AH
..&j-
rS't
-j^y
/ j?JL
/-9£~
/.££>
^/ ^^"
/-x?*/
-7S
/-^7
Z-kl_
/-?/
rReproduced from &
[best available_copy.J
*
- TOTAL =
STACK GAS
TEMP. °F.
7P
7/
•7
v
K
"7 ^*
~? ¥
7r
7«f
'•'.
^
~) JT
—-j CP
f^
2^
*?3£
7*
DRY GAS
TEMP. °F.
C^i ^**-
Cr^^o
/C Z-
£ 3-
/- at-
—£.?'
/* ->
_^«?
/ Z-
6s
v£?
-^
-Sys
-4VS^
~fce*-5"
-~}VS
^>d^,
,d/j6
"T^T-
7V
-------
STATE OP NEff JERSEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
STACK TESTING
FIELD DATA REPORT
PLANT
STREET
CITY
STACK
N,J. No.
Txs,£
CHAPTER No.
HOZZLE DIAMETER (inches)
DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (°F.)
fBT BULB TEMPERATURE (°P.)
WATER VAPOR BY VOLUME
TEST MADE BY:
1L
77
J-Y
DATE
RUN No.
TIME: START
FINISH
TEST PERIOD (minutes)
DRY GAS METER READING; START
FINISH
DRY GAS VOLUME fv
CONDENSATE (nl.)
THIMBLE No.
FILTER No.
57V/7/
3
K
DISTANCE FROM PORT TO SAMPLE POINT (inches)
1
3/x
2
zfi
3
vf
4
^
5
/X/2-
6
^y/
7
8
q
10
11
12
PORT
POINT
7
v
L_£
***
PITOT
AP
.57
ORIFICE
AH
AV7
/- / 7
STACK GAS
TEMP. °F.
7?
7?
= TOTAL =
AVEKAGfi =
DRY GAS
TEMP. °F.
--42.°
1 ?4A
..6.33
T22ZZDC
STACK DIAMETER:
_ (inches)
STACK AREA:
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE:
Vel * 2.48«\/Ap T
Vol = Vel x Area x 60
RECTANGULAR STACK OR
DUCT DIMENSIONS:
-7?
, "^/^
1
- ^|
z. 1..
-------
DEFINITIONS;
T = Flue gas temperature in degrees F.
i
V = Volume of gas sampled as measured by meter in cubic feet
m
T = Temperature at meter, in degrees F.
D = Diameter of sampling nozzle in inches
T = Duration of sampling time in minutes
Q = Percent moisture in flue gas expressed as a decimal
V = Sampling nozzle gas velocity in feet per second
V = Flue gas velocity at some given point in feet per second
S *
V. = Total gas sampled converted to flue conditions in cubic feet
A = Area of sampling nozzle in square feet
DERIVATION;
V
1. % Isokinetic Sampling = ^ x 100$
s
a: T_ . v*
n An x T x
;. A - *x(»n>2
n " 4 x '144
Substitute (3) for An in (2) to obtain (4).
V = / , 4X144 . „
n 77 x (Dn)2 x T x 60 fT* ™ ~
Substitute KX in (4) to obtain (5).
" V * _^ r v
' " r\ " O * "1
n (D)2 xT l
Y y
- *
n
(T * 460)
t m "• nm t 460) * T-7
(6) for Vt in (5) to obtain (7).
78
-------
rm x (Ta + 460)
e _
n (Dn)2 x (Tm + 460) x (1-Q) x T .
Substitute (7) for Vn in (1) to obtain (8)0
V s (T * 460) x 100
8. £ Isokinetic Sampling ,» 3 • • ^ ' • — — - —— — — — x K
* (T * 460) x (
9. Let: ^ « 3.055
Kg a 100
/'' K « K x K = 3.055 x 100
Substitute K, in (8) to obtain (10)
^
10o $ Isokinetic Sampling
(T * 460) x (1-Q) K T x V,
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
STACK SAMPLING
ISOKINETIC SAMPLING CALCULATIONS
PLANT
l/^1_
STREET
CITY
STACK
N.J. NO.
CHAPTER NO.
FIELD 5 LAB. DATA
DATE
Ts ( deg. F )
Vm ( CF )
Tm ( deg. F )
D ( inches )
T ( minutes )
Q ( » as a decimal )
»
Vs ( ft./ sec. )
\ ISOKINETIC SAMPLING
RUN 1
f/7/7/
to
Wrft
zv
.2,^0
&o
.67^-
3t.87
-------
LABORATORY REPORT - STACK SAMPLING
Air Pollution Control Program, New Jersey State Dept. of Health
Name of Company :^-' •" A V U • f --'\ ft .• y.: ^. • C-.. A -.\ ^ * ^ i- r fl J
Location
Stack De
Date Sam
Analysis
Samples
£'/r''/7 /•'•''
A.S. No.
