WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES ORD-DAST-16
BULK TRANSPORT OF WASTE SLURRIES
TO INLAND AND OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
SUMMARY REPORT
U.& DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
BULK TRANSPORT OF WASTE SLURRIES
TO INLAND AND OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
SUMMARY REPORT
by
BECHTEL CORPORATION
for the
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CONTRACT NO. 14-12-156
December, 1969
-------
FWPCA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration and approved for publi-
cation. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
1 Accession Number I 2 Subject
I I FieId&Group
E
5E
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California
Title
BULK TRANSPORT OF WASTE SLURRIES TO INLAND AND OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
Wasp, E. J.
Thompson, T. L.
Snoek, P. E.
Kenny, J. P.
Carney, J. C.
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Transportation *Slun.ies *pipelines *Waste Disposal, Sewage Sludge, Land Disposal, Continental Shelf,
Environmental Effects, Cost Benefit Analysis, Institutional Constraints, Great Lakes Region, Atlantic Coastal Plain
Plant Residues
Abstract
25 I identifier s (Starred First)
Northeast Ohio, Baltimore-Washington, Maintenance Dredgings, Fly Ash, Water Treatment
This three volume study is principally concerned with the development of regional land and ocean pipeline
disposal systems foi digested sewage sludge and maintenance dredgings In Volume I two study cases are
presented, namely, a land disposal system for Northeast Ohio (Cleveland-Canton) and an ocean disposal system for
the Baltimore-Washington region. A systems approach is used, in which collection, transportation, and disposal
aspects are examined in light of technical, economic and social requirements. Various transport modes are
compared, including pipeline, ocean tankers, railroads, and trucks.
To a lesser extent, the study also considers the expansion of such systems to include fly ash and water
treatment plant sludge. In Volume II present methods and costs of disposal for all four wastes are reviewed.
Environmental criteria are presented for examining both land and ocean sludge disposal alternatives in terms of a
general solution for two broad metropolitan regions, namely, the Great Lakes region from Buffalo to Milwaukee
and the Atlantic Coast region from Boston to Norfolk.
Results of a loop test program utilizing 12 and 16 pipe for pumping digested sludge, fly ash, and
sludge-fly ash slurries are included in Volume III as well as corresponding rheological tests with a ฝ small tube
viscometer and a rotational lab viscometer. A procedure for predicting head losses is given, as well as a review of the
state of the art of pipelining of waste materials.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract number 14-12-I 56 under the sponsorship of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
institution
Bechtel Corporation
SEND TO WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20240
WR IO2 (REV OCT 1988)
WRSIC
Abstractor
P. E. Snoek
O IQ6 324-444
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Abstract
List of Figures
Foreword
Introduction
2. The Waste Management Concept (Vol. 1)
General Conclusions
Transportation Methods
The Land Disposal System Northeast Ohio
The Demonstration Project Northeast Ohio
Institutional Management Considerations Northeast Ohio
The Ocean Disposal System Baltimore-Washington
Institutional Management Considerations Baltimore-Washington
3. Criteria for Waste Management (Vol 11)
Waste Quantities
Limitations of Present Methods of Disposal
Environmental Considerations for Land and Ocean Disposal
4. Technical Aspects of Pipelining of Waste Materials (Vol II I)
Test Program
Hydrodynamic Design
Operability
Corrosion
S. Appendices
Economics of Pipelining of Waste Materials
Table of Contents Volume I
Table of Contents Volume II
Table of Contents Volume III
-------
FIGURES
1. General Location Map
2. Land Disposal System Summary: Digested Sludge
3 Demonstration Project for Northeast Ohio Regional System Summary. Digested
Sludge
4. Institutional Management of Land Disposal System: New 12-Inch Pipeline
5. Institutional Management of Land Disposal System: Utilizing 10-Inch Consolidation
Coal Line
6. Ocean Disposal System Summary. Digested Sludge 80 Mile Outfall Case
7. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Friction Losses: Southerly Digested Sludge
8. Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Digested Sludge
Pipeline Installation Costs vs. Capacity for Three Construction Zones
9. Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Digested Sludge
Capital Costs vs. Distance for Various Throughput Levels
10. Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Digested Sludge
Direct Operating Costs vs Distance for Various Throughput Levels
II Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Maintenance Dredgings
Pipeline Installation Costs vs. Capacity for Three Construction Zones
12. Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Maintenance Dredgings
Capital Cost vs. Distance for Various Throughput Levels.
13. Economics of Pipeline Transportation of Maintenance Dredgings
Direct Operating Costs vs. Distance for Various Throughput Levels
-------
FOREWORD
In April, 1968, a contract was issued by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration to Bechtel Corporation for
d e t ermining the technical feasibility and economics of
transporting sewage treatment plant sludge and dredging spoils by
currently available transport systems for both land and ocean
disposal To insure the general application of this concept, regional
considerations were stressed Fly ash and water treatment plant
sludge were also investigated for possible inclusion in the disposal
system
This is a summary report of the total work covered under this
contract It provides information on the conclusions and costs
reached in the study and the institutional problems that must be
considered. Details of the study can be obtained from the
individual volumes entitled
Volume F The Waste Management Concept
Volume II Criteria For Waste Management
Volume Ill. Technical Aspects of Pipelining of Waste Materials
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In recent yeais, it has become apparent that the industrial successes of American society
have been achieved at a great cost to the nation in terms of environmental and social effects.
