If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

COMPARISON OF AIR EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS FROM BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING AND DRYING PROCESSES

$17.50 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Buy Article:

Abstract:

The Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) recently evaluated several alternatives to address long-term biosolids dewatering, drying, and handling and disposal issues. SRWTP decided to evaluate air quality emissions and impacts including permitting requirements, criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants (HAPS), controlled emissions, and air emissions from hauling trucks and secondary sources that are related to biosolids treatment (e.g., boilers or furnaces for heat drying, fugitive emissions from storage tanks, etc.). This paper provides a full picture of total air quality impacts from biosolids treatment and direct insights into any air quality permitting concerns under current Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality laws and regulations.

Air emission totals for each biosolids treatment alternative included air emissions from secondary sources, controlled sources, and truck hauling. Air emissions from the following biosolids treatment alternatives were evaluated:



Centrifuge dewatering emissions


Plate and frame press dewatering emissions


Indirect drying emissions – including dewatering and secondary emissions


Direct drying emissions – including dewatering and secondary emissions


Controlled emissions – odor control, impingement plate scrubber, regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)


Trucking emissions for each alternative


All air emissions from the biosolids treatment alternatives and their associated regulatory impacts were insignificant. No problems were predicted in attaining air district permits or significantly impacting the environment. Emissions from dewatering with no drying, were much lower than any of the drying alternatives (with trucking emissions included). The overall emissions for the combined dewatering, drying, and trucking alternatives presented minimal environmental impacts and should therefore readily receive permits. It should be noted, however, that other non-air quality factors such as odors, cost effectiveness, reliability, and ease of operation may have a strong influence on which alternative is selected.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/193864700785378103

Publication date: January 1, 2000

More about this publication?
  • Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation is an archive of papers published in the proceedings of the annual Water Environment Federation® Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC® ) and specialty conferences held since the year 2000. These proceedings are not peer reviewed.

    WEF Members: Sign in (right panel) with your IngentaConnect user name and password to receive complimentary access.
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Membership Information
  • About WEF Proceedings
  • WEFTEC Conference Information
  • ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more