3W
3944
3KS
zwt
3W7
&IW
•i
of Stack ~ ^ " 7 1 S ~L/ ~ ? /
'\ ^ I f >\
Required l,..^ C us c < v..<: ,.\i v- c, ci Q: f, L., (} ^
Collected by
'C'/.^^'f .-
Field No.
.t. v. i. •" ; '•
v '. v :, v1 .-.,
r*.-P-,v^,
VM^:-,-.J.,7/
—
- , , \\ m.
!rv\, v-K V • Date (s)
-:^ •
Run No.
-- r
.1
••7
._*-
^i_
?_
3-
-^>
RESULT OF ANALYSIS
.^ s'9 /") & is
fa/ f f.s *~ & &
ft, &&-i /
/|v:,c.0.
J
fte'1
ft* <(<
7'.,,-
'
'X
-------
a//-//
LABORATORY REPORT - STACK SAMPLING
Air Pollution Control Program, New Jersey State Dept. of Health
Location
Stack De
Date Sam
Analysis
Samples
(I'/y'tf /*{
A.S. No.
s <7 ^ ~* " ^ ^ ' S~ J-C 4?S-
Collected by
Field No.
Bttfl
Btl 42
Rl *3
*- { . '
M, POLLAK^ Date (s)
"~ i
Run No.
/
1
J
-
RESULT OF ANALYSIS
f,L
10, 6
ILO
Unit
i
X
i
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
Analysis by
1471
0 '
82
-------
CHAPTER XI: INCINERATORS
DERIVATION OF EI-3SSION CONCENTRATION FORMULA
DEFIKITION5S;
V.P. e Vapor pressure of water in inches of mercury
V. c Volume cf dry gas sampled at meter conditions in cubic feet
M = Volume cf moisture remaining in metered gas at meter conditions in cubic feet
Vt <= Weight of sample collected in grams
V = Volume of nas sairoled as measured by meter in cubic feet
n ° * "
T • = Temperature at meter in degrees F.
Pi
CC0 ' = Percent carbon dioxide in flue gas excluding contribution of auxiliary fuel
V,... ° Volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditions
C e Emission concentration of dry flue gas in grains per standard cubic foot at
standard conditions corrected to 12$ carbon dioxide by volume excluding the
contribution of auxiliary fuel
P, - Barometric pressure ir: inches of mercury
Standard conditions are defined as 70° F. (?30° R.) and one atmosphere pressure
(114.7 psia or 7^0 mm of mercury)
DERIVATION:
1. The emission concentration (grains per standard cubic foot) in flue gas from a
common or special incinerator is calculated for dry flue gas at standard conditions
corrected to 125? carbon dioxide by volume excluding the contribution of auxiliary
,fuel.
2. To convert the weight of sample collected in grams tc grains, multiply the weight
by l?.)43s
1?.U3 * Wt (2)
3. To calculate the volume of moisture remaining in the metered gas at meter
conditions, use the following equation:
M « *' '/ m (3)
„ m R
-------
To calculate the voluroo of dry gas sampled at meter conditions subtract the
volume of moisture remaining in the Tietered gas from the volume of gas sampled
as measured by meter:
v - v - M
'd m r.
Substitute (3) for !I in (U) to obtain
V.P. x V
V
6, To convert the vclune of dry gas sampled at neter conditions to the voluine of
dry gas sampled at standard conditions, use Charles' Law:
= v v
vd
530
(6)
SuhsUtuto (?) for Vd in (6) to obtain (7)
V -
71'.
V.P. x V
m
?b J
*30
X (T + I4CO)
Simplify (?) to obtain (8).
n.
r> to
r x vm x (r-b - V.P.)
(7)
(8)
?. To calculate the omission concentration in dry flue gas at standard conditions
uiicorrccted to 12% carbon dioxide by volume, divide (2) ~yy (8) to obtain (9):
. U3 x Wt x Pb x (T '+ U60)
530.x
- V.P.)
(9)
10. To correct the emission concentration in dry flue gas at standard conditions tc
IT/' carbon dioxide by volume excluding the contribution of auxiliary fuel, rrultipl^
(?) by' (12/CCO to obtain (10):
I5.!i3 x Wt x P x (T
n
x 12
530 x V^ x (?b - V.P.) x C02
11. Combine constant terms in (10) t$ obtain (11):
C.3l9h x Wt x P, x (T + U60)
om
(1C;
Vmx
'P- X00
(ID
-------
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
STACK TESTING
EMISSION CONCENTRATION REPORT
PLANT .
