1

Preparing a national policy on sewage sludge management

Proiect co-finan țat de

Uniunea European ăGuvernul României

Ministerul Mediului si Pădurilor

Contracting Authority: MEF, SOP Environment Management Authority

Stakeholders: Ministry of Environment & ForestsMinistry of Agriculture & Rural DevelopmentMinistry of Administration & Interior

Beneficiaries: Operators of WWTPs

Contract Start/End: 1 November 2010 – 31 January 2012

The Sludge Problem

• WWTPs are sludge factories

• Unceasing and unstoppable output

• Quality is not strictly controllable

• No secure long-term outlet

• Adverse public perception

• Compliance with regulations

• Processing, transport and disposal costs up to half total cost of operating WWTP

2

Sludge use opportunities

• Recycling of nutrients and organic matter to land

• Recovery of energy

• Contributes to sustainable development through:

– Reduced import and use of other resources

– Improved soil conservation, crop production and farm economics

– Net reduction in CO2 emissions

Current sludge management practices in Romania

• 235 WWTPs

• Many WWTPs are non-functional or being enlarged / refurbished

• Most sludge is stored on the WWTPs

• Little interest in using sludge (cost, complexity, opportunity)

• Only 2 WWTPs spread sludge on agricultural land

• Situation not sustainable and solutions must be dev eloped

Outlet %

Stored on WWTP 90.7

Disposal to landfill 9.1

Use in agriculture 0.2

Incineration 0

Other use/disposal options 0

3

Sludge production forecast

• Romania should comply with UWWT Directive by 2018

• Large investments in wastewater collection and treatment

• Rapid five-fold increase in sludge production to >500,000 t ds/y

• Costs of sludge management will increase for operators and customers

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Slu

dge q

uanti

ty (

t D

S/y

) .

Scenario 1

Scenario 1B

Scenario 1C

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

EU development trends

• ‘Old’ Member States: – Sludge use in agriculture and incineration

increasing

– Landfill disposal declining

• ‘New’ Member States:– Landfill disposal increasing short-term

– Development of agriculture and incineration from low base

• Development of sludge use is a long-term programme

• Carbon credits are important

4

Sludge management options

• Sludge treatment - set by each investment programme- anaerobic digestion (energy recovery)- sludge treatment centres- additional treatment may be required

• Outlets potentially available are:

– Use on land: AgricultureForestationLand reclamation

– Energy recovery: IncinerationCombustion

– Other processes: Resource / energy recoveryComposting

– Landfill disposal: Option of last resort

• Policy is to establish beneficial use of sludge where feasible

Co-disposal with solid wasteMono-disposal

Dedicated sludge incineratorCo-incineration with waste

Periodic opportunities

Gasification, pyrolysisP recovery

Significant regional potential

Cement factoriesThermal power plants

Green/domestic waste

Potential for agricultural use of sludge in Romania

• Nationally, large area of arable land but not evenly distributed

• Potential for sludge use must consider wide range of factors, including:

– Environmental constraints – Nitrate Vulnerable Zones / protection zones– nutrient requirements, manure use– land characteristics, slope, etc. – background heavy metal content of soil– soil pH limit ≥6.5

– Operational constraints – farm size, location– acceptance by farmers

• GIS is being used to assess areas of potentially suitable agricultural land at county level

5

Source: ICPA

6

Proportion of suitable arable land required annually to use all sludge produced

5 t ds/ha = 170 kg N/ha

Region

Sludge production

2018 (t ds/y)

Land area required at

5 t ds/y (ha/y)

North-East 71,321 14,264

South-East 53,566 10,713

South 44,415 8,883

South-West 31,677 6,335

West 42,938 8,588

North-West 53,163 10,633

Central 63,955 12,791

Bucuresti-Ilfov 6,177 1,235

Total 367,212 73,442

% of suitable land required

Region

Sludge production

2018 (t ds/y)

Land area required at

5 t ds/y (ha/y)

Region (%)

County minimum

(%)

County maximum

(%)

