DOCSLIB.ORG

Sludge Application Effects on Runoff, Infiltration, Andwaterquality'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sludge Application Effects on Runoff, Infiltration, Andwaterquality' WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 29, NO. 1 AMERICANWATERRESOURCES ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 1993 SLUDGE APPLICATION EFFECTS ON RUNOFF, INFILTRATION, ANDWATERQUALITY' A. C. Bruggeman and S. Mostaghimi2 ABSTRACT: Land application of sewage sludge requires careful sludge have been reviewed by Kelley et al. (1984). monitoring because of its potential for contamination of surface These problems include accelerated eutrophication of water and ground water. A rainfall simulator was used th investi- surface waters by phosphorus, ground water contami- gate the effects of freshly applied sludge on infiltration, and on runoff of sediment and nutrients from agricultural crop lands. Rain nation by leaching of nitrate, and health risks from was applied to 16 experimental field plots. A three-run sequence transfer of pathogenic organisms to humans or ani- was used to simulate different initial moisture conditions. Runoff, mals and from the uptake of trace elements (heavy sediment, and nutrient losses were monitored at the base of each plot during the simulated rainfall events. Sludge was surface metals) by plants. applied and incorporated at conventionally-tilled plots and surface Several authors have studied the effect of sludge applied at no-till plots, at rates of 0, 75, 150 kg-N/ha. Steady-state application on the quality of runoff water from agri- infiltrability increased as a result of sludge application, although cultural lands. Kelling et al. (1977) found significantly the no-till practice was more effective in increasing the infiltrability lower runoff and sediment losses from sludge treated than the sludge application. No-till practices greatly reduced runoff, sediment, and nutrient losses from the sludge treated plots, areas, relative to untreated areas. However, relative to the conventional tillage practices. Incorporation of orthophosphorus (P04-P), total phosphorus (Pt), and the sludge was effective in reducing nutrient yields at the nitrite plus nitrate (N02+N03) loads in runoff water conventionally-tilled plots. This effect was more pronounced during the third rainstorm, with wet initial conditions. Peak loadings of from the sludge treated plots increased, compared to nutrients appeared during the rainstorm with wet initial condi- the control plots. Dunnigan and Dick (1980) found tions. that surface application of sewage sludge resulted in (KEY TERMS: sludge; land application; infiltration; runoff; nutri- higher loadings of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in ents; water quality.) runoff water, as compared to loadings from plots in which sludge was incorporated into the soil. The beneficial impacts of sludge applications to reduce surface runoff and soil erosion can be related INTRODUCTION to reduction of raindrop impact by the surface protec- tive sludge layer and increased infiltration as a result Application to agricultural lands is a cost-effective of the improvement of the physical condition of the alternative for disposal of sewage sludge. Secondary soil (Mostaghimi et al., 1988). Significant increases in benefits of application of sludge to agricultural lands aggregation and large pore space as a result of sludge include nutrient supply to crops, increase of soil application were observed during a one-year field organic matter content, and improvement of soil prop- study by Kladivko and Nelson (1979). Otis (1985), erties. However, the potential hazards of surface however, reported that application of waste water water and groundwater contamination from land dis- effluent significantly reduced the hydraulic conductiv- posal of sewage sludge is a major environmental con- ity and infiltration rate of soils due to pore clogging. cern. Potential problems of land application of sewage He attributed pore clogging to the suspended solids in 'Paper No. 92037 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions areopenuntil October 1, 1993. 2Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant, 200 Seitz Hall, Agricultural Engineering Department, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061; and Associate Professor, 308 Seitz Hall, Agricultural Engineering Department,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061. 15 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN Bruggeman and Mostaghinii the waste water effluent, which mechanically sealed spread, as uniformly as possible within the subareas, the entrances to the larger pores. In addition, the using rakes. Within each tillage treatment two sludge nutrients in the waste water, which stimulated the application rates, representing 150 kg-N/ha and 75 biological activity in the soil, causing breakdown of kg-N/ha, and an untreated control plot, were estab- the structural units of the soil and, in turn, increased lished. Loading rates were determined using the pore clogging. Chang et al. (1983) indicated that the methodology suggested by Simpson et al. (1985). The amount of sludge required to cause significant sludge was black in color and fairly crumbly when changes in soil