View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Design and Operational Issues Related to Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class-I Landfills – Phase III
March 2007
Debra R Reinhart, Principal Investigator Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Timothy G. Townsend, Co-Principal Investigator Brajesh Dubey, Hwidong Kim, Valerie Paredes Bonilla, Qiyong Xu
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
State University System of Florida Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
University of Florida 2207-D NW 13th Street Gainesville, FL 32609 www.floridacenter.org
Report #0432023
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management sponsored this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the help and support received at various landfill sites during site visits.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. I
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................II
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT.................................................................................................... 5 1.3 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK...................................................................................... 7
2.1 YEAR-1 STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 YEAR-2 STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH LEADING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BMP GUIDE .. 10
3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 METHODS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BMP GUIDE ............................................................ 12
4.0 RESULTS FROM FIELD TRIPS........................................................................................... 13
4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FIELD V ISITS....................................................................................... 13 4.2 BIOSOLIDS HANDLING IN LANDFILLS.................................................................................... 15 4.3 OPERATOR FEEDBACK AND REGULATORY ISSUES................................................................ 15
5.0 BMP MANUAL...................................................................................................................... 17
THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MANUAL IS ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT AS APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 18
iii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Landfills Visited for Collection Information on Biosolids Disposal............................14
iv
LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Summary of Questions for Landfilling Biosolids......................................................13 Figure 4.1 Landfills Visited for Collection Information on Biosolids Disposal............................14
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives
Biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are nutrient-rich organic matter produced during the treatment of wastewater at a wastewater treatment facility. It is estimated that the United States will produce approximately 8.2 million tons of biosolids by 2010 (EPA, 1999). Because of their volume and potential contamination by pathogens and heavy metals, biosolids disposal presents a major challenge for wastewater treatment facility owners and operators. Current disposal practices include land application, landfilling, surface disposal, incineration, and composting. It appears likely that more and more biosolids will be landfilled as treatment expense and health issues related to land application arise.
Landfilling biosolids promotes the operation of a landfill as a bioreactor landfill. Landfilling of biosolids accelerates waste stabilization and initiates greater gas production much earlier in the life of the landfill. Biosolids generate high temperatures in the core of the landfill, which in turn may result in biosolids disinfection (Reinhart et al., 2003).
The present study is Phase III part of an ongoing study on “The Design and Operational Issues Related to the Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class I Landfills.” Details and main conclusions of the study conducted in Phases I and II are presented in subsequent sections of this document. The objective of the Phase III study was to summarize the lessons learned in the Phase I and Phase II parts of this project and, based on the field operations conducted and data collected during this project, develop a Best Management Practice (BMP) Guide for the Co-Disposal of Biosolids in MSW Landfills
1.2 Organization of Report
This report is broken down into six sections. The first section presents the objectives of this study along with some background information. The second section summarizes previous work on this topic and highlights related key points to lessons learned in terms of BMP. The third section outlines the methodology used for the development of the BMP document. The fourth section presents information collected on biosolids handling practices and the impact of biosolids addition on the landfill and the surrounding environment. The BMP, prepared as a stand-alone document, is presented as the fifth section. The literature cited in this document is listed in the final section.
1.3 Background
Disposal of biosolids presents a great challenge to wastewater treatment facility owners. There are a number of ways of managing and disposing of biosolids, including—as the most popular—. land application and landfilling. For a significant period, a large portion of biosolids has been disposed of by land application. The application of biosolids to land is regulated at the federal level under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR part 503) and at the Florida state level under Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). These regulations establish pollutant limits and treatment requirements for pathogen control. In recent times, there has been a growing uneasiness about the health impacts associated with land application of biosolids. Several incidents of serious ailments associated with land application of biosolids have raised concerns over this method of disposal. This change in the mindset of the public as well as facility owners has been heightened by a substantial reduction in land available for biosolids disposal.
6
For these reasons, landfilling is regarded with renewed interest as a method of disposal. If done correctly, landfilling of biosolids has several advantages. It generates additional revenue for the landfills. Biosolids provide a source of moisture for landfills, facilitating their operation as bioreactors. As a result, adding biosolids to landfills accelerates gas production. If facilities are capturing this gas for energy generation, this enhanced production translates into significant economic benefits. These advantages make biosolids disposal in landfills an option worth exploring.
However, landfilling of biosolids presents several challenges. Biosolids have been shown to create operational difficulties. Primarily because of their extremely wet nature they create soft spots that can be difficult to compact. Co-disposal of biosolids with MSW may also create odors, which will need to be addressed. In addition, the increased gas production might prove to be a disadvantage if gas is not captured and odors are exacerbated. Biosolids may be contaminated with heavy metals and pathogenic microorganisms. Hence, their co-disposal with MSW could impact the quality of the leachate generated by the landfill. Co-disposal may also impact the geotechnical stability of the landfill. The addition of sludges and biosolids results in significant changes to the composition and characteristics of the landfilled waste, which may affect waste geotechnical properties as well.
Several of those issues were studied in the previous phases of this study. The present study has identified the best management practices of landfill operators which, if followed, will provide guidance regarding handling this waste in the best way possible.
7
2.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
2.1 Year-1 Study
The purpose of the Year 1 study was to compare landfilling of biosolids with other disposal options. Various issues associated with landfilling of biosolids such as impact on leachate quality, impact on geotechnical stability, impact on gas production, operational issues, air space issues, and the relative economics of various disposal options were addressed in this research. Leachate analysis data were obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and subjected to a statistical analysis to evaluate the impact of co-disposal on leachate quality. The costs of various disposal options were also compared by an economical analysis. Based on the outcome of these analyses and the literature review, the following conclusions were reached:
• Co-disposal of biosolids with MSW leads to operational issues such as difficulty in compaction, formation of localized soft spots, and odors. These problems can be lessened by adding compounds or dry MSW to biosolids which will reduce their moisture content, in the process making them easier to handle and less odorous. However, if the purpose is to operate the landfill as a bioreactor, reducing the moisture content of the biosolids will eliminate the benefit of greater moisture input. In that case, the landfill operators would probably have to take extra care to mix the biosolids well with the MSW and cover the biosolids as quickly as possible.