Current trends indicate that unless rapid, aggressive and effective action is taken, such
problems as air and water pollution will eventually achieve crisis proportions on a national
scale
Up to now, progress in these areas generally has been on a narrow front, as administrations
have moved, under pressure, to alleviate an intolerable and specific local condition In short,
we, as a nation, have been reacting to problems, rather that acting on a broad front to
develop ultimate or long-term solutions.
One of the many problems which modern society has inherited, and is rapidly
compounding, is that of disposal of waste materials It is obvious that effective management
of our wastes is essential if society is to have access to clean sources of water and safe
recreation areas. At present, enormous quantities of objectionable material ranging from raw
sewage to highly toxic chemicals are discharged to the nations waterways The far-reaching
effects of these practices are well established For example, Lake Erie is seriously polluted
with municipal and industrial effluents, and was referred to recently as the first large scale
warning that we are in danger of destroying the habitability of the earth.
Rhetoric, such as that given above, is quite common these days Although this type of
discussion serves to generate a necessary feeling of alarm, it is rarely accompanied by a
viable course of action as to how to solve a specific pollution problem. This report addresses
itself to the development of a specific waste management system, which collects, transports
and disposes of selected waste materials in a socially, technically and economically
satisfactory fashion A systems analysis approach, emphasizing regional considerations is
utilized It further examines the feasibility of constructing and operating a demonstration
project. The proposed system is entirely feasible today and may be implemented quickly
The two areas considered in this report are presented in Figure I A land disposal concept is
investigated for the Great Lakes Megalopolis from Buffalo to Milwaukee, while ocean
disposal is examined for the Atlantic Coast Megalopolis from Boston to Norfolk. The
physical size of these areas is such, that to realistically analyze the problem, it is necessary
to concentrate on specific cases which are representative of the type of waste disposal
problems encountered in the areas as a whole, and which lend themselves to regional
integration. The Northeast Ohio region and the Baltimore-Washington region have been
selected as specific study areas. However, the methodology presented may be applied for
analysis of other regions throughout the nation
The study is concerned mainly with the development of regional disposal systems for
digested sewage sludge and maintenance dredgings. In many areas, disposal of these two
wastes presents a major problem. However, to a lesser extent, the study also considers the
expansion of such systems to include other wastes which lend themselves to regional
disposal, such as power plant fly ash and water treatment plant sludge.
-------
Figure 1
F.W.P.C.A. Waste Management Study
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
COASTAL SITE STUDY AREA
BALTIMORE WASHINGTON REGION
ATLANTIC
COAST
MEGALOPOLIS
LAND DISPOSAL STUDY AREA
NORTHEAST OHIO REGION
-2--
-------
SECTION 2
THE WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT
(Volume 1)
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
0 For an immediate solution to the national problem of disposal of digested
sludge, a land disposal system is recommended This concept has broad
national applicability, will allow marginal lands to be upgraded, and can be
effectively controlled to assure that there will be no environmental
degradation Disposal to the waters of the continental shelf offers substantial
economic benefits, but it suffers from the significant unknown factors
relating to the ecological effects.
A regional waste management system is technically and economically
feasible, even if limited to sewage sludge alone Further, such a system can
be significantly more effective in pollution control than local waste
treatment and disposal, since it can provide for the ultimate disposal of all
the wastes accepted by the system in a safe and socially acceptable fashion
The cost benefit ratio of a sludge land disposal system is so favorable that it
is recommended that the Federal Government, in cooperation with the State
of Ohio and the City of Cleveland, immediately embark on a demonstration
project to prove the viability of the concept.
Wastes such as dredgings, fly ash and water treatment plant sludge may also
be included in a regional waste management system Dredging disposal costs
would exceed those of present methods, so implementation is dependent on
the value that society places on disposing of such wastes in an ecologically
satisfying manner. Fly ash could be added to digested sludge in relatively
large amounts, with little increase in disposal costs Water treatment plant
sludges could be successfully incorporated into the regional waste
management system, by use of the sanitary sewer system and result in
improving the system economics.
TRANSPORTATION METHODS
Railroad, tanker, truck and pipeline transport modes were investigated The costs of
collection and tiansportation of the wastes studied demonstrate that pipeline transportation
yields significant economies in comparison to the other niodes evaluated Only for very
small plants (producing less than about 5 tons per day of digested sludge solids) is waste
collection by trucking more economical that pipeline transportation
A general method for evaluating pipeline transportation costs for digested sludge and
maintenence dredgings is presented in the Appendix It allows pipeline capital and annual
operating costs to be determined for a wide range of distance and waste quantities
3
-------
THE LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM: NORTHEAST OHIO
The ultimate regional waste disposal system for the Northeast Ohio Region, capable of
serving the needs of this area through the year 2000, is presented in Figure 2. This system is
based upon expansion of an initial 2-year demonstration program system to pick up
additional sources of waste materials. In addition to a sludge disposal system, it includes a
parallel 1 2-inch diameter pipeline system for the transportation of maintenance dredgings.
