^430/9-76-009
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
INFORMATION
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:
EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
An Overview of the
Sludge Management Situation
APRIL 1976
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MCD-30
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
NOTES
To order this publication, MCD-30, "Municipal Sludge Management:
EPA Construction Grants Program, An Overview of the Sludge
Management Situation", write to:
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing .Lists Services
B,ldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
-------
EPA-430/9-76-009
APRIL 1976
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:
EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
An Overview of the
Sludge Management Situation
Municipal Construction Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-30
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this report was undertaken by Robert K.
Bastian of the Municipal Construction Division of EPA as an
expansion of a paper presented at the 8th Annual Cornell Waste
Management Conference held in Rochester, N.Y., April 28-30, 1976.
The contributions, technical assistance and review comments
by many individuals, especially Mr. William A. Whittington, were
invaluable in the development of the report.
-------
FOREWORD
The requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) emphasize the need to employ cost-effective
and environmentally sound waste management technology. Achievement of
higher levels of wastewater treatment required by the Act will result in
a substantial increase in the quantity of sludge produced at publicly
owned treatment works.
Federal grants provide as much as 75% of the capital funding for
the construction of municipal wastewater treatment systems, including
sludge management facilities. In managing the EPA Construction Grants
Program, the Office of Water Program Operations plays a key role in the
Agency's municipal sewage sludge activities.
The Office of Water Program Operations receives many requests for
information on municipal sludge management. This document supplements
the formal technical and administrative guidance issued by this Office
and serves to collectively respond to many of the information requests
received. The report was prepared primarily to provide information on
those aspects of municipal sewage sludge management for which the Con-
struction Grants Program is directly involved. The detailed involvement
by other Federal agencies and EPA Offices in sludge management is not
covered in this document.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Background 2
Quantities of Sludge 2
Size Distribution of Municipal Plants 3
Current Disposition of Sludge 3
Costs 4
Environmental Impacts 5
Alternatives 6
Ocean Disposal 6
Incineration 7
Landfill 8
Land Application 9
Innovative Technologies 13
Strip mine Reclamation 13
Pyrolysis 14
Metals Recovery 14
Chemical Fixation 14
Overseas Shipment 15
i
Bagged & Bulk Sales; Give-away Programs . . 15
OWPO Municipal Sludge Management Activities 16
Projects and Outputs 17
Work Needed 20
-------
APPENDICES
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
23
31
35
37
49
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Appendix C
- Appendix D
- Appendix E
p. 53 - Appendix F
Sludge Information Summary
Current Sludge Disposition in Largest U.S. Cities
Status of Step 1 Construction Grants Funding of
Sludge Management Studies
Ocean Disposal of Sludge
State Criteria for Land Application of Wastewater
and Sludge
Program Guidance Memorandum No. 67: Eligibility of
Land Acquisition Costs for the Ultimate Disposal
of Residuals from Wastewater Treatment Processes
p. 59 - Appendix G
Partial Listing of Recent Reports on Municipal
Sludge Management
-------
Municipal Sludge Management:
EPA Construction Grants Program
April, 1976
Introduction
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500), Congress authorized EPA $18 billion in grant authority to
help municipalities construct publicly owned wastewater treatment works
through fiscal year 1977. The funding authority of PL 92-500 is expected
to be continued for several more years. Over $9 billion has been obligated
to date.
An integral part of almost any wastewater treatment plant is the
sludge management system. Residual solids are produced in nearly every
unit process of conventional wastewater treatment and a significant
proportion of both capital outlay and O&M costs of conventional sewage
treatment is associated with sludge production, conditioning and disposal
facilities and operations. As manager of the EPA Construction Grants
Program, the Office of Water Program Operations (OWPO) is deeply involved
with municipal sewage sludge management activities and concerned with
the problems communities are facing with sludge disposal.
This paper is an attempt to draw together a quick summary of
available information on municipal sewage sludge production and alter-
natives for the disposal/utilization of municipal sewage sludge and OWPO
activities in this area. The reader is referred to other information
sources for more details on this subject (Appendix G).
-------
Background
A wide variety of publications -- journal articles, conference
proceedings, Agency documents, and even newsletters -- are available
that deal with various aspects of municipal sewage sludge production,
processing and management. However, national recognition of sludge
management problems has only recently occurred and the available data
base for evaluating the environmental acceptance and cost-effectiveness
of various sludge management alternatives at this time is quite limited
(Appendices A and G). Data summarized here represent OWPO's current
reference base on nationwide municipal sewage sludge management activities
and were derived for the most part from the 1968 Inventory of Municipal
Waste Facilities in the United States, STORET, a 1972 survey of five EPA
Regions concerning only land application of liquid sludges, the "Needs"
Survey and Construction Grants files. Efforts are currently underway to
improve this available information.
Quantities of Sludge:
We estimate that at this time well over 5 million dry tons of
municipal sludge are being produced and disposed of in one manner or
another each year. By the time secondary treatment is reached by
facilities across the country this volume may reach 9 million dry tons
per year. Going to secondary treatment would represent an increase of
80% in terms of dry tons of solids produced. With the extensive use of
biological secondary treatment processes (such as activated sludge) ,
the increase in wet tons of sludge to be handled would actually increase
well over 100%, due to the difficulty in dewatering biological sludges.
-------
Although this increase in sludge volume will be faced by treatment
plant operators across the country, the major problem areas are in the
major cities, especially those facing a phase-out of their current ocean
disposal activities. The larger cities simply have greater volumes of
sludge to manage and in many cases run into problems obtaining sites and
local approval for implementing any of the sludge management alternatives
This is not meant to disregard or underplay the problems being faced by
the numerous smaller communities across the country.
Size Distribution of Municipal Plants:
More than 22,000 municipal treatment plants exist in this country;
over 5,000 are wastewater treatment ponds that generally have few if any
sludge disposal problems. Of the remaining 17,000 plants, fewer than
350 are larger than 10 MGD. We estimate 65% or more of the Nation's
treatment plants are actually less than 1 MGD in design flow. Well over
65% of the known non-pond systems are located in only three EPA Regions;
Region III (Philadelphia), Region IV (Atlanta), and Region V (Chicago).
Current Disposition of Sludge:
The current general breakdown for disposal of municipal sewage
sludge "on a National basis is estimated as follows:
Method ' % Total Municipal Sludge
Ocean Disposal 15
Incineration 35
Landfill 25
Land Application 25
(croplands) (20)
(other) ( 5)
-------
This estimate does not include the surprising number of operations that
simply store sludges in lagoons with no identified future disposal
method. The scheduled phase-out of ocean disposal, increasing production
of sludge with secondary treatment, and increasing fuel tosts over the
next few years could change this picture dramatically.
Both statewide and regionwide sludge disposal practices vary widely
as do state regulations (Appendix E). Of course, only those areas
located near the oceans have had the ocean option. Most of the communities
in the State of Illinois and many other parts of the mid-West are applying
sludges to the land, while incineration and landfill are most common in
the major inland cities (Chicago and Denver being notable exceptions).
Costs:
Both capital and O&M costs for various sludge management alternatives
vary greatly. They are dependent upon numerous variables including
energy, transportation, land, and manpower costs as well as monitoring
requirements and other criteria established by local, state and Federal
regulatory agencies. Where sites are available and liquid sludges are
accepted, landfilling is often an economical alternative if haul distances
are minimal. Where land is not available, air quality criteria allow,
and fuel allocations are available, incineration is often utilized.
However, when land is available and the state and local regulators
approve (or at least do not formally disapprove), the land application
alternative is being implemented or experimented with by many communities
based on cost-effectiveness (Appendices A and B).
From 30% to 50% of a conventional treatment plant's capital costs
go for the sludge management system. This will involve a major portion
-------
of the $18 billion currently authorized for capital costs of building
facilities to meet the 1977 goal (PL 92-500) of secondary treatment. We
estimate that more than $400 million per year are required for current
O&M costs.
Environmental Impacts
From an environmental effects standpoint, when properly designed,
operated and where necessary, monitored, most available sludge disposal/
utilization options can be implemented in such a manner as to minimize
negative impacts upon the environment by providing acceptable safeguards
for the protection of human health and the ecosystems involved. However,
when sewage sludges are discharged into one of the only media available --
air, land, or water -- the associated contaminants along with the
potentially beneficial components may eventually migrate to another of
the media. In this context, the potential inter-media environmental
impacts (as well as economic and other impacts) of sludge management
alternatives must be considered when designing and later when operating
such systems.
One effort aimed at providing guidance along these lines has been
the development of the technical bulletin, "Municipal Sludge Management:
Environmental Factors," which attempts to point out the major environmental
factors to consider when reviewing a proposed municipal sludge management
alternative. While not a design manual per se, this bulletin does
provide useful information (specific values where available and general
guidance where specific values are not available) for use in considering
the environmental impacts of various sludge management alternatives.
-------
Alternatives
Currently the sludge management alternatives available to a particular
city include various versions of incineration, landfill, land application
and possible innovative technologies (e.g., pyrolysis, chemical fixation,
strip mine reclamation, bagged and bulk sales). Ocean dumping has been
effectively ruled out for municipalities since to our knowledge no
current sludges meet the ocean dumping requirements (40 CFR 220).
Annually renewed interim permits are being granted until these cities
develop land based alternatives. As alternatives to strictly disposal
options such as ocean dumping, EPA has actively encouraged the development
and implementation of various beneficial uses of municipal sewage sludges,
including land application options, energy recovery from incineration
or pyrolysis systems, and methane recovery from landfills.