• Co-disposal of biosolids with MSW was not found to have an adverse impact on leachate quality. Because of the variability in the data, the statistical analysis performed was not very conclusive. However, a comparison of the average values of various parameters of landfills that accept biosolids with landfills that do not indicated that in most cases, there was no difference in leachate quality. This conclusion may be due to the small percentage of biosolids landfilled in comparison to the percentage of MSW, thus making the effect of biosolids negligible. A literature review substantiates the fact that there is very little leaching of metals from biosolids in land application sites. If it is safe to land apply biosolids, it is probably safe to landfill them at reasonable rates. However, statistical analysis shows that landfills accepting biosolids have a higher concentration of mercury in their leachate. This observation might be attributed to the variability of the leachate data and the corresponding inaccuracies in the analysis. Nevertheless, this issue should be addressed further.
• Literature has shown that biosolids accelerate waste stabilization and, consequently, gas production. Studies have shown that MSW-only landfill cells lag in gas production behind co-disposal landfills by almost 2 years. This observation has positive implications if arrangements are made to capture and use the gas produced.
• Airspace issues were investigated and it was found that the air space required by the MSW/biosolids mixture is less than the air space required by MSW alone. This may be because the introduction of biosolids increases the compactability and, consequently, the density of the waste, thus reducing the associated volume. Additionally, biosolids accelerate waste stabilization and hence facilitate volume reduction.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the geotechnical investigation involving extensive laboratory testing of waste and slope stability analysis:
8
• Laboratory testing showed that
o Lime sludge has more inherent shear strength than biosolids.
• Geotechnical stability modeling showed that
o Landfills accepting lime sludge have a higher factor of safety than the ones accepting biosolids.
o The addition of biosolids and lime sludge reduces the strength of the waste in the landfill.
o The effect of biosolids is more significant than the effect of lime sludge addition in reducing the stability of the landfill.
o The stability of the landfill is adversely affected when the sludges are placed as discrete layers compared to their being placed as pockets.
o Mixing the sludges with MSW increases slope stability of the fill compared with direct landfilling, although it is still very much governed by the placement of the mixture.
• The economic analysis showed that
o Landfilling offers competitive prices when contrasted with alternate biosolids disposal options.
o Landfilling of biosolids is less expensive than treating biosolids to Class A standards and land applying and nearly equal in cost to aerobic digestion of biosolids at 6% solids and land applying and lime stabilization of biosolids at 1.5% dry solids.
o The economics will improve if landfill owners reduce the tipping fees for biosolids, keeping in mind the fact that the savings due to the use of biosolids as a moisture source could offset the reduced tipping fee.
Based on the above conclusions, it seems that co-disposal of biosolids and MSW in a landfill is a feasible method of biosolids disposal.
Land application of biosolids may pose potential health hazards due to the high pathogen content of biosolids, their heavy metals content, and the presence of organic matter such as dioxins, furans, and polychlorinated biphenyls, which are possible carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. Landfills, on the other hand, provide a safe containment option for biosolids. As mentioned, disposing of biosolids in a landfill allows the landfill to be operated as a bioreactor landfill. Co-disposal accelerates gas production, allowing improved efficiency and the economics of the use of landfill gas. In addition, landfills have great attenuation capacity for organic matter and heavy metals. Thus, the potential for soil and groundwater contamination from biosolids in landfills is reduced compared to the potential from land application. The biosolids waste is primarily converted to compost in the landfills. This compost can be recovered and sold, bringing economic benefit to the landfills along with the possibility of ultimately reusing the site. In light of all these factors, co-disposal of biosolids is a beneficial option for landfill owners.
9
2.2 Year 2 Study
The Year 2 study focused on design and operational issues related to co-disposing of biosolids with MSW in Class I landfills. Phase I investigated practices for landfilling biosolids in Florida. From this investigation, advantages and challenges related to this practice were identified. The specific objectives of Phase II of this project were (1) to investigate the best practices for landfilling of biosolids, applying the findings of Phase I to a field-scale study, and (2) to evaluate several techniques for sludge application, including liquid addition and sludge amendments for moisture adjustment at the Highlands County Landfill, the Brevard County Central Landfill, and the Alachua County Southwest Landfill.
Three tasks were done to achieve these objectives,:
• Odor Potential Measurement – Take flux measurements at locations near sludge addition to examine sulfide concentrations (as a surrogate indicator of odors) in surface emissions. The flux chamber was used to make direct emission rate measurements from land or liquid surfaces.
• Field Geotechnical Investigations and Slope Stability Analysis – Evaluate the impact of sludge addition on the geotechnical properties of the waste mass was evaluated by using the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) in areas receiving biosolids and areas where biosolids disposal was not performed. The results of the CPT were used to determine the strength and compressibility of the waste by correlation with material properties. Based on the field test results, slope stability analysis was conducted on landfill models using the computer software program SLOPE/W developed by GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
• Full-Scale Operational Testing – Select three Florida landfills to allow the research team to conduct short-term tests examining biosolids disposal practices at MSW landfills. Field-testing was conducted at the Highlands County Landfill and the Brevard County Central Landfill and has been designed for implementation at the Alachua County Southwest Landfill.
The findings and conclusions drawn from field-testing and observations at three Florida landfills can be summarized as follows:
• Liquid application of biosolids, either in trenches or by injection, appears to have advantages associated with geotechnical properties of the MSW/sludge mixture, ease of operation, and increased moisture content of the MSW.
• The shear-strength parameters obtained for MSW alone were a cohesion value of 4.25 psi and a friction angle of 28.1o from laboratory tests. The changes in cohesion value and friction angles were observed in MSW mixed with varying percentages of biosolids and lime sludge. However, field tests did not reveal a difference between MSW only and MSW with liquid biosolids added.
• Modeling of a landfill during Phase I with biosolids disposal varying in percentage by weight produced a factor of safety between 1.48 and 1.53 when biosolids were disposed of as discrete layers in the landfill. Similarly, when the biosolids were disposed of in pockets (simulating pit disposal) the factor was 2.36. In Phase II, a landfill modeled with
10
biosolids disposed of in trenches produced a factor of safety of 2.18. Disposing of liquid or dewatered biosolids in trenches is a feasible solution considering both slope stability and the ease of field application. Important conclusions from modeling effort include:
• With the addition of dewatered biosolids, the factor of safety reduces as the shear strength of the composite materials reduces.
• Biosolids-filled trenches should not be placed close to the side slopes of the landfill as the factor of safety reduces significantly.
