### Potential **Impacts ofMACT**  **Standards on**  **Biosolids Incinerators**  **Municipal wastewater**  **utilities have**  **an obligation**  **to serve**  **their communities,**  **protect human**  **health and**  **the envirorunent,**  **meet regulatory requirements, and**  **implement sustainable**  **practices. Economic**  **constraints make**  **it difficult**  **for Publicly Owned**  **Treatment Works**  **(POTWs) to**  **balance these**  **competing requirements.** 

**The potential**  **impacts of** **MACT standards**  **on utilities**  **that incinerate**  **their biosolids**  **go beyond**  **merely the**  **capital costs**  **of additional**  **air pollution**  **controls, and**  **include:**

**•** 

### Potential **upgrades to**  **meet low**  **(MACT based)**  **emission limits**  **and cost**  **impacts. Capital**  **costs of** **additional air**  **pollution controls,**  **as well**  **as O&M**  **costs associated**  **with operations,**  **monitoring, and**  **maintenance of** **these processes**  **will increase.**  **Moreover, these**  **facility upgrades**  **will require**  **additional footprint**  **at the**  **plant; numerous**  **facilities will** **require additional**  **land and**  **building space**  **to accommodate**  **these upgrades.**  **Many plants**  **are in**  **close proximity** **to residences**  **and are**  **land-limited. Available**  **area at**  **the plant**  **site has**  **either been**  **dedicated to**  **additional liquid treatment**  **capacity to**  **meet increasingly**  **stringent effluent**  **requirements, additional**  **flows due**  **to growth,**  **wet weather**  **controls, or**  **other treatment**  **needs.**

**•** 

### Shutdown **of incinerators**  **if cost**  **prohibitive or**  **technically infeasible**  **to install**  **add-on controls.**  **If POTWs** **have to**  **shutdown their**  **incinerator operations,**  **alternate methods of**  **biosolids management**  **must be**  **employed. Utilities**  **would be**  **required to**  **construct new**  **facilities, and**  **procure emergency**  **or back-up**  **type services**  **during construction,**  **most likely** **hauling to**  **a landfill.**  **The cost**  **of emergency**  **or back-up**  **type contracts**  **is significantly** **higher than**  **longer-term contracts**  **and may**  **require significant**  **haul distances**  **resulting in** **more trucks**  **on the**  **road (increase**  **in greenhouse**  **gas emissions**  **and other**  **environmental impacts). [Note:**  **the cost of**  **landfill disposal**  **and land**  **application for** **NJ and**  **NY WWTPs**  **out of** **state was**  **over 100%**  **more what**  **they pay now**  **as a**  **result of** **the Ocean**  **Dumping Ban Act.]** 

**•** 

### Tradeo**ff for**  **sustainable energy**  **recovery. With**  **limited funds**  **available to**  **municipal wastewater**  **treatment utilities,**  **facility upgrades**  **that could**  **provide longer-term,**  **sustainable benefits,**  **such as**  **energy recovery**  **facilities to** **produce much-needed**  **renewable energy,**  **would likely**  **be deferred**  **in order**  **to meet**  **increased emissions**  **standards in**  **addition to**  **already complying with**  **existing health-based**  **and technology-based**  **federal and**  **state regulations.** **A substantial**  **number of** **publicly owned**  **treatment works** **(P OTWs)**  **that manage**  **their biosolids**  **through incineration**  **simply do**  **not have**  **the space**  **in their**  **incineration facilities**  **or adjoining**  **areas to**  **install additional**  **equipment (e.g.,**  **advanced scrubbing**  **systems, wet**  **electrostatic precipitators,**  **activated carbon**  **polishing systems,**  **etc.) that**  **would be**  **required to**  **meet all**  **of the**  **anticipated MACT**  **Standards.**

**As a**  **result, incineration**  **would no**  **longer be**  **a viable**  **option for**  **these facilities**  **and another**  **method of** **biosolids management**  **would need** **to be**  **implemented. This**  **action could**  **results in**  **substantial increases**  **in capital** **expenditures, operating**  **& maintenance**  **costs, emissions**  **of priority**  **pollutants and/or**  **emissions of** **Greenhouse Gases.**  

### NEORSD **Residuals Management**  **Study**

**Faced with**  **potential regulatory**  **changes and**  **potential increases**  **in all**  **of its**  **wastewater residuals**  **management costs,**  **the Northeast Ohio**  **Regional Sewer**  **District (NEORSD)**  **conducted a**  **Residuals Management**  **Study to:** 

**• Determine**  **the NEORSD's**  **residuals quantities**  **and disposal**  **costs •**  **Investigate all** **potential residuals**  **management options**  **• Determine**  **the most**  **cost-effective, viable**  **options •**  **Develop a**  **long term,**  **District-wide Residuals**  **Management Plan**  **As part**  **of this**  **study, the NEORSD**  **and its**  **Consultants investigated**  **the following**  **potential biosolids**  **management options**  **for its**  **wastewater treatment**  **facilities:**

**• Alkaline**  **Stabilization •**  **Composting •**  **Heat Drying**  **• Incineration**  **• Land**  **Application •**  **Landfilling •**  **Surface Disposal**  **Based on**  **a combination** **of detailed economic**  **and non-economic analyses, the**  **NEORSD's and**  **its Consultants**  **determined that**  **the most**  **viable, and**  **cost-effective option**  **for managing**  **biosolids at**  **its Southerly**  **WWTC was**  **to replace**  **the four**  **existing multiple**  **hearth incinerators**  **with three**  **new fluidized**  **bed incinerators.** 