Ocean Disposal:
Although 15% of the current sludge volume produced in municipal
treatment plants is now disposed of into the oceans, this practice is
used by less than 160 cities and towns (Appendices B and D); there are
16 municipal sludge ocean dumping permits (for dumping at two approved
sites - Philadelphia and the New York Bight) at latest count but addi-
tional cities discharge to the ocean through diffusion pipes. Where
used, it has represented a least cost alternative and until recent years
has been met by good public acceptance. Both the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532) require the development
of Federal standards on materials entering the ocean. Efforts are
currently underway to phase-out most of the ocean dumpers and pipe
dischargers by 1981.
6
-------
The concerns over ocean disposal of sewage sludges center on
potential impacts upon marine life and beaches. Various contaminants
often associated with sewage sludges, including heavy metals, persistent
organic pesticides, PCB's and others, are known to bioaccumulate to
where they interfere with reproduction or cause toxic effects to certain
marine organisms. The contaminants of immediate concern are mercury,
cadmium and TICH compounds. (TICH = Total Indicated Chlorinated Hydro-
carbons.) Incidents of sludge washing up on beaches have also been
reported.
Incineration:
Under some circumstances, incineration can be both the most economical
and environmentally acceptable disposal option. This approach significantly
reduces the volume of waste for ultimate disposal (to 10 - 30% of the
original dry matter volume), which is a major concern where land availability
is a problem. The costs associated with disposal of the ash from incineration
processing are small in comparison to the operational costs involved in
the incineration process itself.
Incineration systems are, however, generally subject to marked
economies of scale, often not being competitive for plants below 10 MGD.
A substantial energy input, either to dewater sludge or in the form of
an auxiliary fuel, is generally required for sludge incineration although
some future plants may be self-sustaining once incineration has started
so that auxiliary fuel requirements can be minimized. Energy recovery
techniques are also being used with more recent units to help lower the
total energy balance of available incinerator technologies.
Standards exist for particulates and mercury levels in emissions
from incinerators, while questions remain concerning such chemical
-------
contaminants as PCB's. The liquid phase removed by dewatering and
scrubber waters from stack gas and particulate control devices must also
be properly treated. Major public resistance to new incinerators has
occurred in several areas in recent years due mainly to concerns about
meeting air quality standards, operational costs and reliability, and
potential malodor production.
Co-incineration with solid waste is being considered in many areas
and being implemented by Minneapolis/St. Paul in the near future. Such
systems are envisioned as helping to solve two major waste management
problems at one time, while producing beneficial byproducts such as
steam for use in power production.
Landfill:
Landfill ing is an option that provides a means of sludge disposal
in areas where suitable sites are available. When properly implemented,
this practice avoids the potential public health issues that must be
addressed with cropland application of sludge by burying the sludge in
conventional sanitary landfills, but can affect groundwater quality
where substantial leachates are produced.
The EPA Office of Solid Waste Management (OSWMP) has issued guidelines
for the design and operation of Federally owned solid waste landfills,
but not for sludge landfills. State and local regulatory agencies
differ in their requirements for acceptance of municipal sewage sludges
for landfilling (Appendix E). In several states, only dewatered sludges
are acceptable for landfilling; in certain other areas, few controls are
imposed on landfilling of sludges. Combining sludge with solid waste in
8
-------
landfills is a common practice in areas where this is acceptable. Many
cities have been placing sludge in lagoons (i.e., open landfills) and
may eventually cover the lagoons after many years.
Major problems confronting landfill of sludges involve gaining
public acceptance of potential landfill sites and preventing groundwater
pollution from landfill leachates. Metropolitan areas are having
difficulty in identifying publicly acceptable and available sites, while
medium and smaller sized communities may find this aspect less limiting.
Heavy metals, persistent organics and other compounds covered by drinking
water standards are of concern in leachates from landfills. Recent data
indicate that groundwater contamination problems due to leachates from
landfills receiving sewage sludges may be more widespread than originally
envisioned. Contaminants of most immediate concern are lead and mercury.
Land Application of Sludge:
The utilization of sludge by application to croplands, forests, and
other sites provides a means of beneficial reuse and sludge disposal at
the same time. Although low in nutrient content (approximately 3%
Nitrogen, 2.5% Phosphorus and 0.3% Potassium by dry weight — this is
highly variable), sludge can serve as a valuable soil conditioner.
Currently, less than 0.3% of the nation's croplands receive sewage
sludge, and even if the entire municipal sludge production were to be
applied at crop nitrogen requirement rates, less than 1% of the agri-
cultural land would be involved. A 1972 CEQ/EPA report prepared by
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories showed that
widespread use of sludge as a fertilizer could potentially satisfy only
2% of the current artificial nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer market,
-------
thus indicating that it is unlikely that sludge would replace conventional
fertilizers in any significant way.
Land application has been preferred by communities with suitable
available land, generally inland cities and smaller rural communities.
Both high application rate disposal operations and systems designed to
provide supplemental fertilization to agricultural crops have been used.
In some cases "dedicated" or publicly owned and controlled sites have
been used, but a more common practice has involved application to
privately owned and managed farmland. Thirty percent of the smaller
communities have applied their sludges to the land for over 40 years.
Over 400 towns in Illinois and 250 in Ohio currently apply their sludges
to the land. Many other communities simply stockpile dried sludges and
allow the public to haul it away for their own use.
Larger communities are becoming more interested in land application
options due to recent regulatory decisions, increased energy costs,
and/or public opposition to other alternatives. There is also a growing
interest in the potential for future cash crop returns from agricultural
uses to help lower O&M costs. Several communities have been conditioning
their sludge, mainly by heat drying, lagooning or composting, and selling
it for use as soil conditioners for many years. Numerous major municipal-
ities are currently using or experimenting with land application schemes
(Appendix B).
The major technical problems facing land application proposals
center on the potential human health risks involved in growing crops
that enter the human food chain on sludge-amended soils. Sewage sludge
contains human pathogens and varying amounts of a variety of potentially
10
-------
"toxic" or "hazardous" materials, including heavy metals and persistent
organic compounds, because of the nature of input sources (industry.
homes, stormwater) into domestic sewage. Conjecture as to the potential
human health effects of these materials when applied to the land has
been extensive, although available data and risk interpretations are
limited.
The possible immediate and long term effects of such materials when
applied to agricultural soils by sewage sludge applications and their
translocation into human food chain crops, are currently being investigated
and debated. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the same
materials of concern currently enter the human food chain through many
routes, including conventional agricultural practices, and are not due
to agricultural uses of sewage sludge. They are present in variable
amounts in conventional inorganic fertilizers, animal manures, and soil,
resulting in highly variable background levels. The problems of establishing
current body burdens and acceptable safety factors for these materials
are of major concern in current deliberations by FDA.
The fact remains that land application of sewage sludges has been
an accepted and largely unregulated activity for many years — without
known significant negative health impacts. While there have been no
reports of major problems directly resulting from this practice, some of
the potential problems are long term and our system for detecting them
may not be nearly sophisticated enough. Possible unnoticed problems
associated with these practices are being investigated and questioned.
Well managed systems can be expected to continue their operation into
the future without problems assuming that future regulations will not
eliminate this alternative.
11
-------
Prime concerns center on the levels of certain materials that may
lead to future plant toxicity (e.g., zinc, copper, nickel and herbicides)
or that potentially could lead to public health problems due to bioaccumu-
lation and/or toxicity (e.g., cadmium, lead, RGB's). Agricultural
practices that allow for the safe utilization of municipal sewage sludges
in agriculture (including nitrate leaching controls) are being recommended
and frequently updated by USDA. No EPA, USDA or FDA standards exist for
most of the areas of current concern, although guidance is being developed
by EPA on the environmental acceptability of land application options.
Currently, not all states have regulations controlling this practice
(Appendix E). In addition, no economical technology exists to remove
such contaminants as heavy metals from sludges prior to application to
the land -- other than source control.
Source controls, pretreatment requirements and monitoring activities
are being suggested by EPA and others. In accordance with the require-
ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500), and several recent court rulings, EPA has embarked on an
accelerated program to develop (1) pretreatment standards for the most
significant polluting industries, and (2) standards pertaining to the
discharge of designated toxic pollutants. A concentrated effort has
been initiated to implement an effective Federal pretreatment program to
achieve compliance with the provisions of PL 92-500. Additionally, the
Agency has revised and is preparing to issue pretreatment guidelines to
assist municipalities in developing local pretreatment requirements.
Additional factors limiting land application systems are public
acceptance and the fact that large cities have to transport sludge to
12
-------
rural areas for agricultural use. Odors from poorly managed sludge
management systems and perceived odors from anything that has to do with
sewage may be the largest single problem. Reluctance of rural areas to
receive urban wastes (until adequate economic incentives are offered) is
also a significant factor.
Innovative Technologies:
Additional municipal sewage sludge management alternatives exist
and are being more fully developed under what have been chosen here to
be called "innovative technologies." Many of these technologies are
offshoots of ocean disposal, incineration, landfill, and land application.
These alternatives include such practices as strip mine reclamation
projects, pyrolysis, metals recovery, chemical fixation, overseas
shipment, and bagged or bulk sales and "Give-away" programs.
Municipal sludges are being and have been used as a soil conditioner/
stabilizer in reclaiming mine spoils, strip-mined lands and other
drastically disturbed areas. Although limited to areas where transport
to such sites is cost-effective and locally acceptable, this alternative
offers an opportunity to use the basis of one problem to help solve
another problem. The experimental use of liquid, dried or composted
sludges for strip mine reclamation has been undertaken in such areas as
i
Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Florida. The key
to successful proposals of this type would appear to lie in gaining the
support and cooperation of groups such as local, state, and Federal
politicians and regulatory agency personnel, land owners, coal companies,
railroads, and public works officials.