properties was much greater than the applied. The high and low application rates provided amount normally used to satisfy crop nutrients an average sludge layer of approximately 1.0 and 0.5 requirement. cm, respectively, although no uniform cover was The objective of this study was to investigate the obtained. Sludge was surface applied to all no-till short-term impacts of sludge application method, plots. For the conventional tillage plots, sludge was application rate, and tillage practice on infiltration, both incorporate and surface-applied. The plots with runoff, and sediment and nutrient losses from agricul- the incorporated treatments were retilled to incorpo- tural lands. rate the sludge into the upper 15-20 cm of the soil profile. Two replications of each treatment required a total of 16 plots. Plot treatments are listed in Table 1. All treatments were randomly assigned to the experi- MATERIALS AND METHODS mental plots. Sixteen experimental field plots, located at Virginia Tech's Price's Fork Agricultural Research Farm, 10 km west of Blacksburg, were used for this study TABLE 1. Soil and Sludge Characteristics and Plot Treatments. (Mostaghimi et al., 1988). Plots are located on a Soil Characteristics Groseclose silt loam soil (clayey, mixed mesic Typic Hapludult). The soil is deep and well drained with a Type: Groseclose Silt Loam Percent* Sand 17.9 slowly permeable subsoil. The plowed surface (Ap) Percent Silt 58.9 horizon is typically 25 cm thick, with a loam texture Percent Clay 23.2 and moderately fine granular structure. Soil charac- Percent Organic Matter 3.7 teristics are presented in Table 1. Bulk Density 1.39 g/cm Each plot had a surface area of 0.01 ha (18.3m x Initial Moisture Content 19.2% 5.5m). Metal borders were installed around each plot Sludge Characteristics to prevent surface and subsurface runoff from flowing across the plot boundaries. The 30 cm high borders Type: Anaerobically Digested Sewage Sludge Percent Solids 16.0 were inserted to a depth of about 15 cm. A concrete Percent NH4-N 0.96 gutter with a pipe outlet at the base of each plot col- Percent TKN 3.02 lected and transported the runoff to an H-flume. All Percent Phosphorus 2.0 plots were planted in winter rye in the fall and pH 7.3 sprayed with paraquat, a week before the simulation Plot Treatments runs, in early spring of the following year. No-till treatments were established on the killed rye stand. Sludge Sludge Crop residue was measured by randomly locating a Tillage Application Application 0.6 x 0.6 m square in each plot and removing all Method Method Rate residue in the square for laboratory analysis. No-Till N/A 0 Conventional tillage was represented by removing No-Till Surface 75 crop residue from the plots, tilling to a depth of 15-20 No-Till Surface 150 cm with a power-take-off (PTO) driven rototiller, and Conventional N/A 0 Conventional Surface 75 disking. Conventional Incorporated 75 Anaerobically digested, polymer conditioned Conventional Surface 150 sewage sludge was obtained from the James River Conventional Incorporated 150 plant in Hampton Roads, Virginia. General character- *All percentages are on a dry weight basis. istics of the sludge are given in Table 1. Sludge was NOTE: N/A =NotApplicable. distributed over the plots by subdividing each plot into four equal-sized subareas. The sludge was WATERRESOURCES BULLETIN 16 Sludge Application Effects on Runoff, Infiltration, and Water Quality A rainfall simulator (Dillaha et al., 1987) was used RESULTS AND DISCUSSION to apply approximately 90 mm of rainfall to the plots over a two-day period. A 60-minute initial dry run Infiltration and Peak Runoff (Ri) was followed 24 hours later by a 30-minute wet run CR2), followed 30 minutes later by another 30- Infiltration and runoff rate data collected during minute very wet run (R3). The three-run sequence is a common artificial rainfall sequence used for erosion the first (dry) run (Run 1) and the third (very wet) run research in the U.S. to represent different initial (Run3) are presented in Table 2. Runoff rates record- moisture conditions (Dillaha et al., 1987). A 40-45 ed during the second (wet) run (Run2) were generally mm/hr rainfall rate was used for all simulations. A higher than those from Runl, but always lower than one-hour storm with a 40-45 mm/hr intensity has a Run3. The effect of the initial soil moisture condi- tions, as represented by the sequence of runs, is most 2-5 year return period in Southwest Virginia obvious when comparing Runi and Run3 data. Thus, (Hershfield, 1961). The sludge was applied 24 hours data on Run2 are not presented here. For most treat- before the first simulated rainstorm. Rainfall within ments, steady-state conditions were approached at the 24 to 48 hours after the application of sludge is the end of the third (30 minute) run, as can be seen in expected to result in extremely high loadings of nutri- Figures 1-3, except for the sludge treated no-till plots ents to surface runoff, since sludge had been applied and the conventionally-tilled plots, without sludge within the previous 24 to 48 hours.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Good Practice Examples
    SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors PREFACE Population growth, rapid urbanisation, more water intense consumption patterns and climate change are intensifying the pressure on freshwater resources. The increasing scarcity of water, combined with other factors such as energy and fertilizers, is driving millions of farmers and other entrepreneurs to make use of wastewater. Wastewater reuse is an excellent example that naturally explains the importance of integrated management of water, soil and waste, which we define as the Nexus While the information in this book are generally believed to be true and accurate at the approach. The process begins in the waste sector, but the selection of date of publication, the editors and the publisher cannot accept any legal responsibility for the correct management model can make it relevant and important to any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or the water and soil as well. Over 20 million hectares of land are currently implied, with respect to the material contained herein. known to be irrigated with wastewater. This is interesting, but the The opinions expressed in this book are those of the Case Authors. Their inclusion in this alarming fact is that a greater percentage of this practice is not based book does not imply endorsement by the United Nations University. on any scientific criterion that ensures the “safe use” of wastewater. In order to address the technical, institutional, and policy challenges of safe water reuse, developing countries and countries in transition need clear institutional arrangements and more skilled human resources, United Nations University Institute for Integrated with a sound understanding of the opportunities and potential risks of Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources wastewater use.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.2 Sewage Sludge Incineration
    2.2 Sewage Sludge Incineration There are approximately 170 sewage sludge incineration (SSI) plants in operation in the United States. Three main types of incinerators are used: multiple hearth, fluidized bed, and electric infrared. Some sludge is co-fired with municipal solid waste in combustors based on refuse combustion technology (see Section 2.1). Refuse co-fired with sludge in combustors based on sludge incinerating technology is limited to multiple hearth incinerators only. Over 80 percent of the identified operating sludge incinerators are of the multiple hearth design. About 15 percent are fluidized bed combustors and 3 percent are electric. The remaining combustors co-fire refuse with sludge. Most sludge incinerators are located in the Eastern United States, though there are a significant number on the West Coast. New York has the largest number of facilities with 33. Pennsylvania and Michigan have the next-largest numbers of facilities with 21 and 19 sites, respectively. Sewage sludge incinerator emissions are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart O and 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts C and E. Subpart O in Part 60 establishes a New Source Performance Standard for particulate matter. Subparts C and E of Part 61--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)--establish emission limits for beryllium and mercury, respectively. In 1989, technical standards for the use and disposal of sewage sludge were proposed as 40 CFR Part 503, under authority of Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. Subpart G of this proposed Part 503 proposes to establish national emission limits for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and total hydrocarbons from sewage sludge incinerators.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Recovery from Sewage Sludge: the Case Study of Croatia
    energies Article Energy Recovery from Sewage Sludge: The Case Study of Croatia Dinko Đurđevi´c 1,* , Paolo Blecich 2 and Željko Juri´c 1 1 Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 April 2019; Accepted: 16 May 2019; Published: 20 May 2019 Abstract: Croatia produced 21,366 tonnes of dry matter (DM) sewage sludge (SS) in 2016, a quantity expected to surpass 100,000 tonnes DM by 2024. Annual production rates for future wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in Croatia are estimated at 5.8–7.3 Nm3/people equivalent (PE) for biogas and 20–25 kgDM/PE of sewage sludge. Biogas can be converted into 12–16 kWhel/PE of electricity and 19–24 kWhth/PE of heat, which is sufficient for 30–40% of electrical and 80–100% of thermal autonomy. The WWTP autonomy can be increased using energy recovery from sewage sludge incineration by 60% for electricity and 100% of thermal energy (10–13 kWhel/PE and 30–38 kWhth/PE). However, energy for sewage sludge drying exceeds energy recovery, unless solar drying is performed. 2 The annual solar drying potential is estimated between 450–750 kgDM/m of solar drying surface. The lower heating value of dried sewage sludge is 2–3 kWh/kgDM and this energy can be used for assisting sludge drying or for energy generation and supply to WWTPs. Sewage sludge can be considered a renewable energy source and its incineration generates substantially lower greenhouse gases emissions than energy generation from fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture Safe Use of Safe Wastewater in Agriculture Proceedings No