• The added biosolids layer could not be clearly distinguished in the landfill as the solid content of the biosolids was about 2% and the wet material was mixed well with MSW.
• Mixing more than 25% by weight of dewatered biosolids with other materials is not recommended. Mixtures containing more than 25% by weight of biosolids presented greater challenges to the landfill operator.
• Mulch only or a mixture of mulch and mulch fines were not suitable material(s) to mix with dewatered biosolids. When mixing mulch and biosolids, it is recommended that other materials, such as MSW and soil, be added to the mixture.
• Mixing dewatered biosolids with relatively large amounts of MSW may help make better working conditions if MSW is the only mixing material.
• Soil is considered the most suitable material to mix with dewatered biosolids. When mixing dewatered biosolids with soil only, working conditions remained acceptable even with biosolids ratios as high as 40% by weight.
• Two options were investigated to find the best methods of injecting liquid biosolids into the Alachua County Southwest Landfill. One approach is to use a mechanism very similar to pressure grouting, a procedure used to improve soil-bearing capacity and strength. Another option is to use existing gas extraction wells that do not extract a significant volume of gas.
2.3 Summary of Previous Research leading to the development of the BMP guide
Many studies suggest that co-disposal of biosolids and MSW results in enhanced stabilization of the combined waste, increased gas production, and improved quality of leachate with respect to leaching of metals. Co-disposal may have particular benefits to the operation of bioreactor landfills as a source of moisture. However, if the residuals are too wet, compaction equipment may slip and/or bog down and material will lodge in compactor wheels. The physical nature of dewatered biosolids placed in an MSW landfill is of critical importance for routine landfill operation and for resulting geotechnical stability. The primary issues of interest in the geotechnical aspects of landfilling sludge and biosolids are handling and placement, compaction, shear strength, and slope stability. Since such landfills can reach great heights, the moisture characteristics and the associated geotechnical stability must be considered. Previous studies offer the following suggestions for the best management practices of biosolids:
11
• Biosolids-filled trenches should not be placed close to the side slopes of the landfill as the factor of safety reduces significantly.
• Proper mixing ensures that the added biosolids layer not be clearly distinguished in the landfill as the solid content of the biosolids was about 2% and the wet material was mixed well with MSW.
• Mixing more than 25% by weight of dewatered biosolids with other materials is not recommended. Mixtures containing more than 25% by weight of biosolids presented greater challenges to the landfill operator.
• Mulch only or a mixture of mulch and mulch fines were not suitable material(s) to mix with dewatered biosolids. When mixing mulch and biosolids, it is recommended that other materials, such as MSW and soil, be added to the mixture.
• Mixing dewatered biosolids with relatively large amounts of MSW may be helpful to make better working conditions if MSW is the only mixing material.
• Soil is considered the most suitable material to mix with dewatered biosolids. When mixing dewatered biosolids with soil only, working conditions remained acceptable even with biosolids ratios as high as 40% by weight.
12
3.0 METHODS 3.1 Overview
As stated in previous section, the objective of this Year 3 study was to summarize the lessons learned from the Phase I and II studies and to develop a BMP guide for co-disposal of biosolids at lined landfills.
3.2 Methods used for development of BMP guide
The basis for the development of the proposed BPM guide is the information and data collected during the previous phases of the study.
Based on the results of the survey conducted in 2001and the experience gathered during the site visits in subsequent years to observe biosolids being landfilled as well as the information gathered during the field-scale study done at the Highlands County Landfill and the Brevard County Central Landfill, the authors identified the following:
• The methods being used in the state for landfilling biosolids.
• The methods preferred by landfill operators.
• The advantages and disadvantages of each method observed in the field as seen by the equipment operators and landfill managers.
13
4.0 RESULTS FROM FIELD TRIPS
4.1 Questionnaire for Field Visits
Based on the research conducted in Phase I and II, we gathered information on the biosolids handling practice and the impact of adding biosolids to the landfill and the surrounding environment. Only those landfill facilities receiving biosolids where the landfill managers were willing to share information were selected for this study.
To evaluate the management of biosolids in landfills, a questionnaire was prepared to collect information such as biosolids acceptance, biosolids handling practice, and regulatory issues related to landfilling biosolids (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Summary of Questions for Landfilling Biosolids
Category Questions
Landfill Information
• Is this a conventional or a bioreactor landfill? • What is the operating period? • What is the cell size? • What are the allowed waste types? • How much solid waste is received in TPD? • What is the liner system that is used? • What is the surrounding land use? • Have odor complaints been received? • What is the tipping fee for biosolids?
Biosolids Acceptance Information
• How long has the landfill been accepting biosolids? • Are there slope stability issues in any closed cells containing biosolids? • How often and how much biosolids are accepted? • What type of biosolids are accepted: dewatered/liquid, lime-
treated/untreated? • What is your estimate of the percent solids in the biosolids received? • What is the source of biosolids: out of county/within the county?
Biosolids Handling Practice
• What is the current method of handling: e.g. buried in trenches, spread in layers, mixed with waste?
• If biosolids are buried in trenches, what is the length and depth of the trenches and the type/amount buried?
• If spread, how many layers; over how large of an area? • If mixed with waste, what type of waste is mixed residential/industrial?
How many loads/trucks of waste are mixed with how many trucks of biosolids?
• Is there a difference in the mixing ratio for different types of biosolids (dewatered/not dewatered)?
• What equipment is used in handling the biosolids, e.g. compactors, and what is the role of each piece of equipment;?
14
• What is the average time it takes to manage a tuck load of biosolids;
Feedback from the Operator
• How comfortable are landfill managers/operators with receiving and handling biosolids?
• What feedback has been received from on-site equipment operators about the issues/problems associated with handling the biosolids: odor issues for operators, slippery conditions for equipment maneuvering, lack of stability in the waste, compaction issues?
• What advantages have been seen due to biosolids landfilling, e.g., less “bumpy” surface, a smoother ride for equipment, better compaction?
• Have managers noticed any impact on gas generation from cells with biosolids?
• Have operators suggested any special requirements or equipment that can facilitate biosolids handling?
Regulatory Issues
• If land application of biosolids is halted, is the landfill prepared to handle the biosolids generated in the area/county?
• Do landfill managers think any regulation concerning incoming biosolids needs to be amended?