13
-------
Speculation on the potentials of pyrolysis to solve the sludge
management problems of major metropolitan areas has occurred for several
years. Only recently, however, have funds been made available to move
bench scale research systems for pyrolysis of sludge into pilot scale
demonstration facilities such as the JPL/ACTS facility involving carbon
recovery now in operation at Orange County, California. Another pyrolysis
technique that incorporates the use of RDF (refuse-derived fuel) is
being demonstrated in Contra Costa County, California. Other pilot
demonstration plants involving sludge pyrolysis or co-pyrolysis with
solid wastes have been planned for future construction and testing.
Several comprehensive regional sludge management studies have identified
pyrolysis as possibly the most cost-effective alternative for handling
future sludge volumes. These conclusions have been drawn before scaled
up operational experience has been gained. New York falls into this
category while the recommendation for co-pyrolysis in the Minneapolis/
St. Paul area has recently been dropped in favor of co-incineration
based upon a new look at the economics of by-product values.
Efforts have been and are being undertaken to evaluate the potentials
for metals recovery from municipal sewage sludges. Both acid treatment
and heat treatment processes are being considered. Of course these
processes require considerable chemical and/or energy inputs and result
in the loss of organics for uses such as soil conditioners. The problems
to date generally relate to cost-effectiveness and individual unit
process problems involved in specific resource recovery efforts.
Several proprietary chemical treatment processes are available that
provide good performance in chemically fixing sewage sludge to allow
safe landfill ing and possible use in construction of highways. While
14
-------
cost is a major limiting factor for the use of these processes, chemical
fixation should be considered as a possible alternative for communities
without adequate land availability for land application schemes, or with
high levels of contaminants such as heavy metals and PCB's in their
sludges.
The overseas shipment of municipal sewage sludges has been extensively
examined. Proposals have been made involving shipment by ore boats, oil
tankers, or sludge ships to such areas as the Bahamas and other Caribbean
areas, Africa's Gold Coast, Egypt and the Middle East for use as soil
conditioners. To date no projects for large scale overseas shipment of
sewage sludge have been implemented.
The selling of bagged or bulk conditioned sludges has been practiced
in several major areas (Los Angeles/Southern California - "Kellogg's
Nitrohumus"; Milwaukee "Milorganite"; Houston "Hou-actinite"; Chicago)
for many years and is being initiated or planned for other areas (Denver
and Washington, D.C.). "Give-away" programs have been operated by
numerous small communities as a common practice over the years, and new
efforts have recently been initiated or planned for several major metropolitan
areas (Philadelphia's "Philorganic" and Chicago's "Nu-Earth"). Efforts
in areas such as Winston-Salem involve fortification of sludge with
nitrogen to allow sale of the final product as a nutrient rich fertilizer/soil
conditioner ("Organiform-SS"). A new project started in Largo, Florida
will market a dried and pelletized product through ^fertilizer company.
In West Hertfordshire, England, the liquid digested from a 35 mgd
activated sludge secondary treatment plant is hauled to consenting
farmers as "HYDIG;" there are more requests for this organic material
made than can be satisfied. Sludge is managed in a similar manner in
15
-------
Salem, Oregon, where "BIOGRO" is delivered to farmers requesting the
material. Other cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, are considering
liquid sludge management schemes by establishing fertilizer reuse
programs for cooperating farmers.
There probably are many other potential "innovative technologies"
that exist and should be evaluated as potential sludge management
alternatives. Maybe the future will bring a "black box" solution that
no one has yet considered which will provide a cost-effective, environ-
mentally acceptable option to today's available municipal sewage sludge
management alternatives.
OWPO Municipal Sludge Management Activities
Because sludge is a byproduct of sewage treatment, the Office of
Water Program Operations (OWPO) is interested in identifying and refining
available technology as well as encouraging the development of innovative
technologies in the sludge management field. Our program activities
deal with cost-effectiveness and environmental acceptability as well as
operational capability of various municipal sludge management alternatives.
As a result of helping fund such activities, we are also interested in
related activities dealing with economics, social and institutional
constraints and environmental impact studies.
At present, the only current legislative mandates we have involving
the regulation of municipal sewage sludge disposal/utilization activities
fall under PL 92-500, Sect. 201 (wastewater treatment facilities planning
and construction), Sect". 208 (areawide waste management), Sect. 405
(sludges entering navigable waters), and PL 92-532 and its amendments
relative to establishing ocean dumping criteria. We do, however, help
control sludge disposal activities through control of system design to
16
-------
qualify for Federal construction grant funds. An overall philosophy of
our activities is to encourage the beneficial utilization of municipal
sewage sludges (rather than outright disposal) wherever and whenever
possible, if shown to be both cost-effective and environmentally acceptable.
Some of the current and planned projects and outputs in the area of
municipal sewage sludge management being developed by the Office of
Water Program Operations (OWPO), in cooperation with the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Solid Waste Management
(OSWMP), and the Office of Planning and Evaluation (OPE) include the
following:
PROJECTS AND OUTPUTS
1. Efforts are underway to improve Headquarters/Regional/State
coordination activities in sludge management matters.
2. Efforts are also being taken to coordinate activities of
the Science Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences, Government
Accounting Office (GAO), and other sludge management studies and
evaluations that are underway or have been completed.
3. The technical bulletin, "Municipal Sludge Management:
Environmental Factors," has been prepared to assist EPA Regional
Administrators in evaluating grant applications for construction of
!
publicly owned treatment works under Section 203(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended. It also provides designers
and municipal engineers with information for selecting a sludge
management option. The proposed document for public comment will
appear in the Federal Register on June 3, 1976.
17
-------
4. Program guidance in sludge management was recently
released concerning the grant eligibility of land acquisition costs
for the ultimate disposal of residues from wastewater treatment
processes (Program Guidance Memorandum No. 67 - Appendix F).
Additional program guidance is being developed concerning grant
eligibility for costs of easements and lease options on land for
the ultimate disposal of these residues. The use of Federal lands
by municipalities for sludge disposal activities is also being
investigated.
5. At this time approximately $11 million in Step I (or
equivalent) Construction Grants are being used for planning and
pilot scale municipal sludge management projects in major metro-
politan areas (Appendix C). We anticipate that such funding efforts
will continue and that the number of projects will increase.
6. A grant with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) will provide detailed information on sludge manage-
ment practices by the major metropolitan areas. A proposed follow-
on effort may provide a survey and evaluation of current municipal
sewage sludge management alternatives across the entire country.
Potentially, these and other efforts could provide an improved data
base from which future sludge management policy decisions can be
better made.
7. A grant tp the National Association of Counties, in
association with other public interest groups, may provide new
approaches and insights into the public acceptance of beneficial
uses of sewage sludge.
18
-------
8. Efforts to encourage beneficial utilization alternatives
(e.g., strip-mine reclamation) for sludge management are planned
which will include sessions at several upcoming sludge management
conferences.
9. Current assessment publications covering heavy metals
research and human health hazard aspects of cropland application of
municipal sewage sludges are planned based on workgroup sessions
with leading heavy metals researchers and health officials. These
assessment documents will be used to provide current evaluations
concerning these two areas of major concern for the land application
alternative of sludge management.
10. A technical report on successful examples of sludge
utilization on land, complete with detailed technical and institu-
tional information, is planned.
11. Efforts are underway to obtain translations and evaluation
of overseas sludge management activities. In addition, reports of
research activities by various major sewerage authorities may be
made available for wider distribution.
12. A documentary film and TV Mini-Doc on available sludge
management alternatives are under development. The purpose will be
to expose public works officials and the public to the alternatives
being used across the country and innovative technologies currently
under detailed evaluation. We also hope to alert the engineering
community to what alternatives should be considered in development
of future municipal sludge management planning efforts.
19
-------
13. Costs of various sludge utilization or disposal alterna-
tives have been addressed in available generalized documents;
reports outlining detailed and standardized cost comparisons are
planned.
14. A model design report for land application of sludge is
planned.
15. Future activities to better define and improve approaches
to institutional constraints and public acceptance problems are
being planned.
WORK NEEDED
A general result of increasing sewage treatment is the more than
proportional increase in resulting sludge volumes to be disposed of or
utilized by one means or another. This problem has lead to Agencywide
attention. Recently, activities have greatly increased in the areas of
regulating ocean disposal, Federal pretreatment guidelines development,
208 planning activities, toxic substances and hazardous materials investigations
in regards to their concerns for the proper management and disposal of
sewage treatment residuals (i.e., sewage sludge). These interests have
been most evident during the development of the proposed Technical
Bulletin, "Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors."
Major OWPO engineering needs to support the Construction Grants
Program involvement in municipal sewage sludge management activities
actually boil down to developing the best design criteria and cost
information for the available technology and the development of inno-
vative technologies for future implementation. With the current phase-
out attitude toward ocean dumping, we are providing guidance to the
20
-------
Regions on the best available land-based technologies for sludge management
rather than developing regulatory programs.
From our viewpoint the work most urgently needed in the municipal
sewage sludge management field includes:
- resolution of health effects issues
- breakthroughs in gaining public acceptance
- continued emphasis on innovative technologies leading to
beneficial use and resource recovery
- information dissemination to design engineers/operators,
Federal/State/1 oca! government personnel, and local elected
officials
21
-------
APPENDIX A - SLUDGE INFORMATION SUMMARY
Sources:
STORE!
Construction Grants Files
1974 Needs Survey
1972 Survey of Five EPA Regions on
land application of liquid sludges
1968 Inventory of Municipal Waste
Facilities in the U.S.