The estimated capital cost of the sludge disposal portion of the ultimate system is $14.8
million The disposal costs, including collection, average $25 per ton over a 29-year period
(1972-2000). This is compared with costs of $30 to $42 per ton by the most widely used
in-plant disposal methods. The extension of the system to full regional capacity is
dependent upon the implementation of the Metro Sewer Plan proposed by the F.W P.C.A.
in the Lake Erie Report For the dredgings disposal system, the estimated capital cost is
$10.3 million and the total disposal cost is $4.32 per ton of solids. The cost by present
methods ranges from $1.33 to $3.22 per ton. Therefore ,the dredgings system can only be
justified on the basis of other benefits to society, such as, it offers permanent removal of the
material from the lake environment and it allows the material to be used as fill to level lands
that have been strip-mmed
THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: NORTHEAST OHIO
The cost/benefit ratio and the higher degree of pollution control provided by a regional
waste nianagement system warrant the immediate undertaking of a demonstration project to
further validate the concept. The basic facility for the recommended demonstration project
is summarized in Figure 3 and includes the transportation of digested sludge from Cleveland
as a 3.5 percent slurry by a 93-mile, 12-inch diameter pipeline for disposal in strip mine land in
Southern Ohio. In the demonstration project, sludge will be disposed of by a lagooning
system with an experimental program of land irrigation carried on at the same time. This
experimental work will verify the agricultural benefits of land disposal and will supplement
other field studies of sludge disposal. The demonstration project considers the
transportation of the entire digested sludge production of the two largest treatment plants
in Cleveland, which represent about 65 percent of the total sludge production in the
Northeast Ohio region The project will prove the efficacy of the regional land disposal
concept, define the costs, determine the public acceptance, establish environmental control
procedures, and will be capable of expansion into the full regional system. The total cost of
the demonstration project (including operating costs for 2 years) is $108 million. It is
recommended that the demonstration be funded primarly by the Federal Government in
cooperation with the State of Ohio.
However, Cleveland is in a unique position in that an unused 10-inch pipeline runs from a
point east of the city to the proposed disposal area. It is one of the reasons that this region
was chosen as a study area As shown in Figure 3, eighty-one miles of this existing pipeline
could be utilized by constructing a new 23-mile 10-inch spur line from Clevelands
Southerly Sewage Treatment Plant. Due to its smaller size, this system cannot handle the
ultimate volume possible in the 12-inch case, but it significantly reduces the initial risk
capital required to demonstrate the concept $62 million vs $108 million or $4.6 million
less (see Figure 3). It is adequate to handle Clevelands projected 1985 tonnages with an
average cost in the order of $27/ton. Preliminary discussions with the present owners of this
line, Consolidation Coal Company, indicate interest in either selling or leasing the line and
this alternative should be investigated.
4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: NORTHEAST OHIO
The successful implementation of a land disposal system to accommodate the safe and
useful disposal of sewage treatment plant sludge and dredging spoils, requires imaginative
thinking and a high degree of cooperation on the part of all public authorities and private
interests involved. The sheer volume of the wastes, the physical nature of the material, and
the requirements for informing the general public of the beneficial aspects of the
recommended disposal scheme, impose serious demands in the formulation of the disposal
system
In the Northeast Ohio region, two principal jurisdictional bodies exist for the development
of a regional waste management system They are the Ohio Water Development Authority
(OWDA) and the City of Cleveland. The OWDA was created in March 1968 and assigned
broad responsibility for the development and utilization of the states water resources The
Authority is empowered to finance projects by the issuance of revenue bonds, payable from
charges guaranteed by the municipalities to whom the service is furnished (i e through a
tariff) The Authority can also purchase land for right-of-way, condemn property, construct
facilities, operate directly or engage an organization to operate the facilities. The City of
Cleveland, under present law, can only own and operate facilities within its own
jurisdictional boundaries
System Institutional Management and Financing
There are four basic institutional management routes which may be utilized to carry out this
venture As already noted, there are two physical systems (a) a new 1 2-inch and (b) a
modification of the existing 10-inch line For each of these systems, there are two methods
of financing private and state In all cases, it is recommended that the collection facilities
(i e feeder pipelines) be provided by the respective cities and that the transportation and
disposal system for the demonstration project be operated by a private concern
The cases under a new 12-inch system are outlined in Figure 4. It should be noted that
private ownership, although quite appealing on the surface. has some serious economic
drawbacks. A preliminary appraisal indicates that a private company would have to charge
in excess of $35/ton in order to show a decent rate of return on investment This is
probably in excess of what the municipalities would be willing to pay It is a direct result of
the higher capital charges which private industry must build into a rate structure in order
to allow for profit, federal and state income taxes and ad valorem taxes which a
publicly-owned facility would avoid
The cases which consider utilization of the existing 10-inch Consolidation Coal line are
shown iii Figure 5 It is important to note that no price has been set in this study on the
value of this existing facility to the waste system The actual payment would, of course, be
subject to negotiation
THE OCEAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM: BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON
A regional waste management system, involving ocean disposal for the Baltimore-
Washington Region is presented in Figure 6 The digested sludge system shown, capable of
serving the needs of this region through the year 2000, is based upon pipeline collection and
transportation with an 80-mile ocean outfall utilized for disposal Although significant
economic gain would result from the use of a shorter outfall to the continental shelf waters,
substantial questions remain concerning the long-term effects on the marine environment A
major research and development program will be necessary before these potential savings
can be realized
7
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The estimated initial capital investment for the system is $53.5 million and future additions
will total $8. 1 million. The unit disposal costs for the period 1975 to 2000 will range from
$55.00 per ton for the initial year, down to $23 10 for the final year, with an average cost
of $27.80 per ton of dry solids
These disposal costs compare very favorably with costs projected for other disposal
methods. For example, sludge incineration costs recently projected for Washington, D.C. are
in the range of $52 to $58 per ton of dry solids. In addition, the pipeline-ocean disposal
system will completely eliminate pollution of local waterways, due to loss of digester solids
and nutrient discharge.