• Have any steps been taken by the landfill beyond regular monitoring to assess the impact of biosolids on the environment?
From September 2005 to January 2006, a team of graduate students from the University of Florida visited five landfills: the Indian River County Landfill, the Omni Landfill, the Okeechobee Landfill, the Brevard County Landfill, and the Citrus Central Landfill (Figure 4.1).
Brevard County
Indian River County
Okeechobee
Citrus Central
Omni Waste
Figure 4.1 Landfills Visited for Collecting Information on Biosolids Disposal
All landfills are conventional landfills and have been accepting biosolids since opening. The amount of biosolids accepted ranges from 5 to 500 tons/day. The sources of biosolids include a county wastewater treatment plant and other out-of-county sources. Most biosolids are dewatered
15
to approximately 10 to 20% solids. There are no odor complaints at the Omni and Okeechobee landfills. The Indian River County landfill has received three complaints in the last 7 years; it was found that the source of the odor was not biosolids disposal, but the C&D debris cell. The Brevard County Landfill has received some complaints; however, the cause was not attributed specifically to biosolids. The number of complaints declined after the implementation of the gas extraction system. Citrus Central Landfill receives a few odor complaints each year.
4.2 Biosolids Handling in Landfills
In four out of the five landfills visited (Omni Landfill, Okeechobee Landfill, Brevard County Landfill and Citrus Central Landfill), biosolids are spread in layers and mixed with waste. Generally, biosolids are first dumped by truck and then wastes were spread over the biosolids layer and compacted. At the Okeechobee Landfill, biosolids are unloaded about 100 to 150 ft away from the active cell area and a dozer is then used to transport and spread the unloaded biosolids to the active cell area. In the Brevard County Landfill, biosolids are dumped directly on the working face and spread on the slope of the working face using a compactor. Biosolids are mixed with MSW or with MSW and ash or other industrial waste. C&D debris is preferred if a load is immediately available. At three of the four sites that dispose of biosolids in layers and mixed with waste—the Omni, Citrus Central, and Brevard County Landfills, it was observed that whether the biosolids being disposed of were dewatered or not dewatered, the mixing ratio with MSW did not have a significant impact. The Indian River County landfill only accepts dewatered biosolids
In the Indian River County Landfill, however, biosolids are buried in trenches. A hole/trench about 2 feet deep and 50 feet long was first dug and then a thin layer of biosolids was spread over that bottom area. Four or five loads of trash were added on top of the biosolids layer. Since biosolids make up 15% of the Indian River County Landfill’s waste stream, the biosolids are mixed with whatever waste was last dumped. A dozer was used to spread the biosolids and waste and a compactor was used to compact the mixture. However, mixing was not really accomplished in the process, because the contractor’s understanding of mixing was to put biosolids in the middle of the waste and then pass over it. One operator who has 15 years of experience strongly disagreed with trenches or burying large amounts of biosolids due to operational problems and emphasized that spreading and covering with other waste was the only way to handle biosolids.
4.3 Operator Feedback and Regulatory Issues
The problems associated with handling biosolids in landfills include odor complaints, slippery conditions for equipment maneuvering, lack of stability in the waste, and compaction issues. Based on the landfill visits, slippery surface is the major concern of landfilling biosolids. Biosolids cause slippery conditions for trucks dumping waste at the site if the biosolids are not immediately removed from the working face. When it is raining, the surface becomes too slippery and accepting biosolids is difficult. Indian River County Landfill managers stated that if there is enough waste present to mix with the waste, the operators have a better time dealing with it.
Odor complaints are controversial with respect to handling biosolids. Omni Landfill did not report any odor problems. There are odor problems in Brevard County Landfill, but the odor is tolerable. In the Indian River County Landfill, however, biosolids were reported to be very odorous and transportation issues were also mentioned; for example, when the truck operators bring the biosolids onto the site, they sometimes spilled their load. Another problem reported
16
was that biosolids stick to equipment wheels, which can also be a problem for the onsite mechanic in case of equipment failure. Also, biosolids remain slick for a long time, complicating the passing of equipment over the disposal area. No slope-stability problems were reported in closed cells containing biosolids.
In terms of the advantages, such as a less “bumpy” surface and a smoother ride for equipment, most operators reported no advantages due to biosolids landfilling. However, one advantage noted at the Indian River County Landfill was greater compaction; this is the main reason the operator accepts biosolids because more waste can be accepted in the long run. In addition, the operators have not observed any impact on gas generation from the landfill cells with biosolids.
In general, most operators are comfortable receiving and handling biosolids. When asked if the landfill is prepared for handling the biosolids generated in the area/county when land application of biosolids is halted, most landfill managers gave a positive answer. However, they do not want to take any steps beyond routine monitoring to assess the impact of biosolids.
18
REFERENCES EPA, 1999, “Biosolids Generation, Use and Disposal in the United States,” EPA 530-R-99-009,
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste, Washington D. C. Reinhart, D., Chopra, M., Sreedharan, A., Koodthathinkal, B., and Townsend, T., 2003, “Design
and Operational Issues Related to the Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class I Landfills” report to the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, www.floridacenter.org.
Reinhart, D., Chopra, M., Vajirkar, M., and Townsend, T., 2005, “Design and Operational Issues Related to the Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class I Landfills-Phase II,” report to the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, www.floridacenter.org.
October 2006
Best Management Practices Guide
for Co-Disposal of Biosolids
at Lined Landfills
Prepared by:Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentCollege of Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Department of Environmental Engineering SciencesCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Prepared for:The Hinkely Center for Solid and Hazardous WasteManagement
This document was produced as part of Phase III of the Biosolids Landfill Research Project sponsoredby the Hinkely Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida. Theprincipal investigators are Dr. Debra Reinhart, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,University of Central Florida, and Dr. Timothy G. Townsend, Department of EnvironmentalEngineering Sciences, University of Florida.
The student assistants who participated in the development of this document were Valerie Bonilla,Brajesh Dubey, Hwidong Kim, and Qiyong Xu. Student assistants who participated in the 5-yearresearch project leading to this document are NitinGawande, Ayman Favour, Daoroong Sungthong,Eyad Batarseh, Nicole Berge, Lucia Lettie, and Shadi Moqbel from the University of Central Florida,and Murat Semiz and Pradeep Jain from the University of Florida.