STREET
CITY
INCINERATOR
N.J. No.
CHAPTER No.
\
FELD & LAB DATA
DATE
Wt (grams)
P^ (inches of mercury)
Tm (degrees F.)
V (cubic feet)
m
P. . (inches of mercury)
V*F. (inches of mercury)
CCp (percent)
C (GRAINS/SCF)
ALLOWABLE (GRAINS/SO?)
RUN 1
0.0/61
$0
Yay^/
1 'A
&0M
RUK 2
ftvo3/6r
•&&*
J2i. _
_i^M.
-—
^./
/, r; ? /
i/ ' C -1 /
RUI7 3
O.Q'fiT
•%£
7^
3?'%^
.
y,c?
fi'04/
RUH li
•
RUN 5
•
i
0.3U914 x Vft
x (T + h6o)
m
CALCUUTI01IS PERFX)RI'ffiD BY:
DATE:
-------
APPENDIX G .
Region H Office
26 Federal Plaaa
Hew York, Hew York 10007
April 7, 1971
Disposal of Sewage Sludge
Dr. John T. Ifiddleton
Acting.CorsaiDsioner, APCO
1; The attached letter from the Director of the Interstate Sraiitation
Cccmscion stresses the immediate inportance of considering alternatives
to "the ocean dizains of sewage sludge. In this regard, it echoes an
April 3 editorial, in the He-,; York Tines which points out the need for
research and development work on such alternatives.
2, Because one obvious alternative involves incineration, with its
inherent air polliition potential, it is recpectfttlly suspected that the
Air Pollution Control Office cc:i>ine vith other interested IPA programs
to berjin an effort aincd at developing a method for cewaje cltidse
disposal iSiich docs not adversely affect aiv aspect of the environment.
This suggestion is in keeping vdth our nonorandun, to you, of llarch 9«
Kenneth L. Johnson
Regional Air Pollution Control Director
Attachment
86
-------
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019
AREA CODE 212-582-0380
COMMISSIONERS 5
NEW YORK
. NATALC COLOS1. PHvD. :
CHAIRMAN '
HENRY (..-DIAMOND :
CHESTER SCHWIMMER: :
MOSES SPATT. D.O.S. £
OLIVER J..TROSTER: -
NEW JERSEY
•ALVATORE A. »ONTCMPO-
JOSCPH J.BRENNAN '
JAMES R.XOWAN. M.D. :
LOUIS J.-FONTENELL1-
SAMUEL:?.-OWENT-.
COMMISSIONERS
CONNECTICUT
JOHN J. CURRY
FRANKLIN M. FOOTE. M.D.
ROBERT K. KILLIAN
J. LOUIS RADEL
JOHN S. WYPER
THOMAS R. GLENN. JR
DIRECTOR.CHItr ENGINEER
April 1, 1971
Mrlr .Kenneth L. Johnson, Director
Regional 'Air Pollution Control
Efivlronrnental Protection Agency-APCO
2@cFe~deral Plaza, Room 832
New.YOxk., New York - 10006
D&&. rMrv- Johnson:
TKe President's Environmental Quality Council recently
stated fthat the disposal of sewage sludge at sea should be
phased but as soon as possible and then stated that the
sMdge^should not be incinerated as it would cause an air
pollution problem. The Council did not recommend alterna-
tives £for these heavily urbanized areas.
IrJrNew Jersey, within our jurisdiction, there are eight
sewage ^treatment plants that dispose of their sludge by
bar-girig.;ten miles to sea. The total amount is about five
thousand -tons per day. Seven of these treatment plants are
under .orders by the State of New Jersey to upgrade their
treatment plants to full secondary treatment. The disposal
offstddge must be part of this overall project.
THer. ;Rahway Valley Treatment Plant is already under con-
sfetuxrtlon. The Linden-Rose lie Treatment Plant had its plans
completed, and approved but has now been asked to make other
arrangements for disposal of sludge other than sludge diges-
ttoJErand, disposal at sea. Many of the other plants are in
theede'sign stage.
TEe-Commission's real concern is that with the knowledge
"hat tdisposal of sludge will be phased out very suddenly,
-"..ay right quickly tur'.i to d.' ffere.V:. fo: • >2 cc: !:uo--ion, and
.'.-•-$ ir.cludas not only co.ivi"i:.i.o:-ial typ.-s of incineration but
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
87
-------
i.. LI .Johnson -2- April 1, 1971
-•WJ
low pressure conibustion types such as manufactured by Dorr-
Oliver rand Sterling Drug.
