.1 ‘ L | . . . . . ’6 I . u . . v , I ~ ? | I . a ' ...n 5'5"." 'I .THESiS Date This is to certify that the thesis entitled COST OF FOREST LAND DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE presented by JULIE KAY GORTE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH . D. Jam in FORESTRY fiwrs.mm Major professor 2-27-81 )V1531_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. COST OF FOREST LAND DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE By Julie Kay Gorte A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1980 ABSTRACT COST OF FOREST LAND DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE By Julie Kay Gorte This study was designed to help answer some of the economic ques— tions regarding application of sludge to forest land. The technologies available for application are described, their costs calculated, and the sensitivity of the costs to changes in key variables is tested. A discussion of prevailing public attitudes toward land application of sludge is also presented, along with some speculation on the role of public opinion in choosing any land application option and some suggestions on how waste managers can deal with interested groups. A simple simulation model is used for the cost estimation. The called SLUDGE, calculates the costs of sludge disposal by various model, methods. The cost associated with any disposal method chosen consists of four components: transportation, land application, groundwater monitoring and nonquantified costs (public relations). SLUDGE calculates transportation, application, and monitoring costs. Major conclusions of the study are: (l)sludge transportation is usually the largest component of disposal cost; (2) for any mode of transportation, increasing haul distances causes transport costs to escalate more rapidly than any other variable testes; (3) rail and barge transport costs are fairly competitive with each other and are better suited to handle long-distance transport of medium to large lumes than trucks; (4) pipeline transport of liquid sludge sludge ‘70 i most cost-effective, though least flexible, means of moving 3 large volumes of sludge long distances; (5) spray irrigation is a cheaper liquid sludge application method than either surface or sub- surface vehicular application; (6) and, transportation and application of dewatered sludge are less expensive than transportation and appli- cation of liquid sludge, on a per-dry-ton basis. The cost of dewater- ing sludge must be weighed against this disposal cost advantage. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIHHPUXRY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY OBJECTIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . STUDY METHODS . SLUDGE: A SIMULATION MODEL . . . . . . . . . . IIESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . Transportation System . . . Application System. . . Spray Irrigation . Surface Vehicular ApplicationzLiquid Sludge. Subsoil Vehicular Application:Liquid Sludge. . Surface Vehicular Application:Dewatered Sludge . Groundwater Monitoring System . . . . . . NONQUANTIFIEDCOSTS................... SLUDGE DISPOSAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liquid Sludge Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Dewatered Sludge Transportation . . . . . . . . . . Base-Level Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Page ix IO l6 19 .22 23 .58 58 58 71 .71 75 LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM ..... . ............................ 85 Spray Irrigation .................................... 85 Base-Level Costs .................. . ............ 85 Sensitivity Analysis ....... ..... ....... ........ 87 Surface Vehicular Application ....................... 93 Base-Level Costs .. ............................. 93 Sensitivity Analysis ........................... 95 Subsoil Vehicular Application ....................... 101 Base-Level Costs ............................... 101 Sensitivity Analysis ........................... 103 Dewatered Vehicular Application ..................... 104 Base—Level Costs ............................... 104 Sensitivity Analysis ........................... 106 Land Cost ........................................... 110 GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM ............................ 114 Base-Level Costs ..................................... 114 Sensitivity Analysis ................................ 116 MULTIMODAL SYSTEM COSTS .................................. 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 119 APPENDIX A .................................................... 125 THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ..................... 125 APPENDIX B .................................................... 137 DESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, CWC MODEL ... 137 The Sludge .......................................... 138 The Culp/Wesner/Culp Model .......................... 140 Truck Transport ................................ 141 Barge Transport ................................ 151 iii Rail Transport ................................ 158 Pipeline Transport ............................ 169 APPENDIX C . ............................................... ... 173 SOURCE LISTING OF SLUDGE MODEL .......................... 173 APPENDIX D ................................................... 184 SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING DISPOSAL COSTS .......... 184 Site Modification .................................. 184 Access ........................................ 184 Site Preparation .............................. 187 Retreatment ........................................ 188 Construction Grants ................................ 190 APPENDIX E ................................................... 191 REVIEW OF HEALTH AND NUISANCE HAZARDS ................... 191 Nuisance ........................................... 191 Health ............................................. 193 iv Table 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Representative Sludge Disposal Cost Summary, Liquid Sludge Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representative Sludge Disposal Cost Summary, Dewatered Sludge Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray Irrigation Equipment: Specifications and Prices . Groundwater Sample Monitoring Parameters and Costs . Annual Costs of Transporting 50mg. Liquid Sludge, No Facilities Included (Base Price) . . . . . . . . . . Annual Costs of Transporting 250mg. Liquid Sludge, No Facilities Included (Base Price) . . . . . . . . . . Annual Costs of Transporting 500mg. Liquid Sludge, No Facilities Included (Base Price) . . . . . . . . . Annual Costs of Transporting 50mg. Liquid Sludge, Facilities Included (Base Price) . . Annual Costs of Transporting 250 mg. Liquid Sludge, Facilities Included (Base Price) . . . . . . . . . Annual Costs of Transporting 500mg. Liquid Sludge, Facilities Included (Base Price) . . . . . . . . Costs of Transporting Dewatered Sludge, No Facilities Included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs of Transporting Dewatered Sludge, Facilities Included 0 O O I I O O O O O C O C I O O I O O O 0 Percentage Increase in Trucking Cost With a 33 1/3 Percent Increase in Fuel Cost. . . . . . . . The Effect of Changes in Trucking Labor Wage Rate on Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect on Barge Transportation Cost of Changes in Tug Billing Rate, Liquid Sludge. . . . . . . . . Page 36 51 59 61 63 67 69 70 72 73 77 77 78 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The Effect of Liquid Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per— Dry-Ton) of Transportation, No Facilities . . . . . The Effect of Liquid Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per-Dry-Ton) of Transportation, Facilities Included. The Effect of Dewatered Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per-Dry-Ton) of Rail Transportation. . . . . . . Costs of Spray Irrigation of Liquid Sludge (Base-Level) The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on the Cost of Spray Irrigation Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of Changing Equipment Price on the Cost of Spray Irrigation Application. . . . . . . Costs of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge (Base-Level). . . . . . . The Effect of Changing Fuel Price on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge . The Effect of Changing Equipment Price on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. 82 . 89 9O . 94 96 98 99 .100 Costs of Subsoil Injection of Liquid Sludge (Base-Levels)102 Costs of Vehicular Application of Dewatered Sludge (Base-Level). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of Changing Fuel Price on the Cost of Vehicular Application of Dewatered Sludge . The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on the Cost of Vehicular Application of Dewatered Sludge. The Effect of Changing Equipment Price on the Cost of Landspreading Dewatered Sludge Application. The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on the Annual Cost of Dewatered Sludge Application. . . . . Land Requirements and Costs, Land Application of Liquid Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on Land Costs . vi .105 .106 .107 .109 .109 .112 .113 35. 36. B-2. B-3. B-4. B-5. B-6. Groundwater Monitoring Costs for Land Application of Liquid Sludge (Base Levels) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 The Effect of Changing the Number of Wells on Groundwater Monitoring Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals. . . . Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Chemicals. . . . . Maximum Groundwater Contaminant Levels for Other Than Health Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations on Waste Disposal Which Apply to the Application of Sludge to Forest Land Not Used for Human or Domestic Livestock Food Chain CrOp Production. . Summary of State Regulations and Restrictions Governing Land Application of Sludge. . . . . . . . . Nutrient and Organic Matter Constituents in Typical Digested Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Truck Operation, Liquid Sludge Transpor- tation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Truck Operation, Dewatered Sludge Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Truck Facilities: Capital, Operation and Maintenance Data, Dewatered Sludge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Truck Facilities: Capital Operation and Maintenance Data, Dewatered Sludge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Barge Operation, Liquid Sludge Transpor- tationI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Barge Facilities: Capital, Operation and Maintenance Data, Liquid Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Railroad Shipping Rates, 1975 Levels. . . . . . . . . . Railroad Operation Summary, Liquid Sludge . . . . . Railroad Operation Summary, Dewatered Sludge. . . . . . . Regional Variations in Rail Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . Railroad Facilities: Capital, Operation and Mainte- nance Data, Liquid Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Railroad Facilities: Capital, Operation and Mainte- nance Data, Dewatered Sludge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Pipeline Sludge Flow and Volume . . . . . Pipeline Sludge Pumping Characteristics . . . . Pipeline Energy, Operation and Maintenance Cost . Forest Road Construction Costs: USDA Forest Service Timber Sale Summary Information 1977-8. . viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Quantified Cost Components in SLUDGE Model . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Transportation System: Fixed and Variable Elements of SLUDGE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Land Application System: Fixed and Variable Elements of SLUDGE Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. Groundwater Monitoring System: Fixed and Variable Elements SLUDGE Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Spray Irrigation Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Liquid Sludge Applicator Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 7. Subsoil Injection Applicator Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8. Dewatered Sludge Applicator Vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 B-l. Cost Calculation, Truck Transport Cost . B-2. Cost Calculation, Barge Transportation . . . . . . . . . . B-3. Cost Calculation, Rail Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . B-4. Cost Calculation, Pipeline Transportation. ix SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The latest environmental movement, in the 1960's, left Americans with at least one enduring legacy. That is the existence of several institutions whose purpose--sole or otherwise--is to keep human expo- sure to toxic or disagreeable substances within acceptable limits. One of the areas of greatest concern was and will be water pollution. There are many sources of water pollution. One of the major sources is waste disposal. Concern over pollution stemming from waste disposal has prompted, within the last ten years, a great deal of legislation aimed at controlling the environmental consequences of waste disposal. Some widely-used methods formerly employed to get rid of waste are no longer legal or economical, or will become illegal or uneconomical in the near future. Under the new regulations, waste managers are being encouraged to recycle their wastewater and sludge, particularly on land. Specifically, the use of forest land, parks, or other land not used for the production of food chain crops is advocated. Before any disposal option is chosen, however, it must be econom— ically attractive. The cost of forestland sludge disposal must be in the same ballpark as costs of other options if waste managers are to consider forest land disposal. At present, only 5 percent of the nation's sludge is disposed of on non-crop-producing land; even less on forest land specifically. The technology, economics, and accepta- 'bi1ity of forest land disposal is not well established. So, while 3:; p» paga‘ .th. I: - u I. II .A ‘: ... u“. EPA and other state or federal agencies recommend use of forests for sludge disposal, waste managers are waiting for information on the feasibility of such an option. This study was designed to help answer some of the questions regarding application of sludge to forest land. Specifically, some of the technologies available for application are described, their costs calculated, and the sensitivity of the costs to changes in key variables is tested. Because management of response to public opinion can greatly add to waste disposal costs, a discussion of prevailing public attitudes toward land application of sludge is also presented, along with some speculation on the role of public opinion in choosing any land application option and some suggestions on how waste managers can deal with interested publics. To present the costs, a simple simulation model is used. This model, called SLUDGE, calculates the costs of sludge disposal by various methods. The cost associated with any disposal method chosen may be grouped into four components: Transportation Land Application Groundwater Monitoring Nonquantified costs: Public Relations .... «- ”. bu ... Site Specific Costs SLUDGE calculates eXpected transportation, application, and monitor- ing costs of different disposal methods, based on input prices selected by tflne user. All the nonquantified costs are site specific, in the sense that they may take different values in different situations. Pub];ic relations is treated separately due to the fact that public attitude is a critically important factor in determining the feasibility of lgand application of sludge. If land application is chosen as the lumasow£m> landscanm> hmuam _ :oflumofiaaa< puma _ _ .lc _ J. _ _ l xosuh mem mwumm mem soaps wawm_ ":oflumuuommcmue mo opoz F A _ l l l poumum3mn pwaqu "maze mwpaam .~ musmfim .Hmuoz magnum cw muemeOQEOD “moo emflmflucmao em.ONQINm.m~w mo.o~qlmm.mfim ~O.N~qlmq.m w Hmuoe mo. mo. mo. wCHHOuwcoz Am.os u~e.es mm.esnmm.es mm.w -mN.A coaumuaaaa< oe.moeuss.s oe.moe|ss.s oe.mosuss.s com coaumuuoamcmue Am.mme-~m.wsm mo.mme-em.wsm em.mae-am.m m Hmaoe ms. ms. ml. weACOSHcoz eo.os usm.es we.es -me.es mm.m -em.a coaumoaaaa< mw.Nme-mo.s mw.~we-ms.s mm.~me-ma.s omm coaumupoamcmpe Nm.ommuol.emm mm.omm-~m.mmm N~.~emume.esm sauce do. so. Hm. \mwcwuouficoz es.AA nom.es Am.os -Ns.es em.m -mN.A \mcofiumoaaaaa AA.~mm-m~.w m aa.mmw-am.m A \mAA.Nmm-s~.m m om \mcoaumuuoamemae Aowpaam mo c0u sup awe mumHHOp aw mumou Hmsccmv oommusmasmlumaaofino> mommusmiumazofinw> hmuam Iwe .mEDHo> ucmcoaaou monumz cofiumowamm< \N owpafim umoo . NH. \mmaze mwnsfim nwsvflq .xumessm “moo ammommwa empaam m>wumucomoumom N can 0" .ficl, i. \o .coaumuuoemcmuu mmpmn no Hflmu Aoawe onV mocmumflplwcoH pom umnesc cm“: was ”cowumunoamcmuu mafiamafia Amawe ONV mocmumflpluuocm new we ouswwm umou nozoa map .mmmmo umoe :H .pouwsvmu mum mHHm3 wcHuouHcoE m mmEbmm<\m .Aouom Mme mCOu App OH cu m.m Eouwv mum» mewpmoH Hfiom ma >um> .posums comm pow .mumou coaumuwama<\q .Amafiaoafia paw .owumn .Hfimu .xosuuv cowumuuoamcmuu mo mpoa paw Amaafio> mwpsam :o mcwpcmamp .zma oco .mmeE omm ou ON Ho on cu my mocmumwp coauMuuoamcmuu cw wmwcmsu sum: pmumwuommm mum wwwcmu umoo use .pmpmm: ohm mmwufiafiumw wcfipmoHaslwcflpmoH on wcfi63mmm .MUQDAm hp pmumasoamo umou uwmnwfis Ou umoaoH we mwamu may ucomoummu mumoo coauMuuoamcmuu o£H\m .mcofiaw SHEEN 2 .manmu mfinu cfl pmucommuamu mum Sago mmuaua .mmmH no .mmmm .m.p.ucoov a magma 0" a I oo-b‘ I -.l.. ... .1- ... Table 2. Representative Sludge Disposal Cost Summary, Dewatered Sludge Type— Cost Sludge Component Volume, cu. yd. Annual Cost (per dry ton) . 2/ 4/ Transportation— 50,000 $ 5.25-59.36— Application 5.60 Monitoring 7 .82 Total $11.67-65.78 Transportationg/ 250,000 10.55—59.35 Application 3.95 Monitoring .16 Tkatal $14.66-63.46 Transportationl/ 500,000 10.55-58.03 Application 3.95 Monitoring .08 TOtal $14.66-62.14 1/ - Base, or 1979, prices used to calculate costs. Z/Transportation cost varies by haul distance (5 to 320 miles) and mode of transport (truck and rail). é/Transportation cost is only for rail haul; range presented is asSociated with changing haul distance (20 to 320 miles). é/The lower cost figure is for very short distance (5 mile) truck transportation; the high cost figure for long distance (320 mlle) rail haul. and will probably have to be combined with another transpor- tation mode in any practical system. Spray irrigation is a cheaper liquid sludge application method than either surface or subsurface vehicular application. Subsurface application is only slightly more expensive than surface vehicular application, and may be much more effective in minimizing possible adverse public reaction. However, subsurface vehicular application may not be feasible on many forested sites without substantial soil preparation. Groundwater quality monitoring is not a costly proposition, particularly in View of the protection against claims of pollution or nuisance that a well-designed monitoring system provides. The initial cost of monitoring--e.g. during the first stages of the disposal system implementation--may be much higher than normal monitoring operation, particularly if sites can be re-treated. Transportation and application of dewatered sludge are less expensive than transportation and application of liquid sludge, on a per-dry-ton basis. The cost of dewatering sludge must be weighed against this disposal cost advantage. In general, public attitudes toward land application of sludge are at least mildly negative, and in some cases have become strongly disapproving. Adverse public reaction is particularly strong when the people living near the disposal site feel geographically and politically removed from the municipality which constitutes the production area. Public reaction does not have to stop land application schemes, but it must be recognized as a major factor in any disposal operation and given the same serious attention as the engineering or purchasing. At present, forest land application of sludge is being encouraged byr regulatory agencies. Some widely used sludge disposal options, lijte ocean dumping, are now being phased out. Still others, like augricultural land application, are viewed with guarded optimism, arui their future is still in doubt. However, while forest land appli- ceition is more attractive than many options from a regulatory stand- txaint, it will not be adopted unless it is financially competitive vvith other options. This study does not attempt to compare options, ESince actual sludge disposal costs depend to a great extent on local (:onditions, such as availability of labor or fuel, access to different :forms of transportation, and proximity to forest or agricultural Aland. The study was designed to provide information on some of the Inajor, quantifiable costs of sludge disposal on forest land, such that comparisons between options can be made. INTRODUCTION The environmental movement of the nineteen sixties and early sexnenties has produced, among other things, several programs whose inajcar intent is to clean up America. Like everyone else, Americans are: bound by the fundamental law that matter can neither be created rqu destroyed. It can, however, be transformed and transported, and N. can: thereby concentrate in undesirable form or amount. By the middle ssixties the buildup of stuff, both products and wastes, had apparently tweached such a magnitude that waste became a problem. The accumulation (XE waste in the air and water and on land received particular attention i1nd.many measures were taken to eliminate or control these waste buildups . These measures usually consisted of legislation and its accompany- idlg regulation. Since 1972, the list of regulatory restrictions on ‘Waste disposal has lengthened considerably, resulting in a narrowing fSet of disposal alternatives whose costs have escalated rapidly. Managers ‘Df municipal or agricultural wastes still have several options to Cflaoose from. Some are "cleaner" or "safer" than others, and there is some incentive for waste managers to choose the safest option avail- able in order to avoid the consequences of pollution. There is also Considerable pressure on both municipal and private waste managers t0 keep disposal costs down. Unfortunately, the "safest" methods are not always the cheapest. The primary objective of the waste manager is to dispose of the 10 ..n" ' an: ‘1':‘ "~55 m... u..