The author wishes to acknowledge the time and cooperation of the managers and operators of thefacilities visited for this research project for sharing their practical experience in the managementand landfilling of biosolids. The sites visited were Brevard County Central Landfill, Citrus CentralLandfill, Highlands County Landfill, Indian River County Landfill, Okeechobee Landfill, Omni CentralLandfill, and Trailridge Landfill as well as the following Brevard County Wastewater TreatmentPlants: Barefoot Bay, South Beaches, South Central, Sykes Creek, and Port St Johns.
The authors may be reached at:The Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Central FloridaPO Box 162993Orlando, FL 32816-2993(407) 823-2156reinhart@mail.ucf.edu
The Department of Environmental Engineering SciencesUniversity of FloridaPO Box 116450Gainesville, FL 32611-6450(352) 392-0846ttown@ufl.edu
Further information on the multi-year research project leading to this publication can be foundat
http://www.people.cecs.ucf.edu/reinhart/biosolids.htm
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5Intended Audience ................................................................................................... 5Research Background .............................................................................................. 5Organization of this Document ................................................................................ 5
2.0 Biosolids Basics .................................................................................................................. 6What are Biosolids? ................................................................................................. 6How are Biosolids Generated? ................................................................................. 6Environmental Issues .............................................................................................. 6Common Management Practices ............................................................................ 7What are the Concerns? .......................................................................................... 7
3.0 Biosolids Regulations ........................................................................................................ 8Federal Rules ........................................................................................................... 8State Rules ............................................................................................................... 8Recent Changes ....................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Landfilling Biosolids ......................................................................................................... 9Why Landfills might be an Alternative ................................................................... 9Advantages.............................................................................................................. 10Disadvantages ........................................................................................................ 11
5.0 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................ 13Co-disposal with MSW .............................................................................................13Pit or Trench Burial ............................................................................................... 14Mixing with Additives Before Disposal ................................................................... 15Mixing with Additives and Use as Daily Cover ...................................................... 16Spread in a Thin Layer .......................................................................................... 17Possible Operational Issues when Landfilling Biosolids ....................................... 18
6.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms ........................................................................................ 19
7.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 20
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Partial list of pathogens that can be found in municipal wastewater and solids.. 22Appendix 2 Paint filter test........................................................................................................ 22
1.0 Introduction
Research Background
The Biosolids Landfill Research project, fundedby the Florida Center for Solids and HazardousWaste Management, is part of an ongoing three-phase investigation by the University of Florida(UF) and the University of Central Florida (UCF)to investigate the disposal of sludge and biosolids.Phase I and II focused on investigating the physi-cal and chemical properties of biosolids as wellas landfill design issues related to biosolids dis-posal. This guidance document is part of PhaseIII of the project.
Important findings from the previous phases ofthe study include the following:• Research has shown that disposal of biosolidscan accelerate waste stabilization and, conse-quently, gas production.• Co-disposal of biosolids and MSW can lead tooperations issues such as difficulty in compac-tion, formation of localized soft spots, andodors.These challenges, however, can be over-come by adding compounds such as soil, mulch,or dry MSW to the biosolids to increase its solidscontent and decrease the moisture content.• Co-disposal of biosolids with MSW does not in-crease airspace requirements, perhaps becauseof an increase in compactability of the landfilledmaterial.• Biosolids co-disposal was not found to have anadverse impact on leachate quality.• Disposal of liquid or dewatered biosolids intrenches is feasible from both a slope stabilitypoint of view and an ease of application point ofview.• Mixing dewatered biosolids with MSW may helpcreate better operational conditions.• Soil was observed to be the most suitable mix-in material to enhance working conditions.
The biosolids’ unique physical and chemical prop-erties pose a challenge for landfill operators whomanage the co-disposal of biosolids with MSW.For the reasons outlined above, the objectives ofthis study were to evaluate several landfillbiosolids co disposal methods being used and torecommend ways to minimize the potential op-erational problems. This field study focused onassessing the viability of landfilling biosolids withthe cooperation of WWTP and MSW landfills op-erators in several Florida counties.
Introduction
This document was prepared to highlight thecurrent practices for landfilling wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP) biosolids in linedmunicipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, as well asto identify the pros and cons of each methodobserved.
The document is intended to serve as a quick-reference document for those seekinginformation on biosolids disposal in municipalsolid waste landfills.
Intended Audience
This document can be used by WWTP operators,environmental regulators, local government, andMSW landfill operators using or considering usingor using landfill disposal as the biosolidsmanagement option.
Organization of This Document
This document is designed to provide an overviewof biosolids generation, environmental concernsand to depict the landfilling methods currentlyin use.
Section 1 introduces the topic, Section 2discusses the fundamentals of biosolids, andSection 3 briefly describes the regulationsgoverning biosolids management and disposal.Section 4 discusses advantages anddisadvantages of landfilling biosolids. Section 5describes the methods observed for landfillingbiosolids as well as the advantages anddisadvantages posed by each method. Section 6lists the terms and the acronyms usedthroughout this guide.
5
2.0 Biosolids Basics
What are Biosolids?
Biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are thesolid organic matter produced as a by-product ofthe treatment of municipal wastewaters . Thequantity, characteristics, and solids content ofthe biosolids depend on the composition of thewastewater, the type of wastewater treatmentused, and the treatment applied to the biosolids(such as dewatering or drying).
Before being discharged from the WWTP,wastewater undergoes perliminary, primary,secondary, and sometimes tertiary treatment(see“How are Biosolids Generated?”). The quantityand quality of the biosolids generated depend onthe composition of the wastewater, the type oftreatment used, and the type of subsequentbisolids treatment used. Because of thesevariables, the characteristics of the biosolids canchange daily, seasonally, or annually.
How are Biosolids Generated?
Semi-solid, nutrient-rich biosolids are generatedafter the secondary treatment of wastewaters ina WWTP.
As wastewaters enter the WWTP, they typicallygo through a screen to remove grit and largematerials, then proceed to sedimentation basinsfor primary treatment. The wastewaters thenproceed to the secondary treatment, theminimum required by the Clean Water Act,which usually consists of biological treatmentto reduce the nutrient load of the effluent waters.
The biosolids produced after secondary treatmentusually have a low solids content (1 to 3% solids).Most biosolids undergo an additional treatmentstep such as dewatering with a belt filter pressor a centrifuge, or stabilization with thermaltreatment before leaving the WWTP. The tablebelow summarizes the most common types ofwastewater treatment used.