(23)
-------
SLUDGE INFORMATION SUMMARY
1. Quantities of sludge (estimated) [Source: Construction Grants Files]
dry tons/day
Domestic
Industrial users of
municipal plants
Total municipal
sjudge
Current
10,000
7,000
17,000
Secondary Treatment
(10 years)
13,000
10,000
23,000
2. Size of municipal plants [Source: 1974 Needs Survey, 1968 Inventory]
+
Million Gallons/Day
Less than 1
1 - 5
5-10
10 - 25
25 - 50
50 - 100
greater than 100
Unknown
Total
*Ponds contain the sludge and are only infrequently
• emptied.
Total
15,106
1,676
265
184
54
37
31
4,892
22,245
Without Ponds
11,120
1,558
253
180
54
37
30
3,983
17,215
A-l
(24)
-------
3.
Distribution of municipal plants by EPA Region
[Source: 1974 Needs Survey]
4.
Region
1 - Boston
2 - New York
3 - Philadelphia
4 - Atlanta
5 - Chicago
6 - Dallas
7 - Kansas City
8 - Denver
9 - San Francisco
10 - Seattle
Plants (without ponds)
478
1158
3630
3768
5029
1089
1182
323
657
576
Estimated current disposition of sludge [Source: 1974 Needs Survey,
1968 Inventory, Construction
Grants Files]
Method
Landfill
Ocean dump
Incineration
Land application
Croplands
Others
% Total Sludge
25
15
35
25
(20)
( 5)
A-2
(25)
-------
5. 1972 Land Spreading Survey (Liquid Sludge Only) [Source: 1972 Survey]
Regions 2,3,4,5, and 9
Wailed 1909, Responded 745 (39%)
Region
2
3
4
5
9
Total
Size
MGD
i - iU
10 - mo
Greater than
Currently
Use
6%
27%
18%
36%.
14%
25%
Currently
Use
*7%
15%
100 7%
Will Be
Using
6%
5%
12%
9%
6%
8%
Will Be
Using
tf%
9%
13%
Not
Using
88%
68%
70%
55%
80%
67%
Not
Using
b5%
76%
80%
6. Total Costs for Various Sludge Methods [Source: Construction Grants
Files]
Includes operating and construction costs
1
Land Application 127
Landfill
Incineration
Ocean Dumping
171
250
376
A-3
(26)
$/Dry Ton
MGD 10 MGD
- 168 53 - 71
- 208 77 - 116
- 320 111 - 174
- 417 93 - 134
100 MGD
57-84
63 - 98
79 - 120
56 - 93
-------
7. Construction Costs for Various Sludge Methods
[Source: Construction Grants Files]
Million $/Dry Ton
1 MGD 10 MGD 100 MGD
Land Application
Landfill
Incineration
Ocean Dumping
0.27-0.36
0.40-0.43
0.53-0.64
0.96-1.00
0.04-0.06
0.10-0.12
0.14-0.19
0.16-0.19
0.07-0.10
0.05-0.07
0.05-0.07
0.05-0.07
8. Estimated National Total Costs of Current Sludge Practices
[Source: Construction Grants Files]
Land Application
Landfill
Incineration
Ocean Dumping
Total
$470,000/Day
570,000
1,190,000
240.000
$2,470,000/Day
$900 Million/Year
O&M only: $400 Million/Year
9. Characteristics of Sludge [Source: STORET]
Digested Sludge
Volatile Solids, %
Nitrogen (N, % TS)
Phosphorus (P205, % TS)
Potash (K20, % TS)
Btu/Lb
30-60
1.6-6.0
1.5-4.0
0.0-3.0
1700-6800
Typical
40
3.0
2.5
0.5
4000
10. Sludge as an Agricultural Fertilizer
[Source: Construction Grants Files, 1968 Inventory,
1974 Survey, STORET]
If all sludge is applied to the land, less than 1 percent of
agricultural lands would be involved. Currently, less then
0.3 percent of agricultural lands are involved.
A-4
(27)
-------
11.
Sludge: 6.2 Million Tons/Year
N in sludge = 186, 000 Tons/Year
P205in sludge = 155,000 Tons/Year
Sludge Nutrients as a Percentage of Total Use of Chemical Fer-
tilizers
N =2.3 percent
PoOc = 3.1 percent
Metals in Sludges: ing/kg Dry Sludge (i.e., part per million)
[Source: STORET]
Ag, Silver
As, Arsenic
B, Boran
Ba, Barium
Be, Beryllium
Cd, Cadmium
Co, Cobalt
Cr, Chromium
Cu, Copper
Hg, Mercury
Mn, Manganese
Ni, Nickel
Pb, Lead
Sr, Strontium
Se, Selenium
V, Vanadium
Zn, Zinc
Range
nd - 960
10 - 50
200 -1430
nd - 3000
nd
nd - 1100
nd - 800
22 - 30,000
45 - 16, 030
0.1 -.89
100 - 8800
nd - 2800
80 - 26,000
nd - 2230
10 -180
nd - 2100
51 - 28,360
Other possible contaminants
Persistant organics
Pathogens
Radioactive substances
Mean
225
9
430
1460
nd
87
350
1800
1250
7
1190
410
1940
440
26
510
3483
Median
90
8
350
1300
nd
20
100
600
700
4
400
100
600
150
20
400
1800
A-5
(28)
-------
12. METAL CONTENT OF DIGESTED MUNICIPAL SLUDGES
Element
Zn, ppm
Cu, ppm
Ni , ppm
Cd, ppm
Pb, ppm
Hg, ppm
Cr, ppm
Purely
Domestic^
750.
250.
25.
5.
-
2.0
50.
Controlled
Municipal2
2500.
1000.
200.
25.
1000.
10.
1000.
Observed
Maximum
50,000.
17,000.
8,000.
3,410.
10,000.
100.
30,000.
\l Observed in sludges from newer suburban
communities.
2/ Typical of sludges from communities without
excessive industrial waste sources or with
adequate source abatement. R. Chaney, 4/76
A-6
(29)
-------
APPENDIX B - CURRENT SLUDGE DISPOSITION IN LARGEST U.S. CITIES
(3D
-------
CURRENT SLUDGE STATUS IN LARGEST U,S, CITIES
CITY
QUANTITY OF SLUDGE
(DRY T/DAY)
PRESENT DISPOSITION
HEW YORK
CHICAGO(MSB), IL
Los ANGELES(&Co,), CA
PHILADELPHIA, PA
DETROIT, MI
HOUSTON, TX
BALTIMORE, MD
DALLAS, TX
WASHINGTON, DC
CLEVELAND, OH
230 (600)
800
500
140 (190)
160
160
120
400
200
OCEAN/LANDFILL; PYROLYSIS
PROP,
LAND APPL/GIVE-AWAY/LAGOOI
BULK SALES
OCEAN;COMPOST 8 BAGGED
OCEAN;"10-PT, PLAN" PROP.
INCINERATION
LAND APPL/DRIED £ BULK
SALES
LANDFILL/LAGOON/LAND APPL,
(LAGOONING);LAND APPL PROP
LAND APPL/COMPOST/
INJECTION/BULK SALES
LANDFILL/INCINERATION
PROP = PROPOSED
B-l
(32)
-------
Current Sludge Status in
Largest U.S. Cities (cont)
11. Indianapolis, IN
12. Milwaukee, WI
13. San Francisco, CA
14. San Diego, CA
15. San Antonio, TX
16. Boston (MSD), MA
17. Memphis, TN
18. St. Louis, MO
19. New Orleans, LA
20. Phoenix, AZ
21. Columbus, OH
22. Seattle, WA
23. Jacksonville, FL
24. Pittsburg, PA
25. Denver, CO
26. Kansas City, MO
27. Atlanta, GA
28. Buffalo, NY
29. Cincinnati, OH
30. Nashville-Davidson, TN
31. San Jose, CA
32. Minneapolis, MN
33. Fort Worth, TX
34. Topeka, KA
35. Portland, OR
36. Newark, NJ
37. Oklahoma City, OK
38. Oakland, CA
39. Louisville, KY
40. Long Beach, CA
Present Disposition
Incineration
Land Appl/dried & bagged sales
Land Appl/landfill
Land Appl (give-away)
Lagooning;land appl
Ocean;incineration proposed
Co-i nci nerati on/1agoon
Incineration
Stockpiling
Inci nerati on/1agoon
Land Appl/landfill
Land Appl
Incineration
Land Appl
Incineration/lagoon;land appl prop.
Inci neratfon/1andfi11/1 and appl
Incineration
Incineration;land appl (experimental)
Incineration
Stockpiling/fertilizer sales
Co-incineration
Lagoon/land appl
Landfill/lagoon/land appl
Incineration
Landfill/land appl
Landfill/Iand appl
Landfill
Land Appl/compost & bagged
B-2
(33)
-------
APPENDIX C - STATUS OF STEP I CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
FUNDING OF SLUDGE MANAGEMENT STUDIES
(35)
-------
STATUS OF STEP I CONSTRUCTION GRANTS*
FUNDED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT STUDIES
REGION I - GREATER BOSTON (MDC) ,,,,,,, $ 90,000
- PUTNAM, CONN ,.,,,, 7,500
- SEVERAL OTHERS REQUESTED
REGION II - INTERSTATE SANITARY COMM, (PHASE I
COMPLETED) 500,000
- WASHINGTON, DC (FINALIZED DEC 75) 100,000
REGION III - BELTSVILLE, FID (DEMO COMPOSTING
FACILITY) ,,,,,,,,,,,, 1,067,250
REGION IV - NONEJ WINSTON/SALEM POSSIBLE IN FUTURE
REGION V - MSD CHICAGO , 1,734,000**
- MADISON, Wise, , , , 160,000**
- HAMMOND, IND, , , , 30,000**
REGION VI - HOUSTON (MOSTLY SLUDGE) , , , , , 1,000,000
REGION VII - NONE
REGION VIII - METRO DENVER , , , , , 124,950
REGION IX - Los ANGELES (INTO 2ND OF 3 YEARS), 2,000,000
- BAY AREA (RECENT START) , , , , , 2,000,000
- ORANGE COUNTY (PYROLYSIS DEMO) , , 2,000,000
REGION X - NONE; PORTLAND AND SPOKANE POSSIBLE
TOTAL $11,000,000
* STEP I CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUNDS OR RELATED FEDERAL/STATE
MATCHING FUNDS
** GRANT AWARD PENDING
APRIL 1976
c-i
(36)
-------
APPENDIX D - OCEAN DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE
(37)
-------
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE OCEAN
April 1976
LOCATION
New York
Bight
Camden
Philadelphia
Boston
(Bay)
City of
Los Angeles
METHOD
barge
barge
barge
outfall
outfall
HOW LONG
1924
1965
1961
1968
1960
AMOUNT
3 mgd
w/5% solids
15 mil gal/yr
w/4X solids
175 mil gal/yr
w/8X solids
28,050 dryT/yr
350 metric
dry tons/day
PHASE-OUT
DATE
1981
1979
1981
1981
1981
STUDIES
*106 funded
study- 2 of 3
phases complete
Step 1 level
study complete
on reg. basis
1973 alt. comp.
current alt.
eval . for each
permit renewal
EIS for handling
compl . Step 1
level study
Step 1 level
study in prog.