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON
Whereas a great deal of imaginative thinking and a high degree of cooperation on the part of
all involved public authorities and private interests is necessary in the Northeast Ohio
system, it is even more critical in the Baltimore-Washington disposal system. This is a result
of the fact that the system directly involves
Sixteen Municipalities
The State of Virginia
The State of Maryland
The District of Columbia
The Federal Government
International Waters
This is much more complex than the proposed land disposal system, which was entirely
within the State of Ohio Although there are a number of existing regional organizations in
the area, none of these are sufficiently empowered to handle the proposed disposal system.
In light of these institutional problems, it is felt, at this stage, that a private enterprise
alternative would not be practical and that a regional public body is the only feasible
solution. Such a body could be modeled after the Delaware River Basin Compact, which was
formed by the States of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and the Federal
Government to manage the water resources of the Delaware River Basin Numerous similar
jurisdictional bodies exist, such as the St Lawrence Seaway Authority, and the New York
Port Authority. It is a recommendation of this study that a new jurisdictional body be
formed by the respective states and the District of Columbia under the auspices of the
Federal Government, The body should have broad jurisdictional powers, including the
ability to own and operate facilities, issue bonds, accept grants from the Federal
Government and exert the right of eminent domain.
The first job of this body would be to investigate, in depth, the effects of dumping the
proposed quantities of digested sludge into the ocean. Currently, there is no law or
international treaty to control dumping of wastes in international water. Because of its
implications, many federal agencies would probably be interested in participating in this phase.
The second task of the proposed body would be to demonstrate the ocean disposal concept,
utilizing the results of the investigation. This might entail, for example, an interim two-year
sludge disposal program to specific sites from one or more plants in which detailed
monitoring would be conducted. Following the successful demonstration of the concept, of
course, a full scale regional system could be implemented.
11
-------
A detailed formulation of the structure of the proposed jurisdictional body was beyond the
scope of this study, since it must be done in cooperation with high level officials from the
respective governments. This should probably be carned out by a commission, charged with
the task of formulating a new jurisdictional structure, subject to ratification by the involved
governments. The commission could be formed by congressional statute, such as those
enacted for the formation of various basin commissions. Alternately, an autonomous
commission could be formed, similar to the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority,
with the capability of obtaining revenue for capital and operating expenses from the
respective participants.
It should be emphasized that, although institutional management problems of ocean
disposal in the Baltimore-Washington region are difficult and complex, the economies that
can be realized justify the expenditure of enormous energies to develop the type of
inter-regional organization necessary to carry out the proposed plan.
12
-------
SECTION 3
CRITERIA FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
(Volume II)
This volume serves mainly to provide backup information for development of the regional
land and ocean disposal systems outlined in Volume I. It discusses projected waste
quantities, present methods and costs of disposal, environmental considerations, waste
treatment, and land and ocean distribution systems. The major conclusions are summarized
as follows
WASTE QUANTITIES
Due to the ever increasing growth of population and expansion of industrial output, the
quantity of all waste materials is generally expected to increase from now to the year 2000.
However, as shown in the table below, digested sludge loads will nearly triple because of
higher levels of wastewater treatment and wider use of garbage grinding equipment.
Furthermore, since digested sludge is usually produced at a solids concentration of only
three to five percent and much of the pollutional matter is contained in the liquid phase, the
waste quantities represent a far larger problem than is indicate on a mere dry tonnage basis.
Projected Waste Quantities
dry tons/day
1968 1975 2000
Great Lakes Region
Digested Sludge 1,350 1,670 3760 i
Maintenance Dredgings 16,700 16,700 16,700
Power Plant Fly Ash 9,470 11,480 5,920
Filter Plant Residue 217 247 407
Atlantic Coast Region
Digested Sludge 2,190 2,740
Maintenance Dredgings SI ,000 54,800 67,500
Power Plant Fly Ash 7,320 8,520 3,040
Filter Plant Residue 173 197 323
Includes waste chemical sludge from tertiary treatment
LIMITATIONS OF PRESENT METHODS OF DISPOSAL
Concurrent with rising waste volumes is a steadily decreasing number of suitable disposal
alternatives. A prime example is sludge disposal for large cities. Increased urbanization of
the areas surrounding the treatment plants has nearly eliminated lagooning as an attractive
method of disposal
13
-------
Recently, sludge incineration has gained wide acceptance. However, the increasing awareness
of society as to the effect of all forms of pollution makes it doubtful that this can be
considered the ultimate solution. Although present technology can result in minimal
emmission of particulate matter and odors, higher air pollution standards will require
control of other emissions which are not yet classed as pollutants. Lately, the oxides of
nitrogen from stationary sources have received increased concern At present, neither
removal from stack gases nor reduction through modification of the combustion process
appear feasible without incurring a significant economic penalty.