- I .,. 1!: "'.~ I. ‘I § 1‘.“ I”: 11 wastes. He is constrained by his institutional/legal and financial situation. Thus, he must not only get rid of the sludge produced, but disposal should be carried out in accord with existing statutes and regulations at the lowest cost attainable. At the present time, it is also advisable to plan waste disposal operations which can be contxinued indefinitely. The EPA and the States are still in the process of deaciding how sludge can be disposed of so that some options that exist: now may not exist in a few years. For example, ocean dumping, scheciuled to cease by the end of 1981, is not a long-run solution to siludge disposal problems. Incineration of sludge may also be infeasible in tlie long-run in cities that expect to have or are now facing air pol- lUthDn problems. The Clean Air Act Amendments identify wastewater trfuatment plants as potential point sources of pollution, a designation Whixih may affect whether or not sludge can be incinerated. Since 25 19ercent or more of the sludge produced in America is presently it"Klinerated, this restriction may be of major concern to waste managers (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978, and EPA, 1976a). Presently the most promising alternatives available to help solve ICHIg term sludge disposal problems are incineration (where air pol- 1"ution is not a limiting factor), sanitary landfilling, land application, St?rip mine reclamation, pyrolysis, and recycling of treated sludge 0“ compost as a soil conditioner. The costs associated with each (3f these alternatives vary, depending on the amount of sludge produced and its constituents, availability and cost of land, equipment, facili- ties needed for disposal, and ultimately on the willingness of the Public to accept the disposal practice. These factors all enter into the waste manager's decisionmaking process as he searches for ways aii| .- .‘AA A A 'F- - nun—4- On“ a. l on A a. u I.“ l u» .- 5&0 ... 'v. H. Q.- 12 to get rid of his sludge without exceeding his budget, disturbing the public, or breaking the law. Presently, sludge disposal on forest land is being advocated as a relatively safe, economical option. Forests are not generally used to produce food or forage, reducing the risk of the toxic or ncnrious elements in sludge reaching people through dietary exposure. Of’ course, there are still avenues for dietary exposure if forest larid is treated (e.g. eating berries, mushrooms, or game from treated arreas) but these risks are not quantifiable presently. In addition, F’ fortested areas are generally sparsely populated, further reducing " i Pot:ential health risks of waste recycling. Other factors which make 5*‘ fOIrested land more suitable for waste recycling are "...superior soil ilifiltration properties, lower site acquisition costs, and favorable Scxil temperatures, allowing year-round wastewater application" (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978). There are some drawbacks to forestland sludge disposal as well. (fine of the major questions which must be answered satisfactorily before zany large—scale movement toward forest land waste application is begun <20ncerns the costs of the recycling operation. It is apparent from ‘Vaste processing and handling literature that the primary goal of ‘fhe waste manager is not recycling but disposal. The manager will <2hoose the disposal option which costs the least, considering all (losts. The EPA regulations and national and state legislation encourage ‘land application as an environmentally "safe" means of recycling sludge and waste-water, but only when such methods are economically and in- Stitutionally competitive with other acceptable options will such recycling take place. 13 Unfortunately, there are only a few studies and/or documented cases of costs of forest land application of sludge which can be used for such comparison of alternatives. There are many models and cases which show wastewater recycling costs, but little of the information is useful in estimating costs of sludge disposal. Few documented caseus and even fewer models are available, and what information does exijst is usually limited to a fairly narrow set of geographic, finan- cial., or technological conditions. One available model estimates the costs of land application of sludge. This model, called 3 "Procedure for Estimating the Cost and t Inveastment Required for Sludge Recycling Through Land Disposal," was PUt. together by a team of people at the New Jersey Agricultural Experi- Umflrt Station at Rutgers University (Kasper, et al., 1973). It examines films activities: dewatering, transportation, storage, application, arui plant uptake of nutrients contained in sludge. The Rutgers model was designed with application to pasture or r‘<'='i!.‘lgeland in mind, and specifically for New Jersey. Therefore, barge aruj rail transport of sludge were not considered. The transportation OD‘tions included were truck (dump truck haul for dewatered sludge 311d tank trunk transport for liquid sludge) and pipeline transport. The Rutgers model offers several application choices, all suited tC) unforested pasture or rangeland. The application alternatives it1c1ude plowing and covering, contour furrowing, subsoil injection, 311d two forms of spray irrigation (from a tractor-trailer, or from a fixed pipe system) for liquid sludge, and plowing-furrowing or contour furrowing for dewatered sludge. The Rutgers model does not include monitoring costs, but does H" 94». .... . 5.. tab .LuL ch- - Is, ... u 5... h" (I! 14 include the use of planted grass to utilize the nutrients in sludge. Only one transportation distance--20 miles, one way-~was used, and no sensitivity tests were performed to determine how changes in compon- ent or input costs could affect the total cost of land disposal. The Ihitgers model does not treat the individual activities separately, Emit combines various methods of transport, dewatering, application, arui recycling into five alternative total sludge-disposal systems. The Rutgers model is useful, but limited. For example, the appli- cat:ion technologies it includes are not particularly suitable for forrest land sludge disposal operations. Moreover, it is not adaptable: it cannot be made to simulate costs for situations not closely resembling true five alternatives examined. Nor is it capable of examining the inunact of changes in volatile or important variables like the cost Of' fuel, equipment, or labor. There is one case study which pertains specifically to forest :Land application of municipal sludge. It is being conducted by the lhliversity of Washington Center for Ecosystem Studies. The study, lDegun in 1973, was to evaluate the feasibility of applying dewatered Sludge from the city of Seattle to the University's Pack Forest. The ilatest progress report (Edmonds and Cole, 1980) includes a discussion <>f costs of forestland application and, interestingly, benefits (in tierms of the value of tree growth attributable to the addition of tlutrients in sludge). Though benefits are not explicitly a part of this study, it would be a mistake for the decisionmaker not to consider them, if they exist and can be reaped. Like the Rutgers model, the Washington study is of limited useful- ness in making general comparisons between forest land disposal and .....- D:- ..Q ... n u... 15 other alternatives. The technology employed is specifically adapted to Washington conditions--e.g. steep slopes, fragile soils, and exist- ing young-to-mature conifer stands. Insofar as this information exists for the type of forest used in the Washington study, the information presented in this document will not attempt to duplicate it. 16 STUDY OBJECTIVE This study is designed to provide information about some of the economic and policy issues associated with land disposal for land treatment of sludge. Its purpose is to provide an indication of sludge disposal on forest lands. The specific objective is to determine the: costs of alternative feasible methods of disposal. Since these costs are not verifiable from existing field experience (vfliich is practically nonexistant), key components of sludge disposal cosst are varied via computer simulation in order to determine their efifect. Key cost areas investigated are transport, application and ‘morlitoring costs. Sludge is the residue left over when wastewater is purified. Over 5 million dry tons of municipal sludge are produced each year (EPA, 1976a). If secondary treatment of wastewater is required, the \Nalume nearly doubles. Forty percent of the volume presently produced is; either dumped in the ocean or incinerated. Both of these practices (ocean dumping in particular) are unreli- iable as long-term solutions to the sludge disposal problem. Land 'application is an alternative that offers promise as a long-term solution, if properly managed and adapted to local conditions. As of 1976, Only about 5 percent of the sludge produced in the U.S. was applied to non-crop-producing lands, only a small portion of which was disposed of on forest lands. As noted earlier, land application processes include transportation, application (including short-term storage of sludge), and monitoring of groundwater and surface water runoff. There are four principal ways of transporting sludge—-truck, railroad, barge or pipeline. The method chosen and its cost depends 17 on the solids content of the sludge, the terrain separating the waste- water treatment plant and the disposal site(s), and the distance between plant and site(s). There are also different ways of applying sludge to land. Again, the choice of method and its cost depends on the solids content of the sludge and site characteristics. The proximity (1f the disposal site(s) to human habitation may also play a role in (ketermining which application method is used. Storage of sludge over long periods is normally not a part of thee land application operation. However, short term storage may be iaeczessary to allow for temporary vagaries of weather or site condition. TTlis is usually a simple process; it may involve no more than leaving a Iloaded trailer at the disposal site until the sludge can be applied, usnaally in a matter of a few days. Short term storage is considered FHart of the application process for purposes of cost analysis. The primary purpose of monitoring is to check for groundwater Phallution. Contamination of surface runoff may not be a problem on IProperly managed sites. Some checking may be necessary to insure that pollutants are contained at the site, but this is usually a matter 0f proper site selection and application system design. These three processes--transportation, application, and monitoring-- and some of the alternatives available for accomplishing them are described in following sections. Discussions of types of equipment available, labor requirements, and operating characteristics of each system are included. To summarize, the overall cost of the land application process depends on the choice of transportation and application methods, the need for short-term storage, transportation distance, amount and type 5.4 u.“ 0-. ...... ill h ’4 18 of sludge involved, wages, equipment characteristics, fuel price and monitoring requirements. The effects of these and other variables on the total cost of land application are discussed, and the sensitiv- ity of system costs to changes in these variables is explored. The total cost of forest land application of sludge also depends (Hi the cost of getting and maintaining public acceptance of the opera- tixan. Land application of any sort often carries a negative connotation, pajrticularly in the United States. As a result, some waste managers Inessitate to implement land application for fear of inviting public diasfavor or being involved in costly litigation. Negative public reaction is usually only a problem where large Chiantities of sludge are involved, and particularly where the residents Fuaar the disposal sites do not consider themselves part of the area Vfliere the sludge is produced. The history of attempts to implement iLand application of sludge in areas outside the area where the sludge is produced is short, and each case is unique in some important respects. 'Thus, while costs of overcoming public opposition to land application they not be quantifiable, it is useful to identify sources of potential public relations problems. 19 STUDY SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This study focuses on land application, with special emphasis on forest land application, for two reasons. First, forest land appli- cation is presently a promising alternative for solving sludge disposal problems, given the state of regulatory opinion and direction on waste (iisposal. Second, less is known about the economics of land application tluan is known about many other methods, such as incineration, landfilling, lagooning, and recycling (EPA, 1975). This study is also limited to discussion of sludges which are ruat considered hazardous wastes. This includes, at present, most Sllldge. It excludes industrial sludges which have higher concentrations Of' heavy metals or toxic persistent organics like polychlorinated ltiphenyls (PCBs) or certain pesticides and pesticide residues. In iJ:s regulatory activities in solid wastes, EPA also treats hazardous “Haste disposal separately from sludge disposal (EPA, 1980). Other tnaterials not treated like sludges by Federal regulatory agencies Eire also excluded. Excluded materials are: agricultural manures and crop residues, mine residues intended for return to mine sites, \Jntreated domestic sewage, solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows, nuclear wastes, industrial discharges identified as ‘point sources of pollution, and solid waste which is disposed of by linderground well injection. The technology of forest land application of sludge is not well developed, as noted previously. Limited experience, however, has shown that there are application methods which can be successfully adapted from agricultural processes. These methods include the use of moveable spray guns or high flotation vehicles. Since they have 20 been shown to be feasible, application cost calculation is limited to these technologies. Sludge disposal problems are seldom encountered unless there is an appreciable volume of sludge requiring disposal. A survey of municipalities using land to dispose of sewage sludge (EPA, 1977b) indicates that small amounts of sludge can be cheaply disposed of without investing in more costly land application systems. Often, simply allowing farmers or other residents to haul away sludge for crop, garden, or home use is sufficient. Accordingly, the costs presented here are not intended to apply to sludge volumes smaller than approximately 7,000 dry tons per year (5 million gallons of liquid sludge)l/. Very large sludge volumes may also present problems which are not easily dealt with. Forest land disposal systems described in this study have not yet been applied to sludge volumes typical of major municipal systems. The information that exists (Sheaffer and Roland, Inc., 1978) represent special cases, with different conditions than would normally pertain. However, this is probably appropriate. A municipality or agency which has 500,000 cubic yards of sludge to dispose of will need at least 7500 acres annually to apply it to and even if we assume that the same areas can be retreated, this may be out of the question for any length of time. Unless much higher loading rates are used, land disposal may not prove practical when very large sludge volumes are considered. l/However, the model can be used to calculate costs of land disposal of small sludge volumes, if desired. 21 Since it was impossible to define a "typical" site on the basis of very limited operational experience, it is assumed that the forest site itself is not incompatible with sludge application-—that is, any site chosen would be fairly well-drained, not overly steep or rocky, not immediately adjacent to surface water--and would have reason- able access. If this type of site is available within a reasonable distance of the source of sludge production, the SLUDGE model may provide a fair representation of expected costs (except where the annual sludge volume is very small and reassignment of resources and ...:k use of existing or used equipment is not feasible, or other disposal :A- I technologies are more suitable). If such a situation does not exist, the waste manager has two options: he can consider other means of sludge disposal, or he can create suitable site conditions. This can significantly affect the monetary portion of sludge disposal cost. There are other factors, encountered only in certain situations, which are similarly capable of adding to or subtracting from basic costs calculated in this broad a study. These factors include site modification (roading, clearing), the effect of site retreatment, and municipal treatment construction grants. They are treated in some detail in Appendix D. 22 STUDY METHODS Quantifiable costs of land application of sludge are developed by use of a simulation model called SLUDGE. The model allows a deci- sion maker to specify the magnitude of certain key variables and then calculates the costs of transportation, land application including short-term storage), and monitoring of groundwater quality. The model has as its variables those things which are subject to greatest changes or of greatest concern over times; including such things as the labor, fuel, and some equipment costs. Some model variables are specified at several representative levels. Other variables may assume any value. This study is designed to provide guidelines on the economics and social context of forest land application of sludge. Its purpose is to provide indications of expected costs, not precise documentation. Cost figures presented in the text of this report should be regarded as pointing out what order of magnitude can be expected. Accurate representations of costs, based on experience, are preferable but un- available. That being the case, the model presented here is used to simulate costs rather than document them. SLUDGE: A SIMULATION MODEL Modeling is a useful approach for dealing with application related costs. The expenditure associated with purchasing, operating, and maintaining all the inputs necessary to dispose of sludge on forest land are fairly straight forward. It is this type of cost that SLUDGE is used to estimate. Disposal of sludge on forest land incurs, as noted previously, two kinds of monetary costs--public relations and application related costs. "Public relations" is the term applied here to the cost associ- ated with gaining and maintaining public acceptance of the disposal erations. Public relations costs are largely determined by the sc3cial and political situation of the area in question, and as such Etre too site—specific to be included in a structured model. Sludge is a simple simulation model which calculates the cost <3f' transporting and applying sludge to forest land and monitoring Any forest land sludge disposal 1/ Operation will include these elements.— tllea groundwater at the disposal site. The total disposal cost will depend on what it costs to carry \ l/Monitoring is not specifically required, but strongly advised. New interpretations of existing legislation may make monitoring a re“illlirement in the future; in any case, it is well worth the effort tc’ assure that no groundwater pollution is taking place. 23 | .o bu- ' ‘1 he: I6 ' .- I'M" A. ..l LA- ». ”litr': .p‘bh - VI: ..