North-East 71,321 14,264 5.8 1.7 37

South-East 53,566 10,713 0.8 0.3 2.2

South 44,415 8,883 0.8 0.1 48

South-West 31,677 6,335 1.4 0.5 15

West 42,938 8,588 2.7 1.4 >100

North-West 53,163 10,633 18.0 6.8 >100

Central 63,955 12,791 13.1 5.3 100

Bucuresti-Ilfov 6,177 1,235 24.8 0.0 25

Total 367,212 73,442 2.1 0.0 >100

% of suitable land required

Region

Sludge production

2018 (t ds/y)

Land area required at

5 t ds/y (ha/y)

Region (%)

County minimum

(%)

County maximum

(%)

North-East 71,321 14,264 5.8 1.7 37

South-East 53,566 10,713 0.8 0.3 2.2

South 44,415 8,883 0.8 0.1 48

South-West 31,677 6,335 1.4 0.5 15

West 42,938 8,588 2.7 1.4 >100

North-West 53,163 10,633 18.0 6.8 >100

Central 63,955 12,791 13.1 5.3 100

Bucuresti-Ilfov 6,177 1,235 24.8 0.0 25

Total 367,212 73,442 2.1 0.0 >100

Suitable land: slope <5%, pH ≥6.5

Suitable land: slope <5%, pH ≥6.5

Proportion of suitable arable land required annually to use all sludge produced

SM

MH

MM

BN

SV

BT

NT

IS

VSBCHRMS

BVCV

B

PHDB

IF

GJ VL

OTDJ

TR GR

IL

CL

BZBRAG

CT

TL

AB

BHSJ

AR

CJ

TM HD

CS

SB GLVN

<5%

5 - 10%

>10%

Key

7

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

<1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-50 50-100 >100

Farm Size Category (ha)

Num

ber of

hol

ding

s .

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Are

a of

hol

ding

s .

Number of holdings Area (ha)

Individual farmers:99.8% of farms55% of land area1.8 ha average size

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

<1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-50 50-100 >100

Farm Size Category (ha)

Num

ber of

hol

ding

s .

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Are

a of

hol

ding

s .Farming enterprises:

0.2% of farms45% of land area364 ha average size

Farm ownership and size distribution

Sludge quality must comply with standards for use on land

• Sludge quality survey December 2010

• 50% of operating WWTPs sampled including all large WWTPs

• High level of compliance (>90% of WWTPs) with sludge quality limits in MO 344/2004

• Exceptions are: As (51%) and PAH (20%)– neither parameter is required by EC Directive 86/278/EEC

• Recommend review of MO 344/2004 to ensure standards are appropriate and proportionate to potential hazard

• Sludge quality is expected to continue to improve as pollution from industrial discharges to sewer decreases

8

Sustainability of sludge use on land

Sludge: 3.6% N ds Soil density: 1.3 t/m3

Soil depth: 25 cm

Soil limit concentration

(mg/kg)

Normal background soil content

(mg/kg)

Sludge quality (mg/kg) Heavy

metal

MO 344/2004 ICPA Survey (median)

Zn 300 100 860

Cu 100 20 177

Ni 50 20 31

Cd 3 1 2.1

Pb 50 20 67

Hg 1 0.1 0.89

Cr 100 30 72

Soil limit concentration

(mg/kg)

Normal background soil content

(mg/kg)

Sludge quality (mg/kg)

Heavy metal addition per application

(g/ha) Heavy metal

MO 344/2004 ICPA Survey (median)

5 t ds/ha 170 kg N/ha

Increase in soil

concentration per sludge application

(mg/kg)

Zn 300 100 860 4300 1.32

Cu 100 20 177 885 0.27

Ni 50 20 31 155 0.05

Cd 3 1 2.1 10.5 0.003

Pb 50 20 67 335 0.10

Hg 1 0.1 0.89 4.45 0.001

Cr 100 30 72 360 0.11

Soil limit concentration

(mg/kg)

Normal background soil content

(mg/kg)

Sludge quality (mg/kg)

Heavy metal addition per application

(g/ha) Heavy metal

MO 344/2004 ICPA Survey (median)