Furthermore, tertiary treatment of municipal sewage may result in a substantial increase in
the volume of inorganic material for disposal The resulting change in sludge properties will
add to the fuel cost while increasing the amount of ash for disposal. Thus, in the future, all
sludge combustion processes may become substantially more expensive to operate
A similar situation exists with respect to the disposal of maintenance dredgings Traditionally
they have been discharged to nearby open water as a matter of economy. Currently there are
strong objections to continuing this policy, particularly in the Great Lakes region. Although
the effects of dredgings disposal on the receiving area are still largely unknown, the material
is sometimes heavily polluted and so this procedure must be considered, at least in these
cases, as being undesirable.
In the case of fly ash from power plants, land fill in nearby areas is currently the most
widely used method of disposal. This procedure is acceptable from an environmental
standpoint and is economic as well. However, the increase in land use over the next few
decades will reduce the feasibility of using this alternative in many metropolitan areas. In
spite of increased utilization, waste disposal may become a significant problem until nuclear
power growth results in a falloff in coal burn.
Chemical coagulation residues from rapid sand filter plants are usually discharged back to
the water source This method is destined to decrease in use over the near future, as
obviously, this results in some degradation of the receiving water. In some cases, the residue
is discharged to sanitary sewers where it eventually ends up as part of the waste-water
treatment plant sludge. This alternative is just a simple transfer of the problem and therefore
does not represent a final solution, unless the waste water sludge disposal problem is
adequately answered.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAND AND OCEAN DISPOSAL
It is a conclusion of this study that land disposal is a viable solution for the waste materials
considered. Suitable disposal areas are available within one hundred miles of most
metropolitan regions. The process is particularly appealing as it can allow marginal lands to
be upgraded by utilization of the same nutrients which are a problem in inland bodies of
water like Lake Erie. Furthermore, the operation can be effectively controlled to assure that
there will be no environmental degradationby means of seasonal storage, regulated
application rates and monitoring of ground and surface water. These precautions will
prevent excess nitrates in ground water, heavy metal build-up in the soil, or transmission of
communicable disease agents.
On the basis of limited current information, ocean disposal of digested sludge to the
continental shelf area at this time does not appear to be a practical long-range solution for
the Atlantic Coast Megalopolis. Although this seems to be a suitable alternative for the
Pacific coast communities where relatively great depths of water occur close to shore, the
14
-------
continental shelf on the Atlantic extends up to one hundred miles from shore. The waters
on this shelf are not renewed sufficiently to obtain the desirable 3 x I O dilution in the year
2000 of the total digested plus waste chemical sludge production from the Atlantic
metropolitan areas. This dilution requirement is dictated by transparency, nutrient, and
dissolved oxygen considerations
Although shelf disposal may not be feasible for the whole Atlantic region, it still may be
possible for a portion of this area to utilize this disposal method. Furthermore, by means of
new technology, it may be feasible to alter the sludge characteristics so as to allow a lower
dilution. Present studies are under way on the effects of waste disposal on ocean biota
which should help clarify this situation. Until additional data are available, however, the
only rational approach is to refrain from adding significant additional waste material to the
Atlantic shelf.
15
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PIPELINING OF WASTE MATERIALS
(Volume Ill)
The analysis of various modes of waste transportation, presented in Volume I, indicated that
pipelining offered significant economic advantages. In order to confirm the technical
feasibility, a series of tests were performed. A second objective was to develop a reliable
procedure for the design of such pipelines. The results of this work are discussed in this
volume and are summarized in the following text
TEST PROGRAM
The prime component of either a land or ocean regional waste management system is the
collection and transportation network. In order to successfully design a pipeline system to
transport solid wastes, an understanding of the technology of solids-liquid flow is required.
To this end, a series of laboratory and pipeline ioop tests were performed. The object of the
test program was to arrive at a suitable design procedure by correlation of measured friction
losses which would satisfy the following requirements
o The recommended design procedure should enable a commercial pipeline to
be hydraulically designed from laboratory measurement of basic flow
parameters.
The recommended design procedure must be applicable to widely differing
materials.
* The recommended design procedure must be applicable to commercial pipe
diameters.
Since commercial slurry pipelines normally operate in the turbulent flow
regime, the design model must include a reliable criterion for the prediction
of the laminar/turbulent transition.
Digested sewage sludge and fly ash were chosen as representative materials for the tests. The
physical characteristics of these materials differ widely Fly ash is a fast settling, high
density material, sludge solids are fibrous, have low density and have extremely low settling
rates. However, it was expected, and was also demonstrated, that both materials sludge
because of its fibrous nature and fly ash because the particles are very fine would be
transported in homogenous flow in the turbulent regime. Samples taken from the top and
middle of the pipe test sections confirmed that this was indeed the case.
These materials, individually and in differing combinations, were tested at various velocities
in ฝ-inch, I 2-inch and 16-inch pipe test sections at a number of solids concentrations, thus
providing a very wide range of data. In order to ensure successful operability, shutdown and
startup tests were also performed on fly ash and a fly ash/sludge mixture.