Schematic of WWTP and Biosolids Generation
6
o
Treatment Process Use or Disposal Method
Aerobic or Anaerobic Treatment (Digestion)
Produces biosolids used as soil amendment and organic fertilizer on pasture and row crops, forests, and reclamation sites; additional treatment, such as dewatering, also can be performed.
Alkaline TreatmentProduces biosolids useful for land application and for use as daily landfill cover.
CompostingProduces highly organic, soil-like biosolids with conditioning properties for horticultural, nursery, and landscape uses.
Heat-drying/ Pelletizing
Produces biosolids for fertilizers generally used at a lower rate because of higher cost and higher nitrogen content.
Source: EPA, 1999
Stabilization Technologies and Associated Use or Disposal Method
Common Management Practices
Biosolids treatment can often determine themunicipality’s options for management. Biosolidsthat are treated to a higher degree of disinfectioncan be reused beneficially (for example used assoil amendment), but these treatment optionsare often costly. Most commonly, due to cost andavailable technology, biosolids are not treated tothe highest level of pathogen destruction. Amongthe most commonly accepted disposal options tominimize human and animal exposure are:
√ Land application
√ Composting
√ Incineration
√ Landfilling
√ Other beneficial reuses
What are the Concerns?
Since biosolids are a byproduct of stripping thewastewater of contaminants before it isdischarged to the environment, biosolids cancontain high levels of nutrients, pathogens, andother contaminants such as metals. The majorconcern in biosolids management is human andenvironmental exposure to pathogens and othercontaminants. Once the biosolids are managedor disposed of, odors and vector attraction canbecome an additional issue.
Refer to Appendix 1 for a table presentingpathogens that might be present in wastewatersand wastewater sludges and the diseasesassociated with these.
Biosolids Management in 1998 in the US
land application
41%
surface
disposal/landfill
17%
incineration
22%
other
1%
other beneficial
use
7%advanced
treatment
12%
7
Source: EPA, 1999
A 1999 study by EPA, found the most common biosolids management practice to be landapplication (see graph above). This trend has changed in recent years due to more restrictiveregulatory requirements for land application, increased treatment standards, and costsmovement is now towards landfill disposal as discussed in the next section. Only biosolids thatmeet the most stringent standards spelled out in Federal and state rules can be approved foruse as fertilizer
Federal Rules
Standards for the treatment of biosolids for landapplication establishing the limits for pollutantand pathogen loads are outlined in “TheStandards for the Use or Disposal of SewageSludge (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations[CFR], Part 503),commonly refered to as “TheBiosolids Rule” or “Part 503.”The Part 503 rule contains numerical limits formetals in biosolids, pathogen reduction stan-dards, site restriction, crop harvesting restric-tions and monitoring, record keeping and report-ing requirements for land-applied biosolids andsimilar requirements for biosolids that disposedof on the surface or incinerated.
MSW Landfill design and operation requirementsare contained in the Municipal Solid WasteLandfill Regulations, Title 40 CFR Part 258.
3.0 Biosolids Regulations
State Rules
At the State level in Florida, the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection is incharge of regulating the generation,management, and disposal of biosolids. Chapter62-640, F.A.C. outlines the treatmentrequirements for WWTP, and Chapter 62-701,F.A.C. outlines the design and operationalrequirements for solid waste managementfacilities in the state.
Recent Changes
In the last decade there have been a growingnumber of concerns about the health impacts ofland application of biosolids. Several incidents ofserious ailments associated with landapplication of biosolids have raised concernsabout this method of disposal. This change in themindset of the general public as well as facilityowners has been heightened by a substantialreduction in the availability of land for biosolidsdisposal, leading to the possible elimination ofland application and beneficial reuse options.Because of these reasons, landfilling is beingregarded with renewed interest as a method ofdisposal.In Florida, the biosolids management rules arebeing revised to include the minimumrequirement of Class A treatment for landdisposal. This requirement in turn will place anadditional financial burden on WWTPs
Classification of BiosolidsBased on the level of treatment for patho-gen reduction, Rule 503 classifies biosolidsinto two classes:Class A Biosolids are treated to reducepathogen levels to below detectable levels.Treatment methods used to achieve ClassA levels include heat drying, composting,and high-temperature aerobic digestion.Class A biosolids can be beneficially usedwithout pathogen-related restrictions at thesite.Class B Biosolids are treated to reducepathogens to levels protective of humanhealth and the environment, but not toundetectable levels. Use or disposal of ClassB biosolids requires application restrictionsto minimize the potential for human andanimal contact.Source: EPA, 1999
Environmental Health Issues
Some of the most common concernsassociated with the management ofbisolids are possible groundwatercontamination, human health, exposure topathogens, heavy metal conatmination,and contamination from application siterunoff or flooding.Human health problems that have beenassociated with biosolids managementarerespiratory problems, irritation of theskin and mucus membranes, and bacterialand viral infections of the GI tract.
8
4.0 Landfilling Biosolids
Why Landfills Might be an Alternative
Landfill DisposalUnder 40 CFR 258.28, bulk or non-containerizedliquid waste may not be disposed of in an unlinedlandfill unit. This regulation was developed toreduce leachate production and its associatedproblems. Targeted wastes are large containersof liquid waste (e.g., 55-gallon drums) and bulkloads of liquid waste.The EPA defines a waste as a liquid waste if itfails the Paint Filter Liquids Test. Attachment 2at the end of this guide presents more details onthe paint filter test, including the typical setupof the test.
Modern Sanitary Landfills
Modern sanitary landfills are engineeredfacilities designed to provide safeguardsfrom pollutant contamination to the envi-ronment.Some of the minimum requirements formodern MSW landfills include the follow-ing:
√ bottom barrier layer for contaminant containment√ leachate collection system√ gas collection system√ use of daily cover√ waste compaction√ environmental monitoring
9
L andfilling Methods Observed throughout Florida
Sam e as / m ixe d w ith MSW
55%
Spre ad as th in laye r on MSW and cove re d w ith MSW
19%
U se d as landfil l cove r11%
Burie d in MSW7%
Com poste d4% N-V iro soil
tre atm e nt 4%
Source: Reinhart et al., 2003
Biosolids co-disposal with MSW
Usually, any test required for determining thesuitability of a waste for landfill disposal has tobe performed before the waste is delivered to thelandfill; however, the paint filter test is one ofthe tests that can be set up and performed inthe field if necessary and the results are obtainedwithin 10 minutes.If a waste fails the paint filter test, it is consid-ered a “free liquid” and therefore banned fromdisposal at MSW landfills.