    A UN-Water project with the following members and partners: UNU-INWEH Proceedings of the UN-Water project on the Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture Wastewater Safe of Use Proceedings No. 11 No. Proceedings | UNW-DPC Publication SeriesUNW-DPC Coordinated by the UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) Editors: Jens Liebe, Reza Ardakanian Editors: Jens Liebe, Reza Ardakanian (UNW-DPC) Compiling Assistant: Henrik Bours (UNW-DPC) Graphic Design: Katja Cloud (UNW-DPC) Copy Editor: Lis Mullin Bernhardt (UNW-DPC) Cover Photo: Untited Nations University/UNW-DPC UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) United Nations University UN Campus Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1 53113 Bonn Germany Tel +49-228-815-0652 Fax +49-228-815-0655 www.unwater.unu.edu [email protected] All rights reserved. Publication does not imply endorsement. This publication was printed and bound in Germany on FSC certified paper. Proceedings Series No. 11 Published by UNW-DPC, Bonn, Germany August 2013 © UNW-DPC, 2013 Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the agencies cooperating in this project. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UN, UNW-DPC or UNU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Unless otherwise indicated, the ideas and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the views of their employers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage (Wastewater) Treatment*
    Sewage (Wastewater) Treatment* Sewage, or wastewater, includes all the water Primary Sewage Treatment from a household that is used for washing and toilet The usual first step in sewage treatment is called wastes. Rainwater flowing into street drains and primary sewage treatment (Figure 2). In this proc- some industrial wastes enter the sewage system in ess, large floating materials in incoming wastewater many cities. Sewage is mostly water and contains are screened out, the sewage is allowed to flow little particulate matter, perhaps only 0.03%. Even so, through settling chambers to remove sand and similar in large cities the solid portion of sewage can total gritty material, skimmers remove floating oil and more than 1000 tons of solid material per day. grease, and floating debris is shredded and ground. Until environmental awareness intensified, a After this step, the sewage passes through sedimenta- surprising number of large American cities had only tion tanks, where more solid matter settles out. Sew- a rudimentary sewage treatment system or no system age solids collecting on the bottom are called at all. Raw sewage, untreated or nearly so, was sim- sludge—at this stage, primary sludge. About 40– ply discharged into rivers or oceans. A flowing, well- 60% of suspended solids are removed from sewage aerated stream is capable of considerable self- by this settling treatment, and flocculating chemicals purification. Therefore, until expanding populations that increase the removal of solids are sometimes and their wastes exceeded this capability, this casual added at this stage. Biological activity is not particu- treatment of municipal wastes did not cause prob- larly important in primary treatment, although some lems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of Urban Stormwater Pollution
    THE CAUSES OF URBAN STORMWATER POLLUTION Some Things To Think About Runoff pollution occurs every time rain or snowmelt flows across the ground and picks up contaminants. It occurs on farms or other agricultural sites, where the water carries away fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment from cropland or pastureland. It occurs during forestry operations (particularly along timber roads), where the water carries away sediment, and the nutrients and other materials associated with that sediment, from land which no longer has enough living vegetation to hold soil in place. This information, however, focuses on runoff pollution from developed areas, which occurs when stormwater carries away a wide variety of contaminants as it runs across rooftops, roads, parking lots, baseball diamonds, construction sites, golf courses, lawns, and other surfaces in our City. The oily sheen on rainwater in roadside gutters is but one common example of urban runoff pollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now considers pollution from all diffuse sources, including urban stormwater pollution, to be the most important source of contamination in our nation's waters. 1 While polluted runoff from agricultural sources may be an even more important source of water pollution than urban runoff, urban runoff is still a critical source of contamination, particularly for waters near cities -- and thus near most people. EPA ranks urban runoff and storm-sewer discharges as the second most prevalent source of water quality impairment in our nation's estuaries, and the fourth most prevalent source of impairment of our lakes. Most of the U.S. population lives in urban and coastal areas where the water resources are highly vulnerable to and are often severely degraded by urban runoff.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste
    Global Methane Initiative Overview of Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal Solid Waste Updated: October 2016 1 About This Presentation . Introduces the process of anaerobic digestion (AD) for municipal solid waste (MSW) . Provides an overview of anaerobic digestion microbiology . Helps you understand how you might benefit from AD . Guides you through the key areas to consider when developing an AD project . Reviews the status of AD globally and provides selected case studies Using Bookmarks to Navigate This presentation contains bookmarks to help you navigate. Using the panel on the left, click the bookmark to jump to the slide. For Chrome users, the bookmarks can be viewed by clicking on the bookmark icon ( ) at the top right of the screen. 2 Global Methane Initiative GMI is a voluntary, multilateral partnership that aims to reduce global methane emissions and to advance the abatement, recovery and use of methane as a valuable clean energy source. OBJECTIVES BENEFITS . Reduce anthropogenic methane . Decline in methane concentrations emissions and advance the and methane utilization will result recovery and use of methane in: while: – Sustainability – Enhancing economic growth – Energy security – Promoting energy security – Health and safety – Improving local air quality – Profitability and public health. 3 GMI Partners . Grew from 14 to 42 Partner governments, plus the European Commission . Accounts for nearly 70% of global anthropogenic methane emissions 4 Main Menu 1. Introduction – what is AD and why should it interest me? Click here for an introduction to AD 2. Is AD suitable for me? Click here for more info about the potential for AD 3. Step-by-step guide Click here for detailed information about the key issues to consider when developing an AD project 4.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW of TURBIDITY: Information for Regulators and Water Suppliers
    WHO/FWC/WSH/17.01 WATER QUALITY AND HEALTH - TECHNICAL BRIEF TECHNICAL REVIEW OF TURBIDITY: Information for regulators and water suppliers 1. Summary This technical brief provides information on the uses and significance of turbidity in drinking-water and is intended for regulators and operators of drinking-water supplies. Turbidity is an extremely useful indicator that can yield valuable information quickly, relatively cheaply and on an ongoing basis. Measurement of turbidity is applicable in a variety of settings, from low-resource small systems all the way through to large and sophisticated water treatment plants. Turbidity, which is caused by suspended chemical and biological particles, can have both water safety and aesthetic implications for drinking-water supplies. Turbidity itself does not always represent a direct risk to public health; however, it can indicate the presence of pathogenic microorganisms and be an effective indicator of hazardous events throughout the water supply system, from catchment to point of use. For example, high turbidity in source waters can harbour microbial pathogens, which can be attached to particles and impair disinfection; high turbidity in filtered water can indicate poor removal of pathogens; and an increase in turbidity in distribution systems can indicate sloughing of biofilms and oxide scales or ingress of contaminants through faults such as mains breaks. Turbidity can be easily, accurately and rapidly measured, and is commonly used for operational monitoring of control measures included in water safety plans (WSPs), the recommended approach to managing drinking-water quality in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO, 2017). It can be used as a basis for choosing between alternative source waters and for assessing the performance of a number of control measures, including coagulation and clarification, filtration, disinfection and management of distribution systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Failure to Capture and Treat Wastewater
    U.S. OPERATING COPPER MINES: FAILURE TO CAPTURE & TREAT WASTEWATER BY BONNIE GESTRING, MAY 2019 In 2012, Earthworks released a report documenting the failure to capture and treat mine wastewater at U.S. operating copper mines accounting for 89% of U.S. copper production.1 The report found that 92% failed to capture and control mine wastewater, resulting in significant water quality impacts. This is an update to that effort. We reviewed government and industry documents for fifteen operating open-pit copper mines, representing 99% of U.S. copper production in 2015 – the most recent data on copper production available from the U.S. Geological Survey (see Table 1). Our research found similar results: 14 out of 15 (93%) failed to capture and control wastewater, resulting in significant water quality impacts (see TaBle 2). These unauthorized wastewater releases occurred from a number of different sources including uncontrolled seepage from tailings impoundments, waste rock piles, open pits, or other mine facilities, or failure of water treatment facilities, pipeline failures or other accidental releases. TABLE 1: Copper production from top 15 (as of 2015) U.S. open-pit copper mines (most recent data availaBle from USGS).2 MINE PRODUCTION (metric tons) Morenci 481,000 Chino 142,000 Safford 91,600 Bagdad 95,300 Bingham Canyon 92,000 Sierrita 85,700 Ray 75,100 Pinto Valley 60,400 Mission CompleX 68,300 Robinson 56,800 Tyrone 38,100 Continental pit 31,000 PhoeniX 21,100 Miami 19,500 Silver Bell 19,300 Total (99% of U.S. production) 1,377,000 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Emissions from Waste Incineration
    Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories EMISSIONS FROM WASTE INCINERATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was written by Mr. Bernt Johnke (Germany) and reviewed by Robert Hoppaus (IPCC/OECD/IEA), Eugene Lee (US), Bill Irving (USEPA), T. Martinsen (IPCC/OECD/IEA), and K. Mareckova (IPCC/OECD/IEA). ABSTRACT The incineration of municipal waste involves the generation of climate-relevant emissions. These are mainly emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide) as well as N2O (nitrous oxide), NOx ( oxides of nitrogen) NH3 (ammonia) and organic C, measured as total carbon. CH4 (methane) is not generated in waste incineration during normal operation. It only arises in particular, exceptional, cases and to a small extent (from waste remaining in the waste bunker), so that in quantitative terms CH4 is not to be regarded as climate-relevant. CO2 constitutes the chief climate-relevant emission of waste incineration and is considerably higher, by not less than 102, than the other emissions. Formulas (1) and (2) are to be used for the purpose of compiling an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, taking the following into account: The incineration of 1 Mg of municipal waste in MSW incinerators is associated with the production/release of about 0.7 to 1.2 Mg of carbon dioxide (CO2 output). The proportion of carbon of biogenic origin is usually in the range of 33 to 50 percent. The climate-relevant CO2 emissions from waste incineration are determined by the proportion of waste whose carbon compounds are assumed to be of fossil origin. The allocation to fossil or biogenic carbon has a crucial influence on the calculated amounts of climate-relevant CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Illegal Dumping Onto Land Or Into Water
    2. Illegal Dumping Onto Land or Into Water Texas Health & Safety Code Chap 365 Violations Limits to Dumping on Your Own Land Litter Abatement Act From Section 365.012 From Section 365.012 Key Definitions (a) A person commits an offense if the person disposes or allows or permits (l) This section does not apply to an individual's disposal of litter or other solid the disposal of litter or other solid waste at a place that is not an approved waste if: From Section 365.011 solid waste site, including a place on or within 300 feet of a public highway, (1) the litter or waste is generated on land the individual owns; on a right-of-way, on other public or private property, or into inland or coastal (2) the litter or waste is not generated as a result of an activity "Approved solid waste site" means: water of the state. related to a commercial purpose; (A) a solid waste site permitted or registered by the Texas Natural Resource (3) the disposal occurs on land the individual owns; and Conservation Commission; (b) A person commits an offense if the person receives litter or other solid (4) the disposal is not for a commercial purpose. (B) a solid waste site licensed by a county under Chapter 361; or waste for disposal at a place that is not an approved solid waste site, (C) a designated collection area for ultimate disposal at a permitted or regardless of whether the litter or other solid waste or the land on which the Break for Farmers licensed municipal solid waste site.
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage Sludge.01.Qxd
    ash-handling systems and then disposed at landfills. Sludge Incineration Multiple Hearth Furnace Ash from fluidized-bed units is very fine and can be Cost and Technical Feasibility removed with periodic sand changes and continuous Cooling ncineration is a sludge disposal option that Air Discharge scrubbing of the exhaust. Ash disposal is regulated hen considering whether or not to incinerate I involves the firing of sewage sludge at high under solid waste disposal regulations. Beneficial use Wsludge, or which incineration technology to temperatures in an enclosed structure. This process of this ash is actively being investigated. use, cost is always a major consideration. A sludge reduces the sludge to a mass of ash that is less than incinerator is a very mechanized and capital-intensive 20 percent of its original volume. EPA and the states Air Pollution Control Equipment investment that must be managed with a high level of generally support the beneficial use of sludge. Many Sewage expertise and attention to maintenance. Sludge urban sewage treatment facilities produce large Gas Inlet The incineration option is a long-term commitment volumes of sludge and have limited available space Exhaust n general, air pollution control devices are used to for sludge management. They are likely to see I either remove small particles and metals in the that is most cost-effective for large volume wastewater incineration as their most viable option. exhaust gas or to further decompose organics. Devices treatment systems or as a regional solution. In such as wet scrubbers and dry and wet electrostatic evaluating this option, communities must consider Sludge incineration eliminates some environmental precipitators are used to remove metals.
    [Show full text]