16
-------
The test program was performed at the experimental facilities of the Hanna Coal Company
Division of Consolidation Coal, located at Cadiz, Ohio. As a public service, the facilities
were provided for the tests without charge. The sludge was obtained from the Southerly
Sewage Treatment Plant in Cleveland and fly ash was obtained from Ohio Edisons Sammis
Plant at Stratton, Ohio.
To provide information relevant to transportation of other waste materials, laboratory
analyses were performed on samples of digested sludge from the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant, maintenance dredgings from Cleveland Harbor, and water treatment
plant sludge from the Nottingham Filtration Plant in Cleveland.
HYDRODYNAMIC DESIGN
Various correlation procedures were applied to the hydraulic data for flow of these waste
materials in pipes It was shown that a model assuming homogeneous suspension of the
solids gives good prediction of friction losses for a wide range of pipe diameters. An example
of the accuracy of prediction of hydraulic test data is shown in Figure 7.
The basis of this model is that flow of a homogeneous suspension is very similar to that of a
true, or Newtonian, fluid. Provided that a suitable viscosity of the slurry can be obtained,
head losses can be calculated from the standard friction factor-Reynolds Number
relationships for Newtonian fluids. It was determined that for a slurry exhibiting plastic
properties, the coefficient of rigidity is a suitable viscosity with which to define the
Reynolds number.
The homogeneous model is a reliable procedure for the design of pipeline waste disposal
systems only if accurate information as to system rheology is available A rotational viscometer
was used in this study to generate such rheological data. In the turbulent regime, which is
the area of interest to commercial pipelines, the study materials are transported as
homogeneous fluids (with certain concentration limitations in the case of fly ash) The data
show that the Heclstrom critical velocity gives a good prediction of the laminar/turbulent
transition, and is, therefore, a useful method of ensuring that a given system will be in the
turbulent flow regime
Digested sludge and sludge/fly ash mixtures are closely represented by the homogeneous
model Indeed, it appears that adding fly ash to digested sludge is an ideal method of
tranporting fly ash (or similar waster materials), since addition of significant quantities of
fly ash (lOS I on sludge solids) does not result in a large increase in friction losses. Data for
fly ash/water slurries indicated a slight dampening of turbulence due to the presence of
solids.
OPERABILITY
Laboratory and test loop data show that pipelines transporting these waste materials can be
successfully restarted following a shutdown The findings of the tests are supported by the
fact that successful installations for the transportation of both sludge and fly ash have been
in operation for a number of years.
CORROSION
The corrosion rates to be expected in the pipelining of sludge, maintenance dredgings, fly
ash, and fly ash/sludge mixtures were evaluated by laboratory tests. The test procedure used
has been related to actual rates experienced in a commercial pipeline, and is a reliable
method of establishing pipeline corrosion rates. The tests show that corrosion rates for the
waste materials are very moderate (1 to 2 mils per year) and will present no significant
problems in a cross-country pipeline
17
-------
Figure 1
,d)
C I )
LU
I-
Cl
LU
=
C ,)
-I
-I
LU
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED FRICTION LOSSES
SOUTHERLY DIGESTED SLUDGE
I I I I liii
2 3 4 5678910
I I I I I liii
RUN OS-i-H
35% SOLIDS
TEMP 78ฐF
HYDRAULIC DATA
El 12 00 I 0 (c/D= O 00025)
0 15 25 I D. (/D=0 00045)
RHEOLOGY DATA
1 00
090
080
070-
060-
050
040
030
020
010
009
008
007
006
005
004
0 03
0 02
001
I I I I I I I_
763cp
T 0 5.6 Dynes/cm 2
ฎPREDICTED FOR TURBULENT REGIME
USING HOMOGENEOUS MODEL FOR 15.25
I 0. PIPE (/D=0 00045) AND 12 I 0. PIPE 1
(e/D=0.00025) (PREDICTIONS FOR BOTH
SETS OF DATA COINCIDE) =
ฎLAMINAR PREDICTION USING BUCKINGHAM .
EQUATION El
0 -
0 HEOSTROM CRITICAL
El
0
- BINGHAM CRITICAL
I L I I I I I II
1 2 3 4 5678910
VELOCITY Ft/Sec
18
-------
SECTION 5
APPENDICES
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINING WASTE MATERIALS
In the analysis of the study areas in this report, it has been shown that pipelines can offer
significant economic advantages over other means of transportation of waste materials. This
finding may be of interest to pollution control authorities for other areas, which may have
widely differing waste volumes and transportation distances than those encountered in the
detailed case studies The following information will allow an evaluation of pipeline costs
for transportation of digested sludge and dredgings for a wide range of combinations of
distance and waste quantity
Extraction of pipeline capital and annual operating costs from Figures 8 to 13 is relatively
simple However, the use and limitations of the figures do warrant some discussion
DIGESTED SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION COSTS
The capital costs of pipeline systems for transportation of 3 5 percent digested sludge are
given in Figures 8 and 9 Figure 8 shows pipeline installation costs as a function of through-
put (i e pipe diameter) for downtown, suburban and rural construction Figure 9 shows the
remaining capital cost items as a function of distance transported for various throughput
levels. The total capital cost of a pipeline system, including installation, pipe, pump stations,
right-of-way and indirect costs are included in Figures 8 and 9. The following is an example
of the use of the tables.