1
PLANNED
ACTION
pyrolysis
& land
application
*incineration;
possibly
composting
*10 pt. plan;
incl. land
appl., pyrol.,
landfill
incineration
*interim plan
landfill
START
DATE
construct
1979
1979
reduce to
50% by 1979
1979
1977
COST/ DRY TON
(APPROX.)
$25
$20
$20-may
-increase
to $60
<$10
<.$10
Uncertain at this time
D-l
(38)
-------
OCEAN DUMPING (MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE)
PERMITS IN FORCE DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1975
Material
Applicant/Type Permit Dumped
Region II
Bergen Co. Sew. Auth. sewage
interim sludge
Joint Meeting of Essex "
& Union Counties
interim
Linden Roselle Sew. Auth. "
interim
Middlesex Co. Sew Auth. "
interim
Middletown Sew. Auth. "
interim
Passaic Valley Sew. Auth. "
interim
City of Glen Cove "
interim
City of Long Beach "
interim
County of Nassau "
interim
County of Westchester "
interim
West Long Beach Sew. Dist. "
interim
New York City
interim
Modern Transp. Co. "
interim
Gen. Marine Transport Corp. "
interim
Region III
City of Camden "
interim
City of Philadelphia "
interim
Date Date Es truant.
Issued Expired Dumped
7/1/75 6/30/76 20,000 wet T.
116,000 wet T.
" " 142,000 wet T.
" " 331,000 wet T.
20,000 wet T.
570,000 wet T.
4,000 wet T.
7,000 wet T.
349,000 wet T.
" 112,000 wet T.
600 wet T.
2,040,000 wet T.
" " 212,000 wet T.
88,000 wet T.
11/11/75 11/11/76 13,000,000 gal
2/14/75 2/13/76 170,000,000 gal
D-2
(39)
-------
OCEAN DUMPING OF
MUNICIPAL SF.WAGE SLUDGE
NEW YORK BIGHT SLUDGE SITE
(Phase Out Date 1981)
PERMIT
MUNICIPALITY
NEW YORK MUNICIPALITIES
Citv of New York
City of Lono Beach
Nassau County
Wes'chester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
City of Glen CoVe
NEW JERSEY MUNICIPALITIES
Berger County- Sewer Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex and
Union Counties
General Marine Transport Co.
Caldwell Trucking Co., Inc.
Linden Roselle Sewerage
Authority
Middlesex Co. Sewerage
Authority
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Pas«_>5ic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
Modern Transportation Co.
City of New York, EPA
City of Long Beach, WPCP
Nassau County Dept. of P.W.
County of West Chester, Dept.
of Environmental Facilities
West Long Beach Sewer District
City of Glen CoVe, V.'PC Facility
cergea. County, S.A.
Joint Meeting, WTP
Northeast Monrrouth Reg..
Sewer Authority
Lindenwold Boro, MUA
Wanaque, STP
Lincoln Park, STP
Montvilie, STP
Morris, STP
Pequannock, STP
Woodridge, STP
Linden Roselle, S.A.
Rahway VaI ley, S.A.
Middlessex Co., S.A.
Middletown, S.A.
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
Cupsaw Lakes STP
hrskine Lakes STP
Fayson Lakes STP
Greenwood Lake STP
Haskell STP
K i mrne I on STP
Lake tdenmald STP
Lincoln Park STP
Northvale STP
New York, N.Y.
Long Beach, N.Y.
Mineola, N.Y.
White Plains, N.Y.
Atlantic Beach, N.Y.
Glen Cotfe, N.Y.
Little Fepry, N.J. .
Elizabeth, N.J.
Monmouth Beach, N.J
Lindenwold, N.J.
Wanaque, N.J.
Lincoln Park, N.J.
Montvi Me, N. J .
Morris, N.J.
Pequannock, N.J.
Woodridge, N.J.
Linden, N.J.
Rahway, N.J.
SayreviIle, N.J.
Belford, N.J.
Newark, N.J.
Cupsaw Lakes, N.J.
trskine Lakes, N.J.
Fayson Lakes, N.J.(
Greenwood Lake, N.J
Haskel I, N.J;,
Kimmelon, N.J.'
Lake Edenmald, N.J.
Lincoln Park, N.J.
Northvale, N.J.
D-3
(40)
-------
NEW YORK BIGHT SLUDGE SITE
PERM IT
NEW JERSEY MUNICIPALITIES (CONT'D)
MUNICIPALITY
Modern Transportation Co.
Caldwell STP
Collingswood STP
Kearny STP
Matawan Township MUA
Maxim Sewerage Corp.
Neptune Township STP
Ocean Grove STP
Vest New York SIT
Western Monmouth UA
Wood-Ridge STP
Norwood STP
Oakland STP
Old Tappan STP
Poiapton Lakes STP
Ringwood STP
Riverdale STP
Saddle River STP
Skyline Lakes STP
Upper Saddle River STP
Wanaque STP
Wayne STP
West Milford STP
Wyckoff STP
Cedar Grove STP
Chatham STP
Diamond Hill STP
/airfield STP
rar Hills STP
Ht. Olive" STP
Morris STP
Peapack Gladstone STP
Pequannock STP
Roxbury STP
Totova STP
Alpine STP
Warren STP
Washington MUA
West Milford MUA
Wvnnewood Sewage Co.
Calcwell, N.J.
Collingswood, N.J.
Kearny, N.J.
Matavan Tovnship, -<-•
Union, N.J.
Neptune Township, It-.
Ocean Grove, N.J.
West New York, K.J.
Marlboro, N.J.
Wood-Ridge, 1-".J.
Norwood, N.J.
Oakland, N.J.
01^ Tappan, N.J.
Ponioton Lakes, N.J.
Rir.guood, N.J.
Riverdale, N.J.
Saddle River, N.J.
Skyline, N.J.
Upper Saddle River,
Wanaque, N.J.
Wayne, N.J.
West Milford, N.J.
Wyckoff, N.J.
Ceuar Grove, N.J.
Chatham Township, N.J
Eackettstown, N.J.
Fairfield, N.J.
Far Hills, N.J.
Mt. Olive Township, N
Morris Township, N.J.
Peapack, N-J.
Pequannock, N.J.
Roxbury Township, N.J
Totowa, N.J.
Alpine, N.J.
Warren Township, N.J."
Washington Township, .•
West Milford, N.J.
Freehold. N.J.
D-4
(41)
-------
NEW YORK UIGHl SLUDGE SITE
PERMIT
MUNICIPALITY
INTERMITTENT OCEAN DUMPING MUNICIPALITIES NOT CURRENTLY HOLDING PERMITS
Modern Transoortation Co. or
4
General Marine or
CaI dwell Truckina Co.
Fair Lawn STP
Dover STP
Long Branch Sewerage Auth.
Pennsauken Sewerage Auth.
Bordentown STP
Deal STP
Bradley Beach STP
Long Beach Sewerage Auth.
Spring Lake Heights STP
Point Pleasant Beach STP
Asbury Park STP
Avon-by-the-Sea STP
Bay Head STP
Belraar STP
Manasquan STP
Keptune City STP
Sea Girt STP
.Spring Lake STP
Brick Township MUA
North Wildwood STP
Kaddon Heights STP
Audubon STP
North Bergen STP
Lavallette STP
Sea Bright STP
Seaside Heights STP
Atlantic Highlands STP
Highlands STP
Seaside Park STP
Wayne STP
Hillsborough STP
Maple Shade STP
West Paterson STP
decenton Sewerage Auth.
Mt. Ephriain STP
Burlington STP
East Hanover STP
Hasaonton STP
Passaic Township STP
South Amboy STP
Farsippany-Troy Hills STP
Fair Lawn, N.J.
Toms River, N.J.
Long Branch, N.J.
Pennsauken, N.J.
Bordentown, N.J.
Deal, N.J.
Bradley Beach, N.J.
Brant Beach, N.J.
Spri.ng Lake Heights, N..
Point Pleasant Beach, .N.
Asbury Park, N.J.
Avon-by-the-Sea, N.J.
Bay Head, N.J.
Belniar, N.J.
>'anasquan, N.J.
Neptune City, N.J.
Sea Girt, N.J.
Spring Lake, N.J.
Brick Township, N.J.
North Wildwood, N.J.
Haddon Heights, N.J.
Audubon, N.J.
North Bergen, N.J.