In 2001, a survey of Florida MSW landfills revealed the following distribution of biosolids landfillingmethods:
Advantages
Moisture addition and increasedwaste decomposition. Most MSWlandfills today are trying to achieve rapiddecomposition of the waste as it islandfilled. Landfill operations are movingaway from dry-tomb technology towardstreatment systems. One of the mostpopular treatment methods is theaddition of moisture to the waste toincrease microbial activity for fasterstabilization of the waste. Biosolids, beingrich in moisture and other nutrients,could be an ideal candidate for thispurpose.
Lined containment of potentialcontaminants. For biosolids, which cancontain elevated concentrations of heavymetals and other toxic chemicals,disposal in a lined landfill offers acontainment system with less potentialfor environmental contamination. LinedMSW landfills are designed to collect andtreat leachate; thus the elevatedcontaminant concentrations in biosolidswill be managed with othercontaminants. This is definitely anenvironmental advantage compared todisposal of these substances in unlinedmonofills or land application.
Smaller disposal/treatment arearequirements. Compared to landapplication, landfill disposal requires lessarea than land application. Additionally,since biosolids are mostly water,landfilling of biosolids does not consumegreat amounts of valuable airspace withinthe landfill.
The photo above shows biosolids being co-disposed with MSW at a landfill’s workingface
Lower capital investment. As thebiosolids will be disposed of in an existinglined landfill there will be little or no extracapital investment associated withbiosolids disposal.
Land acquisition. No additional land isrequired for disposal by the municipalityor the local government managing thiswaste stream as the biosolids will bedisposed of at an existing lined landfill.
Environmental monitoring. Theadditional environmental monitoringrequired for co-disposal of biosolids inlined landfills is minimal.
Increased revenue for the landfillthrough tipping fees. Dewateredbiosolids can occupy some of the voidspaces in MSW, taking up less airspacethan other wastes. Special handlingmight be required since the “wet” natureof the biosolids may potentially slow downlandfill operations. Therefore, manyfacilities charge a separate tipping fee forspecial handling of wastes.
10
Disadvantages
The major disadvantages associated with land-fill disposal of biosolids include odor emission,landfill slope instability, overload of the leachatetreatment system, difficulty in operating landfillequipment, and creation of soft spots in the land-fill surface.
Odors. Biosolids may have their owndistinctive odor depending on the type oftreatment they have been through. Muchof the odor is caused by compoundscontaining sulfur and ammonia.Landfilling of biosolids may result inemission of odorous gases such as sulfurcompounds and nitrogen compounds.Biosolids typically contain between 0.7 to2.1% of total sulfur and the sulfur inbiosolids can produce dimethyl disulfide(DMDS), dimethyl sulfide (DMS), carbondisulfide (CS2), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).The major odorous nitrogen compoundsfrom biosolids include ammonia andtrimethyl amine (TMA). Odors are theresult of anaerobic bacterial action on thevolatile organic matter present inbiosolids.
Landfill slope instability. One of theoperational issues associated withlandfilling biosolids is disposing of a wetwaste stream. The disposal of largeamounts of biosolids in landfills maycause geo-environmental problems suchas compression, differential settlement,and slope instability of landfills. One ofthe most significant propertiesinfluencing landfill stability is thephysical nature of dewatered sludge withregard to moisture characteristics andmechanical strength. The stability of thelandfill is more adversely affected whenthe sludges are placed as discrete layersthan when they are placed as pockets.Furthermore, it has been observed thatdisposal of biosolids close to the side slopesof the landfill may cause slope stabilityproblems.
Pathogens. Another environmentalproblem associated with landfill disposalof biosolids is pathogens.
Pathogens are disease-causingmicroorganisms that include bacteria,viruses, protozoa, and parasitic worms.Because of pathogens, biosolids can posean adverse health impact on workers orattract vectors such as insects, rodents,and birds if they are not properly disposedof.
Creation of soft spots in the landfill.Certain disposal methods can lead to thecreation of soft spots and depressions onthe landfill surface due to the moisturefrom the biosolids seeping out to the emptyspaces in the surrounding MSW.
11
A buldozer faces difficulties in pushing the wastedue to reduced traction of the track on the land-fill surface caused by the layer of biosolids.
Difficulty operating landfillequipment. If not properly handled,biosolids can create sleek surfaces on thedisposal area. Biosolids are extremely wetin nature. Biosolids that are notdewatered have a solids content of 1.5-3% while dewatered biosolids have a solidscontent of about 12-16%. This wet natureof biosolids leads to some operationaldifficulties. One difficulty faced by mostlandfill operators is the greater effortrequired to compact the waste. Wetbiosolids create an extremely slickworking surface, making it very hard forthe spotter and other authorized landfillpersonnel to walk on it. Also, it is difficultto maneuver compaction equipment onwet biosolids. The biosolids adhere to thetracks of the dozers and often the dozergets stuck or sinks into the workingsurface, thus making waste compactiona laborious process. The wet nature of thebiosolids also reduces the in-place densityof the compacted waste.
Overload of the leachate treatmentsystem. Since biosolids consist oforganic matter and nutrients that areoriginated from domestic wastes, as wellas synthetic organic contaminants suchas polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) andheavy metals from industrial wastes, thechemicals and nutrients present inbiosolids disposed of in unlined landfillscan pose a risk to local groundwater orfrom a liner in a newer landfill that hasdeveloped a leak. There is concern thatthe content of the sludge would overloadany leachate treatment system. Onestudy used chemical precipitation toremove heavy metals from sewage sludgeto reduce the risk of metals being leachedto surface and groundwater. In this studythere is not sufficient evidence to provethat the leachate quality of landfillsaccepting biosolids is significantlydifferent from the leachate quality oflandfills not accepting biosolids with theexception of TDS, chlorides, and mercury.Landfills not accepting biosolids showhigher values of TDS and chlorides.Hence, these parameters might not be ofconcern to co-disposal landfills. Theconcentration of mercury in leachatefrom landfills accepting biosolids is almostthree times higher than mercuryconcentrations in leachate from landfillsnot accepting biosolids and the differenceis statistically significant.