5 t ds/ha 170 kg N/ha

Increase in soil

concentration per sludge application

(mg/kg)

No. of applications

to reach soil limit

value

Zn 300 100 860 4300 1.32 151

Cu 100 20 177 885 0.27 294

Ni 50 20 31 155 0.05 ∞∞∞∞

Cd 3 1 2.1 10.5 0.003 ∞∞∞∞

Pb 50 20 67 335 0.10 291

Hg 1 0.1 0.89 4.45 0.001 ∞∞∞∞

Cr 100 30 72 360 0.11 ∞∞∞∞

Energy recovery from sludge by combustion

• Significant potential and interest at cement factories

• Thermal power plants do not yet have permit to burn waste

• Contributes to net CO2 emission reduction

• Sludge moisture content important

– Reduce transport cost

– Reduce charge by cement factory

• Additional dryingmay be required

9

Energy recovery from sludge by combustion

Factors affecting sludge management options

• The sludge producer is responsible for all aspects of sludge management – costs and impacts

• Selection and security of sludge outlets depend on:� Availability, capacity and reliability

� Costs – treatment, transport, spreading, monitoring

� Legal compliance – quality standards, restrictions

� Sustainability – operationally and environmentally

� Entrepreneurial spirit – marketing

� Stakeholders – sludge users, regulators, other authorities

� Quality – product, service

• Government policy and authorities must facilitate use of sludge without compromising environmental protection

10

Disposal to landfill

Develop outlet and supply sludge

Develop outlet and supply sludge

WWTP

Is there demand in forestry or land reclamation?

Are energy recovery options available?

Construct incinerator

Develop outlet and supply sludge

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

No

NoNo

No

No

Does soil quality comply with standards

Is there sufficient farmer demand?

Does sludge quality comply with standards?

Impr

ove

.

Developing the sludge management strategy

• Selection of use options depends on opportunity, relative costs and reliability

• Landfill disposal will be required during strategy transition

• Regional sludge incineration may be appropriate where other outlets have insufficient capacity

SM

MH

MM

BN

SV

BT

NT

IS

VSBCHRMS

BVCV

B

PHDB

IF

GJ VL

OTDJ

TR GR

IL

CL

BZBRAG

CT

TL

AB

BHSJ

AR

CJ

TM HD

CS

SB GLVN

<5%

5 - 10%

>10%

Key

Cement factory

Coal PowerStation

New sludgeincinerator

100 km radius

<5%

5 - 10%

>10%

Developing the sludge management strategy

Suitable land: - slope <5%- pH ≥6.5

11

Initial CAPEX required to achieve sludge use outlet s

SM

MH

MM

BN

SV

BT

NT

IS

VSBCHRMS

BVCV

B

PHDB

IF

GJ VL

OTDJ

TR GR

IL

CL

BZBRAG

CT

TL

AB

BHSJ

AR

CJ

TM HD

CS

SB GLVN

<200 mRON

200-400 mRON

>600 mRON

Key

Cement factory

Coal PowerStation

New sludgeincinerator

OPEX required to achieve sludge use outlets

SM

MH

MM

BN

SV

BT

NT

IS

VSBCHRMS

BVCV

B

PHDB

IF

GJ VL

OTDJ

TR GR

IL

CL

BZBRAG

CT

TL

AB

BHSJ

AR

CJ

TM HD

CS

SB GLVN

<30 mRON/y

30-45 mRON/y

>45 mRON/y

Key

Cement factory

Coal PowerStation

New sludgeincinerator

12

• National Strategy for Sludge Management

• Cost and environmental implications

• ‘Toolbox’ of Best Practice and Guidance documents

• Increased awareness of stakeholders on the need for pro-active management of sludge

• National conference on sludge (September 2011)

• Action plans to develop / implement / improve the strategy

Project outcomes

www.mottmac.com

Mulţumesc !We wish to thank all of the wastewater operators

and other stakeholders for their continuing interest and supportin developing the National Sludge Management Strategy

We welcome the opportunity to receive comments as this is your Sludge Management Strategy