Lavallette, N.J.
Sea Bright, N.J.
Seaside Heights, N.J.
Atlantic Highlands, N.J.
Highlands, N.J.
Seaside Park, N.J.
Wayne, N.J.
Hillsborough, N.J.
M-aple Shade, N.J.
West Paterson, N.J.
Clementon, N.J.
Mt. Ephriain, N.J.
Burlington, N.J.
Burlington, N.J.
Eaisfflonton, N.J.
Passaic Township, N.J.
South Aaboy, N.J.
Parsippany, N.J.
-------
NEW YORK BIGHT SLUDGE SITE
PtRMIT
MUNICIPALITY
INTERN!ITTtNT OCEAN DUMPING MUNICIPALITIES NOT CURRENTLY HOLDING PER'/IIS (CONT'D)
'jdern Transportation Co. or
General Marine or
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Wall Township STP
Washington Township MUA
Atlantic City STP
All entown STP
Bridgeton STP
Mt. Holly STP
Sayreville STP
Rutherford-East Rutherford
Lyndhurst Joint Meeting
East Windsor STP
Rightstown STP
Jersey City Sewage Auth.
Rockaway Valley Sewerage Auth.
Morristown STP
Moorestown STP
Livingston STP
Bernards STP
Somerset-Raritan Valley
Sewerage Auth.
Berkeley Township Sewerage Auth,
North West Bergen County
Sewerage Auth.
Raritan Township STP
Princeton STP
Clinton STP
Edgewater STP
Koboken STP
Bayonne STP
i
Secaucus STP
Woodbridge STP
Perth Ariboy STP
Freehold STP
West Long Branch Sever Dist.
Barnegat STP
Wildwood STP
Cape Kay Court Souse STP
Cape Kay STP
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Auth.
Eving-Lawrence Beverage Auth.
~!-M;--:.-<; I.T ST?
(43)
D-6
Wall, N.J.
Washington Township, -^-
Atlantic City, N.J.
Allentown, N.J.
Bridgeton, N.J.
Mt. Holly, N.J.
Sayreville, N.J.
East Rutherford, N.J.
East Windsor, N.J.
Hightstown, N.J.
Jersey City, N.J.
Boonton, N.J. ..
Morristown, N.J.
Moorestown, N.J.
Livingston, N.J.
Bernards Township, N.J.
Bound Brook, N.J.
. Berkeley Township, N.J.
Walwick, N.J.
Raritan Township, N.J.
/
Princeton, N.J.
Clinton, N.J.
Edgewater, N.J.
Hoboken, N.J.
Bayonne, N.J.
Secaucus, N.J.
Woodbridge^ N.J.
Perth Ainboy, N.J.
Freehold, N.J.
West Long Branch, N.J
Barnegat, N.J.
Wildwood, N.J.
Cape May Court House,
Cape May, N.J.
, Union Beach, N.J.
Trenton, K.J.
Bridgewater, N.J.
-------
PHILADELPHIA SLUDGE SITE
(Phase Out Date 1981)
PERMIT MUNICIPALITY
City of Philadelphia City of Philadelphia Water Philadelphia, Pa,
Department
City of Camden City of Camden Department Camden, N.J.
of Public Works Sewer
Authority
D-7
(44)
-------
TABLE E-2
OCEAN DISPOSAL: TYPES AND AMOUNTS, 1973*. 197^**• and 1975***
(IN TONS, APPROX.)
WASTE TYPE
ATLANTIC
1973 1971* 1975
GULF
1973 197U 1975 1973
PACIFIC
1975
TOT/VL
1973 1974
1975
Industrial Waste
Sewage Sludge
Construction &
Demolition Debris
Solid Waste
Explosives
3,41*2,800 3,6U2,000 3,322,300
i*, 898, 900 5,010,000 5,039,600
973,700 770,1*00 - 395,900
000
000
1,1*08,000 950,000 123,700 0
0 000
0 000
0 00 2l*0
0 000
0
0
00
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,050,800 U, 592, 000
i*. 898, 900 5,010,000
973,700 770,1*00
2UO 200
0 0
3,M*6,000
5,039,600
595,900
0
0
TOTAL
9,515,
9,1*22,1*00 8,757,800 1,'+08,000 150,000 123,700 2l*0
200
10,923,61*0 10,372,600 8,881,500
* 1973 Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reports, 1973; updated
information, 1976 (8 months of dumping activity, May to
December 1973 under permits issued by Ocean Disposal
Program extrapolated for 12 monl.lis to provide an annual
rate).
** 1971* Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reports, 197^; updated
information, 1976 (12 months of dumping activity).
*** 1975 Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reports, 1975J updated
information, 1976 (-12 months of dumping activity).
D-8
(45)
-------
\wn 11*1978
DISPOSAL SITE3 FOR OCEAN DUMPING
Dump Sltea For Municipal And InduatrUl Wastes
Site
i. Current N.Y,
• Sludge Bite
3. Galveaton Site
3, "10S" Site
4. Philadelphia
Sludge Site
6. DuPont Site
6. N.Y. Acid Site
7. Mississippi
•lUvarSlte
8. Region I Ind.
Waale Site
9. Puerto Rico Ind.
Waste Site
10. N.Y. "Cellar
Dirt" Site
11* Ocean Incineration
Site
13. Proposed DuPont Site
In S. B. Gulf or Mexico
Center Polnta
Nature of Uae
Lat.
Long.
Lat,
Long.
Lat4
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
Lat.
Long.
40* 22' 30"N
73* 41' 30"W
27* 20'N
B4« 36'W
38*. SO'N
72* 18'W
38* 21'N
74» 10'W
38* 30'N
74' 15'W
40* Ifl'N
73* 38'W
28«'05'N
88*22.6'W
42* 25'N
70* 35'W
IB* IB'N
BB*42.5'W
42* 23'N
73» 48'W
26* 40*N
63* 40'W
27» OO'N
87* OO'W
municipal sewage sludge
.Industrial waates
Industrial waates
municipal sewage sludge
acid wastes
acid waates
industrial waates
Industrial waates
Industrial wastes
construction or
demolition debris'
ocean Incineration
industrial wastes
Phaae Out Date for Dumpera ,,g Qf Aor'76
1081
Dumper a under strict Implementation
plan to develop alternatives to O. D.
1081 (all but 4 dumpers out by Deo. 1B77)
January 1BB1
November 197B
1B81 or bring waste within limitations
of criteria
dumper under atrlct Implementation
plan to develop alternatives to O, D»
dumper under atrlct Implementation
plan to develop alternatives to O. D.
April 1878
none
none
site never used
D-9
(46)
-------
1. Current N.Y.
Sludge Site
2. Galverton Site
3. "105" Site
4. Philadelphia
Sludge Site
5. DuPont Site
6. N.Y. Acid Site
7.' Mississippi
River Site
8. Region I Ind.
Waste Site
9. Puerto Rico Ind.
Waste Site
j ARKANSAS
\ s.t
\ GEORGIA \
ALABAMA \
> REGION
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
OF THE
UNITED STATES
DRFDGED MATERIALS, WRECKS
SEWAGE SLUDGE. GARBAGE O
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS B
13 =
.• ^j REG ION II
D-10
(47)
-------
APPENDIX E - STATE CRITERIA FOR LAND APPLICATION OF
WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE
(49)
-------
Following is a summary table compiled by the National Commission on
Water Quality of the States' criteria for land application and other
uses of wastewater and sludge. The information was compiled from individual
responses to their utilization of Section 201(a) - (e) of P.L. 92-500,
from a table on land application prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, from specific
State regulations in the Environment Reporter, and from telephone contacts.
The summary table lists the restrictions to land application and
whether specific regulations are used. First, it is helpful to state
the limitations of this table. It was assumed that a small percentage
of states do not have regulations if they did not appear in the State
responses to the NCWQ inquiry or the Environment Reporter. Some may
indeed have formal health department regulations not indicated in this
table. Also, a policy regarding land application of wastewater was not
obtained from 5 states, and from 19 states regarding sludges.
For land application of wastewater, from a total of 54 states and
territories; 22 or 41 percent have formal regulations. The State of
Washington has draft regulations. Thirty-eight states or 70 percent
require a minimum of secondary treatment or more stringent requirements.
Application is prohibited in the District of Columbia, discouraged in
Rhode Island, and generally not practiced in Nebraska, Ohio, and Iowa.
For land disposal of sludge, 21 states or 39 percent have some form
of formal regulations. Of the 35 states with policies regarding sludge
disposal, 18 states or 51 percent allow or regulate disposal in landfills;
20 or 57 percent evaluate disposal on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis; 5
or 14 percent require dewatering; Mississippi and Indiana require some
form of stabilization; Wisconsin requires digestion; Idaho requires heat
treatment; and Pennsylvania requires digestion for landfill disposal.
E-l
(50)
-------
SUMMARY TABLB
LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE
STATE
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
Regu-
lations
Treatment and Other
Restrictions
Regu-
lations
Restrictions
Alabama ........... No Secondary Treatment.
Alaska ............ Yes Secondary or Advancrj
Arizona Yes ...