12
One of the potential operational issues withbiosolids co-disposal is created by the materialsticking to the equipment’s track or wheels, thusreducing the compaction effort applied by the ma-chinery on the landfilled waste.
This photo shows a closeup of the consistencyof dewatered biosolids being unloaded on alandfill’s working face.
5.0 Best Management Practices
Co-Disposal with MSW
The landfill operator using this method would direct the biosolids truck directly to the landfill’sworking face where biosolids are unloaded and are disposed of with loads of MSW. This methodrequires more coordination of landfilling operations to ensure that there are a couple of freshloads of MSW set aside for the incoming loads of biosolids.
(1) Unload biosolids on the working face.
(2) Push a load of MSW over the biosolids.
(3) Spread on the working face.
The photo on the right shows this methodbeing used.
Landfil Disposal
This section presents a briefly describes the methods that have been observed to be used inFlorida for the disposal of biosolids at lined MSW landfills.
13
Pit or Trench BurialThis method involves more site preparation and equipment requirements than the others becauseof the need to dig the pit or trench into the waste before the biosolids are unloaded in the landfill.Some landfill operators might prefer this method since it minimizes the need for handling thebiosolids. One of the disadvantages of this method is the potential creation of soft spots on thesurface of the landfill where the biosolids have been placed.
(1) Dig a pit in the landfilled waste.
(2) Unload the biosolids.
(3) Push the biosolids into the pit.
(4) Cover the pit with MSW.
14
Mixing with Additives
Mixing with additives includes mixing biosolids with MSW, yard waste mulch, mulch fines, orsoil. One of the main advantages of this disposal method is that it provides a material more“workable” than biosolids alone. However, this method requires a separate area of the landfill tobe cleared and designated for the mixing process.The usual steps followed when using this co-disposal method are depicted below.
(1) Unload biosolids on designated area.
(2) Push additives on the pile of biosolids to mix and work with the blade.
(3) Spread on the working face.
15
The photo onthe left showsthe mulch be-ing deliveredto the work-ing area whilethe photo onthe rightshows themixture ofbiosolids andmulch.
Mix with Additives and Use as Daily Cover
In this method the biosolids are mixed with additives, as disucssed in the previous method, using apredetermined ratio and used as daily cover. It should be noted that the use of materials other thanregular dirt for daily cover requires regulatory approval.
(1) Unload biosolids in designated area and mix with additive.
(2) Apply as daily cover.
16
The photo above shows the finished product
Spread in Thin Layers on the Working Face and Cover with MSW
This method is similar to the MSW co-disposal method discussed before in that biosolids are disposedof directly on the landfill’s working face; however, the biosolids are handled separately with theblade of the bulldozer by spreading them in a thin layer over the surface of the landfill and thencovering this layer with regular MSW before compacting.
(1) Unload the biosolids on the working face.
(2) Spread on a thin layer on the working face.
(3) Cover with MSW.
17
The photo above shows the disposal method being used.
Possible Operational Issues when Landfilling Biosolids
The table below summarizes some of the issues identified to be most commonly associatedwith landfilling biosolids at MSW landfills.
The photograph above shows the paint filter test done to assess whether biosolids can be acceptedfor disposal at a MSW landfill based on its liquids content.
18
Issue Possible Solution
Cover as soon as possible.Collect gas earlier in the life of the landfill.Use mulch as cover.Avoid disposal on or near side slopes.Mix in well with other materials or with landfilled MSW.Avoid spreading in thick layers.
Gas generation Collect gas earlier in the life of the landfill.Spread thin layers of biosolids, pushing ahead MSW orother additive.
Source: Reinhart 2005
Slope stability
Difficulty in operating equipment
Possible Operational Issues when Landfilling Biosolids
Odors
Biosolids- byproduct of municipal wastewatertreatment.
List of Acronyms
EPA- US Environmental Protection Agency
FAC- Florida Administrative Code
MSW- Municipal Solid Waste
WWTP- Wastewater Treatment Plant
6.0 Glossary and List of Acronyms
Glossary
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)- solidwaste generated within a municipality.
19
EPA, 1999, “Biosolids Generation, Use and Disposal in the United States,” EPA 530-R-99-009, Municipal and IndustrialSolid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste, Washington D. C.
EPA, US, 1995 “Process Design Manual: Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage” EPA/625/R-95/001,Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Reinhart, D., Chopra, M., Sreedharan, A., Koodthathinkal, B., and Townsend, T., 2003, “Design and Operational IssuesRelated to the Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class I Landfills”
Reinhart, D., Chopra, M., Vajirkar, M., and Townsend, T., 2005, “Design and Operational Issues Related to the Co-Disposal of Sludges and Biosolids in Class I Landfills-Phase II”
7.0 References
20
Partial list of pathogens that can be found in municipal wastewater andsolids with the diseases or symptoms they cause.
Appendix 1
Organism Disease/Symptoms
Salmonella sp. Salmonellosis (food poisoning), Typhoid fever
Escherichia coli Gastroenteritis
Shigella sp. Bacillary dysentery, severe gastroenteritis
Hepatitis A virus infectious hepatitis
Echoviruses Meningitis, paralysis, encephalitis, fever, "flu-like" symptoms, diarrhea
Entamoeba histolytica
Amoebic dysentery
Giardia lamblia Diarrhea, abdominal cramps, weight loss
Ascaris sp. Digestive and nutritional disturbances, abdominal pain, vomiting, restlessness, coughing, chest pain, and fever
Trichuris trichiura Abdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia, weight loss
Toxocara canis Fever, muscle aches, neurological symptoms
Necator americanus Hookworm disease
(adapted from (EPA. 1995).
22
The Paint Filter Test is done as follows: A 100-milliliter sample of waste is placed on a conical 400-micron paintfilter. If any liquid passes through the filter in 5 minutes, the waste is considered a “free liquid,” and thus fails thetest and cannot be landfilled.
Appendix 2
Paint Filter Test.
100 mL
5 minute test period
400 micronpaint fi lter
FREE LIQUID
Paint Filter Test Schematic
Paint filter
Funnel
Gradual cylinder
Ringstand
Recommended