Although we are unable to obtain any data on the
exhaustzeraissions from any of these devices, we feel sure
thattnitrous oxides will exceed any standards being considered.
N&r standards for nitrous oxides probably will be passed and
pptriritoreffect before some of these incinerators are completed
aadftheyimay not be allowed to operate. The much larger
volume cof fsludge from New York City will be an even larger
problemr .
Aficrtfterr practical problem is that with all these individual
plantssdeveloping incinerators, they would hardly get up to
temperature before they would use up the sludge and this would
makeethe^operation difficult without causing severe odor
problems £. In other areas of New York State and Connecticut
whereibirging at sea was not previously practiced, many
incinerators are being constructed when upgrading their treat-
ment ".plants and will become a problem immediately when air pol-
lution: .standards are set.
We'^therefore urge that the Air Quality Office of EPA make
aanimroediate survey of the emissions of some of these recently
installed fsludge combustion devices. This information may
prevent :changing a water pollution problem into an air pol-
lution problem.
IIsbould emphasize again that we cannot wait until the
of f feral ^announcement to phase out sludge disposal at sea
befdrevsetting a policy on incinerators as decisions are
alreadyvbeing made. Even in a matter of a few weeks, it
willlbeetaa late in many cases.
Very truly yours.
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Director & Chief Engineer
88
-------
APPFNHTX I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
REPLY TO
ATTNOF
DD/DHER DATE! 2/2/72
SUBJECT: Hazards of Emissions from Sewage Sludge Emissions
TO: Ken Johnson
Regional Director for Air and
Water Programs
Region II Office
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
In our meeting of September 27, 1971, you provided a list of
elements found in stack samples taken from two modern sewage sludge
incinerators. These elements are:
I Zinc
. * Cadmium
* Arsenic
; Phosphorus
Iron
: Magnesium
* Beryllium
Copper
Silver
: * Nickel
* Cobalt
* Lead
* Chromium
! * Vanadium
, Strontium
: * Mercury
I discussed the fact that the elements identified by the asterisk
tend to be biologically non-degradable, are toxic at certain concentra-
tions in human tissue, would add to the human body burden from other
sources and as such are likely to peppesent a tnae health hazard,
especially if sewage sludge incinerators proliferate in urban areas.
I also discussed with you the fact that many synthetic organic
compounds are likely to become concentrated in sewage sludge and that
these compounds, such as PCB, will represent another class of hazards
if incinerated and released to the atmosphere. These compounds were
not analyzed in the stack samples.
; /s/
: Carl M. Shy, M. D.
Deputy Director
1 Division of Health Effects Research
EPA Form 1320-4 (11*71)
89
-------
1
Accession Number
w
5
2
Subject Field & Group
.50
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Office of Research & Monitoring
UadVft v>*
6
TitK ***-c
p
°nlifin
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
10
Authors)
EPA Task Force
16
Project Designation
21
Note
22
Citation
Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-R2-72-040, August 1972
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
* Sludge Incineration
* Air Pollution
Effects
* Pesticide Removal
Heavy Metals
Ultimate Disposal
Sludge Disposal
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
«
tt
Multiple Hearth Fumances
Fluidized Bed Incinerators
Polychlorinated Blphenyls (PCS)
Stack Emissions
Ocean Disposal
Particulate Removal
27
Abstract
A Task Force was established within the Environmental Protection
Agency to evaluate sludge incineration as an acceptable alternative
to sea disposal. Multiple-hearth and fluidized bed fumances,
containing scrubbing devices for particuiate removal, were selected
for performance evaluation. The sludge, particuiate, stack gas,
scrubbing liquid, and ash were sampled, and analyzed for heavy metals,
pesticides and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. The results indicated
that incinerators are capable of achieving low emission concentrations
for the common pollutants. Particuiate samples showed a measurable
concentration of lead. The ash samples normally showed a higher
concentration of the heavy metals when compared with the sludge
samples, however, mercury was one of the exceptions and was not
detectable in the ash sample and assumed as lost to the stack gases.
The pesticides and PCB, present in the sludge, were not detectable in
either the ash or the scrubbing water, and indicated complete destruction.
The study demonstrated that well designed and operated municipal sewage
sludge incinerators can meet the most stringent existing particuiate
'.on control regulation.
K. Johnson
Institution
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
SEND WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT, TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
ff U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR X^"".
M Q WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240 (9 '•
««R:102 (PEV. JULY 1989)
WRSIC
EnvIrorvmsntaX Protection Agency
* OP01 1970-S8»-S30^r
230 £oc:;lj J!:.-
Chicago, m
-------
Jr
------- |