Arkansas ......Mo Secondary
California •• . . . . ..... Yea Primary to Advanced
Colorado ........... do Secondary & Disinfection
Connecticut......... No Ad Hoc Basis
Delaware .... Yes Secondary a Disinfection
D. C. . . . Yes Prohibited
Florida ........... Yes Secondary to Advanced
Georgia. .......... Yes Secondary 6 Disinfection
Guam Yes Ad Hoc Basis
Hawaii ............. Yes Secondary fi Disinfection
Idaho. Yes Secondary or Sec. fi Disin
Illinois' .......... Yes Secondary
Indiana. . . No -
Iowa ........;. . ... No Not Generally Practiced
Kansas ...........No Secondary
Kentucky .......... No Secondary & Disinfection
Louisiana. ......... No Secondary
Main* ...... Yes Secondary & Disinfection
Maryland ... ~. ........No Secondary
Massachusetts ..No
Michigan ...No Prohibited; or secondary fi
Disinfection
Minnesota ......... Yes Secondary G Disinfection
Mississippi -.No " " "
Missouri • .. Yes Secondary fi Disinfection
Montana . . No -
Nebraska No Not Currectly Practiced
Nevada ...........No Ad Hoc by Permits
New Hampshire Yes Secondary fi Disinfection-
New Jersey ......... Yes Secondary - Toxics Prohib.
New Mexico No
New York • • ..No Secondary - Disinfection
Notch Carolina .......No Advanced s Disinfection
Norrh Dakota • No Secrndary
Ohio ............No If not cost effective - no
disposal
Oklahoma No Secondary
Oregon ...No Secondary & Disinfection or
more stringent
Pennsylvania Yes Secondary s Disinfection
Puerto Rico No
Rhode Island No Discouraged
South Carolina ....... No Ad Hoc Basis
South Dakota No Secondary & Disinfection
Tennessee .-...• No Secondary fi Disinfection
Texas ...... Yes Secondary or Secon. fi Disin.
Trust Territories . . , < . No Ad Hoc Basis
Otah Yes Secondary
Vermont '..... Yes Secondary fi Disinfection to
Prohibited
Virginia ........... Yes Secondary fi Disinfection
Washington ......... Draft Secondary fi Disinfection
West Virginia • .No
Wisconsin . Yes Secondary fi Disinfection
Wyoming No Secondary
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NO
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Permit Required
Ad Hoc Basis '
Allowed in Landfills
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Heat treatment
Ad Hoc Basis
Stabilized
Landfill if Dewatered
Ad Hoc Basis - Landfill
Ad Hoc Basis
Ad Hoc Basis
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Ad Hoc Basis
Guidelines in Preparation
Stabilized - Ad Hoc
Landfill if Dewatered
Landfill if Dewatered
Permit --Ad Hoc Basis
Landfill - mixed with refuse
Ad Hoc Basis
Ad Hoc Basis
Landfill
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Landfill - Permit
Landfill - Permit, if digested
& Dewater«>d
Landfill - Ad Hoc
. . *
Ad Hoc Basis
Dewatering
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Digested or more Stringent
Landfill - Ad Hoc
Stabilized or more Stringent
Digestion .as a M-JnimniB
Source; Compiled by the National Commission on Water Quality.
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F - PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM NO. 67:
Eligibility of Land Acquisition Cos-ts
for the Ultimate Disposal of Residuals
from Wastewater Treatment Processes
(53)
-------
\
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^PR 2 &•'-
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
No. 67
SUBJECT: Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for the Ultimate Disposal
of Residues from Wastewater Treatment Processes
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistan: Administrator
for Water Program Operations ('• JH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Division Directors
I. PURPOSE
This memorandum provides guidance on the interpretation of Section
35.940.3 of the construction grant regulations (40 CFR-Part 35) relative
to the eligibility of the cost of land required for the ultimate disposal
of residues resulting from wastewater treitment.
II. BACKGROUND
Program Guidance Memorandum No. 49 overs the eligibility of land
acquisition costs for land treatment processes and refers to the future
distribution of this guidance on the eligibility of land costs for
ultimate disposal of residues.
III. POLICY
A. Allowable Costs
The cost of purchasing land for ultimate disposal of residues from
wastewater treatment is allowable for Federal grant assistance. Ultimate
disposal of residual wastes from wastewaber treatment includes disposal
of sludges, ashes, grit or otiher residues by means of depositing such
materials in land fill sites.
Proposals to acquire land for spreaiing r.ludge may be approved if
the grantee demonstrates to the satisfaccion of the Regional Administrator
that the primary purpose of the acquisition is disposal of such residues,
and disposal by other means set out in B.2.b. of this guidance is less
cost-effective or not available.
(ii)
-------
.Any land areas to be purchased for land spreading,, except for
buffer zones, must be fully utilized for that purpose. Land require-
ments for the spreading of sludge shall be kept to an absolute minimum
determined on the basis of the maximum sludge application rate canmen-
surate with ensuring that ground and surface waters are protected and,
in addition for agricultural lands, that cropland resources are pro-
tected and harmful contaminants are not accumulated in the human. food
chain. Land acquisition costs for land areas with application rates
below 10 dry tons per acre per year will, in general, not be allowable,
although the Regional Administrator may grant a variance for a larger
land area (with a lower sludge application rate) on a case-by-case basis
where more cost-effective.
The cost of land required for land fill or land spread ing, irregu-
larities in spray patterns, reasonable buffering, dikes and drainage
ditches for surface runoff control, groundwater protection measures, and
is allowable.
Where a purpose of a project is to improve .or reclaim land as well
as to dispose of residual wastes, costs may be eligible for an amount
not to exceed the cost of the most cost-effective, single purpose method
of disposal of the residual wastes as determined in accordance with this
guidance.
Where land is to be used for disposal of both residues from munici-
pal wastewater treatment and other wastes, only 'the land cost properly
allocable to disposal of municipal wastewater treatment residues .is
allowable. One example of such cost allocation would be division of
costs between municipal waste treatment residues and other municipal
solid wastes based on, their relative dry weight proportions . -- If the dry
weight of the treatment residues handled at the joint disposal site is
less than twenty-five (25). percent of the dry weight of all the wastes
to be disposed of in the land fill, no land acquisition costs for treat-
ment residues will be allowed.
While not exclusive, the cost of land for the following uses is not
allowable except where such land is also necessary for .eligible residual
waste management uses as listed above.
1. Sites for placement of buildings, equipment, facilities and
sludge conveyance measures including pipelines, and access roads.
2. Sludge storage basins or other temporary storage facilities,
sludge drying beds, waste stabilization ponds and evaporation ponds.
The. cost of leasing land or of obtaining use of land under contract
for residue disposal or utilization is not -allowable.
F-2
(55)
-------
B. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
1. Factors to be Considered
The facility plan for the overall waste treatment system must
include a cost-effectiveness analysis of residual waste management
alternatives. The choice of a residual waste management method is to be
based on comparison of overall waste treatment, system alternatives
recognizing the close interrelationships between those facilities
comprising the residual waste management subsystem and the remainder of
the overall waste treatment system.
The residual waste management subsystem includes the facilities,
management practices and lands required ultimately to assimilate resid-
ual wastes into land or air media, beginning with the grit, raw sludges
and other residues obtained directly from wastewater treatment processes.
To aid in screening residual waste management subsystems, the costs and
non-monetary factors for such subsystems may be compared on a preliminary
basis for each wastewater treatment process option. Alternatives which
seem feasible on \he basis of the preliminary comparison should be
analyzed in detail.
The cost-effectiveness analysis of residual waste management options
is to include consideration of the following factors, with the amount
and level of ffcH-aii_ commensurate with local conditions, the number of
feasible options available, and the complexity, size and nature of the
proposed waste treatment system:
a. Relations of wastewater treatment process option to volume
and characteristics of sludges and residues produced.
b. Conditioning, stabilization or pre-application treatment
for the disposal or utilization option.
c. Alternatives for ian
-------
j. Necessary provisions for and costs of relocating persons,
households and businesses.
k« Net revenues from sale of crops, forest products and live-
stock produced by land acquired for sludge application.
1. Environmental effects including iinpacts on air and water
quality and aesthetics.
m. Odor control measures necessary for land fill or land
spreading site.
n. Groundwater protection measures.
o. Surface runoff control measures.
p. Other public health measures.
q. Energy requirements and potential recovery facilities.
2. Special Considerations for Land Management Options
a. Arrangements for land management must be made to assure
operation over at least a 10 year period, but ordinarily not more than
.2.0 years, to protect investments in facilities and equipment for disposal
or utilization of residual wastes.
b. The following alternatives must:be considered prior to
recommending outright purchase of land for land spreading of sludge or
other residues:
- Sale or free haul of processed sludge or residues
for use by others.
- Contractual payment for hauling processed sludge or
residues for use by others.
- Contract with landowners for rights to develop land
spreading site and to apply sludges, preferably with
either or both tasks to be performed by owners.
- Leasing of land spreading site, preferably providing
for site development or operations by owners.
- Land fill
c. The cost-effectiveness analysis should give special atten-
tion to the alternatives of sale, free-haul or contractual payment to
haul which result in beneficial uses of sludge. These alternatives help
achieve the wastewater treatment objectives without requiring the treat-
ment authority to undertake a major program of land acquisition, manage-
ment and utilization. p_4
(57)
-------
C, Land Acquisition P«=gm' Tenants
Grant award or written EPA approval shall be obtained prior to any
aogn1.sit.ion of land for residual waste management in order that such
costs will be allowable. The procedures for the independent appraisal
and acquisition of land contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Peal Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (P.L. 91-646) 42 USC
Section 4651 et. sq. shall be followed. The EPA Regulation implementing
this statutory requirement is contained in Subpart F of Part 4 of Title
40 of the CFRr Section 4.60000 et. seq.
The grantee shall certify to the Regional Administrator that it
will cotply with 40 CFR Section 30.810 and specifically Section 30.810
and Section 30.810-5. The certification will be reflected as an encum-
.brance in the- title of. the land. The grantee shall obtain fee simple
title to all land acquired with grant assistance, with no encumbrances
other than the one protecting the Federal interest.. .