‘r‘ ...» .015: «.-.... a . 'Io A. .- '0 ~ N -.\‘ .. .- ‘--.. “~... . 1.- u . ’- "1 v \ .‘J ...: ' '1 :‘c "“.. '4 .g.‘ 24 out these three activities. The cost of each activity, in turn, depends on a number of things, some of which will vary considerably from operation to operation. Since SLUDGE is not a site specific model, some of the more volatile elements which determine disposal costs are treated as variables, which may assume any value. Examples include transpor- tation model and distance, application equipment cost, and the interest rate. Other elements are fixed within the model. Such elements include operation and maintenance requirements for transportation facilities and application equipment, loading and unloading times for application vehicles, and the solids content of liquid and dewatered sludge. Figures 2 to 4 illustrate the SLUDGE model, and specify which elements are variable and which are fixed. A general discription of how SLUDGE works follows. Methods used to arrive at transportation, application, and monitoring costs are enrplained along with descriptions of the technologies used. Quantita- txive estimates of these costs appear in Chapter 4. Nonquantified costs, while not included in the SLUDGE model, "Ely be very important. Though it is impossible to estimate their Itlagnitude without reference to a particular situation, these costs muSt be considered in planning a forest land sludge disposal system. Ac1C:ordingly, discussion of these costs is included. .n‘ -.\I hue-z h .1 C... V u-Axl In .I-‘N... II. \\ . s 25 mEDHo> mwmsam mum» mcwaawn wse mEDHo> ampsam pouwumsmp mam pascwq mama mwpnam Hana .e.£ ooo.~ mmwm was coHHmw ooo.00m mmflm mwumm .wE on can .oos .ow .oq .om mocmumwo ssoesaz new ens: mmausasumm assumes pfisvflq mamu mwpdam mwumm leans usage on new ms \m \mcoHHmw 00mm new cemm mama soaps ewes poems .s5 as new oe .oN .os .m museumso moans Hmsm usosuHB pan cuflz mmwufiawomw wcwpmoq mEJHo> mwpsam pmumumaop mam pfiscfiq mmxu mwpsam xonpe muamsmam manmwpm> \mmucmEmHm pmxfim mesmEMHm mwoz Ammo: seesaw we manEmHm mHanLm> was emxfie "amumsm eofiumucosmemuh .N enemas ‘U I 3.. c ..It \ 1s .muHEHH Hmuwuumua new Ou pmfiaadm mnwm Somm.l 26 \e mwpsam pmumumzma\m mweaam sassasxm coaumofiwwucmpfl ucmEmHm pmxflw mo ucwwu mzu cu QBOLm cowuewuummp no mpsuwcmm2\fl .we on use oes .om .oe .oN .os .m museumso swamEmfle :ms new as .os .e \mmuam mesa wEsHo> empaam pHJUHA mehu mprHm seam xcmu use: oofi pan .oN .oH \mwnwm Camus I.:mu :oHHmw .oN ImNfim umo same \Nx coo \q .ws on can cod .ow .os .ON mocmumfla usoeuss was sung masusssomm assumes . .«.e.ueouv N mesmwe 27 moans ucwaawsvm lean ER 033 mg .Hmeoz monasm so mucmsmsm mfiemwsm> new emxam \N mowed can; \chmu coHHmw 00mg mufim maofi£m> wEDHo> mwpnam meSHm pmumumBmp mam passed meSu wwpsam oceanowaae< mommu5m unasuwnm> puma ammumucH mowwe Hush umoo cowuusuumcoo mmeOum mwm3 Momma pump wcwpmoH Hwom meH ucmEewscm mowed pcmq mowed ucmsewscm mews .ooo .QEDQ :mmuu .caw :wmm mac: ucmansvm mEDHo> mwpnam mwpsam panama maze mwpsam :0flumwfluuH smuem mucmEmHm manmwum> mucmEmHm pmxwm mesmEmHm posed: "Emumxm :owumowaqm< puma .m muamwm 28 pump umowoucH mowua Adam umoo :oHuoauumcoo mmeODm mmmB uonmg pump mafipmoH Hmom muwua unusefiscm moans mama mESHo> mwpsam seas cofismm some seesaw eases; muwm maowcm> mehu muUSHm mwpsam pmumum3w9\M seesaw eassasxw :oflumuwaae< Hwomnpm unasuwcm> mum» ammumucH mowua Hush umoo coauosuumcou mmmMOum mmmS Momma mums wawpmoa Hwom \ .Mpmpmoa pcmlucowm pumm m.H .«.e_ueoue m musmwa 29 Figure 4: Groundwater Monitoring System: Fixed and Variable Elements of the SLUDGE Model Elements Fixed Elements Variable Elements None Number of wells Well depth Drilling cost Groundwater sample analysis cost Number of annual tests Labor wage , .w . I u".‘l ,.-a" _.,...L . ... .1 dlygu ! | - .4 \ ...: 30 DESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS Two types of sludges are examined: liquid and dewatered. Liquid sludges usually average 4-5 percent solids and within this range, changing solids content does not significantly affect disposal cost (EPA, 1977). However, in general, the higher the solids content, the lower the sludge transportation cost. Dewatered sludge is typified by vacuum filter cakes or some lagooned sludges (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978). For purposes of analysis, 20 percent solids is used as an average figure for dewatered sludge, and 4 percent solids for liquid sludge. at. Ll ‘ .— 31 Transportation System Transportation costs were developed using a model written for the EPA by Culp/Wesner/Culp Consultants (EPA, 1977). A detailed dis- cussion of this model is included in Appendix B. Descriptions of system operation, equipment specifications, and cost calculation are included. For inclusion in SLUDGE, model transportation costs are updated to 1979, and sensitivity analysis was performed on variables identified in Figure 2. 32 Application System Simulation of costs associated with methods, three for liquid sludge and one for dewatered sludge, is included in the SLUDGE model. These were chosen to represent’methods appropriate to or previously used in forest land application which are likely to be in compliance with waste disposal regulations if carried out properly. For liquid sludge, the application methods are spray irrigation, vehicular appli- cation to the soil surface, and vehicular application with subsoil injection. For dewatered sludge, surface vehicular application is assumed. Details of these systems follow. - ._-— ‘ .-. {AA-Liv ‘ Four application loading rates were used in calculating applica— tion systems costs (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 dry tons per acre). Any other loading rate may be used in SLUDGE. 33 Spray Irrigation Spray irrigation is best suited to dispersal of liquid sludges on clearcut openings or in very young forest stands. It can also be used in mature stands, as long as there is no dense understory. The spray irrigation system consists of the use of a rotary sprayer, usually called a rain gun, to disperse liquid sludge over the application site (Figure 5). The sludge, propelled by a pump, is transferred from temporary storage to the gun via a system of pipes, which can be taken apart and reassembled when enough sludge has been applied to the area reached by the rain gun. Short term storage can be handled by digging small temporary pits using bulldozers. No lining is needed, as sludge will not remain in the pit for more than a few days. It is assumed that one small bulldozer can dig the necessary pit in 3 hours, including travel time to the site. Bulldozers can be rented for about $45 per hour, including operatorlj. Temporary storage can also be provided by using a portable or nurse tanker, though this option was not included in SLUDGE. One unit of spray irrigation equipment is defined as one rain gun with stand, 600 feet of plastic or metal pipe, and one trash pump. The specifications and prices of these pieces of equipment are listed in Table 3. It is assumed that one laborer can handle two such units, and that, in use, each unit pumps for 4 hours per day with the other 4 spent in moving and setup. The rated capacities of the rain gun, in terms of gallons per minute (gpm) of water sprayed and diameter 1 -/Personal communication, Janjer Enterprises, Lansing, Michigan. 34 unmEeflscm coaumwfiuuH Smuem um musmwm 35 of sprayed area, are decreased by one-fourth to compensate for the fact that sludge is sprayed with a 4 percent solids content. Operation and maintenance costs for spray irrigation equipment were not available, but a pump manufacturer, ITT Marlow, indicated that maintenance costs generally mean replacement of seals and impellers and estimated that about half the original purchase price is commonly spent for this purpose throughout pump life. Accordingly, operation and maintenance costs were assumed to be half the annual purchase price of the equipment. 36 .coHumum ucmswumexm ummwom Hmuucmo :uwoz .mofl>umm ummwom \.we omfi A meDHo> meSHm new pwumpfimcoo uo: Ham: xosue ”muoz .Smp mCHaEne usozlmfi mmE:mw<\M .mmp wcfiasse paozlom mmanmm<.l \H .A.p.ucoov o mfinme 63 .zmp mafiaesa HDOLINH m mmanmm<.l .hmp magnesa unocION m mmESmm waDHw HO.“ UQHUUHwCOU UOC HUN: XUSHH. "MHOZ .mmp wewease u:o:1- mussmm< I .emp wcweeee usonlom mmasmm wprHm .Aoosse mummy pmpDHQCH mmsusHsoms 02 "mprHm pmsmum3ma wcsusoemcmss mo mumou .22 manms 73 mm.om mo.2m so.N~ ew.<2 2N.22 1 1 cos scc cos oo.mom.m os.sms.m o<.omo.m os.ssm.2 om.o wwp92m .Amosse wmmmv pmpSHUcH mmsusasome HompDHm pmsmum3ma wcsusoemcmss so mumoo .2 223.2 74 almost nothing to costs of transporting 250 or more cubic yards per year 160 to 320 miles. As noted in the previous section dealing with liquid sludge trans- portation, railroads are less flexible than trucks with respect to the route or destination. If rail haul is used, it is quite likely that trucks will also be required to transport sludge from the rail sidings where it is unloaded to the application site. 75 Sensitivity Analysis The transportation model used to develop cost estimates in SLUDGE is an adaptation of an earlier model (hereinafter referred to as the CWC model), as noted previously. To the extent possible, individual variables affecting transportation costs were isolated, and their effect on the total sludge transportation cost tested. The preceeding sections have shown the effects of the two most important variables, sludge volume and transportation distance, on transportation costs. The effects of other variables may be of interest as well. One cost element that has attracted a great deal of attention recently is fuel. Costs of fuel have risen nearly 75 percent faster than costs of other wholesale goods since 1973. This concerns sludge managers, for many of the required waste treatments require great quantities of fuel. Some disposal options require more fuel than others. The almost universally cited example of a fuel-intensive disposal option is incineration (thermal disposal). This option requires that the sludge be dewatered to 25 to 30 percent solids before incineration by centrifugation or vacuum filtration, at which point it will sustain combustion in multiple hearth furnaces. In lieu of dewatering to 25 to 30 percent solids, sludge may be incinerated with additional fuel being added constantly to maintain combustion and prevent corrosion of the furnaces. Either way, the annual fuel consumption of incineration is usually high compared to fuel used in land application systems (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978). Transportation is generally considered one of the most fuel- intensive elements of a land application system, particularly when trucks are used to transport the sludge. Table 13 shows the effect 76 of increasing the cost of diesel fuel on the cost of truck transport. It is apparent from this table that the effect of increases in fuel prices is fairly minor, compared to the effects of other factors such as transportation distance and sludge volumes. Even when the price of fuel rises by one-third, the total trucking cost rises by no more than 6 percent (Table 13). Another factor which affects trucking costs is the wage paid to truck drivers. Table 14 shows that the magnitude of the effect caused by changes in wage rates is smaller as truck size increases. This is logical, considering that smaller trucks must make more trips, increasing the variable/fixed cost ratio. The effect of wage changes is smaller as transportation distance increases. Wage rate is a larger component of truck transportation cost than is fuel cost, as evidenced by the fact that the effect of raising the wage rate is much greater than that of changing the cost of diesel fuel. Both wages and fuel prices are factors in barging costs. Changes in these costs are not usually borne directly, however. The tug billing rate incorporates changes in wages, fuel prices, and such things as equipment cost and amortization associated with operating the boats. The base billing rate is $190.00 per hour, assuming 2,000 horsepower tugboats and 500,000 gallon barges. Table 15 summarizes the effect of changing the tug billing rate on the cost of barge transportation of liquid sludge. These effects are almost constant, varying little with sludge volume and transportation distance. In general, raising the tug billing rate by almost one third raises barge transportation costs by approximately one fourth to one third. 77 Table 13. Percentage Increase in Trucking Cost With 33 1/3 percent Increase in Fuel Cost. Sludge Volume Distance, Miles 5 10 20 40 8O 50 mg. per year 2.8% 3 0% 4 5% 5.0% 5 6% 10,000 cu. yd. per yr. 4.4% 5 6% 4 3% 5.5% 5.4% Table 14. The Effect of Changes in Trucking Labor Wage Rate on Sludge Transportation COStrL Annual Change in Sludge Wage Rate Distance, Miles Volume (percent) 5 10 20 4O 80 (cost per dry ton of sludge) 50 mg./yr. 50% 26.9% 19.2% 16.8% 13.9% 13.0% 5,000 cu. yd./yr. 50% 13.5% 16.4% 10.1% 10.7% 11.8% 50,000 cu. yd./yr. 50% 42.0% 36.4% 15.9% 15.5% 12.6% 1/ 1- No facilities included. 78 Table 15. The Effect on Barge Transportation Cost of Changes in Tug Billing Rate, Liquid Sludge. Change in Sludge Billing Rate Transportation Distance, Miles (percent) 20 4O 80 160 320 (cost per dry ton of sludge) 50 mg./yr. 32% 20.8% 24.3% 27.9% 28.5% 25.2% 250 mg./yr. 32% 28.3% 27.1% 29.8% 28.2% 28.3% 500 mg./yr. 32% 26.5% 27.8% 38.8% 32.0% 26.8% OI bu ' [-1 ,— 79 Other than transportation distance and sludge volume, no elements were varied in rail and pipeline transport. This is due in part to the way rail and pipeline costs are calculated in the CWC modell/ and in part to the fact that rail and pipeline costs are primarily affected by site specific factors which are difficult to simulate.zj The variable which has the greatest effect on the cost of trans- porting both liquid and dewatered sludge is transportation distance. The effect of distance varies for different modes of transportation. 1/ -For example, rail rates, mileage credits for shipper supplied cars, and tank car lease rates are not presented individually, due to the fact that railroad companies were unwilling to supply itemized costs for quotation. E/Pipeline transportation costs, for example, are heavily depen- dent on the number of pumping stations required. This, in turn, is a function of how many major and minor roads cross the pipe route and the terrain on which the pipeline is built. Certain assumptions regarding these factors are made in order to calculate pipeline trans- portation costs in the CWC model, but no attempt is made to represent actual conditions in any particular area, as individual conditions are highly variable. Similarly, rail transportation costs are dramatic- ally affected by shipping time. Rail haul costs presented in one study (Sheaffer and Roland, Inc., 1978) are less than half the cost predicted by SLUDGE due mostly to a striking difference in transit time. SLUDGE uses rail transit time figures provided by a commercial railroad (Southern Pacific), which averaged several days for even short journeys of 20 miles or so. The Lake County study, on the other hand assumes a one-way travel time of approximately ten hours of 220 miles, a difference of over 150 hours. This large difference is explained by the differences in ownership and control assumed in the two studies. SLUDGE assumed that the shipper rents cars and accepts standard rail route scheduling. The Lake County study, in contrast, has the shipper buying the cars, locomotives, and tracks, eliminating most of the delays and all other shippers over the route. It is clear, then that rail transport costs can be cut if the sludge producer owns his own railroad. This may be practical for situations such as that described in the Lake County study, where six large treatment plants (Detroit, Wayne County, Warren, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw) are all utilizing the same transport—disposal system, and a railroad, which is already in place,is available. 80 Pipeline transportation costs generally exhibit the greatest distance effect, doubling as the distance doubles. The effect of transportation distance on other forms of transportation is more complicated. Barging costs increase by approximately 40 to 80 percent for 50 to 500 mg. of liquid sludge, respectively, as the distance doubles (from 20 to 40 miles, one way). Increasing the barging distance from 160 to 320 miles, causes the total transportation cost to nearly double. Rail transport costs are not as greatly affected by distance as are barging costs, but the relative effects are similar. That is, doubling distance from 20 to 40 miles does not affect the total cost as much as doubling the one-way haul from 160 to 320 miles. The increase in transportation cost attributable to doubling the rail transportation distance varies from approximately 30 to just over 60 percent, depending on the original distance. Trucking costs are also greatly dependent on transportation distance. The effect of distance on total trucking costs is, in general, greater when the sludge is liquid than when dewatered sludge is used; increases in trucking cost from doubling distances vary from 66 percent to 85 percent for liquid sludge, and from 27 to 106 percent for dewatered. The 106 percent rise occurs only when doubling the distance from 40 to 80 miles for 50,000 cubic yards per year; otherwise, the greatest effect on costs is approximately 62 percent. The distance effect is greater, in general, when no loading and unloading facility costs are included in the total cost. There may be substantial economies (on a per-dry-ton basis) asso- ciated with transporting larger liquid sludge volumes, particularly with pipeline transport. Pipeline costs depend on sludge volume only 81 to the extent that greater volumes may require larger pipes or longer pumping days. By far the most important single variable affecting pipe transport costs is transportation distance. The per-dry-ton pipeline transport costs go down markedly as sludge volume increases, even assuming that larger pipe and longer days are required. When no facilities are included, barge transportation costs per dry ton of sludge also tend to decrease as liquid sludge volume increases, although not so dramatically as pipeline transport costs. Trucking costs per dry ton remain about the same as liquid sludge volume changes, while rail transportation costs increase by small amounts as volumes increase. Table 16 is a summary of the effects of sludge volume on liquid sludge transport costs, per dry ton (without including facilities). When loading and unloading facilities are included, the picture changes somewhat. Rail and barge costs tend to decrease slightly as sludge volume increases, though the effect is much less in both systems than in truck transportation (Table 17). Pipeline costs, of course, do not change. Dewatered sludge rail transportation costs also exhibit some economies associated with increasing sludge volume, as shown in Table 18. AMA.- .‘ -l f 7;! a 1“ 0...!1 0.- 82 Table 16. The Effect of Liquid Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per Dry Ton) of Transportation, No Facilities. Mode of Distance, Sludge Volume Transport Miles 50 mg. 250 mg. 500 mg. (cost per dry ton of sludge) Rail 20 88.02 92.41 94.52 40 114.42 117.35 118.09 80 154.02 148.16 147.42 160 242.04 234.70 249.37 320 396.06 440.07 403.40 Barge 20 57.38 47.28 41.24 40 79.50 76.84 75.09 80 123.73 124.23 125.19 160 235.67 239.54 250.32 320 515.28 473.10 456.59 Pipe 5 8.291/ 1.93g/ 1 111/ 10 16.58 3.86 2.22 20 33.15 7.71 4.45 40 66.30 15.43 8.89 80 132.60 30.85 17.78 160 265.19 61.72 35.57 320 530.39 123.43 71.13 l/Six inch pipe, 12 hr. day. -g;Ten inch pipe, 20 hr. day. 3 -— Fourteen inch pipe, 20 hr. day. 83 Table 17. The Effect of Liquid Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per Dry Ton) of Transportation, Facilities Included. Mode of Distance, Sludge Volume Transport Miles 50 mg. 250 mg. 500 mg. (cost per dry ton of sludge) Rail 20 102.68 102.68 101.95 40 126.16 126.15 124.69 80 176.03 161.36 161.35 160 264.04 236.17 238.37 320 440.07 454.74 432.74 Barge 20 70.58 47.28 44.17 40 103.02 73.91 72.16 80 145.73 133.03 131.06 160 257.66 248.34 250.32 320 478.60 487.77 456.59 84 Table 18. The Effect of Dewatered Sludge Volume on the Costs (Per Dry Ton) of Rail Transportation. Distance, Facilities Sludge Volume Miles Available 50,000 cu.yd. 250,000 cu.yd. 500,000 cu.yd. 20 no 10.29 10.55 10.55 yes 18.47 12.92 11.21 40 no 14.51 14.24 13.85 yes 24.40 16.49 14.84 80 no 21.76 21.63 22.09 yes 29.01 22.42 22.09 160 no 32.31 32.97 31.65 yes 40.89 32.97 31.65 320 no 59.36 59.35 58.03 yes 69.60 60.67 59.35 85 LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM Spray Irrigation Base—Level Costs Spray irrigation has been shown to be an effective method for applying liquid sludge to forest land. Its cost is reasonable, as Table 19 shows. Perhaps the most striking feature pertaining to these application costs (on a dry ton basis) is the insensitivity to sludge volume. This may, however, be misleading. Constant equipment and service costs are assumed. In reality, substantial economies may be achievable from discounts on buying equipment and services (such as storage pit construction) in larger lots. There may also be substantial drawbacks involved in applying large amounts of sludge, principally related to public attitudes and health hazards. These are discussed more fully in Chapter 3 in the section dealing with non quantifiable costs, and in Appendix E. 86 Table 19. Costs of Spray Irrigation of Liquid Sludge (Base Level)l/ Sludge Loading Rate, Dry Tons/Acre Volume, mg. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (total costs in thousands of dollars) 50 total 71.30 64.20 61.80 60.70 P.D.T. 8.54 7.70 7.41 7.28 250 total 355.90 320.60 308.09 303.10 P.D.T. 8.53 7.68 7.40 7.26 500 total 710.70 640.30 616.80 605.00 P.D.T. 8.52 7.67 7.39 7.25 ‘i/Base price assumptions include the following: Bulldozer rental @ $45.00 per hour, with operator Price of spray gun and mount = $565.00 Price of pump = $1,680.00 Price of pipe $1.25 per ft. Equipment life = 5 Price of diesel fuel = $0.90 per gallon Application labor wage = $10.00 per hour (fringes included) Equipment amortized at 7 percent z/Per dry ton. 87 Sensitivity Analysis The variation in spray irrigation application costs to changes in loading rate is not particularly great. This is due to the fact that, as the rate increases, fewer storage pits are required. This is obviously due to the way the model is constructed. In the spray irrigation operation, for instance, higher loading rates would require fewer movements of pump, pipe and gun, reducing the set—up time somewhat from the assumed 4 hours per day. By the same token, however, the sprinkler would have to run longer at each set-up in order to apply a heavier load of sludge. The net effect of increasing the loading rate on the amount of time required to apply all the sludge is, accord- ingly, indeterminate. If higher loading rates decrease the total time required to apply sludge, application cost will decrease with increasing loading rates, and vice versa. Spray irrigation costs are not very sensitive to fuel price. A rise of 33 percent in the cost of diesel fuel raises the cost of application by spray irrigation by only one or two percent of all loading rates and sludge volumes. This is to be expected, considering the fact that one irrigation unit (specifically, one trash pump) uses less than one gallon of fuel per hour. The cost of labor used in land application may also be a factor in choosing the application method. Only direct labor costs are included in the simulations. Managerial and supervisory wages are left out. Municipalities which have reported administrative costs of hauling landspreading sludge (EPA, 1977b) generally combine administration costs for transportation application. Where additional administration and supervisory capacity is needed to coordinate application, this s- 88 cost must be added to application costs calculated in SLUDGE. Even without including supervision and administration, the effect of wage rates on sludge application can be important. As Table 20 shows, increasing wage rates by 50 percent increases spray irrigation application costs by 30 to 40 percent. It is, of course, unlikely that wages would increase by 50 percent at once, but it is clear that spray irrigation is fairly labor-intensive. The SLUDGE model assumes that one worker can handle two spray irrigation units. If this labor/equip- ment ratio can be changed, the effect of wage rates on spray irrigation cost will also change. The effect of equipment price changes is shown in Table 21. Spray irrigation costs are most sensitive to changes in pump price, as the pump is the most expensive component of the spray irrigation unit. However, spray irrigation costs are generally insensitive to changes in equipment prices; a rise of 108 percent in the pump price, for example, increases spray irrigation cost by less than ten percent, and the effects of pipe and rain gun price changes are even smaller. Since it is difficult to get estimates of the life of an irrigation unit, spray irrigation costs were simulated with different unit life- times. The effect of changing the years of useful life of the spray irrigation unit on the costs of liquid sludge disposal are negligible. On the average, doubling the useful life of the spray irrigation unit results in a 5 percent cost savings annually, per dry ton of sludge applied. Since the equipment cost and life are of small importance in spray irrigation, it follows that the interest rate applied to equipment purchase does not have a great effect on the cost of spray irrigation. Table 20. The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on the Cost of Spray 89 Irrigation Application. Loading Rate, dry tons per Wage Rate, dollars per hour Annual Sludge Volume, mg. acre 50 250 500 (costs per dry ton of sludge applied) 2.5 10 8.54 8.53 8.52 15 11.43 11.42 11.41 5.0 10 7.70 7.68 7.67 15 10.59 10.58 10.57 7.5 10 7.41 7.40 7.39 15 10.30 10.30 10.29 10.0 10 7.28 7.26 7.25 15 10.17 10.16 10.14 l/Wage includes fringes. by assumption. 9O qm.s mm.s mm.s 0.02 w<.m om.s om.m m.s os.s as.s mm.s o.m 2o.w No.w mo.w m.m Om.m moss sme .mese No.5 so.s mo.s o.o2 om.s mm.m mm.m m.s co.w 00.x 50.x o.m ww.w om.m 2m.w m.m oo.o0m.m ease mN.e ©N.s mm.m o.o2 mm.m oq.m 2<.m m.m so.s wo.s Om.m o.m mm.m mm.m em.w m.~ mm.oqmmm \mmss: ommm Apmsaeem mwpssm mo sou esp sme smoov Amsom sue macs sspv Amsm22opv oom 0mm om .wa .wEDHo> mwp32m Hmscc< oumm waspmoq posse unoceroo .GOsumosHee< cosumwssss smsem so umou mzu co posse unusesevm wcswcmso so commas ocs .2N osecs 91 l m 1 i ‘I‘i‘§q 11‘, . .oo.owo.2m um ease m can .oo.mcmm um cam asms m .uOOw sme mm.2m um .umww coo .mese so mumsmcou use: mmmm\fl cm.s om.s mm.m o.o2 wq.s mq.n om.m m.m om.s sm.m mm.m o.m 00.x No.m mo.w m.N 00.0002 :50 asmm .2.c.ocoov 2N osecs 92 When the interest rate more than doubles (from 7 percent to 15 percent), the added application cost is only $0.10 per dry ton of sludge. I. #‘4 I A 93 Surface Vehicular Application Base—Level Costs Surface vehicular application of sludge costs approximately twice what spray irrigation costs (Table 22). The vehicular operation is not, however, unreasonably expensive, particularly compared to most transportation costs, and it may be less upsetting to local residents. Vehicular application avoids using high pressure nozzles, sending sludge shooting through the air. This reduces the spread of aerosols, decreasing the spread of odors and potential dispersal of pathogens. Where there are nearby residents, or the operation is visible from a fairly busy road, vehicular application may be preferable aesthetically. Like spray irrigation, surface vehicular application costs are not particularly sensitive to variations in sludge volume or loading rate, and for basically the same reasons. 15E 94 Table 22. Costs of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge (Base Level)—-. Sludge Loading Rate, Dry Tons/Acre Volume 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (mg./year) (total costs in thousands of dollars) 50 Total $ 140.80 $ 139.40 $ 138.90 $ 138.70 Fury 16.87 16.71 16.64 16.62 250 Total 695.90 688.90 686.60 685.40 PDT 16.68 16.51 16.46 16.43 500 Total 1,383.90 1,370.00 1,365.30 1,363.00 PDT 16.58 16.42 16.36 16.33 1/ ‘— Base price assumptions include the following: Bulldozer rental @ $45.00 per hour Price of applicator = $53,400.00 Price of diesel fuel = Wage rate = $10.00 per hour (fringes included) Equipment amortized at 7 percent E/Per Dry ton. $0.90 per gallon 95 Senstivity Analysis All application methods rely to some extent on diesel fuel. All vehicular applicators, for both liquid and dewatered sludge, use diesel fuel, as does the pump used in spray irrigation. The application vehicles use an average of 12 gallons per hour at stress loads and 6 gallons per hour when nursing and idling. Big Wheels, Inc. estimates that an average of one-quarter of the total application time is spent at stress loads. Raising the price of fuel 33 percent has the effect of increasing the cost of applying liquid sludges approximately 10 percent (Table 23). This is true for both surface application and subsoil injection. Fuel costs can make up almost half the hourly costs of the applicator, assuming straight-line depreciation of equipment and a fuel price of one dollar per gallon. When interest on the equipment cost is added in, fuel cost is somewhat less than half the hourly cost of ownership and operation. Vehicular sludge applicators cost around $50,000 to $100,000 at present, and represent a much higher capital investment than a spray irrigation unit costing less than $2,250. One spray irrigation unit can disperse 41,400 gallons of sludge per day, while a liquid sludge applicator puts out 60,000 gallons in an 8—hour day, so nearly 1.5 spray irrigation units are required to deal with as much sludge as one application. Even so, the applicator cost far outweighs the equipment cost of an equivalent spray irrigation system. Hence, vehicular application costs (both surface application and subsoil injection) are more sensitive to equipment cost changes than is spray irrigation cost. Table 24 illustrates the effect of changing equipment price. 96 Table 23. The Effect of Changing Fuel Price on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. Loading Rate Fuel Price Annual Sludge Volume, mg. 50 250 500 (dry tons/acre) (dollars/gal.) (costs per dry ton of sludge applied) 2.5 $0.90 $16.87 $16.68 $16.58 1.20 18.58 18.40 18.31 5.0 g 0.90 16.71 16.51 16.42 1.20 18.42 18.23 18.14 7.5 0.90 16.64 16.46 16.36 1.20 18.35 18.17 18.08 10.0 0.90 16.62 16.43 16.33 1.20 18.34 18.14 18.05 «are m. o '14,, Avg ‘ ph- Lu A a. nu- (I) 97 While surface vehicular application costs are more sensitive to equipment price changes than spray irrigation costs, it must be noted that equipment price is still not a major factor. The wage rate can be more important (Table 25). On the average, a 50 percent increase in wages results in a 25 percent increase in application cost. The vehicular sludge applicators have a useful life of 20,000 hours, according to the manufacturer, Big Wheels, Inc. This is a reliable estimate, according to one user of the equipment, and, there- fore, no sensitivity tests were performed on this variable. Very often, the equipment used to apply sludge to land represents a sizable investment, particularly to small municipalities. Therefore, the interest rate applicable on this investment may be of considerable concern. Table 26 illustrates the effects of changing interest rates on the annual costs of surface vehicular application. As the equipment cost does not vary with changes in loading rates, the additional costs shown are applicable to all loading rates. 98 Table 24. The Effect of Changing Equipment Price on Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. Equipment Loading Rate Annual Sludge Volume, mg. Price 50 250 500 (dollars) (dry tons/acre) (costs per dry ton of sludge applied) $53,400.00 $2.5 $16.87 $16.68 $16.58 5.0 16.71 16.51 16.42 7.5 16.64 16.46 16.36 10.0 16.62 16.43 16.33 75,000.00 2.5 18.06 17.89 17.81 5.0 17.90 17.72 17.64 7.5 17.83 17.67 17.59 10.0 17.82 17.64 17.56 99 Table 25. The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on thTICost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge— . Loading Rate Wage Rateg/ Annual Sludge Volume, mg. 50 250 500 (dry tons/acre) (dollars/hr.) (costs per dry ton of sludge applied) 2.5 $10 $16.87 $16.68 $16.58 15 21.06 20.75 20.60 5.0 10 16.71 16.51 16.42 15 20.90 20.58 20.43 7.5 10 16.64 16.46 16.36 15 20.83 20.53 20.38 10.0 10 16.62 16.43 16.33 15 20.82 20.50 20.35 1/ -Effects on subsoil injection are essentially the same. 2-/Wage rate includes fringes, by assumption. 100 Table 26. The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on the Cost of Surface Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge. Interest Annual Sludge Volume, mg. Rate 50 250 500 (added cost per dry ton of sludge applied) 10% $0.39 $0.42 $0.43 15% 1.08 1.16 1.20 101 Subsoil Vehicular Application Base-Level Costs In almost all respects, subsurface application (or subsoil in- jection) is nearly identical to surface vehicular application. The only differences are that the sludge goes underground rather than on the surface, and the equipment is slightly more expensive. The sludge can be injected using the Big Wheels "No Trac Pac" liquid sludge applicator with knife attachments for injecting sludge. The assumed price of equipment is $58,400 instead of $53,400, used in calculating the surface vehicular application cost. Table 27 summarizes the subsoil injection costs. 102 Table 27. Costs of Subsoil Injection of Liquid Sludge (Base Levels)1/. Sludge Loading Rate, Dry Tons per Acre Volume 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (mg/year) (total costs in thousands of dollars) 50 Total $ 143.10 $ 141.70 $ 141.20 141.00 Fury 17.14 16.98 16.92 16.90 250 Total 707.60 100.60 698.30 697.10 PDT 16.96 16.79 16.74 16.71 500 Total 1,407.60 1,393.70 1,389.00 1,386.70 PDT 16.87 16.70 16.64 16.62 -l/Base price assumptions include the following: Bulldozer rental $45.00 per hour. Price of applicator = $58,400. Price of diesel fuel = $0.90 per gallon. Wage rate = $10.00 per hour (fringes included). Equipment amortized at 7 percent. -g/Per Dry Ton. 103 Sensitivity Analysis Like spray irrigation and surface vehicular application, subsoil injection is fairly insensitive to changes in loading rate and sludge volume. The variation that does exist is wholly attributable to changes in the cost of short—term storageci/The higher the loading rate, the less storage pits required (given sludge volume), which reduces appli— cation costs. The only other cost factor, not included in application cost, that changes appreciably with different loading rates is the cost of the land required. Land costs are discussed in later sections. The cost of subsoil injection closely resembles that of surface vehicular application in terms of its sensitivity to variables like fuel cost, wage rate, equipment price, and interest rate. Since the applicator costs a little more, the injection costs are slightly more sensitive to equipment price and interest rate than is surface vehicular application. The effects are not markedly different, however, so no detailed sensitivity analysis is presented here. 1/ - There may be economies in short term application associated with use of portable storage trucks or nurse tankers. 104 Dewatered Vehicular Sludge Application Base-Level Costs Dewatered sludge, assumed to be a vacuum filtercake or centri- fuged product, cannot be pumped or sprayed. It can be spread, however, with a sludge applicator or manure spreader. The dewatered sludge applicator used in the SLUDGE model is manufactured by the same company that makes the liquid sludge applicator, Big Wheels, Inc. This equip- ment differs from the liquid sludge unit in that it has an open bed instead of a tank, and cannot load itself. A front-end loader is required. The costs used in the SLUDGE model were based on information on John Deere Co. loaders, but there are many other brands available. Because dewatered sludge does not flow, short term field storage is simply a matter of piling the sludge rather than building ponds. Hence, no pits are dug, and no storage costs are included. Because there are no storage costs assumed, there is no variation in cost due to different loading rates, and application costs shown in Table 28 are for different sludge volumes alone. As was the case in truck and rail transportation, dewatered sludge is cheaper to deal with than liquid sludge. Dewatered sludge land application costs are cheaper, on a per-dry-ton basis, than any form of liquid sludge land application. 105 Table 28. Costs p; Vehicular Application of Dewatered Sludge (Base Level)—-. Application Sludge Volume, 100 Cubic Yards per Year Cost 50 250 500 Total ($ thousand) $52.00 $183.20 $366.30 Per Dry Ton 5.60 3.95 3.95 1/ —-Base price assumptions include the following: Price of applicator = $48,400. Price of diesel fuel = $0.90 per gallon. Price of front-end loader = $50,000. Wage rate = $10.00 per hour (fringes included). Equipment amortized at 7 percent. 106 Sensitivity Analysis Dewatered sludge application is less sensitive to changes in fuel price than is liquid sludge high flotation application. A rise of 33 percent in fuel price increases application costs by about 8 percent, when the equipment is used to capacity. In the dewaterd sludge application, a front—end loader is also used, and the effect of fuel price on the cost of loader operation is included (Table 29). Tab1e129. The Effect of Changing Fuel Priig on the Cost of Vehicular Application of Dewatered Sludge— . Annual Sludge Volume, Cubic Yards Fuel Prixze 50,000 250,000 500,000 ($/ga1.) (cost per dry ton of sludge applied) $0.90 $5.60 $3.95 $3.95 1-.20 6.05 4.28 4.28 -L/Since no field storage is required, cost per dry ton is the Same for all loading rates. The effect of changing the wage rate is moderate (Table 30). [3‘1 :increase of 50 percent in the wage rate leads to approximately £3 255 percent increase in the cost of dewatered sludge application. The dewatered sludge applicator costs less than either liquid 107 The Effect of Changing Wage Rate on the Cost of Vehicular Table 30. Application of Dewatered Sludge. Wagel/ Annual Sludge Volume, Cubic Yards Rate— 50,000 250,000 500,000 ($/hour) (cost per dry ton of sludge applied) $10 $5.60 $3.95 $3.95 15 7.10 4.94 4.94 1/ _ Wage rate includes fringes. 108 sludge unit, and the cost of dewatered sludge application is slightly less sensitive to equipment prices except at very low sludge volumes where equipment cannot be fully utilized. A 40 percent change in the price of the liquid sludge applicator is required to produce a 7 percent change in applicator cost, whereas a 55 percent change in applicator vehicle price is required to produce the same 7 percent change in dewatered sludge application cost (Table 31). The dewatered sludge applicator vehicle costs less than either liquid sludge applicator. As a result, changes in the interest rate applied to the applicator's purchase have a smaller effect on dewatered sludge application costs than on liquid sludge application costs (Table 32). 109 Table 31. The Effect of Changing Equipment Price on the Cost of Landspreading Dewatered Sludge Application. Equipment Price Annual Sludge Volume, Cubic Yards 50,000 250,000 500,000 (cost per dry ton of sludge applied) Applicator $48,400 $5.60 $3.95 $3.95 75,000 5.92 4.22 4.22 Front End Loader 50,000 5.60 3.95 3.95 75,000 5.82 4.06 4.06 Table 32. The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on the Annual Cost of Dewatered Sludge Application. Ikiterest Rate Annual Sludge Volume, Cubic Yards 50,000 250,000 500,000 (added cost per dry ton of sludge applied) 107.. $0.25 $0.08 $0.08 157.. 0.70 0.23 0.23 110 Land Cost One cost which may be incurred with any application is the cost of land. Land is different from other cost components. Equipment, fuel, labor, and other components of transportation or application are things which are used up. Land, however, can yield income. One of the major reasons that sludge is used on agricultural land is because the sludge can increase the crop yields, and hence land value or farm revenue. The same may be true of forest land. There is some indication that sludge application on forest sites may improve tree growth, although this is not always true. While growth response may not result in enough increased volume to completely offset the land costs of sludge disposal in forests, it can provide an incentive to consider the land disposal option. The amount of land required depends on how much sludge is applied, the loading rate, and how much area (if any) is required to buffer the sludge disposal site from neighboring lands. State regulations on buffers vary, some states requiring none and others requiring several ‘hundred feet of buffer between the disposal site and such things as public water supplies, homes, or croplands (Morris and Jewell, 1976). fiince buffer requirements are site specific, they are not treated if! this analysis. If buffers are needed, the land costs per dry ton (if. sludge treated will obviously rise. Purchasing land in order to dispose of sludge may be unnecessary. Both private and public landowners may be willing to permit sludge application on their lands for the same reasons that farmers accept Sludge: it improves the crop. Land purchase is by no means an unavoid- able cost, and disposal options on other ownerships should be explored 111 before buying land, unless the municipality is interested in growing timber for other purposes. Tables 33 and 34 list the acreage requirements and land costs associated with different financing schemes. Doubling the loading rates halves the per-dry-ton land cost and the number of acres needed. Doubling the sludge volume, given the loading rate, doubles the total land cost, but does not change the cost per dry ton. Lengthening the amortization period moderately decreases annual costs. The interest rate has a much greater effect, as shown in the examples in Table 34. The important thing is that these costs only represent land purchase; they are not adjusted to include any land management other than waste disposal. Some of the cost of land can, for example, be offset if timber or some other crop is harvested and sold. Taxes are also left out. Finally, it is important to note that land may not have to be laought, or leased; it may be possible to apply wastes to public or ‘private land at no cost to the waste manager if the landowner is willing to permit waste disposal or desires to use sludge to improve forest growth. The costs shown here are only for the purpose of illustrating time effects of sludge volume, loading rate, interest rate, and amorti- zat ion period on annual total and per-dry-ton costs. Land prices Vary a great deal, as do tax structures, and crop and growth response ‘t<3 :sludge application. Thus, no attempt was made to represent "average" C Ondit ions . 