Example l)etermine the capital cost of a pipeline to transport digested sludge from a
sewage treatment plant producing 500 tons of solids per day to a disposal site 100 miles
away. The pipeline route will have 10 miles through downtown areas, 20 miles through
suburbs and 70 miles through open country.
Pipe Installation Costs
Unit Cost From
Fig. 8 Tons/day
S/ton mile Miles Transported Cost ($)
Downtown 115 10 500 575,000
Suburban 75 20 500 750,000
Rural 58 70 500 2,040,000
Total Cost S 3,365,000
Capital Cost (Excluding Pipe Installation)
From Figure 9, unit transportation cost for 500 tons/day and 100 miles distance is $180 per
ton-mile
19
-------
Therefore capital cost (excluding pipe installation)
= 180x100x500
= $9,000,000
Total Capital Cost
Total Capital Cost = 3,365,000 + 9,000,000
Total Capital Cost = $12,365,000
Figure 10 shows the annual direct operating costs of sludge pipelines as a function of
distance for various throughput levels The costs include power, labor, supplies and
maintenance
For the example given above, the unit annual operating cost for a 100 mile, 500 ton per day
sludge pipeline, from Figure 10 is $8 per daily ton-mile.
Therefore, the total direct operating cost of the pipeline is
8 x 500 x 100 = $400,000 per year
DREDGINGS TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Figures 1 1 to 1 3 show the capital and direct operating costs for the pipeline transportation
of maintenance dredgings. The curves are based on dredgings at 25 percent solids by weight
and should be used in the same way as Figures 8 to 10.
Capital costs obtained from these figures include installation, pipe, pump stations, right-of-
way and indirect costs. Operating costs include power, labor, supplies and maintenance
20
-------
riuuiw *
F.W.P.C.A. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
PIPELINE INSTALLATION COSTS vs. CAPACITY FOR THREE CONSTRUCTION ZONES
I I i
_ _ . _ - --U U
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
PIPELINE THROUGHPUT - TONS DRY SOLIDS PER CALENDAR DAY (365 Days/Year)
-I
1000
900
800
H
LI
Basis: Sludge at 3hฐi Solids by Weight
700
Pipeline Operating Factor 0.95
600
uJ
I
I-
-j
w
Cl)
-J
-j
C l)
0
C.,
0
-J
I-
Cl)
500
400
300
200
1 00
DO WNTot j CO NSi U C T
SUBURBAN
RURAL CONSTRUCTION
21
-------
0
03
=
a .
0.
1500
0
=
3
K
w
w
-J
t I LI 4_
N N N N N N U N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 100
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE - MILES
U N N
110 120 130 140
150
FIGURE 9
FW.PC.A. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
CAPITAL COSTS (Excluding Installation) vs. DISTANCE
FOR VARIOUS THROUGHPUT LEVELS
2250
2000
-1
+
I
>-
LU
C l)
1
-J
Cl )
0
C-)
-J
C-)
1000
500
U
22
-------
FIGURE 10
F.W.P.C.A. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
DIRECT OPERATING COSTSvs. DISTANCE
FOR VARIOUS THROUGHPUT LEVELS
Tons Solids/Day
25.
Basis: Sludge at 3Y2% Solids by Weight
Operating Factor 0.95 Costs IncludePower,
I abor, Supplies่nd Maintenance
LU
2
I -.
>.
-I
LU
-J
-I
I-
C-,
2
I-
LU
0
I-
C-,
LU
0
-J
=
2
2
200
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE - MILES
23
-------
FIGURE 11
F.W.P.CA. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF MAINTENANCE DREDGINGS
PIPELINE INSTALLATION COSTS vs. CAPACITY
FOR THREE CONSTRUCTION ZONES
--t-
tt ff
L t ffl JL 44
400
600
ft
4
16
14
Basis Dredgungs at 25 Weight Percent Sohds
270 Day per Year Operation
-
4-
4
-4-
-I -
+
10
I
U.
-I
2
D
I
-j
2
2
U.
3.
Cl)
I-
2
U.
C.)
Cl)
C
C.)
2
C
I-
1
-J
Cl )
2
U.
2
-J
U.
3.
3.
8
-I -
f
3
6
I
4
ttf + 1 I I I-f-f
T t I 11 I
0
0
200
PIPELINE THROUGHPUT - THOUSANDS OF TONS SOLIDS/YEAR
800
1000
1200
24
-------
FIGURE 12
60
50
40
30
20
10
Basis: Dredgings at 25% Solids by Weight
270 Day per Year Operation Cost
Include All Capital Items Except
Installation
F.W.P.C.A. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF MAINTENANCE ORE DGINGS
CAPITAL COST (Ex Installation) vs. DISTANCE
FOR VARIOUS THROUGHPUT LEVELS
Thousands of loris SoIidsjY r
50
100
300
500
150
1000
U U U U W U W U
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE
U
100
-MILES
U U U
110 120 130 140 150
112
110
100
1
gal
10
LU
-
ฉ
I-
- I
z
LU
U,
I-
LU
c.a
0
I-
-t
-J
I-
U)
z
LU
I-
U,
0
C-,
1
C -,
-I
I-
0
200
25
-------
21
20
19
18
11
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
FIGURE 13
F.W.P.C.A. Waste Management Study
ECONOMICS OF PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF MAINTENANCE DREDGINGS
DIRECT OPERATING COSTS vs. DISTANCE
FOR VARIOUS THROUGHPUT LEVELS
Pipeline Capacity
Thousands of Tons
of Dry SolidsIYear
5O
Basis: Slurry at 25 Weight Perceht Solids
210 Day per Year Operation
Costs Include Power. Labor, Supplies.
and Maintenance
too
i o 120 io 140
2
-I
=
2
2
LU
3.