F-5
(58)
-------
APPENDIX G - PARTIAL LISTING OF RECENT REPORTS ON
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
(59)
-------
Robert K. Bastian
Municipal Technology Branch
Tel: 202/426-8976
PARTIAL LISTING OF RECENT REPORTS ON MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCE ON LAND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL EFFLUENTS
AND SLUDGES, March 12-13, 1973, held at Rutgers University.
EPA-902/9-73-001.
Proceedings 1973 Workshop, LANDSPREADING MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT
AND SLUDGE IN FLORIDA, May 2-3, 1973. Inst. of Food and Agri.
Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATERS AND THEIR RESIDUALS, Proceedings
of Water Resources Research Institute Symposium, North Carolina, 1973.
RECYCLING TREATED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE THROUGH FOREST
AND CROPLAND, Penn State Univ. Press, Univ. Park, PA, 1973.
PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT CONFERENCE ON RECYCLING MUNICIPAL SLUDGES AND
EFFLUENTS ON LAND, July 9-13, 1973, held at the Univ. of Illinois.
NTIS No. PB-227-184.
PROCEEDINGS OF RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM ON PRETREATMENT AND ULTIMATE
DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER SOLIDS, May 21-22, 1974, held at Rutgers Univ.
EPA-902/9-74-002.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT,
June 11-13, 1974, held at Pittsburgh, PA. Available from: Information
Transfer, Inc., 1160 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCE ON UTILIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PRODUCTS ON LAND, U.S. EPA, USDA, CES-MSU, East Lansing, Michigan,
September 1974.
USA/USSR SYMPOSIUM: HANDLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
SLUDGE, held May 13-16, 1975 in Moscow, USSR. USSR-USA Joint
Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection.
US EPA, Wash., DC 20460. Available from author: B.T. Lynam, et a!.,
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 100 East Erie
St., Chicago, IL 60611.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL, August 18-20, 1975, held at Anaheim, CA.
Available from: . Information Transfer, Inc., 1160 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.
G-l
(60)
-------
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, October 24, 1975. Fourth US/OAPAN
Conference on Sewage Treatment Technology, Paper No. 1.
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT: A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, February 1974.
Final report for Contract EQC 316 by Battelle Memorial Inst., Pacific
Northwest Labs. (Available from U.S. Govt. Printing Office).
PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, October 1974.
Technology Transfer, EPA-625/1-74-006.
CHARACTERIZATION AND UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL AND UTILITY SLUDGES AND ASHES.
N.L. Hecht and D.S. Duvall, May 1975.
EPA-670/2-75-033a Vol. I Summary
-033b Vol. II Municipal Sludges
-033c Vol. Ill Utility Coal Ash
-033d Vol. IV Municipal Incinerator Residues
ALTERNATIVES FOR SLUDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY METRO-
POLITAN AREA, May 1975. Interstate Sanitation Commission; Camp Dresser &
McKee and Alexander Potter.
TECHNICAL REPORT: A GUIDE TO THE SELECTION OF COST-EFFECTIVE WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS, July 1975. EPA-430/9-75-002.
TECHNICAL REPORT: WASTEWATER SLUDGE UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL COSTS,
September 1975. EPA-430/9-75-015.
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE
TREATMENT, October 1975. EPA-430/9-75-013.
UNDERSTANDING SLUDGE, SOLID WASTE RESULTING FROM THE TREATMENT OF
SEWAGE, October 1975. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES AND COSTS OF
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (Boston, MA),
March 1976. NTIS PB-250-690. $46.25. NCWQ-75/43.
REPORT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY ON THE ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT OF THE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER RESIDUALS, Vol I & II.
(March 1976. publ by Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., Rockville,
MD (NTIS No. PB-251-371 $£8.25).
Report to the Congress by the National Commission on Water Quality,
March 1976. GPO 052-003-00153-5.
FATE AND EFFECTS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE WHEN APPLIED TO
AGRICULTURAL LANDS, January 1974, EPA-670/2-74-005; NTIS No. PB-231-171.
G-2
(61)
-------
LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE EFFLUENTS AND SLUDGES: SELECTED ABSTRACTS,
June 1974. EPA-660/2-74-042; GPO Stock No. 5501-00890; GPO Cat. No.
EP1.23/2:660/2-74-042; NTIS No. PB-235-386.
REVIEW OF LANDSPREADING OF LIQUID MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE, June 1975.
EPA-670/2-75-049; GPO Stock No. 055-00.-01024; GPO Cat. No. EP1.23/2:
670/2-75-049.
USE OF CLIMATIC DATA IN DESIGN OF SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEMS, June 1975.
EPA-660/2-75-018.
R.L. Edmonds and D.W. Cole, "Use of Dewatered Sludge as an Amendment
for Forest Growth: Environmental, Engineering, and Economic Analysis."
Bulletin No. 1, Ctr. for Ecosystem Studies, Col. of Forest Resources,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
W.E. Sopper, «rt aK, 1970. "Revegetation of Strip Mine Spoils Banks
through Irrigation with Municipal Sewage Effluent and Sludge."
Reprint Series No. 20. Inst. for Research on Land and Water Resources,
Penn State Univ., Univ. Park, PA 16802.
C.E. Young, November 1975. "Current Research on Land Application of
Wastewater and Sludge." ERS/USDA and Inst. for Research on Land and
Water Resources, Penn State Univ., Univ. Park, PA 16802.
FEASIBILITY OF USING SEWAGE SLUDGE IN HIGHWAY EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
A. Kawam, et^a]_., February 1975 (Interim Report). Report No. FHWA-RD-
75-38, Federal Highway Admin.
EVALUATION OF HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLID WASTE/SEWAGE
SLUDGE MIXTURE, W.L. Gaby, April 1975; EPA-670/2-75-023.
LAND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE, Vol II. Univ. of Guelph, October 1975.
Research Report No. 24, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal
Pollution within the Provision of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on
Great Lakes Water Quality. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Poll.
Control Br., 135 St. Clair Ave. West, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5.
A STUDY OF SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL, R.S. Burd, May 1968.
FWPCA Pub! WP-20-4.
HEAVY METALS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS RECEIVING CHEMICAL SEWAGE SLUDGES,
Vol. II, J.C. Van Loon, October 1975. Research Rept. # 25. Research
Program for the Abatement of Municipal Pollution within the Provisions
of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Poll. Control Br., 135 St. Clair Ave.,
West, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5.
THE MICROBIOLOGY OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN SOIL, R.H. Miller,
Nov. 1974. EPA 670/2-74-074.
G-3
(62)
-------
UTILIZATION OF SEWAGE WASTES ON LAND, 1975. Research Progress Report,
USDA/Agricultural Research Service; St. Paul, MN.
AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF DIGESTED SLUDGE ON FIELD CROPS, T.D. Hinesly, et al_. Univ. of
Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801. Available from: The Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, 100 East Erie St., Chicago, IL 60611.
PALZO RECLAMATION PROJECT, July 15, 1972. U.S. Forest Service,
633 West Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203.
AMERICAN COMPOSTING CONCEPTS, P.M. McGauhey, 1971. US EPA, Office of
Solid Waste Management Program.
ECOLOGY OF COMPOST IN A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROJECT, D.L. Dindal.
US EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Program.
COMPOSTING DEWATERED SEWAGE SLUDGE. 1969, US EPA, Office of Solid
Waste Management Program.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT/COMPOSTING, EUROPEAN ACTIVITY AND AMERICAN
POTENTIAL. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Program.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF SOLID WASTE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE TO METHANE.
EPA 530/SW-159.
D.R. Brunner and D.J. Keller, 1972. "Sanitary Landfill Design and
Operation." US EPA Solid Waste Management Series (SW-6Sts) GPO 5502-0085.
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE INTO A SANITARY LANDFILL. US EPA, Office of
Solid Waste Management Program. Final report (SW-71d) on work performed
under federal solid waste disposal demonstration grant #5801582, under
the direction of Ralph Stone.
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW ON SLUDGE INCINERATION PRACTICE. US Dept.
Interior, Fed. Water Quality Admin. 17070 DIV 04/70.
Report of the Task Force on Sewage Sludge Incineration. US EPA, 1973.
Rept. #EPA R2-72-040.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, February
1974. EPA 450/2-74-003.
F.P. Sebastian, e£aj_., "Sludge Incineration - Air Emission Standards
vs_ Technology - A Case Study," presented at Water and Wastewater
Equipment Mfgrs. Assoc. Ind. Water & Poll. Conference and Expo.,
Detroit, Michigan, April 1974.
AIR POLLUTION ASPECTS OF SLUDGE INCINERATION, June 1975. EPA-625/4-
75-009, EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.
G-4
(63)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM SLUDGE INCINERATION - PRESENT STATE OF
THE ART, J. Jacknow, WWEMA, 7900 Westpark Dr., Suite 304, McLean,
VA 22101.
OCEAN DUMPING IN THE UNITED STATES - 1975 Third Annual Report of
the Environmental Protection Agency on Administration of Title I;
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended.
June 1975.
OCEAN DUMPING REGULATION: AN APPRAISAL OF IMPLEMENTATION, April 1976.
Prep, by the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
for the Committee on Commerce and the National Ocean Policy Study
pursuant to S. Res. 222. Available from the U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Annual Report on the Ocean Dumping Permit Program. June 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
THE NATIONAL RESIDUALS DISCHARGE INVENTORY, R.A. Luken, D.J. Basta,
and E.H. Pechan, January 1976. Natl Research Council/Nat! Comm. on
Water Quality.
Disposal in the Marine Environment: An Oceanographic Assessment.
National Academy of Sciences, 1976.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE AND LIQUID SIDESTREAMS.
A.A. Kalinske, June 1976. EPA-430/9-76-007.
6-5
(64)
* U.S. Government Printing Office: 1977-778-574/126 Regions
------- |