112 .uaoosoe u up poususoEm .osom sue comm so posse puma musemm<.l 2 No.m ow.¢ mm.s mq.<2 No.m mw.¢ mm.n mq.<2 mo.m mw.q mm.“ mq.q2 see m.~om 2.moq s. seesaw EmuH .mmpsam UHDUHA o :osumo me am . lb mo 2 c 22 < e a \2 a o s c mucosocsssoe sco2 .mm o~2m2 113 1/ Table 34. The Effect of Changing Interest Rates on Land Costs— . Interest Rate Amortization Period, Years 20 30 50 (dollars per dry ton) 7% $ 9.44 $ 8.06 $ 7.25 10% 11.75 10.61 10.09 15% 15.98 15.23 15.02 1/ -Assumes land costs $500 per acre, 5.0 dry tons per acre loading rate. The costs per dry ton do not change with different sludge vol— umes; total costs increase at the same rate sludge volume increases. O 114 GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM Base-Level Costs Table 35 presents the base-level groundwater monitoring costs. As expected, the lower the sludge volume, the greater the per-dry- ton monitoring costs. The assumed three wells may not be necessary if sludge volumes are small. At a loading rate of 10 dry tons per acre, less than 750 acres are required annually to apply 50,000 cubic yards of dewatered sludge, and one well, on-site or down—groundwater gradient, may suffice. These monitoring costs are on the same order of magnitude as those experienced in a study of costs of forest land sludge disposal in the state of Washington (Edmonds and Cole, 1980). The Washington study, however, does not use groundwater monitoring wells, but suction lysimeters, and so represents in a narrow sense a different monitoring technology. Used properly, however, either system should be capable of providing adequate warning if a critical element in the water drain- ing from the application site reaches unacceptable levels. 115 Table 35. Groundwater Monitoring Costs for Land Application of Liquid or Dewatered Sludge (Base Levels)— . Cubic Yards Million Gallons 50,000 250,000 500,000 50 250 500 'Total $7,580 $7,580 $7,580 $7,580 $7,580 $7,580 iPer Dry Ton .82 .16 .08 .91 .18 .09 116 Sensitivity Analysis Groundwater monitoring costs are most sensitive to the cost of ‘wells (Table 36). At $12 per foot, 3 200 foot well costs $2,400, inaking up almost 95 percent of the monitoring costs, assuming one (zomplete anlaysis per year and 2 hours of sample collection time by a technician. the the and ing the By assumption, there are no economies of scale (or depth, as case may be) is well drilling. Doubling well depth has exactly same effect on monitoring cost as doubling the number of wells, results in anincrease of around 95 percent in groundwater monitor- cost. An increase in the cost of drilling will cause exactly same cost impact as increasing well depth or the number of wells. No variable other than well costs (number of wells, drilling, costs, and depth) has an appreciable impact on the total cost of ground— Vnater monitoring. The combined effect of increases in the costs of sanmple analysis, technician wage, and the number of samples per well if; negligible. Hence, the results of sensitivity testing on these (Kast.components is not presented here. 117 .COu esp sme.l \2 cm. Ms. mo.m mm. mm. om.m see wo~.om Heuos N2 w2. om. 2m.2 o2. mm. mo.2 see me2.m2 scoos o mo. w2. 2m. mo. 02. mm. see owm.s Hmuos m no. mo. 2m. m0. m0. mm. see onm.mm 0mm.Nw 0mm.mw 0mm.mw own.mw omm.mm Hmuos 2 com omm om ooo.oom occ.omm ooo.om maoaamo cos2ss2 muses usesu m2203 oEDHo> empaam umoo so sonasz .mowou wcscou2eo z assessesoco so m22m3 2o casesz mes m=2mcceo 2o “Queen 9&2 .em mNQmN 118 MULTIMODAL SYSTEM COSTS SLUDGE was designed to calculate costs of individual components of transportation, application, and monitoring. In any given situation, a waste manager may choose to use, for example, only one kind of applica- tion, and two or more forms of transportation. As mentioned previously, pipelines are the least flexible form of transportation. If the appli- cation sites are dispersed, it may be infeasible to transport sludge to them with pipelines. The same is true of barge and rail systems, though usually to a smaller degree. Trucking is very flexible with respect to route and destination. 1 2 However, trucking is also expensive, particularly over long distances. The waste manager may wish to combine transportation systems in order to get the optimum combination of flexibility and cost. For example, the manager may find acceptable sites 90 miles from the plant spanning a few townships. Assuming he has 50 million gallons of sludge to dispose of annually, he may choose to use pipe or barge transport to a depot 80 miles away, and use trucks to carry the sludge the last 10 miles to individual sites. Truck transport alone would cost approxi— mately $300 per dry ton, whereas the combination (with either barge or 6" pipe) would cost less than $240 per dry ton. The model can simply be rerun to represent the two sets of condi- tions--80 mile haul and 10 mile haul-—and the results added in order to calculate multimodal system costs. B IBLIOGRAPHY [J‘T BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, W. J., 1973. "Engineering and Economics of Sludge Handling." In U.S.E.P.A., et. al., 1973 (see citation under Flach, 1973). Braude, George, Bernard P. Sagik, and Charles A. Sorber, 1978. "Human Health Risk? Using Sludge for Crops." Water and Sewage Works, December, 1978. Pp. 67-64. Brough, Kerry J., 1974. "Institutional Problems Associated With Sludge Disposal." In Proceedings of the National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management. With Allegheny County, PA., the Pittsburgh section of the American society of Civil Engineers, and the ‘ U.S.E.P.A. Washington, D.C. 218pp. “ Il-I- 1-..“... A._ . . . ... ¢_ Casarette, Louis J. and John Doull, eds., 1975. Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY. 768pp. CAST, 1975. Utilization of Animal Manures and Sewage Sludges in Food and Fiber Production. Council for Agricultural Science and Tech— nology. Dept. of Agronomy, Iowa St. Univ., Ames, IO 50010. CAST Report No. 41. Clark, Douglas W., 1976. "Cost Estimates for Small Laboratories." Public Works, December 1976. Pp. 53-55, 93. Cole, S.P., 1977. "Save that Sludge!" Reprinted from Headlines magazine, Corporate Marketing Division, Packaging Corporation of America, Filer City, MI. 2pp. Council on Environmental Quality, 1977. Environmental Quality: The Eighth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. 445pp. Culp, Gordon, Robert Williams, and Thomas Lineck, 1978. "Costs of Land Application Competitive with Conventional Systems." Water and Sewage Works, October, 1978. Pp. 49-53. Edmonds, Robert L. and Dale W. Cole, 1980. Use of Dewatered Sludge as an Amendment for Forest Growth: Management and Biological Assess— ments. Volume III. Univ. of Washington Center for Ecosystem Studies. Bulletin No. 3. 120pp. Flach, K. W., 1973. "Land Resources." In U.S.E.P.A., et. al., 1973; Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, July 9-13, 1973. 244pp. 119 120 Goldstein, Jerome, 1977. Sensible Sludge: A New Look at a Wasted Natural Resource. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa. 184pp. Hartman, Willis J., Jr., 1978. "Land Treatment of Wastewater May Be Key to Pollution Control." Water and Sewage Works, May, 1978. Pp. 82-83. Hillmer, Ted J., Jr., 1977. "Economics of Transporting Wastewater Sludge." Public Works, September 1977. Pp. 110-111. Information Transfer, Inc., 1974. Proceedings of the National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management. With Allegheny County, PA., the Pittsburgh Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the U.S.E.P.A. Washington, D.C. 218pp. Information Transfer, Inc., 1975. Proceedings of the 1975 National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal. With Office of Research and Development, U.S.E.P.A., and Environmental Quality Systems, Inc. Rockville, MD. 257pp. Information Transfer, Inc., 1978. Fifth National Conference on Acceptable “ Sludge Disposal Techniques. With Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute and The Sludge Newsletter, Rockville, MD. 239pp. Kasper, Victor, Jr., Michael S. Gould, Donn A. Derr, and Emil J. Genetelli, 1973. Procedure for Estimating the Cost and Investment Required for Sludge Recycling Through Land Disposal, New Jersey Ag. Expt. Sta., Dept. of Ag. Econ. and Marketing, Dept. of Envt. Sciences, Rutgers, the State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 97pp. Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower, 1979. Environmental Quality and Residuals Management. Published for Resources for the Future by the Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 337pp. Lowrance, William W., 1976. Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Deter- mination of Safety. William Kaufmann, Inc., Los Altos, California. 180pp. Love, Gory J., Edythalena Tompkins, and Warren A. Galke, 1975. "Potential Health Impacts of Sludge Disposal on the Land." In Proceedings of the 1975 National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal, Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD. Pp. 204-213. McNulty, Hester. "Citizens' Role in Sludge Utilization Policy." In Fifth National Conference On Acceptable Sludge Disposal Techniques, Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD. Pp. 142-145. Melsted, S. W., 1973. "Soil-Plan Relationships (Some Practical Consider- ations in Waste Management)." In U.S.E.P.A., et. al., 1973. (see citation under Flach, 1973). 121 Menzies, J. D., 1977. "Pathogen Considerations for Land Application of Human and Domestic Animal Wastes." In L.F. Elliot and F. J. Stevenson, eds. (see citation under Mosier, et. al., 1977). Metcalf and Eddy, 1978. Volume 2: Current and Potential Utilization of Nutrients in Municipal Wastewater and Sludge. First Draft. (Submitted to U.S.E.P.A., Office of Water Program Operations, 21 July, 1978). 552pp. Montague, Albert, 1975. "Urban Sludge Disposal or Utilization Alter- natives--Socio-Economic Factors." In Proceedings of the 1975 National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal, Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD. Pp. 60-64. Morin, Michael, 1978. Speech at Michigan State University Natural Resources Days. Morris, Carol E. and William J. Jewell, 1976. "Land Application of Wastes: A SO-State Overview." Public Works, October, 1976. Pp. 89-92. Morris, C.E. and W.J. Jewell, 1976. "Regulations and Guidelines for Land Application of Wastes--A 50-State Overview." In Raymond C. Loehr, ed., 1976, Land as a Waste Management Alternative; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. 811pp. Mosier, A.R., S.M. Morrison, and G.K. Elmund, 1977. "Odors and Emissions from Organic Wastes." In L.F. Elliott and F.J. Stevenson, eds., 1977; Soils for Management of Organic Wastes and Waste Waters: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, and Crop Science Society of America, Madison, WI. 650pp. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1973. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. U.S.E.P.A. and U.S.D.A., Cooperating. 244pp. No author, 1974. "Municipal Sludge Applicator Proves Good Investment." Public Works, August 1974. Pp. 68-69. No author, 1978. "Public Acceptance of Sludge Land Application is Vital." Water and Sewage Works, September, 1978. Pp. 126—128. No author, 1980. (Description of Palzo sludge disposal project). Mimeo. 15pp. Osag, T.R. and G.B. Crane, 1974. Control of Odors from Inedibles-- Rendering Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E.P.A.- 450/1-74-006. Pratt, R.F., M.D. Thorne, and Frank Wiersma, 1977. "Future Direction of Waste Utilization." In L.F. Elliott and F.J. Stevenson, eds. (see citation under Mosier, et. al., 1977). 122 Rossi, Daniel, Victor Kasper, Jr., Donn A. Derr, Michael Gould, and Emil J. Genetelli, 1974. Computer Manual to Estimate the Cost and Investment Required for Sludge Recycligg Through Land Dis- posal, New Jersey Ag. Expt. Sta., Dept. of Ag. Econ. and Mkt., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, New Jersey. 17pp. Sheaffer and Roland, Inc., 1978. Lake County, Michigan Resource Recovery Project. Draft, mimeo. 298pp. Smith, J.L. and C.P. Houck, 1976. "Subsurface Injection Solves Sludge Problems." Water and Wastes Engineering, September, 1976. Pp. 46-49. Sorber, Charles A. and Bernard P. Sagik, 1978. "Health Effects of Land Application of Wastewater and Sludge: What Are the Risks?" Water and Sewage Works, July 1978. Pp. 82-84. Stednick, John D. and David D. Wooldridge, 1979. "Effects of Liquid Digested Sludge Irrigation on the Soil of a Douglas-fir Forest." In William E Sopper and Sonja N. Kerr, eds., 1977, Utilization of Municipal Sewage Effluent and Sludge on Forest and Disturbed Land, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park and London. 537pp. Strain, Ray E., 1977. "Kansas Treatment Plant Uses Subsurface Injection of Sludge." Water and Sewage Works, November 1977. Pp. 42-44. Thomas, Lewis, 1974. The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. The Viking Press, New York, NY. 153pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972. Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Special Report 171. 183pp. U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service, 1974. Factors Involved in Land Application of Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. National Program Staff, Beltsville, MD. 200pp. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 1979. Timber Management Report 5: Appraisal Elements. Mimeo. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C., E.P.A.-430/9-73-006. 377pp. , 1974. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal, U.S.E.P.A. Technology Transfer, E.P.A. 625/1—74-006. 389pp. , 1975. Sludge Processing, Trans- portation, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning Prospective, Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C. 20460, WPD 12—75-01. 192pp. fi‘fi 123 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a. Alternative Waste Manage- ment Techniques for Pest Practicable Waste Treatment, U.S.E.P. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/9-75-013. 7lpp. , 1976. Municipal Sludge Management: E.P.A. Construction Grants Program. An Overview of the Sludge Management Situation. Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction Division, Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA 430/9-76-009. 64pp. , 1976a. Residual Waste , Best Management Practices: A Water Planner's Guide to Land Disposal. U.S.E.P.A. Division of Water Planning E.P.A.-440/9-76/O22. , 1976b. Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heayy Metals to Plants and Animals. Construction Grants Program Informa- tion, U.S.E.P.A. Office of Water Program Operations Municipal Construction Division, Washington D.C. 20460, E.P.A. 430/9-76—013. 63pp. , 1977. Transport of Sewage Sludgg. Environmental Protection Technology Series, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.E.P.A., Cincinnati, OH. 45268, E.P.A.-600/2-77-216. 86pp. , 1977a. Comprehensive Summary of SludgeiDisposal Recycling History. U.S.E.P.A. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. E.P.A.- 600/2-77—054. 85pp. , 19771. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, U.S.E.P.A. Office of Water Program Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.D.A., EPA 625/1-77-008. 575pp. , 1977b. Cost of Landspreading and Hauling Sludge from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: Case Studies. EPA/530lSW—619. 149pp. , 1978. Land Cultivation of Industrial Wastes and Municipal Solid Wastes: A State-of—the—Art Study. Volume II Field Investigations and Case Studies, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268, E.P.A.— 600/2-78-140b. 157pp. , 1978b. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Proposed Criteria for Classification. 40 CFR Part 257, Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 25, Monday, February 6, 1978. l4pp. , 1978c. Environmental Changes from Long-Term Land Application of Municipal Effluents. U.S.E.P.A. Office Of Water Program Operations. 430/9-78-003. 29pp. 124 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices; Final, Interim Final, and Proposed Regulations (as corrected in the Federal Register of September 21, 1979). 40 CFR Part 257. Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 179; Thursday, September 13, 1979. 30pp. , 1979. Environmental Impact Statement: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, SW—821. 788pp. , 1980. "A Look at the Future of Hazardous Waste Management in America." SW-812. Pamphlet. , 1980a. "Innovative and Alternative Technology: A New Approach to an Old Problem," MCD-4. Pamphlet. Water and Sewage Works, 1979. Water/Wastewater Handbook Reference Number. Directory of State and Territorial Water Pollution Control Agencies. Des Plaines, IL. Pp. R-206 to R-216. Young, C. Edwin and Donald J. Epp, eds., n.d. Wastewater Management in Rural Communities: A Socio-Economic Perspective. Pennsylvania State University Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, University Park, PA. 154pp. Young, C. Edwin, 1976. The Cost of Land Application of Wastewater: A Simulation Analysis. U.S.D.A., Economic Research Service Technical Bulletin No. 1555. 59pp. , 1978. Land Application of Wastewater: A Cost Analysis. U.S.D.A. Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service Tech. Bull. No. 1594. 25pp. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) set in motion a comprehensive effort to clean up America's waterways. The goal was elimination of the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985. PL 92—500 provided not only goals and timetables but funds to be used for achieving the goals. However, PL 92-500 was not, by itself, adequate to accom- plish the restoration and preservation of clean watercourses. In addition, there were inconsistencies within the act which tended to discourage the use of less energy and capital intensive waste treatment systems and the recycling of nutrients in waters, things which the act ostensibly advocated. Thus, PL 92-500 was only the beginning of the legislative effort to clean up the nation's waters. The principal pieces of national legislation which relate to land disposal of sludge are the clean water act amendments of 1977 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 essentially reiterated the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments: the provision of fishable and swimmable waters by 1983, and water pollution dis- charge elimination of 1985. The 1977 Amendments specifically encour- age alternative waste treatment processes and techniques, or 125 126 those processes and techniques which are proven methods providing for the reclamation and reuse of water, the productive recycling of wastewater constituents and...the elimination of discharge of pollutants and finally the recovery of energy. In addition to such alternative techniques, the amendments also encourage use of innovative waste treatment methods and processes. By encouraging innovation, the authors of the amendments hoped to assist in efforts to reduce waste treatment costs and energy require- ments, while at the same time promoting the environmental and economic benefits of recycling and nutrient reuse. The Construction Grants Program under PL 92—500, the 201 Grants Program, provides the incen- tive to adopt both innovative and alternative technologies by providing additional federal funding for treatment plant construction to those projects making use of alternative or innovative techniques. The CWA Amendments specifically call for the development of guidelines for the disposal and utilization of wastewater treatment plant sludge, as does the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Section 4004 of the RCRA asks the Administrator of the EPA to identify criteria which distinguish a sanitary waste disposal site from an "open dump," and unsanitary or unsafe waste disposal site, such that states may act to close or upgrade all such substandard facilities. These criteria establish the level of safety necessary to provide that "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment" will result from the operation of the facility 127 (40 CFR Part 257). These regulations are important in determining the economic feasibility of land application, although since the regulations were published very recently, on September 21, 1979 (40 CFR, Vol. 44, No. 179), it is not yet known precisely how they will affect costs of land application Operations. The RCRA, like the CWA Amendments and the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Act Amendments, stresses the importance of nutrient recovery and resource or energy conservation, and provides for research and development aimed at developing appropiate techniques for achieving these goals. In terms of regulatroy standards, the RCRA and CWA Amendments affect land disposal of sludge more extensively than any other legislation. The latest published regulations deal with Section 4004 of RCRA and partially with Section 405 of the CWA, providing guidelines for disposal of wastewater treatment plant sludge on land. Of particular importance is the fact that these regulations apply different standards to different lands; e.g. the disposal of sludge on agricultural lands is, in general, more closely controlled than disposal on lands whose crops do not normally enter the human food chain. If human food chain crops or animal feed are grown on the disposal sites, the waste manager must control cadmium loadings, soil pH, and loadings and application of polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in addition to observing standards which apply to all waste disposal facilities. Regulations concerning disease vector movement, groundwater and surface water pollution, endangered species habitat maintenance, and floodplain application must be observed by all 128 facilities. Table A-4 shows a summary of these regulations, which apply to forest land disposal sites in general. In many instances, only a few of these regulations may apply. Regulations concerning surface and groundwater pollution are probably, in most cases, the most limiting legal restrictions on sludge application to forest land. In particular, the standards for nitrate-nitrogen contamination of groundwater may be the most limiting factor, and exert the greatest influence of any of the standards listed above on the economics of forest land application. The nitrate limitation can generally be observed by proper management of sludge loading rates, applying only as much nitrogen as the requirements of the ecotype (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978). Most municipal sludge is not considered a "hazardous waste" at present by the Environmental Protection Agency. The provisions of the RCRA allow EPA to classify it as such if "improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed" (Subtitle C, Section 3001, RCRA). If sludge is ever classified a hazardous waste, the RCRA could have a significant impact on the economics and feasibility of land application in general. Restrictions contained in sections dealing with site selection, enclosure and long—term care, and monitoring may increase costs by requiring certain buffer zones, soil quality, frequency of testing, and use restrictions. Other sections of the act, however, could make it almost impossible to apply the sludge to land at all, by prohibiting landfarming of persistent organics such as PCBs and hazardous components such as some heavy metals (S. 250. 55-5 (a)(3), RCRA). 129 Besides the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, the CWA and its Amendments, and the RCRA, there is little federal legis- lation directly affecting sludge application to forest land. The Safe Drinking Water Act may restrict, to some extent, the application of sludge in the recharge zones of sole source aquifers (determined to be the only or primary source of drinking water in certain areas). In general, this is no more limiting than the standards for ground— water pollution contained in the regulations implementing the RCRA. State legislation dealing with land application of sludge varies by state from nothing to extremely restrictive. As of 1976, only 39 percent of all states and territories had some formal regulations dealing with land application (including landfilling) of sludge. Table A-5 lists these restrictions. Tables A-l through A-3 present the groundwater pollution criteria which must be met on any sludge disposal operation. 130 Table A-1. Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals. Contaminant Celsiusl/ Level (Milligrams/Liter) Arsenic NA 0.05 Barium NA 1.00 Cadmium NA 0.010 Chromium NA 0.05 Lead NA 0.05 Mercury NA 0.002 Nitrate (as N) NA 10.00 Selenium NA 0.01 Silver NA 0.05 Floride - 12 2.4 12.1 — 14.6 2.2 14.7 - 17.6 2.0 17.7 - 21.4 1.8 21.5 - 26.2 1.6 26.3 - 32.5 1.4 l . -/Annual average of the max1mum 2Not applicable. daily air temperature. 131 Table A—2. Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Chemicals. Contaminant Level (Milligrams/Liter) Chlorinated hydrocarbons Endrin 0.0002 Lindane 0.004 Methoxychlor 0.1 Toxaphene 0.0005 Chlorophenoxys 2,4-D 0.1 2,4,5-TP 0.01 132 Table A-3. Maximum Groundwater Contaminant Levels for other than Health Effects. Contaminant Level Chloride 250 mg/l Color 15 color units Copper 1 mg/l Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/l Iron 0.3/1 Manganese 0.5 mg/l Odor 3 Threshold Odor No. pH 6.5 - 8.5 Sulfate 250 mg/l TDSl/ 500 mg/l Zinc 5 mg/l Total dissolved solids. 133 Table A-4. Waste Disposal Regulations Applicable to the Application of Sludge to Forest Land Not Used for Food Chain Crop Production. Floodplains Endangered Species Surface Water Groundwater Disease No restriction of flow of base flood; no reduction in temporary water storage capacity of floodplain; no washout of solid waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, or land or water resources. No destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of endangered or threatened species. No discharge of pollutants into waters in violation of S. 402, CWA (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systemk no non—point source pollution that violates S. 208, CWA. A facility or practice will not con- taminatel groundwater beyond the so- lid waste boundary, or beyond a speci- fied by approved state regulation. On-site population of disease vectors minimized, sludge applied to land or incorporated into soil is treated by a process to significantly reduce path- ogensg ; public access controlled for 12 months; grazing by animals whose products are consumed by humans is pre- vented for 1 month. 'l/Contamination levels are defined in Appendix I, 40 CFR, Vol. 44, No. 179. -g/Processes to significantly reduce pathogens are defined in 40 CFR, Vol. 44, No. 179. Source: Criteria for classification of solid waste disposal fa— cilities and practices; final, interim final, and pro- posed regulations (as corrected in the Federal Register of September 21, 1979) Part ix Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR 257, Thursday, September 13, 1979. 134 ooz w< I Hawwmcmq mm» muuwmszommmmz \mmo> mamazumz x \mmww mafia: mammm oo: m< oz mcmfimwdoq mammm uom v< oz mxo=ucmz Haflmuama I mammm ooz m< mo» mmmcmz vapoum3oo «fl Hawwncmq oz maoH cwufiavom coaummwafinmum x mm» mcmfivcH mammm 00: v< x mm» mfiocwHHH mmuwncmz ucmaummue umo: mo» onmvH oz “Hm3mz ammo oz mfiwuomu oom w< I Hafiwvcmq x oz mmwuoam oz .u.a oo: v4 I \MAHHmvcmA oz mumzmamn oz uaowuooccou mHHHmvcmA cw vm3oHH< x mm» ovmuoHou .Imfimmm oo: w< oz mHCHOWflHmo \z 02 mmmcmxu< oz maouwu< wmuwmcmm uHEuom oz mxmma< oz memnma< copfinvmm meow mcowuoflpumom ummwsm mcowumaswom mumum .mwvaam mo cowumowaaa< mama wcficuw>oo mcofiuowuummm cam mcowumfiswmm mumum mo zumEEDm .mI< Mammy 135 Aucowcwuum ouoe uov woufiauou cofiumufiafinmum oom v< I HHprcmA Aucmwcfiuum whoa uov confiscmu cowumowwm 00: v< I Hawmvcmg woufisoom wcwumumBoQ mammm oom v< Umhmu m3mmu USN ooomowao ma anLoo I Hammoooa assoom I Hammoooa oo: o< I Adamoooa oom o< I Hammooog Haamoooa oaoom oo: o< wwwmm oom c< mmmmmu\3 xwe I Hawwwcmd mammm oo: m< I quumm wououmzoo WH HHHmocmA moumumsmo «a Hafimocmq oo: o< I ooofiooom ooaoooaflaooom aoflumpmaoum CH mocflamwfiso mammm ooz o< x Immw \mmm> mow x mm» mm» oz mm? mm» oz mow x mm» x lam» \moow mow oz 02 x loo» \mmmw oz oz mm» mm» oz x lam» \moo» mwcfiwufl> ucoapo> Lou: moHHOOHuuoH umsue mmxoe oommoccoH muoxmn Lusom mcHHoumo sosom ccmHmH ovonm oowm Ouumnm wwcm>azmccom cowmuo mEozmeo owco muoxma Luuoz mafiaoumo zuuoz xpow 3oz oofixoz 3oz >mmumm 3oz ouwsmaEmz 3oz mwm>mz mxmmunoz mcmucoz Husommwz fiaafimmflmmwz muomoccfiz cmufisofiz .A.o.oooov mI< oaooe 136 NH O .Aomouo ooze mkofi .saoo Hm .ooooomwom .soom ooo maooooz .HH .Ho> .owvsfim mam umumBoummB Hmmwoficaz a“ mucmwuuaz wo cowumufiafiu: Hmfiucouom mam unoppso mam .cmmz .Hflua< .c0fimH>HQ cowuoauumcoo Hmaaowcsz .mCOfiumuoao Emuwoum woumz mo mofimmo ..<.m.m .m.: .cowumsuwm ucosmwmcme owcnam msu mo 3ow>uo>o c< .<.m.m ”unmEmwmcmz mwwsam Hmafloficsz CH EDBwGwB m mm mmufisvmu coflumowwn "EmprHm mucmuo :oHuUSHumcoo .zufifimso umumB co cofimmeEoo Hmcoflumz ozu zn mmawanu ”mmoumom .vcmH cu wwflaaam on mos umzu mucosufiumaoo owwaam co muHEHA I. \m .woumaswou mHHHmvcmH :H ammoamwn.l \N .mwmmn Aommo mp mmmov 00; cm am so vmumSHm>m ammoamwm wama.l x mm» \H mafiaozz :Hmaoomflz macawufi> umo3 acuwanmmz .A.o.ocoov mI< oaooa APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, CWC MODEL Land application of sludge, while not a new idea, is currently used to dispose of only 25 percent of the nation's municipal sludge (U.S.E.P.A., 1976). More importantly, only 1/5 of this amount is applied to non cropland. Moreover, much of the cropland application is not carried out by the municipality itself. In some cases, the municipality may simply allow farmers to take as much sludge as they want; in others, municipalities deliver sludge to farmers who, in turn, apply it them- selves. As a result, many municipalities may be ignorant of the actual mechanics of transporting or applying their sludge to land, particularly forest land. An understanding of the procedures required in forest land disposal of sludge is necessary before a responsible waste manage- ment agency is willing to invest in such a system. The following sections describe how sludge can be transported and applied to forest land, what procedures should be followed to help insure compliance with federal regulations and guidelines, and how monitoring is done. 137 138 The Sludge Municipal sludge contains nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, the principal plant nutrients. However, the quantities of these nutrients are small, as Table B-1 illustrates. Because the nutrient content Table B—1. Nutrient and Organic Matter Constituents in Typical Digested Sludge. Constituent Range, Z TSL/ Typical, Z TS Nitrogen 1.5 - 6.0 3.0 - 4.0 Phosphorus 0.8 - 4.0 2.0 - 2.5 Potassium (Potash) 0.0 - 3.0 0.4 - 0.5 Organic Carbon 27 - 32 31.0 l/Percentage of total solids. is low, sludge cannot be considered a true fertilizer. It can, however, make an acceptable soil conditioner, particularly on well—drained, coarse—textured soils. Any sludge that is not considered a hazardous waste may be applied to land, but the potential odor and health—related problems associated with application of raw sludge are probably unacceptable in the United States at present. Therefore, it must be assumed that digested sludge will be used in land treatment. Digestion can be anaerobic or aerobic. Aerobic digestion is a newer process, much less common than anaerobic. 139 Aerobic digestion has some advantages (EPA, 1975), but is more energy intensive and produces no usable gasses, whereas anaerobic digestion produces methane, which can and often is recovered (Metcalf and Eddy, 1978). In general, digestion involves the decomposition of organic matter, and is used to reduce odor and sludge volume, homogenize sludge solids in order to facilitate handling and disposal, reduce pathogens, produce a more easily dewaterable sludge, and store sludge to buffer disposal and dewatering practices from daily and seasonal fluctuations in wastewater flow and raw sludge production. A typical digested sludge contains something between 1 and 10 percent solids, averaging 4 to 5 percent. A 4 percent solid sludge, which has been selected for analysis in this study, may be transported by truck, rail, pipe, or barge, and applied by spray irrigation equipment, or high-flotation tankers, with or without incorporation into the soil. Dewatered sludge, on the other hand, cannot be transported by pipe or barge, and cannot be applied by spray irrigation. There are many methods of dewatering, producing sludges with different solids contents. 20 percent solid sludge was chosen to represent dewatered sludge products for this analysis. A 20 percent solid sludge is a typical product of vacuum filtration of centrifugation, both commonly used methods of dewatering. 140 The Culp/Wesner/Culp Model There are, as mentioned earlier, four modes of transport available for sludge. The ideal system has few unplanned interruptions or break- downs, is flexible enough to accommodate changes in sludge flow and application schedules, provides flexibility in choosing terminal points for sludge delivery, is not energy-intensive, and can be implemented at reasonable cost. If one of these four methods were obviously superior in all these categories, of course, there would be no need to treat them all; however, different transport modes offer different advantages and present different problems. The best system in a particular locale depends on the circumstances of the particular waste manager. 141 Truck Transport There is a wide variety of trucking equipment available currently. Trucking costs, presented in Chapter IV, are based on the following assumptions. 1. At distances of 5 to 10 miles (one way), a 1200 gallon or 15 cu. yd. diesel tank truck is used. 2. 2500 gallon or 30 cu. yd. diesel trucks are assumed for one- way haul distances of 20 to 80 miles. 3. Trucks operate for 8 hours per day. If it is possible to operate them for longer daily periods, costs can be signi- ficantly reduced. 4. Trucks and facilities are owned and operated by municipality. 5. New equipment is purchased. If used equipment can be bought, or vehicles already owned by the municipality can be used, it may be possible to reduce costs. Figure B-l presents the method of cost calculation used. Tables B-2 through B—5 present a summary of truck transportation system operation and management. The source of all the information in the transportation summary tables Transport of Sewage Sludge (EPA, 1977). All prices were inflated to 1979 levels using the Producer Price Index. It is assumed that trucks average 25 m.p.h. for the first 20 miles and 35 m.p.h. for the rest. A 30—minute loading time and 15-minute unloading time were assumed as well. If the turnaround time is shorter or longer, costs of truck operation will be smaller or greater, respectively. Another factor which can affect trucking costs is the number of hours of operation per day. Continuous operation is more cost effective than working 8—hour days; if continuous operation is possible, costs 2‘!" . 142 Figure B-1. Cost Calculation, Truck Transport Cost A. Point to point haul cost, $/year. 1. 7. Fuel = (Annual gallons used) X (Fuel cost/gallon) Truck maintenance = (Annual miles) X (Cost/mile) Truck driver = (Annual driver manhours) X (Cost/manhour, incl. fringes) Total direct operation and maintenance = sum 1,2 and 3 above Total operation and maintenance with overhead = (A4, above) X (1.25) Truck amortization = [(total truck investment) - (residual value)] X (amortization factor) + (residual value) X (interest rate) Total point to point truck haul cost = sum of A5 and A6 above B. Facilities cost, $/year 1. 2. 3. Facilities amortization (assume no residual value) - (facilities capital cost) X (amortization factor) Facilities operation and maintenance a. Electricity = (electrical energy, kwh) X (cost/kwh) b. Labor = (labor, manhours) X (cost/manhour, including fringes) c. Maintenance supplies, $ d. Total = add a, b and c above Total facilities operation and maintenace, with overhead = (B2, above) X (1.25) 143 Figure B—l (cont'd.). 4. Facilities annual cost = sum of B1 and B3 above. C. Total annual cost = sum of A7 and B4, above. D. Total annual cost/dry ton-mile, one way. 1. Liquid sludge. Total Annual Cost (annual vol— , f8.33 lb. (1 ton \ (Z solids) Kume, gallonS/ agallons / 2000 lb.) 1 (one-way haul distance, miles) 2. Dewatered sludge. Total Annual Cost X {annual vol— (27 cu. ft.\ ($5 1b. \ ,“1 ton \ lume, cu. yd.) Kcu. yd. / cu. ft.) 1 2000 lb.) \ 1 (Z solids)(one~way haul distance, miles) 144 H. ImMOumuomd xosue Mosh xosue om: xompe movmoz mxospe .u>\mmwue zszoco mwvsam Hmscc< \H .cowumuuoamcmue mwmzam nwmqu .coHumumao xosuH mo zumaesm .NIm magma 145 .Noz moao whooo wofiootooo soouo oo oomom.I \H «.mmm o.oo~.m oom.o om mk~.km ow k.aom o.m~o NwH.N mm mkN.kN oo m.ok e.gzm zoo.z om mkN.kN oN m.~om k.oom oo~.~ am ooo.oo oz m.mk m.mmz ooo om ooo.oo m omm m.km k.mzo mmq.z om zoo.o ow o.qm k.kom ANN mm Hoo.o oo m.m~ o.qo~ com o moo.o om fi.om o.ww ooo NB ooo.oN om .A.o.oooov NIm oHooa 146 m.¢ H.o~ no N meo.z oN m.m m.q~ we N mmm.m oz N.q m.n mm N mmm.m m on z.~ m.n RN z Roz ow o.o m.m mz z mod cc «.0 o.N w H Roz ON 0.0 o.z N z mmm oz q.o m.o m z mmm m m m.o m.N w z om om N.o ~.z q z om oq z.o o.o N H 0m ON N.o q.o N z ooz oz z.o N.o z z ooz m m.z .w%.:o .w%.:o .m>.:o .m%.=o .c%.=o .v%.:o .wm.=o .v%.:o .v>.:o .w%.=o moHHE .pz .30 cm ma om mH om mH om mg on ma .oUGMumHQ Good .oesao> \mmuOumpomo \MAosm \Mom: xomuy \mmmwooz mxonuh .pmwmmwpe zmzloco ommaam Hmscc< .cowumuuoamsmuy mwwsam wououmBoQ .cowumumao xosuH mo zumEEDm .mlm manna 147 .nmaz . coaumHaono Honk wse wcwHHHm wse \mawua .Hmeooo.oom zmalmco mwoaHm Hmsca< .cowumupoamcmue owmaam vwsvflq .coaumumao owumm mo zumessm .olm mHan 155 OON.HH OOO.m OOO.N OO¢.H OON OqN.N OO0.0¢N OO0.0¢H OOO.NN OOH.m¢ oww.mN Omm.om OOm.H OOm.H OOm.H OOm.H OOm Om OH ONm OOH ow oq ON Omn ONm .H.o.oooov oIm oHooa 156 - . . , .D‘IN4SO. at m.>mv mco Hmaam ou ucmHO um mwmuouw “muso: e CH owumn HHHH ou vaHm wcflafia Ocm maesm "mcoquESmm<.l \H OOO.qu OO0.0qH OO0.00 OOO.mm .£.3.x .xwpocm Hmowuuoon SNNH mam; mqm§ momH m 63533.: zoom mmo.¢~ omq.mH a~o.mH HGH.m m .ooHHooom z a o NH NH NH NH OmoH owpmn\musoncme .cowumuoao OO<.N OqO.H OqO.H OOO musoscma .muamamucwmz oocmcoucfimz cam cowumumao Hmscc< mmq.¢m wa.mc nmw.no NHO.Nq Nu .cowumuwuuoa< Hmsaa< OmN.mOm ONO.¢ mwosHm Hmscc< EmuH . meODHm OHDUNH .muma .mocmcmucwmz vcm coaumuoao .Hmufiamo "moaufiHwomm mwumm .mlm anmH \ 157 ‘I {idolslu I}! a... .xoOcH ooHum Hoosvoum Oswm: ONOH cu Ooumvaa mumoo HH<\M .Ommom: mm aowumuoao Hmsccm mam OOm .usonqu "anHcflE mOmOH mwumn 03u uo COHHUDOOHQ owmaHm .H.o.oooov kIm oHooa 158 Rail Transport Rail transportation costs may vary a great deal from region to region in the United States. The rate charged to a shipper depends on the tonnage of material to be moved and the shipping distance. Table B-8 shows the average national 1975 rate structure, which the SLUDGE model updates to 1979 using the Producer Price Index. 20,000— gallon tank cars for liquid sludge transportation are assumed here to be leased from the manufacturer on a full-maintenance basis. In addition, the C/W/C model assumes (waste management) agency ownership 7‘ g 5 of railroad loading and unloading facilities, where facilities costs g are included. Hopper type cars used for dewatered sludge transportation 3* are assumed to be provided by the railroad. Railways have been used very infrequently in sludge transportation, and railroad companies are not usually willing to share rate information with researchers, according to the C/W/C model. Thus, since there are few working examples to draw from, the cost information in the C/W/C model is probably less accurate than information concerning other transport systems. Cost calculation methods and rail system operating characteristics follow, Figure B-3, and Table B-9 through B—13. 159 Table B—8. Railroad Shipping Rates, 1975 Levels. One-way Rate, $/ Remarks Distance, net ton Miles 20 $ 2.10 Railroads, as of 1975, gen- erally allowed rebates of 40 3.00 $0.06 yo $0.20 per mile per car if shipper owns cars. 80 4.10 C/W/C model assumes $0.15. 