C,)
I-
2
LU
C.)
C,)
0
C.)
C.)
LU
0
LU
2
-I
LU
3.
3.
-I
=
2
2
w U - U U U
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 100
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE MILES
150
26
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS: VOLUME I
THE WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPROACH
Methodology
Supplementary Data
LAND DISPOSAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Selection and Description of Study Region
General Scope of Demonstration Project
Demonstration System Description
Demonstration Project Costs
Demonstration System Operation and Development Program
Environmental Control
o Expansion to Meet Future Regional Requirements
O Alternative Sludge Disposal System Existing 10-inch Pipeline
o Institutional Management Considerations
o Future Work
COASTAL REGION OPTION OCEAN DISPOSAL
o Selection and Description of Study Region
0 General Scope
System Description
System Capital and Operating Costs
Economic and Environmental Benefits
Recommended Development Program
Institutional Management Considerations
APPENDIX A
Table of Contents - Volume II
Table of Contents- Volume Ill
APPENDIX B PROJECTION OF FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR STUDY
REGIONS
APPENDIX C ECONOMICS OF PIPELINING WASTE MATERIALS
APPENDIX D PRESENT METHODS AND COSTS OF DISPOSAL
Northeast Ohio Region
Baltimore-Washington Region
BIBLIOGRAPHY
27
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II
CRITERIA FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
WASTE QUANTITIES
DIGESTED SLUDGE
Suspended Solids Contribution
Fresh Sludge Production
Tertiary Treatment
Digestion Losses
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Population Projections
Sewered Populations
Projected Sludge Quantities
MAINTENANCE DREDGINGS
Historical Record
Projected Waste Quantities
FLY ASH
Projected Coal Burn
Utilization
Projected Waste Quantities
WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESIDUES
Solids Production
Surface Water Consumption
Projected Chemical Coagulation Wastes
PRESENT METhODS AND COSTS OF DISPOSAL
DIGESTED SLUDGE
Disposal to the Land
Disposal to Water
Disposal to the Air
Disposal Costs
MAINTENANCE DREDGINGS
Removal to Deep Water
Disposal to Landfills and Offshore Dike Areas
Disposal Costs
28
-------
FLY ASH
Disposal Methods
Disposal Costs
WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESIDUES
Chemical Coagulation Wastes
Filter Backwash Water
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONAL LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
EFFECT ON WATER ENVIRONMENT
Pathogenic Microorganisms
Viruses
Chemical Additions
EFFECT ON SOILS AND CROPS
Chemical Additions
Historical Record
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Airborne Pollution
Insect Vectors
Crops as Vectors
Soil Contact
Nuisance Conditions
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGIONAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
FACTORS OF CONCERN
DILUTION REQUIREMENTS
Transparency
Nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
SHELLFISH CONTAMINATION
Viruses
Heavy metals
CONCLUSIONS
TREATMENT OF WASTE MATERIALS
EVALUATION OF NEED
TREATMENT FOR COMMUNICABLE DISEASE AGENTS
Storage
Heat Treatment
Chemical Disinfection
Radiation and Other Physical Methods
29
-------
TREATMENT FOR NITROGEN REMOVAL
Nitrogen Removal Experience
Removal Prior to Land Application
Removal in Situ
Removal from Leachate
LAND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
STATE OF THE ART
APPLICATION RATES
METHODS OF APPLICATION
Sludge
Dredgings
Fly Ash
CONCLUSIONS
OCEAN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
STATE OF THE ART
ATLANTIC COAST ALTERNATIVES
Barge and Tanker Disposal
Pipe and Diffuser Disposal
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
30
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS: VOLUME III
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PIPELINING OF WASTE MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
STATE OF THE ART
Hydrodynamics
Operability
Corrosion/Erosion
Mechanical Equipment
DISCUSSION OF DESIGN PROCEDURE
HYDRAULIC TEST EQUIPMENT
LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND DATA
Testing Methods
Digested Sludge
Fly Ash
Sludge/Fly Ash Mixtures
Maintenance Dredgings
Sludge/Dredgings Mixtures
Water Treatment Plant Sludge
PIPE TESTS ON DIGESTED SLUDGE
Pipelining of Digested Sludge
Rheology
Hydraulic Data
PIPE TESTS ON FLY ASH SLURRIES
Pipelining of Fly Ash Slumes
Rheology
Hydraulic Data
Pipeline Operability
PIPE TESTS ON SLUDGE/FLY ASH MIXTURES
Pipelining of Sludge/Fly Ash Mixtures
Rhelogy
Hydraulic Data
Pipeline Operability
APPENDIX A
Water Runs
Digested Sludge Runs
Fly Ash Runs
Sludge/Fly Ash Runs
APPENDIX B: NOMENCLATURE
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES
31
------- |