### Biosolids **Management Related**  **Capital and**  **O&M Costs**  **The following**  **is a**  **summary of** **the capital**  **costs and**  **operating &**  **maintenance (O&M)**  **costs associated**  **with the**  **incineration, landfilling**  **and land**  **application of** **the biosolids generated**  **at the**  **Southerly WWTC.**  **Costs are**  **in 2014$** **and based**  **on a**  **25-year service**  **life.** 

### Incineration **Land filling**  **Land Application**  **($/wet ton)**  **($/wet ton)**  **($/wet ton)**  **O&MCosts $31**  **$86 $80**  **Total Costs**  **(O&M +**  

### amortized **$46 $93**  **$100 capital**  **costs) The**  **following annual**  **costs, in**  **2014$ were**  **determined based on**  **190,000 wet**  **tons of** **biosolids being**  **generated annually at**  **Southerly after**  **the plant's**  **existing sludge**  **thermal conditioning system**  **is removed**  **from service**  **in 2013:**  

### O&MCosts **Total Costs**  **Incineration $5,700,000**  **$8,740,000** 

### Landf**illing $16,340,000**  **$17 ,670,000**  

### Land **Application $15,200,000**  **$1 9,000,000**  **Below is**  **a summary**  **of the**  **additional total costs**  **per year**  **($2014) to**  **initiate a**  **landfilling or**  **land application**  **program, instead**  **of moving**  **forward with**  **the new**  **fluidized bed**  **incinerators:** 

### Additional **Total Costs** 

**Incineration $0**  **Landfillin g**  **$8.93 million/year Land**  **Application $1** **0.26 million/year**  **While the**  **cost reported**  **herein are**  **specifically for**  **the Southerly**  **WWTC, conversion**  **from incineration**  **to landfilling**  **or land**  **application for**  **numerous other**  **POTWs will**  **also result**  **in substantial**  **cost increases.** 

### Emissions **of Priority**  **Pollutants The**  **NEORSD and**  **its Consultants**  **also conducted**  **detailed analyses**  **to determine**  **the emissions**  **of priority**  **pollutants associated**  **with incineration,**  **landfilling and**  **land application**  **of Southerly's**  **biosolids. The**  **following is**  **a summary**  **of their**  **findings:** 

### Three **Fluidized Trucks**  **to Trucks**  **to Land**  **Pollutant Bed**  **Incinerators Landfills** * **Application Sites** ***** **Carbon Monoxide**  **3 4**  **6 Oxide**  **of Nitrogen**  **44 44**  **65 Sulfur**  **Dioxide 6**  **4 6**  **Particulate Matter**  **6 I**  **2 Or**  **g anic**  **Compounds I**  **3 4**  **Lead 0**  **0 0**  

### Totals **60 56**  **84** ***** **Does not**  **mclude emissions**  **of pnonty**  **pollutants at**  **the landfills**  **or land** **applIcatIOn SItes** 

**While the**  **emissions reported**  **herein are**  **specifically for**  **the Southerly**  **WWTC, conversion**  **from incineration**  **to landfilling**  **or land**  **application for**  **numerous other**  **POTWs will**  **also result**  **in an**  **increase in**  **priority pollutants.**  

### Greenhouse **Gas Emissions** 

**In 2008,**  **the NEORSD**  **asked a**  **Blue-Ribbon Panel**  **of seven**  **internationally renowned**  **biosolids management**  **experts to**  **re-Iook at**  **decision to**  **more forward**  **with fluidized**  **bed incineration**  **at Southerly,**  **investigate newer** **biosolids management**  **options and**  **determine the**  **Greenhouse Gas**  **emissions associate**  **with each**  **option.**

**The Blue-Ribbon**  **Panel determined**  **that the installation**  **of new**  **fluidized bed**  **incinerators at**  **the Southerly**  **WWTC was**  **the most**  **viable, cost-effective**  **and environmentally**  **friendly option,**  **and recommended** **that the** **NEORSD proceed**  **with the**  **proposed fluidized**  **bed incineration**  **project.**

**The following**  **is a**  **summary of** **the Blue-Ribbon**  **Panel's Greenhouse**  **Gas emissions**  **analyses:**



### Biosolids **Greenhouse Gas**  **Emissions Process**  **(Metric Tons**  **CO2-equivelentlyear) Fluidized**  **Bed Incineration**  **with Energy**  **Recovery and**  **Electricity Production**  

### -**10 ,** **500******* **Fluidized Bed**  **Incineration without**  **Ener g**  **y Recovery**  **5,700 Landfilling**  **(trans p** **ort fuel**  **+ decay)**  **25,000** 

### * **Includes reduced**  **emiSSIOns from**  **purchased power**  **(I.e., reduced**  **power plant**  **emissions) The**  **Blue R i** **bbon Panel**  **also noted**  **that GHG**  **emissions associated**  **with a land**  **application would**  **be higher**  **than incineration,**  **but did**  **not have**  **time to**  **conduct the**  **analysis.**

**While the**  **emissions reported**  **herein are**  **specifically for**  **the Southerly**  **WWTC, conversion**  **from incineration**  **to land** **filling or**  **land application**  **for numerous**  **other POTWs**  **will also**  **result in**  **an increase**  **in Greenhouse Gas**  **emissions.** 

### Summary

**The elimination**  **of incineration** **as a**  **viable, cost-effective and**  **environmentally friendly**  **biosolids management**  **option will** **result in** **substantial increases**  **in capital**  **expenditures, operating**  **& maintenance**  **costs, emissions**  **of priority**  **pollutants and/or**  **emissions of** **Greenhouse Gases**  **for a**  **number of** **POTWs.**

**R P D**  **11-5-09**