160 6.50 mm 320 12.50 figure E 5. P01: 160 Figure B-3. Cost Calculation, Rail Transportation. A. Point to point haul cost, dewatered sludge, $ per year (Annual sludge volume, cu.yd.) x:(27 ft.3\ {55 lb. / 1 ton x cu.yd. / \cu.ft. (2000 lb. Rail rate). $/t0n 1’ B. Point to point haul cost, liquid sludge, S/year 1. Railroad charges 6 (Annual sludge volume, mg.) X (8.33 X 10 lb./mg.) X f‘ / ton \ X (Rail rate,\ (2000 1b./' \ S/ton / 2. Railroad mileage credit (for shipper-supplied cars) (Round trip haul distance, miles) X (Trips/year) X (Railroad mileage credit, $/mile) 3. Rail tank car leasing (including maintenance) (Number of tank cars required) X (Annual full-maintenance lease rate, $) 4. Total annual point to point haul cost, liquid sludge. Sum of BI and B3, minus B2, above C. Facilities cost, S/year 1. Facilities amortization (Facilities capital cost, S) X (Amortization factor) 2. Facilities operation and maintenance a. Sludge holding and pumping maintenace, 3 (Labor, manhours) X (Cost, S/manhour, with fringes) b. Sludge holding and pumping supplies, $ c. Sludge holding and pumping operation (Labor, manhours) X (Cost, $/manhour with fringes) 161 Figure B-3 (cont'd.). d. Rail maintenance, $ e. Electrical energy (Electrical energy, k.w.h.) X (Cost, $/k.w.h.) f. Total direct facilities operation and maintenance Sum of 2a-e, above 3. Total facilities operation and maintenance with overhead and supervision (Total direct facilities 0 & M cost, $) X (1.25) 4. Facilities annual cost Sum of C1 and C3, above D. Total annual cost 1. Dewatered sludge Sum of A and C4, above 2. Liquid sludge Sum of B4 and C4, above E. Total annual cost, $/dry ton-mile one way. 1. Dewatered sludge Total annual cost, $ I’Annualx~ ‘727 cu.ft.\ {'55 lb.‘ X ' 1 ton . X Percent Solids‘ 5 Sludge 3 : cu.yd. f \cu.ft.£ .2000 1b., [ 100 x ’ Volume,‘ \ . ~ cu.yd./ 1 (One way haul distance, miles) 2. Liquid Sludge Total annual cost, S 'Annual ) X 8.33 1b.: X I 1 ton ".x {Percent solids} X{one way , Volume, ' gal. ,, ~2000 1b.! I 100 ; {haul dis-I ,831- / ”tance, ) (miles / '1- ‘—. ." “fir—"u A? as: 162 OOH NOH m OOm.m OOH OmH OOH m OOO.N Om no OHH m OOm.m Oq no OHH m OOm.N ON OOH Om OON O Omm.m ONm ON OOH O Omm.m OOH OO OOH O Omm.m OO we OOH O Omm.m OO NO OOH O Omm.m ON mm O NON m mum ONm O ONH m mum OOH n OOH m mum OO O OOH m mum OO O OOH m mmm ON m.m muaom mmHHz Ooufiscom mpso: .oEwH .mEHH OmoHCO mOmoHumu .oucmumwa .mE .oEDHo> mumu OHHH Ocsom cam cmOH Hmscc< >m3loco mwvsam Hmscc< .mmvnHm OHDUHH .zumeasm newumuoao OmouHfimm .OIm manmfi 163 I1 m _ hold-314d.» 1...; ..u‘IIIII’ NOO mOO OON HOO me HOH OON OON NOH OOH qu OON OH OH OH OH OH OOm.Nm OOm.Nm OOm.Nm OOm.Nm OOm.Nm OOm.N ONm OOH OO Oq ON OON ONm .H.o.uooov oIm oHooe 164 Table B-lO. Railroad Operation Summary, Dewatered Sludge. Annual Sludge Car Size, Annual Volume, cu.yd. cu.yd. Carloads 7.5 150 150 15 50 300 75 100 750 150 100 1,500 750 100 7,500 Table B-11. Regional Variations in Rail Rates. Area Rate Variation North Central, Central Northeast Southeast Southwest West Coast Average, as outlined herein 25% higher than average 25Z lower than average 10Z lower than average 10Z higher than average 165 mme.e~ mok.o How.e me~.~ a .uooooouoHoe HHom He~.~H ome.e mmk.m Hmm w .ooHHoeoo z e o Hmoom.m~ \moom.oH Iooo.o \memz.e uuoooooe .ooeuuuueo oo~.H cow oem omH ouooeooe .uoooouoeoz "mucmcquHmZ cam fiOHumHMQO HmDGC< ome.H~H omH.om HNH.oe moo.mH NH .ooHoouHuuoEo Hoooo< emm.mom Hwe.ooz HNw.NoH eem.we xuos ooHu Ocm .wOHO wcHOmoHca Ocm wcficmoH oem.mme eoo.ooH cmo.ko mom.me monouesu ooo uonoeu meu wanmoHsn Ocm wcHOmoH oom.Ho ooN.zo Nmo.om He~.~H mooooooouooeo ooo woeoee uoHoooH emH.oo mm~.eo HHo.Nm HHm.oe woeeaoe moeouog NHH.moe eHN.oHH Hom.eNH meo.km euHHHooH uofioooH um owououu omoon \Mw .umou Hmufiamo one omH me m.“ .wE .mEDHo> owODHm Hmzcc< EwuH \ mmmvsHm OHDOHH .mumO moamcoucfimz cam coeumuouo .HmuHamo "meuHHHomz OmouHfimm .NHIm mHOmH 166 .oefiu OmoHcs cam OmoH Hmuou wow :05 oae\fl .oefiu OmoHcs Ocm OmOH Hmuou pom awe oc0\m .xoOcH mofium umoawoum wcfim: OmOH ou Ooumcas mooHua HH<\M .omeOOm wcwvmoHca oucH >uH>muu An owumzomwv mumo meu "OH Ocm .m .N .m.H :H mcfimuu umo awe: OOH Ocm ON .OH .N HHHO ou Omuwm mafia cam mean "mcoauaeamm<\fl ooo.ome ooo.oeH ooo.oo ooo.mm .n.3.x .smuooo Hooeuuoon .H.o.uooov NHIm uHooe 167 NO0.0m NOO.< OOO.N OOO.N m .oocmCOOGHmE HHmm He~.~H one.e wme.~ How a .uoHHoeou z e o \MOOO.OH \NONH.O IOOO.H menoncme .GOHumumOO OON.H OOO qu OmH musoncme .mocmcoucfimz Hoocmcouchz Ocm :oHumuoOO Hmscc< Ono.OO ONm.ON NmO.mH HMN.mH NN .cowumNHuuoEm Hmscc< OO0.00H NNO.NOH OO0.0N «Om.wm xuoz ouHm vow .OOHO wcwvmoHcs cam wcwvmoH mNm.mHm HOm.OO MON.mq MON.mq mwcflvfim Ocm monouH3m meu wcHOmOHsd cam mcHOmOH OmO.NO mO0.0q NO0.0N qu.qN muozo>coo NGHOmOH NOH.NmH Hmm.OO ONN.Om ONN.NN muoaaon owODHm wcfiOMOH \Mw .umoo Hmufiamo OON OOH mm O.N .wE .mEDHo> mwOSHm Hmscc< EouH 1m \H OODHm Omuwumzmn .mumO mocmcmucfimz Ocm coaumuoao .HMuHOmU “ooHuHHHooe ooouHHom .mHIm oHooe 168 a H *H1 Dwshiuwnlhhov In. ..I..rl| .NEHH flNOHCD USN UNOH HNUOU ROM :05 O3H\m .NEfiu @NOHSS USN UNOH HNUOH HOW CNS NCO\m .meGH mofium uwoscoum mafim: OnOH Ou Ooumvms mmofium HH<\M .omeOUm wcfivmoHc: Ouaw zuw>muw On Osmv mumo meu Humaaoc omeOHm Eouw wcwwmoH mufi>muw vaoHumo mco now Oouwm uoaaon omeOum chOmOH OO0.00m OO0.00H OOO.NO OOO.NO “macauaaamm< \N .:.3.x .mwumco HmofiuuomHm .H.o.uooov mHIm oHoua 169 Pipeline Transport Pipes can transport raw as well as digested sludge, but may add to pipeline maintenance costs due to grease buildup. In addition, disposal of raw sludge by landspreading is generally not done in the United States, primarily because of pathogen considerations. Accordingly, the costs of pipeline transport were based on moving only digested sludge with 0 to 4 percent solids. Pumps needed for pipeline transport were assumed to be non—clog slurry centrifugal type pumps operating at 1,780 r.p.m. It may be possible to cut pipeline transport margin- ally by selecting a different size pump based on the pipe size, terrain, and design of the pipeline-route, but these considerations are site- specific. Hence, the Culp/Wesner/Culp model does not attempt to optimize pumping. Four and six-inch pipes require more pumps in series in each pumping station, due to the greater friction loss associated with smaller pipes. Two pumps operating in parallel are assumed for 16, 18, and 20 inch pipelines to accommodate higher flows. Pipelines are assumed to be cement lined cast iron or ductile iron, in accord with typical operations. Installation was assumed to be above hard rock, in typical soil conditions. The costs were based on one major highway crossing per mile, on single track railroad crossing every five miles, and several minor road/driveway crossings per mile. When the number of crossings is increased, the construction cost of pipelines will also increase. Crossings represent a major cost of small pipeline construction, and if many more crossings are encountered than are assumed here, the costs shown will not be relevant. The pipeline burial depth may affect the pipeline transportation cost if the depth exceeds 3 to 6 feet of normal soil. The costs should 170 be increased approximately 15 percent for burial depths up to 10 feet. Pipeline transportation costs are based on agency ownership and operation of all portions of the system. The following figures and tables illustrate the operation and cost calculation of the pipeline transportation system. I54“ ‘ c..'(l-' " - .31. .‘;-¢‘ 171 Figure B-4. Cost Calculation, Pipeline Transport. A. Determine pipeline size from project information B. Pipeline capital cost, S/year 1. Pipeline (Pipeline length, ft.) X (Unit cost, $/ft.) Extra railroad crossings, S (if more than one per 5 miles) (Rail crossings) X (Unit cost, $) Major road crossings, 3 (Major road crossings) X (Unit cost, $) 1M1,mm, ‘- . or . Pipeline amortization (Sum of B1-3, above) X (amortization factor) C. Pumping station capital amortization and operation and maintenance, S/year 1. Electrical energy (Cost, $/k.w.h.) X (Annual k.w.h./ft. head) X [(Pipeline length, 100 ft.) X (hydraulic loss, ft/100' of pipe) + (pipeline elevation change, ft.)] Number of pumping stations (Total system head, ft.) (Head per pumping station) Operation and maintenance labor (No. of pumping stations) X (0 & M, manhours) X (Cost, $/manhour, with fringes) Operation and maintenance supplies and parts, $ Total operation and maintenance with overhead and supervision (Sum of C1, 3, and 4, above) X (1.25) 172 Figure B-4 (cont'd.). 6. Pumping station amortization (Number pump. stations) X (Cost/station, S) X (Amortization factor) D. Total annual Cost (Sum of B4 and C6, above E. Total annual cost, $/dry ton—mile Total annual cost, S Annua1‘\ [8.33 lb.) . ton I ,percent solids‘ 'pipeline length,‘ Volume,} 1 gal. .2000 1b., a 100 , ‘ miles 2 gal. I 172a Table B-14. Pipeline Sludge Flow and Volume. Pipeline Sludge f1? Pipeline capacity at 3 fps velocity size, rate lgpm— (daily hours of operation) inches @ 3 fps— velocity 48 12 20 . 3/ (capacities in mgd— ) 6 280 0.13 0.20 0.34 10 800 0.38 0.58 0.96 14 1,400 0.67 1.01 1.68 18 2,500 1.20 1.80 3.00 -n._- .n. ‘— 7 ' i I -£/gallons per minute -g/feet per second E/million gallons/day V 172b .xoOcH oofium noonvoum wchs ONOH cu OouvaD.I He .muHomOmo Hmcowuwvvm wow HoHHmumO cw maasm\m .Omon HmcoHuHOOm pow mofiuom :H maaam\m .cflmuuou Ho>mH mofi:mm<\fl ONH.Nm «O«.ONN ON \MONN Om.O OH nO0.0« OOm.OOH ON OHN m«.O «H O«0.0N NNN.NOH «O OmN N0.0 OH m«H Nm \mmmm OO Om \MOm« O« H O m .umoo N luau .wcfiommm coaumum .hoaofiowmmm .um .cowumum wcwassm comm um .umOOH\.uH .:H .onwm cm*uMum waaaasm Osam Oasm oHOmHHm>m coo: mumswxouaa< .mmoH oHHsmuwzz oaHHmme .mofiumfiumuomumno waHassm owvsHm chHwOHm .mHIm memH 172c . GOfiuNN/NUXN XUOIH URN; pom unmouoa ON Ova ”Luaow .OHIO noO ucmouma OH OOm muoow OIm OoHusn mmcfiHmONO OmHkuch pom mumoO\M .EQEHGHE m mm cowumum OGHOEDO oco How umoo mOHHOOSm new noan mocmcmucfima cam :oaumumao mm: .mmGHHmONO uuosm uom.l \H ON.ON OON.H O«O O«OO. OH mN.mN O«O ONO O«OO. «H ON.OH ONO ONO mmOO. OH ON.OH ONO ONN ONOO. O coaumum .OE=O\O coaumum Ocfiaasa Ono: .uml.£.0.0 IauHNO moHHOODm Ocm muuma musozcma .uoan OOOHN3M Imosocw umomchHHmme 2 O O Hmacc< z O O Hmdcc< .um3om .mumw mcHHmOHm .umoo mocmamucfimz Ocm .GOHumummo .hwumcm ocHHmOHm .OHIO oHOms APPENDIX C SOURCE LISTING OF SLUDGE MODEL 173 ..__-_,__ “a... .... -_... ur- n L In .. 9'. I. I 5.1—2 I ‘ ' 41;» ll 5" u '5‘ :I 174 Cisr 100-5?00 100: 110= 130=5 130= 140= 150= 160: l?0=10 180= 190= EUU= 310=6 820= 230= E4U=120 850=30 360= £80= 29U= 300: 310= 320: 330= 34D: 350= 360: 3?0= 380=21 39U= 4DU= 410= 430= 430=25 44D= 450: 460= 4?0= 430: 4?0=40 SUD: 510= SEU= 530: S4fl=50 550= SED= SPD= 530: 590=55 EUD= 610= 630: 63U=60 640: 650= 660:35 670: 630: 690: PRUGRRN SLUDGE(INPUT:DUTPUT) PRINT 5 FDRNHT (0 IS SLUDGE LIQUID UR SOLID (1=LIQUID’2=SULID)? 0) REHD09IFURN PRINT E65 IF(IFDRN.EQ.E)GU TD 15 PRINT 10 FURMHT (O SLUDGE VOLUME IN GHLLUNS PER YEHR IS 9) REHD 0! SLVDL PRINT 265 PRINT 6 FURNRT LO LIQUID SLUDGE TRHNEPURTHTIUN TESTING.) PRINT E65 ‘ D3VDL=SLVDL0.0408.345/2000. PRINT EU FDRHHT(O THE fiVERRGE UNE-MHY HHUL IN MILES 13 0) REHDOvflIST TRUCK=0. HNFUEL=D. HNHUUR=0. RHIL=0. PIPE=0. TRFUEL=D. TRHUUR=D. ELHBUR=0. BHRGE=O. HNBHR=0. PRINT El FURNHT(O HRE LDHDINE FRCILITIES HVHILHBLE LI=Y93=N)? 0) RERDOsIFRC IFiDIST.EE.ED)GD TD 35 IF£SLVDL.LT.15000000.)GD TD 30 EU TD 45 IF (IFHC.EQ.1)ED TU 35 IF (DIST.NE.20.)GU TD 40 BHRGE = (165.50212 + 6.44BEFOSLVUL/1000000.)01000. RHIL = (35.63100 + 15.?349? OSLVUL£1000000.)¢1000. TRUCK=£3.19FF9+13.44E4995LVOL/1000000.)91000. 50 TD 45 IF(DIST.NE.40.)GD TD 50 BHREE=£89.64E9 + 12.0318303LVUL/1000000.)91000. RHIL=£-EE.U536?+19.87005OSLVUL/1000000.)91000. TRUCK=£7.EE9?+E4.0494POSLVULXIUUUUDD.)OIUOU. 50 TU 45 IFiDIST.NE.80)ED TU 55 BHREE=£89IDEEE7+19.88389OSLVULKIODUUDD.)91000. RHIL=(-7.03139+26.UBIEFOSLVULKIUDDDDO.)01000. TRUCK=(-42.41604+43.SDEUEOSLVULfIUOUDUO.J01000. 60 TU 45 IF (DIST.NE.160.)GU TU 60 BHREE=(-E4.45808+40.41993LVUL11000000.)01000. RHIL=(-147.03002+41.?300403LVDLf1000000.J91000 60 TU 45 BHRGE =(634.97492+?5.663360SLVDL/1000000.)01000. RHIL=(-E?4.U7?01+?0.4?50103LVOL/1000000.)01000. EU TU 45 ' IFQDIST.NE.EO)GU TU 65 BHR6E=(230.30?46+?.IIBIEOSLVUL/IDDUUOD.)91000. RRIL=£63.0817?+16.?925903LVUL/1000000.)01000. TRUCK=(31.F4899+14.20?84OSLVUL/1000000.)01000. 175 700: 60 To 45 310455 IF IDIST.NE.40.)GD TD ?0 F30= 359.05: I27? . 04467+1 1 . 46641 oswou 1 000000. ) .1000. F30= RHIL=I113.14E'3?+&0.439FEOSLVUL/1000LI00.)01000. ?40='-. TRUCK= Ias. 4401?+a4. 199?9o5LI?0I./1 000000. J! 01000. 750: 00 To 45 760:?0 IF (DIST NE. 80. >50 TO ?5 ??0= 8955531304.I3U95+EU.N?“EI’0FIIIFI.IEL=I..I2I3311+4.155.1505L'NIUL?lIZIIlIIZIIZIIIIIZI.;21-¢1IIIII.I. 106I3= IF ILIIIST. E0. 80. ) HHFLIEL= I;-. I1IEE‘1E'+8. 3139193L'I'OLI- 1I’ILIIZIIIIIIIIZI2' 01000- 10m: PRINT 115 1|ZI3IZI=115 FORMHTI; THE PRICE OF TRLICII. FUEL IS I!) 1090= FIEFIIIO: EHLSLPR 1100: 5059: II3I‘I5PR-. :53:- OHNFUEL 1110: PRINT 116 1120=116 Pom-1m Io THE HOURLY IIIFIIse FOR TRUCKING LHBOR 15 v.1 113 II: REHDOIIZLFIBPR 1140: IFI;.[IIST Egg 5. )HHHU|_IR=(. Llllhhq+.._I||=IH4O\L'-,I'DL IEIIZIIIIIZIIIIIII.JOIIIILIIIII 1150: 1FI015T. E0.10.;IHrIHOI_IFI=I-.L'I19IZF’I +. 55215o5wntx1I:II;II:II:II:II:I. ;;;..1IIIII:.I “'30: IFIDIST. E0. 80. )FINHUIIR= I_.- I;:IIII]1EI+. 4AJQ=I¢~LVDL1000000. IIIIOIINIU- 11?0= IFIJDI '.T 50. 40. )HHHUI_IR=I_.- “0352+. EIEIBLISOS-ZL-L' -DL/'.1IIIIZ||ZIIZIIIIIII L’IOIHUU- 1130-“- IFIDIST. E0. EILI. )FINHUUR= I-.LIloI:I'o+1. l“blc’-.LVDLI 1IZIIZIIZIUIZIIZI "I‘ll-"INN 1190= ZLHBUR= IZLFIEIPR-9. ?9:I oI'IIII-ICILIR 1:00= TRUCK: TRLICK+I3HSP+ZLHBDR 1310= IFIZDIST. E0. 9.0. :IFIHEIFIFI=I?. oae54+¢0.&99o4¢\L'-IDL/1I'II'II'IIIUU- 1330= IFI.DIST.E0.4I:I.,IHrIEIHE-ld.LII-elwomsaIIT'fiLI-DLI1I‘JI’II’JUU“ 133D: IFIDI .31 53,30 )fiflBfip-dd.h_.bd+bll.b394bO\LVD|—fIUUUUUU:. 134']: IFI.IIIST.E0.160.)HNEHR=4LI.449ZS+115.LEIZEIIORLIIOL/lLIIZIuIIIIer. 195‘“ IFIDIST. 50. 35:0. IIIIILHR-aI.I..e54s+a:-_I3.‘ 01o “51.0mm000000. 1§60= PRINT 11? 1§?III=11? FORMHTILO THE HOURLY TUEI BILLING FtFITE IS 0.3 1:30: Rear». TUEPR 1390: PRINT £65 1300: BHREIE=BHFII3E+ I.TL|GPR-1EIEI. ea) OHNBHR 1310: 1320= 1330= 134U= 13SU= 1360= 13?fl= 133$: 139fl= 1400: 1410: 1429= 1430: 1449: 1450: 1460: 14FD= 14Bfl= 149fl= 1500: 1510= 1530=105 1530= 154D=110 . ISSU= 1560:111 ISFU= 1530:112 159D: 1600=113 1610: 1630= 163D: 1640: 1650: 1660:118 16?0= 1680: 1690: IFDU=39D 1F1U=195 1?30= 1?30= IF40= 1?SU= 1?60=210 1??D= 1?30= 1?90=280 1300=EES 1310= 1330: 1830: 1840: 1850: 1550:230 13?0= 1380: 1390=240 1900: 1910: 176 BHRLO=BHRBEO.8 BHRHI=BHRGE91.3 RRILO=RHIL9.8 RHIHI=RRIL.I.3 TRULO=TRUCKO.8 TRUHI=TRUCK‘1.2 PIPLO=PIPEO.3 PIPHI=PIPE¢I.3 BHRLD=BRRLOfU3VOL BRRGD=BHRGE/USVOL BHRHD=EHRHIfUSVOL RRID=RHILfDSVOL RHILD=RHILO/USVOL RRIHD=RHIHIfDEVOL TRULD=TRULOKDSVOL TRUCD=TRUCK/DSVOL TRUHD=TRUHI/DSVOL PIPLD=PIPLOXDSVOL PIPED=PIPE/DSVOL PIPHD=PIPHI/DSVOL PRINT 105 FORNHT(I4XIOBRREE99IEHIORRILOIIEXIOPIPEOIIEHIOTRUCKO) PRINT IIDQBHRLuyRHILflyPIPLOsTRULO FORNRTLO LOMOQ5X9FIE.394X9PIE.394X9PIE.394K9F12.33 PRINT IIIQBHREEQRRILIPIPEITRUCK FORNHT(O NEDIUN’QEXIFIE.£94H9P13.394X9PIE.394%9F13.E) PRINT IlayflfiRHIIRHIHIIPIPHIITRUHI FORNHTIO HIGH094X9FIE.€94X9F13.394XIF13.394E9PIE.€) PRINT 113 FORNHT (. COST PER DRY TON.) PRINT IIDSBHRLD!RHILD9PIPLDQTRULD PRINT 1119BRREDsRHIDIPIPEDITRUCD PRINT 1129BHRHDIRHIHDIPIPHDITRUHD PRINT 365 PRINT 118 _ . FORNRT (0 END OF TRRNSPORTHTION TESTING £1=TIE=NJf 9} REHD OsITEST PRINT 365 IF (ITEST.EQ.E) GO TO 120 PRINT 195 _ PORNRT (9 THE LOHDING RHTE IDT H) IS 9? REHD 09XLOHD HCRES=DEVOLWKLOHD PRINT 365 PRINT 310 _ FURMHT i. SPRRY IRRIERTION COST TESTINbO) PRINT €65 IHOLES=IHCRE$f3E.)+1 PRINT 325 _ . PORNHT (0 THE BULLDOZER HOURLY RENTHL 15 ’9 RERD .9BULLPR $TORRG=IHOLESOBULLPRO3 DTPUNP=SLVOLf414UU NPUNP=£UTPUNP/ESD.)+I PRINT 230 _ - -, FORNRT I. THE PRICES OF PUNP! PIPE (PER FOOT): HNU bUN HEE RERD 99CPUNP9CPIPE9C5UN PRINT 340 A , FORNRT (0 THE EXPECTED LIFE OF IRRIEHTION UNIT 15 0! RERD OsLSPRHY PRINT 235 I. nu D I I é J: 1'93 U=235 193U= 194v: 1‘35 0:845 1960: 19?0= 1'930= 246 199U= 3000: $010: 3030: $030: 3040: 5050: €060: euro: :USD: EU9U= 3100: 3110: 3130:390 sum: . 8140:255 EISU= £160= 31?[I=36 [I EISU= 3193-1265 EEUU= 3290:353 8300:305 8400:315 €410: €420: #430=316 €440: €450: €460=317 £470: 3430: 3430: 3500: 3510:3‘8 3530: 177 FDRNRT to THE PRICE OF GHS IS 0) RERD OaCGHS PRINT E45 -- FURNRT (0 THE HOURLY HPPLICHTIDN MHbE IS 0) REHD OpCNHEE PRINT E46 _ FURNHT (OTHE HNURTIZHTIUN RHTE IS 0) REHD 0 INT . q . CUSTEG;(£CPUNP+CPIPEOGUU+CGUNJONPUMPOINTOQI+INT)OOLbPRHT)/ + ((I+INT)OOLEPRHY-I)' HPCUST=QQCPUMP+600.0CPIPE+CGUN3ONPUHP/ESPRHY)OO.5+STURHE+CDSTEQ HPUPER=£DYPUMP93.BESOCEHS)+(DYPUNP/2.0LMHbE98.) CHPPL=HPCUST+HPDPER DHPPL=CHPPLXDSVUL ‘PRINT E65 CHPPLU=.8¢CHPPL CHPPHI=1.EOCHPPL DHPPLD=.8ODHPPL DHPPHI=1.EODHPPL R HT 90 - PDRNHTat4UXsOLUM09?X90NEDIUN¢9?X9¢HIbHO) PRINT 3559CHPPL09CHPPL9CHPPHI FDRMRT (O THE HNNUHL COST OF HPPLICHTIDN IS OsFlfl.Ea&KsF10.a +93%,FIU.3) PRINT R60 UHPPLD:DHPPL!DHPPHI A ,. _ P :p. . fl ‘W _.P) FURNRTCKO,THE HHHUHL COST PER DRY TUN 1&99fifist.dsofi.Fb.cybr9Fb d PRINT 365 FDRMHT (o o) PRINT 8?0 q _ FURNHT (9 END OF IRRIGHTIUN TEbTINb REHD OyJTEST IF (JTEST.EQ.E) PRINT 265 PRINT 300 - - _. q_ q 3.) FURMHT £0 HIGH PLUTHTIUN SURPHCE HND SUBLDIL HFPLILHTIUN TEVTINI PRINT 365 IHULE3=QHCRE3/162.)+I PRINT 335 _ . PURMHTiO THE BULLDUZER HOURLY RENTHL IS 0) REHDOaBULLPR _ STURHE=IHULES¢BULLPR93 SPREDH=SLVULXEDUUU. SPRERD=SPREDR/ESU. N3PRED=INT£3PREHD> PRINT 310 . __ a PURHHTQO THE HFH UPERRTDRJE HOURLY MHbE I; ’3 IRETTD4bthqEflE PRINT 315 FDRNHT(OTHE PRICE OF DIEEEL FUEL IS 9) REHD .QDIESEL (I=YSE=N)? 9) 50 T0 380 PRINT 316 a FDRNHT(OTHE HNDRTIZHTIUN RHTE lb 9) REHD OpINT PRINT 31? - * HRE o) FDRMHT(¢EQUIPMENT c0313 FUR HIGH-FLUTRTIUN HND INJELTIUN REHD OsCHF99CSUB 0 T0 320 EXTRR=£(EPREHD—NSPRED)¢6UUUU.HflaFREDJI.SUU- IFLEKTRH-a) 313,31$53;3 n=aouooxaasnoT." 3’ v 9" D IF, U "1;! “3.. ...... ...u. .... ._ I." .... p' . .. .. ' ~. . .‘d “:L U .;’l .2 l I... ... I.. ... ... ... I) " P -. W “a ll Y O C ‘T I 4‘ k... 2530: $54U= £55 U= E560= ESFU= 3530= 3590=3 1 9 ESUU= ESIU= €620: db30= 3640: EESU= 3660= 36? U=33 U 3630: 5690:3753 3FUU=331 3?10= 8?20= £330: 3F4U=340 EFSU= 3FSD= aTTn= E?3U= 37?U= 3300: 2310:345 3330: 2:330:35 I] :340: 3360:.355 E3?U= 3330: 3390: 3900: 3313: 393$: 393$: 3940: 8950:;60 3960: E9FD= 3980:365 3390: 3000: @UIU=3?0 5USU= 303D: §m4g=3?9 5050: €060=375 50TU= 3030: 3U90= 3100: ?‘IU=3?6 5120: 3130: ..- 178 HPCUST=((MHEE08+MHGEOI.5OEXTRH+(I.10+flIESELO6)O(8+EKTRH))0250+ + EQCUST)ONSPRED+STDRHE CEqussgCSUB+IHTOII+INT)OON)/((1+INT)00N:1) . r _. ' SUBCDS=(tMHGEOB+MHGEOl.SOEXTRR+tl.1U+DIE5ELOb>O£d+EXTRH>)OESU+ +CEQSUB)ONSPRED+STDRH6 60 Tn 340 NSPRED=NSPRED+I EXTRH=D _ N=EflflflflfLSOLSPREDP/NSPRED) EQCUST=£CHFHOINTOQINT+I)99N3/((i+ig¥;::n'ii ‘ IRI'=(TRH:¢ T¢(1+INT)OON)/(I + - - q - .1. RPE6§$=IRRRE+RIE2EL06+I.In)oaoEPREDR+§TnR69+EGEEaT'HgFSEE 3u3303=gmfiee+DIESELOe+1.10)ogoSPREDH+5TURHb+CEu¢UBON¢P. 60 TB 340 N=EDUUO/(SOSPREDH) IF(N-30) 33193319338 N=30 CUSTE=£CHFPOINTOQI+INT)OON3/((i+imlgzzn‘ig T 3U =(‘3I.o NTO£1+INT>OON)/(( + - _ ' _- q 6 PPCU§T=TMPEE11.IU+DIEEEL06)OBOSPREDH+§TURN§+EUfTE SUBCUS=INHEE+1.10+DIESEL¢6>oS¢SPREDH+5TURHb+LDeUB PRINT £65 HPCLDM=.SOHPCUST HPCHI=1.EOHPCUST DPPCD=HPCDSTXD3VUL DHPLUM=.SODHPCU DPPHI=1.EODHPCU PRINT 345 - PURNHT(41X!OLDN0QPH9ONEDIUNOQPHTOHIUH’) PRINT 3509HPCLDMIHPCDST9PPCHI FDRMHTQO THE HNNUHL GUST DP HF HPPLICHTIUN 09F10.893H9F1U.c9 + 3X9F10.3) PRINT 3559DHPLUNQDHPCDQDHPHI a rv . fl .w‘ . 8.3K, FDRNHTLO THE HNNUPL COST PER DRY TUN IeOsfimst.csbh.Fb. .o + F6.2) PRINT £65 SUBLDM=.3¢SUBCUS SUBHI=1.£O$UECDS DSUB=3UBCUS£DSVUL D3UBLU=.BODSUB DSUBHI=1.EODEUB 5 D ’UBHI . 2' 3! I EU'C 3,3 ' _ A u _ 3-‘Ks J.“ EgéngT-32,TPELEEPUHL COST OF INJECTIHE IEOI4R9FIU.E.E Flf c +SEX9FIO.E) PRINT 3659DSUBLUIDSUBIDSUBHI w _V , D.,%.F,_I,EE,F6_3, PnRNRTIo THE RNNURL COST PER DRY TUN I¢¢9¥nst.E.b . o c PRINT 265 PRINT 3?0 c .‘ z..fl= .? ,) FURMRTIO END OF HFR HND INJECTION TEETINbul T.c N) REPDOsKTEST IPTRTEST.ER.E>ED TD PRINT ass PRINT BFS _q. , FDRNRT (0 THE GUST UF LPND PER HLFE Is 0) RERno9RCREPR CHCRE=HCREPROHCRES PRINT ass PRINT BFSsCHCRE _ , .m I FURNRT to THE RNNURL COST OF LHND 1&094A9F10-PJ DCRCRE=CRCREfDSVUL PRINT 3?79DCHCRE 363 314fl=3?7 3150: 3160= NTU=3FB 31303 319U= 3300: 3310= 2:230:33 0 3333: 3340: 335k 3360= 0:15 .333 0:.5I .3 l] 339 U: 3300: 3310=6 05 3320= 3330= 3340:735 3350=6 1 o 3360: 33?0: £333 0:53 .3 $390= 34UU= 3410: 3430: 343D: 344D: 3450:53 .3 3460: 34FU: 3430: 4490:64 0 3500: 3SIU: 3530: 3530: 334U:645 - 3550: 3560: 35?0: 3530: T§v59fl=eso $500: 3613: 3530: IP30=655 SE40: 3650: ?§60=625 55?0: 3630: 369$: IFUU=660 f?19= 5FEU= 3?3fl: 3740:665 I79 FURNRT£O THE COST OF LHND PER DRY TON 130,3XIF6.2) PRINT 265 PRINT 378 - _ FORNRT (0 END OF LPND CObT TESTING REHD .QKTES .fi, PRINT 265 PRINT 380 a _ _. fi_ .? FORNRT (0 TEST OTHER LOHDINE RHTE¢ kI-fpc- ). 0) REHDO9LTEST _- IF£LTEST.EQ.1)GO TO 330 DSLUDG=D£VOL GO TO 400 PRINT 600 _ . _ FORNHTQO DEMHTERED ELUDGE TRHNSPORTHTION TESTINbO) PRINT 365 PRINT 605 h_| G . . _ a FORNHT (o SLUDGE VOLUME IN CUBIC THEE: FER TEHR I: 0) REHDOsSLCUBE _... DSCUBE=SSOE?OSLCUBEO.25x¢uuu. PRINT 610 _ 6 % FURNRT To THE HVERHGE ONE-MHY HHUL IN NILE: I; R) REHDOQHHUL PRINT 620 - , _..I= .? .) FURNRT (O RRE LURDINE FHCILITIES HVHILHBLE k1-T.c N; REHDOIJFRC IFLJFHC.EQ.I)GO TO 6850 '1‘ . . .‘50 TO 63 _ _‘q - . _ _ 0 1 . IEISEEEBEEL2.I0000.ITRUCK=IIE.63151+=§§3QPgEECCBEi$EEDEiiagk? IPQSLCUBE.GT.10000.)TRUCK:i6.45206+.6db5b¢bLLUBE/ ... - GO TO 635 O 4] IF (HHUL.NE.IU) GO T 6 u .__ ’ ,.. t q . . 1F ISLCUBE.LE.6000>TRUCK:I14.b§g§4+-g!ggg:;tgfiggj 1F ISLCUBE.6T.6000)TRUCK=IQIEBURE+I.JUC-J w - GO TO 635 TO 645 IF TRRUL.NE.aoa an _ . fl _ q , IFQSLCUBE.LE.SDUUJTRUCK=£IS.d4gf:a9r33§Eittq IF (SLCUBE.ET.5000)TRUCK =a?.4?dgifa.rbé~ w RRIL=(3.DE3FE+I.9183103LCUBE/IUUU.201J - GO TO 635 - - . - - 650 -R -- a - - - :r.“910fl0- I: EEEEEPETLE?;UBE)1TRUCK =(15.P0964+I.Bolb¥9wLLUEE’10“J ’ no m e q u ‘ "'.}Olflflfl. IF I3LCUBE.6T.4000; TRUCK =t9.39153f3.BEEIJ.&LLUBE’1UUU RRIL =(1.01?18+2.63513¢SLCUBE/1000.;OI . . GO TO 535 0 TO ~55 . IFRHHUL.NE.80) 5 b- . __ , TRUCK =t4.a4fl?+8.DIIUFOSLCUBE/1099.9f13336 RRIL =(-?.1514?+4.0602993LCUBE/IUUU.) -. an TO 635 _fifi Q -. , IFTHRUL.EC.IeopRRIL=I?.,P3Ef519b3cggggttgfeu IF QHHUL.EG.3&D)RHIL=£16.4:988+1 . r GO TO 635 __ IF (HRUL.NE.5)GO TO $33CK IF (SLCUBE.LE.IDUDD) . ..‘fi' ,_ _fi fiq-: IFiELCUBE.BT.10000)TRUCK=taa.d06be+1.o-at 60 TO 635 0 TO 6,5 IF THRUL.NE.IC> E 9 0‘ 5 IF (SLCUBE.LE.IDUUD)TRUUK=(crab;gE:+ IFLSLCUBE.6T.IUDUU)TRUCK=£45-e4» - GO TO 635 _ IFIHRUL.NE.20> GO TO 670 £1=Y92=N)? 0) 1300.301000. 1000.391000. USE/1000.)OIDDU... LCUBEKIUUU.)OIUUU. 1000.;o1000. . BE/IUDU.)OIOUU. - PP- - 59$LCUBE/1000.)OIDUO. =TE8.5°359+a.0032.3LCUBE/1000-Joloflo. 3.UEU3EOSLCUBE/IUUU.)fIUUU. 33099OSLCUBE/IUOU.)OIUUU. BFSU= 3F60= 3FFU= 3F30= 3F9U= 5:300:67 III 3310= 3330= 3330: 334U= 3350=£~F5 3350: jSFU= 3330: 3390: 39UU= 3‘91 U=r38 U 3930: 3'3.3U=63S 394U= 395U= JEBU= 3930: 399U= 4000: 4010= 4UEU= 4U3U=69U 4040= 4050: 4060: 40.70:595 4030: 4U9U= 4100: 411U= 413 U: 41.3 -0: 4140: 4150: 4160: 41FU= 413cm 419U= 4300: 4810: 4EEU= 4830: 4E4U= 4ESU= 4360: 48:0: 4330:?00 4E?U= 4300:?‘05 4310: 4330:?10 4330: 434U=?15 4350: 4360:780 180 IF (SLCUBE.LE.IUUUU)TRUCK=£3U.496U9+3.65198OSLCUBEXIUUU.)OIUUU. IF (SLCUBE.GT.IUUUU)TRUCK=£48.83351+2.EBIEIOSLCUBE/IUUU.)OIUUU. IF (SLCUBE.LE.?UUUU)RHIL=£48.35354+2.SBSSOSLCUBE/IUUU.)OIUUU. IF (ELCUBE.GT.7UUUU)RHIL=(88.54?62+1.8654893LCUBE/1UUU.)OIUUU. 60 TO 635 IF (HHUL.NE.4U) 60 TO 6?5 IF (SLCUBE.LE.IUUUU)TRUCK=£32.??943+4.9985305LCUE‘E/1UUU.)OIUUU. 1F (.SLCUBE. GT. IUUUU)TRUCK=(4E. 4E‘644+4. 44EIOSLLUEE/1UUU.)OIUUU. RHIL=(.8?. 6U5?E+E.TEE4060 Tu P35 PRINT ass PRINT ?40 PnRNRTIo DENHTERED SLUDGE prL e I PRINT 265 ILRTIUH TEETINEo> SPDRYS=3LCUBE/388. 63PRED=SPDHYSPESD. ISPRED=INTIEEPRED> PRINT 750 PnRNRT to THE UPERHTDR’S HUUR m-: a » RERD¢.2wR5E 'LY "HLE 1' ” PRINT F55 PURNRT to THE PRICE OF DIESE I a REHD0926HS L FLEL 1' ” PRINT F58 PnRNRT (OIHE HMURTIZRTIDH RRTE IP .x RERD OpINT ” ’ PRINT ?S9 PURNRT IoTHE CDETS FUR SPEED « - - . _. RERn OsCSPRsCLDR ERE HND LanERE HRE o) IF(ISPRED.EG.D)ED TD F60 EXTRE=££EEPRED-ISPRED>0838.' R -fir FELUHD=ESPRED/4. fI‘PRED)’”°' ILanR=INTIPELURn> 2L0RDR=FELan-ILanR IF(ZLUHDR.EE..ESJILUHDR=ILUHDP+ IFcExTRR.6T.2>IEPREn=IEPREn+I' 1 H3PR=EUUUUf(3.(3PUHYSXIEPREDF) NLnR=IoounxIaoIEPnRTSPIEPREn$> EXCUST=£(ESPROINTO(1+INT)‘0H’PP)/II .% P _ _- . ~> . ..1+IH1)OOflS' — 3' §EEE¥I'$ELEDR’IUT:§1fINTJOONLDR)I((1+INT)OOHLES-iiz:iigggg HL P 'EXCUPT*EQLUET+£QZMREE¢8+’MHEEO1.SOEXTRH)‘LILbHDR+ .- h LbHEO4OILUHDR+1.19 + ILUHDROISPRED/(ILDHDRO4))O£8+EXTRHDOQEPDHYfiflfiPRED)) so To ??0 ISPRED=1 ILURnR=I flgPfi=aDDUD/(8¢SPDHYS) NLBR=IUUUU/(EOSFDHYSJ IFQflSPR.ET.30) NEPR=30 éFégL$R.6T.30) NLnR=3o x' g =£CSPROINTOII+1NT)O¢NSPR /II + I P - §g695T=RQLEROIHTORI+INT)OQHLnfigxfigi+i31§tIflCSE-ii HLuET=ExcuaT+ERCUST+IIszEan+25R3oe+25R3o4+I{1+II.1x4;)o + BOSPDHYS) HCLDM=.8¢HCDST RCHI=I.aoRCUST DHCOST=HCDSTfDSCUBE DRCan=chnETo.3 DRCHI=I.aonRCUST PRINT 265 PRINT FFS FDRMRT(3SX9OLDw09?XsO - - PRINT P30.RCLnu,Rc03TTEgR¥"O’Fx’.HIbH.) FDRMHT? 'I 4990: PRINT 865 mum: IFtNTEST.EQ.3)GU TO F95 SMD=$ES PRINT SUD wxm=800 FORMHT (0 THE LORDING RHTE DDT/H) 13 ,) $60: REHDOsYLURD Hum CONNECT TIME EHPIRES IN 5 MINuTES wuu: PRINT 365 $50: PRINT SOS 5060:805 El I] T‘ [I 3 503a: 5090: 5100= 5110= 5120:310 5130= 5140:815 5150= 5160= Sl?0=320 518U= Sl9fl= SEUO= 5210= 5320:400 SE30: 5340:405 5250:490 5260= SEFD=410 53803 5290: 5300:420 5310= 5320: 5330:430 534U= fianfl: 5410: 5430: 5430: 5440:450 5450: 5460: 5470: 3430: $490: 5500: 5510:460 5520: FORMHT (0 THE COST OF LHND PER HERE IS o) REHD09CLRND RCRES=DSCUDExYLOHD COHERE=CLHND¢HCRES DGHGRE=COHGRE/DSCUBE PRINT SIDsCOHCRE FORMHT (O THE HNNURL COST OF ' R R - w [PRIrTT 31}59DC$M2REZ |_HFHJ IL¢w¢L.9FIJJ.c) FORMHT (0 THE COST OF LHND P . I : .qg - «- PRINT 365 ER [RY TON ISO.-H,FG.;) PRINT 820 FORMRT £9 TEST OTHER LORD NG :‘ S ( =v.~= ? 1 REHDOaITES I FHTED .1 T.c N). o, PRINT 365 IFtITES.EO.1)GO TO 3&5 DSLUDG=DSCUBE PRINT 265 PRINT 405 FORMHTIO MONITORING LOST TESTING.) PRINT 265 PRINT 410 FORMHT (0 THE NUMBER OF MONITOR : m R R , REHDOsNMELL INL HELLO IV 0) PRINT 4&0 FOPMHT L6 THE HVEPHGE MELL DEP R REHDOaDEPTH TH IN FEET I? 0) PRINT 430 FORMRT to THE HELL DRILLING C S ' P a REHDOsCPF O T FER FOOT I, o, wCOST=MMELLODEPTHOCPF PRINT 440 FORMHT to THE PER-TEST GROUNDM‘ S a T S R T REHU.96NTC HTER TELTINL LOST IS 9, PRINT 445 FORMHT to THE NUMBER OF TESTS R V ' S I REHDOsNUMBER NEEDED rER rEHR I, o, TCOST=MMELL¢GMTCONUMBER PRINT 450 FORMHT to THE MONITORING TECHNICIHN MHGE IS 9) REHDOpTMHGE TECH=TMHEEOQKMMELLf4J+3) TOTHL=NCOST+TGOST+TECH DTOTHL=TOTHLHDSLUDG PRINT 865 PRINT 4609TOTHL FORMHTIO THE HNNUHL MONITORING COST IS PRINT 4?D:DTOTHL 99F10.3) 183 5530=4FDI FORMET‘.’ MONITORING COST PER DRY TON 13096X9F6.2) 5540’- F'RINT 365 o 5550’- PRINT 480 55603183 FORNHT (9 END MONITORING COST TEST 1N5 (.1=Y9 3=N) ?' 0) SSFU= REFIDOR NON 5580= IF (NON. EQ. 2) GO TO 490 5590= END UK-SRVEQ HYZ! N3. URI-PURSE! X. PUREEDX. OK-CHTHLOGa X‘T'Es EILUDISs FriF‘=4lll. 'T'OUR CONNECT TIME EXPIRES; IN 3 MINUTES CFTTFTLOISs X‘T‘Z 9 ISLUDE- s RP=4|Z| . UK-LOEOUT s T . l’u I LI.‘ J03 EOE-1T 3 II; I." IV W , ,' '\ a.” .II ’. "U I us. - .... ..‘ 1.5: I .. ' I u~ . ‘1“ "" v 5.01 . . .: "L '~ ~ ‘1 .- 3“;r -..» ‘T ‘v. u 5.5 ' 59 J. 3 "‘§ I APPENDIX D SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING DISPOSAL COSTS Site Modification Access Any type of application depends on access. In almost any situation, the final form of conveyance used to transport sludge to the forest site will be trucks. Rail, pipeline, or barges may be used to transport the sludge to a central distribution point, particularly if the appli- cation site is far from the point of sludge production. But none of the other means of transportation is as suitable as truck transport for short-distance haul to the various, changing locations which would be needed at the low sludge loading rates assumed here. Roads are, after all, far more ubiquitous than suitable watercourses, pipelines, or tracks. While the existing road network offers some flexibility, forest roads are often more scarce than roads in general. And forest roads of a quality sufficient to handle diesel tank or dump trucks are in some places, scarcer still. The one advantage to forestland applica- tion, however, is that logging roads can be used, such that any place with recent or well-kept logging roads may have good enough access. Spur roads may need to be built, however, to provide access for even distribution of sludge on some sites. Since the road type and mileage required is probably site—specific, road construction costs were not 184 185 in SLUDGE. Table D-l shows Forest Service road construction-reconstruc- tion costs experienced in 1977-78 (USDA, 1979). Since these roads are forest roads, and since roads suitable for logging trucks should be adequate for tank or dump trucks, these costs may be used as a rough guide to the kind of roading costs which can be expected if additional access roads are to be built for sludge application. Road construction is not cheap, and can add appreciably to application COSC. 3:1,: Naif, 1 186 .mxmma< :« wafisuhuw>m mo umoo nwfis maamumcmw msu cam “mmufim mnu ou cmaaqnm on umsa unwaawsvm wcwcafian vmou om .mwcmamfi :0 ma coma onu MO 5095 "cwmuumu mafiwmuw .mxoou .mmoum .m.« "Hoummoo mw mxmma< EH puma mofi>umm ummuom Ham >Hpmm: umnu uomm man mm mwcfizu £05m condos“ mmmsa .mcommmu mo ponaac m Now comHquEOU aw swan zaamamscs mum mumoo vmou Amxmmaumm ummuom .<.a.m.=wm \Mcmm.fim o.mm cm NH mm OH 2:; ~52 mm «N a m mmm.m m.m~mm no m~ mH w om~.m~ m.noom om me «N o o~<.m~ N.Nmn~ mm Ho ¢~ m mm~.m m.-ofi «q mm ma q omo.o o.mmm mm we mH m qo~.m m.qmw HH Om mm N oqm.q~ «.quH mm mm mm H Aucmoumav Amwmum>umm ammuom «om: "mumoo cowuoauumcou boom ammuom .fiun manmh 187 Site Preparation Like road construction, site preparation may be unnecessary. Spray irrigation can be used on sites with some existing vegetation, though the existence of dense understories precludes application. The vehicular applications, however, require fairly clean sites, either clearcuts or plantations with adequate spacing between rows. injectors, moreover, require a root-free zone of at least 6" depth. Site preparation, then, may be necessary to permit the use of some equipment required for dispersal of sludge. Methods of site preparation vary widely by the amount of material to be cleared, method of clearing, terrain, and so forth. Burning may cost less than $5 per $75 are are per acre, or as much as $80/acre; root plowing generally costs about per acre, and roller chopping approximately $55 per acre. There other methods of site preparation, but mechanical means and fire usually the most efficient means of removing unwanted vegetation dollar of expenditure. Since site preparation is commonly employed after a stand of timber is harvested in order to help insure adequate reforestation, the landowner or timber purchaser often bears site preparation costs. Since SLUDGE was written primarily for the waste manager seeking only a way to dispose of sludge, site preparation was not included. If a particular agency is interested in beneficial reuse of sludge as well as disposal, and wishes to invest in timber management as well as sludge recycling, many factors other than site preparation must be considered. That is beyond the scope of this study. Subsoil t’ ‘1 .1 ' fir , . _ -=.. . 188 Retreatment One of the pivotal factors in the cost of forest land application of sludge is retreatment. If areas can be retreated, the application costs may be significantly lowered. SLUDGE assumes new, single-time application, but retreatment may be feasible in some instances. If areas are retreated, temporary storage pits may be re-used rather than new ones dug each cycle, or permanent field storage can be built. Existing monitoring wells can be utilized, eliminating nearly all IF? monitoring costs. Solid—set irrigation can be used, rather than the 1/ moveable spray irrigation equipment assumed in SLUDGE;— There are also several intangible factors which may tend to reduce § costs if retreatment can be used. In general, they have to do with 9; familiarity, or learning. As the waste management agency becomes more familiar with each site, it will become clear how high the loading rates can be without adversely affecting groundwater. Hence, fewer groundwater tests may be used. It may be that a yearly or seasonal application pattern can be developed, freeing equipment or personnel during periods of historically inclement weather or periods when there is not enough sludge to apply, as in the case of a small municipality whose entire annual sludge production can be applied in a matter of weeks. If such a pattern is feasible, other seasonal or cyclical uses can be found for personnel and equipment, and their costs charged to other activities. As shown in the chapter on model validation, 1/ -Young (1978) indicates that center-pivot irrigation of waste- water is slightly less expensive than solid-set, but that solid—set irrigation is more versatile with respect to the treatable terrain than is center—pivot. 189 if all application equipment and personnel costs are attributed to sludge disposal, the per-dry-ton disposal costs for small-to—medium- sized waste producers can be overwhelming. There is nothing in present regulations which prohibits retreat- ment of land which is not used for the production of food chain crops. Sludge may legally be reapplied any number of times, as long as it does not exceed the groundwater quality criteria published in the Federal Register in September of 1979 (40 CFR 257, 1979) and reproduced rm in Appendix A. Exactly how many times a site can be re-entered is . Wafia not known, and depends on many factors whose role is not completely I clear at present. It would be difficult to predict how often a site could be treated even if the sludge composition, ecotype, soil charac- teristics, plant uptake rates climate, and loading rates were known, as the eventual fate of many pathogens and micronutrients or heavy metals in the environment is simply not known. Hence, retreatment is not specifically included in SLUDGE, though not excluded per se. To get an idea of reduced costs if retreatment were feasible, ground- water monitoring well-drilling and field storage could be eliminated after the first application. 190 Construction Grants SLUDGE begins essentially at the wastewater treatment plant site, and does not attempt to portray any costs other than those of trans— portation, land application, and monitoring of sludges. Other costs for waste treatment are not included, but in practice the decisions regarding treatment and disposal must be made jointly. One factor which may make land application (particularly forestland application) more attractive is the Construction Grants program, designed to promote, through increased federal grants for waste treatment, what EPA calls Innovative/Alternative (All) Technology. This is any waste treatment technique which, in general, provides for recycling or beneficial reuse of resources in waste, while reducing costs and/or energy require- ments (EPA, 1980a). Significantly, both silvicultural use of effluent and land application of sludge are specifically identified as I/A technologies, and facilities opting for this type of disposal are eligible to receive 85 percent federal funding for wastewater treatment works (as compared to 75 percent for non-I/A solutions). Moreover, if the technology fails to meet design goals during the first two years of operation, another grant may be awarded for 100 percent of the costs of correcting the failed system, or replacing it with another, hopefully better, system. APPENDIX E REVIEW OF HEALTH AND NUISANCE HAZARDS Nuisance The primary nuisance-causing attribute of sludge is malodorous emissions, which ranked first in public opinion surveys designed to identify air pollutants of concern (Osag and Crane, 1974). Though there is no specific relationship between odor and any threat to health such as disease or toxicity, odors can cause allergic reactions, poor appetites, lower water consumption, impaired respiration, vomiting, nausea, insomnia, and stress (Mosier, et. al., 1977). There is usually little guidance in existing regulations for dealing with odors. This is unsurprising, in view of the fact that there is no reliable, objective method of measuring odor. The usual descriptors of odor are subjective; most people can discern the differ- ence between strong, medium, and weak odors and can describe the quality by association with familiar smells (Mosier, et. al., 1977). Both the intensity and the quality govern the type of reaction to any smell. Even objectionable odors may be acceptable at low intensities, while perfumes are obnoxious at high intensities. There is no technologically and economically feasible way of preventing odors from occurring when large concentrated sources of organic wastes exist (Mosier, et. al., 1977). Some things can be done to ameliorate odors; in particular, incomplete anaerobic digestion 191 seems to complete One be built and many 192 lead to the formation of particularly obnoxious odors, so digestion is one preventive measure that can be taken. of the most efficient ways of avoiding odor problems may into forest and noncropland waste application. Most forested noncropland areas are physically removed from concentrations of population, limiting the exposure to malodorous emissions. Where otherwise suitable disposal sites exist near areas of population concen- tration, it may be worthwhile to avoid using them for waste disposal, especially if the distance to other, more remote sites is not too great. 'u'fl'flhik'f." 3!? .E' :33? 193 Health Every generation defines safety differently. Indeed, every indi- vidual may have different standards for what is considered safe. During World War II, for example, one of the jungle soldiers' most effective weapons was DDT: not for use against human enemies, but against typhus, malaria, typhoid, and dysentery. Direct application to the skin was a common method of application. Even further back in history, drugstores commonly carried, as over-the-counter medicines, such things as tinctures of opium, laudanum, and paregoric (Lowrance, 1976). By today's standards, these things exceed the margin of safety our particular society is willing to live with; they are unsafe. But "safe" can only be defined in the context of today, and it is being redefined on a continuing basis. Therefore, it is impossible to say categorically whether or not land application of sludge is safe. The only true risks associated with non-cropland sludge application, within the limits on ground and surface-water pollution already discussed, are considered acceptable. This, at least, is "society's" opinion, insofar as it is mirrored by the existing statutes and regulations. In its continuing efforts to implement the legislation designed to clean up the country, EPA published the following policy statement: ...land application of solid waste coupled with good management techniques for enhancement of parks and forests and reclamation of poor or damaged terrain is a desirable land management tech- nique...In recognition of...public health concerns, the Agency prefers the application of solid waste to non-food-chain land... (40 CFR Part 257, 1979). By referring to "public health concerns," EPA acknowledges that there I: 1 an.“ I. I 194 are nasty things in sludge--things which, taken in improper form or dosage, could hurt people or other fauna beyond the point of accepta— bility. First, there are pathogens: viruses and bacteria capable of infecting people with diseases (Menzies, 1977). Ascaris llumbricoides, a round worm, can survive primary treatment and affect human health (again, assuming sufficient exposure takes place). The Entamoeba histolytica, which causes amoebic dysentery, may also survive for a few days in soil. There are others, waterborne bacterial diseases, which can contaminate people if water from treated sites finds its way into surface or irrigation waters used in some way for human consump- L-A Jun-‘1‘ ‘- a. 1 tion. Salmonella (typhoid and paratyphoid), Salmonella typhimurium (gastroenteritis), Shigella (bacillary dysentery), and Pseudomonas are present, and though infection usually requires fairly hefty exposure, such exposure is possible if land application is grossly mishandled. In addition to pathogens, most municipal and industrial sludges contain trace amounts of heavy metals which, if ingested, can be linked to harmful or potentially harmful human effects. In most cases, the effects are unknown, or not proven beyond reasonable doubt, but in some cases, this very lack of information serves only to exacerbate health issues. There is not way to account for every virus, every drop of water, every metal ion applied to a site in sludge. Further, there are some components (like viral hepatitis) which we are not able to detect using today's technology, but which may be present. Finally, there is a substantial lack of conclusive information on health effects of many constituents of sludge. Where information on risk does exist, it is often contradictory and confusing. For example, different studies 195 on the health effects of cadmium have shown results from no health risk to clear and present danger. In short, there is no consensus of scientific opinion on the risks of land application of sludge. Therefore, not surprisingly, there is a great diversity of popular opinion on the safety of land application. Though some decision makers and analysts tend to discount popular opinion, it can be a powerful force. Some scientists assure us, for example, that the record of land application (including agricultural land) is unblemished by epidemics, and that we have little to fear f“ but fear itself: 1 ...utilization of urban and animal wastes is probably impeded L to a greater extent by the fear of disease than by the actual disease hazard involved. Information from field tests suggests that the hazards from pathogens are more imaginary than real. Irrigation of soil with liquid digested sludge is accepted in Great Britain, Germany, and France, where more than 100 years of practice in sewage-farm irrigation has produced no epidemics of cattle or animal disease. (CASE, 1975). Others cite evidence of problems. An outbreak of cholera in Jerusalem was traced to application of sewage to vegetables. A similar cholera outbreak in the City of Gaza may be linked to sewage application. Other scientists, in Denmark, linked bovine tuberculosis with sewage irrigation of pastureland (Love, et. al., 1975). Where scientists do not agree, or present seemingly contradictory evidence, it is almost a matter of form that public opinion will mirror and usually amplify the inconsistencies and debate. In many cases, what facts exist are obscured, and major decisions are made on the strength and tenacity 196 of the opinions of opposing groups. IHWIHIIH l H I“ H ” E'|| All IIIII I 6464 6 0 3 0 3 9 2 1 3